Explanatory note

The Ontario Government is releasing past SIU Director Reports (submitted to the Attorney General prior to May 2017) that include fatalities involving a firearm, physical altercation, and/or use of conducted energy weapon, or other extensive police interaction that did not result in a criminal charge.

Justice Michael H. Tulloch made recommendations about the release of past SIU Director Reports in the Report of the Independent Police Oversight Review, released on April 6, 2017.

Justice Tulloch explained that since past reports were not originally drafted for public release they may have to be edited substantially to protect sensitive information. He took into account that confidentiality assurances were given to various witnesses during the course of SIU investigations, and recommended that some information be redacted in the interests of privacy, safety, and security.

As recommended by Justice Tulloch, this explanatory note is being provided to assist the reader’s understanding of why certain information is redacted in these reports. Notes have also been inserted throughout the reports to help describe the nature of the information that was redacted and why it was redacted.

Law enforcement and personal privacy information considerations

Consistent with Justice Tulloch’s recommendations and guided by section 14 of the Freedom of Information and Protection to Privacy Act (FIPPA) (relating to law enforcement information), portions of these reports have been removed to protect:

  • confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by the SIU
  • information whose release could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding
  • witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation, provided to the SIU in confidence

Consistent with Justice Tulloch’s recommendations and guided by section 21 of FIPPA (relating to personal privacy information), personal information, including sensitive personal information, has also been redacted, except that which is necessary to explain the rationale for the Director’s decision. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

  • subject officer name(s)
  • witness officer name(s)
  • civilian witness name(s)
  • location information
  • other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation, including in relation to children
  • witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation, provided to the SIU in confidence

Personal health information

Information related to the personal health of individuals that is unrelated to the Director’s decision (taking into consideration the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004) has been redacted.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may have also been excluded from these reports because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.

Director’s report

Notification of the SIU

On Tuesday, April 18, 2006 at 0120 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Peel Regional Police Service (PRPS) notified the SIU of a firearm death that occurred at 2330 hrs on April 17, 2006 in Brampton. He reported that officers attended a residence in response to a call that Mr. Ronald Smith, wanted on a warrant for failing to appear, was there. In the apartment Mr. Smith was fatally shot when he confronted the officers with a knife.

The investigation

Five SIU investigators and three SIU forensic identification technicians (FIT) were dispatched and launched an investigation, arriving at the scene at 0243 hrs.

Subject Officer, the officer who shot Mr. Smith was designated as subject officer. Subject Officer refused to be interviewed by the SIU or to the release of his memo book entries in relation to the incident.

Subject Officer’s partner, Witness Officer #1 who was present during the incident and Witness Officer #2, who also responded to the call, were designated as witness officers and interviewed on April 18, 2006.

In the course of this investigation the SIU requested, obtained and reviewed the following materials from the PRPS:

  • Names of all involved officers
  • Witness officers’ memo book entries
  • Incident history
  • Copies of prior incidents involving Mr. Smith
  • PRPS Directives regarding Mental Health Policy and Use of Force
  • Copy of the communications recordings, and
  • Copies of the involved officers’ use of force qualifications

In the course of the investigation the SIU received the involved officers’ uniforms, including use of force options and firearms for examination.

As a result of a canvass conducted, SIU investigators interviewed Civilian Witness #1 on April 18, 2006. Civilian Witness #2 and Civilian Witness #3 were interviewed on May 2, 2006.

Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence (Law Enforcement and Privacy Considerations)

Director’s decision under s. 113(7) of the Police Services Act

There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the subject officer in this case committed any criminal offence.

In the mid-afternoon of April 16, 2006 Mr. Smith arrived at Civilian Witness #2’s apartment in Peel Region. He came in from Alberta have recently been released from jail. Confidential Witness Statement Mr. Smith was also wanted by the police. Confidential Witness Statement

When Mr. Smith arrived at Civilian Witness #2’s apartment Confidential Witness Statement While he was at the apartment Mr. Smith carried a sword with him and had another at his bedside.

Late on April 17 two uniform members of the PRPS attended at Civilian Witness #2’s apartment and were allowed entry into the residence by Civilian Witness #2. One officer stayed with her and the other went to look for Mr. Smith.

The officer was misled by the other female occupant of the apartment as to whether Mr. Smith was in one of the bedrooms. The officer continued a systematic search of the apartment by entering one of the bedrooms. The room was in darkness. During the search the officer illuminated a scabbard for a sword and then Mr. Smith who was brandishing a sword.

The officer immobilized Mr. Smith momentarily using the door and retreated out to the living room of the apartment. As he entered the living area he alerted everyone to the existence of a sword. The officer in the living room drew his weapon, as did the retreating officer. The officer in the living room yelled “Police, drop the weapon” and when Mr. Smith did not, the officer fired.

Mr. Smith was hit by three bullets that struck his body in such a way as to indicate that he was turning, or the subject officer was moving, or both. The area within which this incident occurred is confined and little room was available to the officers who had to be concerned for their own safety and for the safety of the other occupants of the apartment. The retreating officer estimated that the suspect was 8 to 10 feet from him at the time the subject officer shot.

There are contradictory statements from both of the occupants of the apartment. They have provided statements to the SIU within which they contradict themselves and indeed they contradict each other on significant points. I reject any notion (as is suggested in Confidential Witness Statement) that Mr. Smith was surrendering. That notion is not only inconsistent with Confidential Witness Statement but also contrary to what common sense would indicate on the evidence in this case. Confidential Witness Statement

Confidential Witness Statement This is contrary to the balance of the evidence both testimonial and physical. A Civilian Witness suffers some credibility challenges given her initial misleading of the police and the fact that she also gave a contradictory initial statement in respect of this incident.

In summary, I believe, based upon the available evidence in this case, that officers of the PRPS went to execute an arrest warrant for Mr. Smith and when they did so they were confronted by an armed Mr. Smith who advanced on the officers while armed with a samurai sword. The officers were confronted with a very dangerous situation in which they met the threat of deadly force with deadly force. I do not believe that any criminal offence was committed by the subject officer in this case.

Sensitive Personal Information

Date: June 6, 2006

James L. Cornish

Director

Special Investigations Unit