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 Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 1705 hrs, Notifying Officer of the York Regional Police (YRP) notified the SIU that within the last hour, members of the YRP had shot and fatally wounded 26-year-old Deceased. It was Notifying Officer’s understanding that earlier in the day the YRP received a sexual assault complaint, which alleged that Deceased had sexually assaulted a person. Later in the afternoon, Deceased was notified by the YRP that he was going to be arrested. Deceased was urged to surrender, but he refused. At approximately 1640 hrs, the YRP received a report that Deceased had broken into a Newmarket residence. Within minutes, the YRP received a second frantic call from an occupant of a location reporting that Deceased had broken into her residence and was still inside. Several YRP officers responded to the address. Deceased, now armed with a knife, confronted Subject Officer outside the front door. Shortly thereafter, Subject Officer shot and fatally wounded him.

The investigation

Within minutes of being notified, the SIU dispatched four investigators and four forensic identification technicians (FIT) to Newmarket. The SIU arrived at a location within an hour, and launched an investigation. The FIT photographed and videotaped the interior and exterior of the address, and completed a Total Station survey of the area surrounding the shooting site. In addition, the FIT seized items of evidentiary value, including three knives, two spent .40 calibre cases, biological specimens and other ancillary evidence. Based on their preliminary probe, the SIU designated Subject Officer a subject officer. Based on advice of his/her counsel, Subject Officer exercised his/her rights under the Police Services Act and refused to provide a statement to the SIU.

As well, ten members of the YRP were designated as witness officers. All of them were interviewed by the SIU on September 13-14, 2006. All ten supplied their notes.

Additionally, some of those interviewed provided a sketch of their respective position(s)

at the scene in the seconds preceding the shooting. The witness officers were:

  • Witness Officer #1
  • Witness Officer #2
  • Witness Officer #3
  • Witness Officer #4
  • Witness Officer #5
  • Witness Officer #6
  • Witness Officer #7
  • Witness Officer #8
  • Witness Officer #9, and
  • Witness Officer #10

Upon request, the YRP provided documentation and property deemed necessary in furtherance of the SIU investigation, including communication tapes, police reports, Subject Officer’s firearm and uniform and other items.

During the SIU probe, the following civilian witnesses were interviewed:

  • Civilian Witness #1
  • Civilian Witness #2
  • Civilian Witness #3
  • Civilian Witness #4, and
  • Civilian Witness #5

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 matter committed any criminal offence in this tragic case. Commentary in relation to confidential witness statements.

On September 7, 2006 the complainant in this case learned that the police were going to arrest him on very serious allegations. He refused to surrender and indeed refused to tell the police where he could be located. He ultimately and rather quickly found his was into a home in Newmarket, forced the owner to leave and then confronted the police with two rather dangerous looking knives. Right from his first contact with the police that day he had expressed suicidal thoughts and continued to do so when he was contained by the police at this new residence.

The evidence conveys a clear and compelling picture of a troubled man who decided that he would rather die than be arrested on the allegations he was facing. I believe that he deliberately advanced on the police believing, quite rightly, that such an action would culminate in the officers shooting him.

In my view the evidence here is clear: the officers involved in this case were lawfully executing their duty in attempting to arrest and control this man; they were confronted by the threat of lethal force; they ordered the man to drop his weapons and offered him options; they also tried to disengage and await the arrival of the ERU; the subject officer was then met with the threat of lethal force and met that threat with lethal force. I believe, based upon all of the available evidence, that the use of such force in these circumstances does not support the notion that an offence occurred. Indeed I believe that the officer acted reasonably in resorting to this force. Unfortunately another human being died.

I close by pointing out that the man appears to have been aware of the potential utility of the TASER in this situation, saying that he did not want the TASER or spray to be used. This not only confirms the man’s suicidal intent but also underscores the notion that many members of the public expect that TASERs are available quite readily to the police and that they are aware of how they function and how they can be used.

Date: September 30, 2006

James L. Cornish

Director

Special Investigations Unit