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, November 20, 2007 at 2224 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Waterloo Regional Police (WRP) notified the SIU that within the last hour, two WRP officers had responded to the report of a robbery at a Shopper’s Drug Mart store at 1400 Ottawa Road South in Kitchener. It was Notifying Officer’s understanding that upon arriving, the officers were confronted by 25-year-old Trevor Colin Graham, who was masked and brandishing a knife. The confrontation ended when a female officer fired one shot from her service pistol, fatally wounding Mr. Graham.

The investigation

At 2245 hrs, on the same date, six SIU investigators and three SIU forensic identification technicians (FIT) were dispatched. The first SIU investigator arrived in Kitchener within 90 minutes. The SIU FIT videotaped and photographed the interior of the Shopper’s Drug Mart store with emphasis placed on items with apparent probative force, including a number of vials of narcotics scattered on the floor. In addition, the FIT seized two knives found in the possession of Mr. Graham at the time of the shooting. The store’s security cameras were reviewed, and found captured on video tape were images preceding the incident, but more importantly for the SIU investigation, the actual shooting. On Wednesday, November 21, 2007, the FIT attended the post-mortem examination of Mr. Graham.

The SIU investigators liaised with the WRP, and as a result identified a number of civilian witnesses to the incident. As a result of the preliminary SIU probe, WRP Subject Officer was designated the subject officer. On November 22, 2007, Subject Officer waived her right to silence and was interviewed by the SIU.

In addition, the following WRP personnel were designated as the witness officers and all were interviewed by the SIU on November 21, 2007.

  • Witness Officer #1
  • Witness Officer #2, and
  • Witness Officer #3

Upon request, the WRP provided to the SIU material and other documents deemed relevant to the investigation.

During the SIU investigation, the following civilian witnesses were interviewed on the dates noted:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (November 21, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (November 21, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (November 21, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (November 21, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (November 22, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (November 22, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #7 (November 22, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #8 (November 22, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #9 (November 26, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #10 (November 26, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #11 (November 26, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #12 (November 26, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #13 (November 26, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #14 (November 26, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #15 (December 3, 2007)
  • Civilian Witness #16 (December 3, 2007), and
  • Civilian Witness #17 (December 3, 2007)

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

I am satisfied there are no reasonable grounds to believe Subject Officer committed a criminal offence in connection with the shooting and death of Trevor Graham on November 20, 2007.

All of the evidence collected during the investigation, including the store security camera recording that captured the actual shooting and the events immediately preceding it, paints a singularly compelling picture. At about 2130 hrs on the evening in question, Mr. Graham entered the Shoppers Drug Mart store on Ottawa Street South in Kitchener and proceeded to commit a robbery of prescription medications while brandishing a knife. The police were called and Subject Officer and Witness Officer #1, who happened to be in the area, arrived at the storefront as Mr. Graham was making his way to the exit.

Lead by Subject Officer, both officers entered the store’s entrance / exit vestibule. They had information that Mr. Graham was armed with a weapon and, accordingly, both officers had their firearms drawn. They saw Mr. Graham making his way to the exit from the cashiers’ area holding a knife in his left hand.

Subject Officer repeatedly yelled at Mr. Graham to drop the knife and stop. He refused to do so, instead proceeding in an uninterrupted fashion towards the exit and the officers’ location all the while holding the knife. Subject Officer retreated a degree to create some space between them, but was limited in her movements by the confined space of the vestibule within which she found herself. When Mr. Graham was within three to six feet of her, Subject Officer discharged her firearm once, striking Mr. Graham in the left chest.

Subject Officer was clearly acting within the course of her lawful duties when she responded to the armed robbery call at the store and confronted Mr. Graham. I am satisfied that Mr. Graham had ample opportunity to refrain from his course of action and that he must have been aware that the course of action he chose was a dangerous one indeed. Regrettably, for whatever reason, Mr. Graham instead chose to move steadfastly in the officer’s direction while holding a knife in his left hand. I have no doubt that the officer shot Mr. Graham believing her life to be in danger. In the circumstances, faced with an armed robber within feet of her position, I am satisfied the officer’s belief was an eminently reasonable one.

This file is closed.

Date: January 8, 2008

James L. Cornish

Director

Special Investigations Unit

4 The store security camera recording corroborates Subject Officer’s account of the seconds preceding the shooting.