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 Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 2144 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of 28-year-old Mr. Byron Debassige’s firearm death. Notifying Officer reported that Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 were dispatched to the D & Y Market at 1391 Yonge Street, Toronto to investigate a theft complaint, with a knife involved. Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 went to the area of Oriole Park at Lascelles Boulvard and Frobisher Avenue. Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 were confronted by Mr. Debassige, who was brandishing a knife. Mr. Debassige was shot by the officers. Mr. Debassige was transported to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) where he was pronounced dead.

The investigation

On Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 2200 hrs, six SIU investigators and four forensic investigators (FI) were assigned to investigate. They arrived at 2237 hrs. The incident scene was examined and officers’ clothing and weapons were seized. The area was canvassed for witnesses and security videos were reviewed.

SIU investigators sought the assistance of the Aboriginal community and the services of the SIU’s Affected Persons Coordinator (APC) were engaged.

Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 were designated as subject officers. They each waived their right to remain silent, supplied their notes and were interviewed on February 20, 2008.

The following officers were designated as witness officers. They supplied their notes and were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Witness Officer #1 (February 20, 2008), and
  • Witness Officer #2 (February 20, 2008)

The following officers were designated as witness officers and they supplied their notes:

  • Witness Officer #3
  • Witness Officer #4
  • Witness Officer #5, and
  • Witness Officer #6

The following civilian witnesses were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (March 5, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (March 18, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (February 25, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (February 25, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (February 17, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (February 22, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #7 (February 16, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #8 (February 17, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #9 (February 17, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #10 (February 25, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #11 (February 25, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #12 (March 13, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #13 (February 25, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #14 (February 16, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #15 (February 25, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #16 (February 17, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #17 (March 12, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #18 (February 17, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #19 (February 17, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #20 (February 21, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #21 (February 25, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #22 (February 22, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #23 (February 22, 2008)
  • Civilian Witness #24 (February 17, 2008), and
  • Civilian Witness #25 (February 20, 2008)

SIU investigators received and reviewed the following materials from the TPS:

  • Communications recordings
  • Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD)
  • Duty Roster
  • Records search document
  • Photograph of Civilian Witness #16
  • Photograph of Mr. Debassige
  • Witness statement of Civilian Witness #26
  • Occurrence Report Summary of incident, and
  • Occurrence reports

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 that the subject officers were legally justified in shooting Mr. Debassige and that, therefore, there are no reasonable grounds to believe either officer committed a criminal offence in connection with Mr. Debassige’s death.

A clear picture emerges from the eyewitness evidence gathered in the case, from police and civilian witnesses alike, which is remarkably consistent and compelling. The officers were lawfully discharging their duties when they responded to investigate a reported theft from the D & Y Market and confronted Mr. Debassige in Oriole Park.

Mr. Debassige fit the description of the suspected thief. They had been apprised that the suspect had brandished a knife during the course of the theft and asked to see Mr. Debassige’s hands. Mr. Debassige reached into a pocket, pulled out a knife with a three- inch blade and, with the knife in his right hand, pointed it in the officers’ direction and advanced towards them. Both officers reacted by drawing their firearms and back- pedalling.

They repeatedly yelled at Mr. Debassige to drop the knife and not move, even warning him that he would be shot if he persisted. Mr. Debassige continued to advance towards the officers, all the while wielding the knife in a threatening posture.

Not more than a minute after he began his steady advance with the knife, Mr. Debassige lunged at the officers, prompting Subject Officer #1 to fire his weapon three times and Subject Officer #2 twice. The evidence indicates that Mr. Debassige was somewhere from “very close” to about six feet from the officers at the time of the shooting. Mr. Debassige died as a result of the shooting, sustaining two gunshot wounds to the upper torso and two in the stomach/hip area. One of the five shots, even though fired from a close range, almost completely missed him, just grazing his elbow.

This again shows the fallacy in the position taken by some in respect of these incidents to the effect that the officers should “wing” the suspect by shooting one of his extremities thus eliminating the threat. Given the psychological and physiological changes associated with traumatic and threatening situations and given the fact the situation is dynamic, and involves moving subjects, there is no way of ensuring that your shot will hit its target. Thus attempts to “wing” someone or shoot the weapon from their hands are, in my view, unreasonable and indeed risk not eliminating the perceived threat and also injuring third parties who may have the misfortune of being behind the intended target.

Each of the subject officers explained that they shot Mr. Debassige believing it necessary to protect himself and partner from death. There was also of course the risk posed to members of the public had they completely disengaged and allowed Mr. Debassige to continue on his way, armed.

The circumstances surrounding the shooting lend credence to their evidence. Mr. Debassige’s criminal record and his recent, violent behaviour in the hours and days preceding the shooting is persuasive evidence that he had a propensity for violence and cannot be ignored. Confidential Witness Statements About half an hour before the shooting, he stole lemons from a food market and threatened the proprietors with a knife when they confronted him.

When stopped in Oriole Park by the officers, he pulled a knife and advanced upon them, notwithstanding the officers’ repeated commands that he desist. It was dark and the ground, slippery with ice, sloped away from the officers as they retreated backwards away from Mr. Debassige. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the officers’ belief in the necessity of a resort to lethal force as Mr. Debassige lunged in their direction from only feet away, with no further retreat option effectively available to them given the condition of the ground, was honestly held and decidedly reasonable.

This file is closed with no charges contemplated.

Original signed by

James L. Cornish

Director

Special Investigations Unit

Date: June 6, 2008

The CFS Conclusions

Three cartridges, that were located at the scene, were discharged from Subject Officer #1's gun. The remaining two cartridges, located at the scene, were discharged from Subject Officer 2's gun. The projectile found inside Mr. Debassige’s buttock could not be identified as coming from either officer’s gun. If Subject Officer #2’s gun was used in combination with similar cartridges that were found at the scene, then the muzzle of Subject Officer #2’s gun was greater than four feet away from Mr. Debassige’s sweatshirt when the gun was discharged. Both firearms are capable of being fired.