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 Monday, August 1, 2011, at 2345 hrs, Notifying Officer of the York Regional Police (YRP) notified the SIU that at 2300 hrs, YRP officers had shot and fatally wounded 49-year-old Mr. Kaveh Tabatabaei, after a confrontation in his residence situated at a location in Thornhill. It was Notifying Officer’s understanding that the police had received a 911 call from a witness screaming that there was blood in the family home. When the officers entered the home they were confronted by a knife wielding Mr. Tabatabaei, hovering over the stabbed and unconscious body of Affected Person.

The investigation

Within minutes of receiving the call, six SIU investigators and two SIU forensic investigators (FI) were dispatched to a location. The first SIU personnel arrived within an hour. The SIU FI videotaped and photographed the interior of a location, focusing on the kitchen. In the kitchen lay the bodies of both Mr. Tabatabaei and Affected Person. The kitchen floor, kitchen cabinets and the kitchen walls were blood splattered. A blood trail led from the kitchen to the front door of the house. There was blood on the front door knob suggesting that at some point, Mr. Tabatabaei had locked the front door. Found strewn about in the kitchen were 11 assorted knives, some of which were blood stained, and one razor blade. Clutched in Affected Person’s hand was a plastic handle from a paring knife, minus the blade.

The SIU investigators interviewed Sensitive Personal Information. The SIU liaised with the YRP, and as a result, initially designated two subject officers. Within days, a third officer was designated as a subject officer. Those so designated were:

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

On August 18, 2011, Subject Officer #3 waved his/her rights under the Police Services Act. He/She turned over his/her notes and was subsequently interviewed by SIU investigators. On September 9, 2011, Subject Officer #2 and Subject Officer #1 waved their rights under the Police Services Act and were interviewed by SIU investigators. Neither Subject Officer #1 nor Subject Officer #2 turned over their notes to the SIU.

In addition, the following YRP personnel were designated as witness officers. All five provided their notes and were interviewed by SIU investigators on the dates noted:

  • Witness Officer #1 (August 2, 2011)
  • Witness Officer #2 (August 2, 2011)
  • Witness Officer #3 (August 2, 2011)
  • Witness Officer #4 (August 3, 2011)
  • Witness Officer #5 (August 3, 2011)

Upon request, the YRP turned over the following material which was reviewed:

  • A communication C/D related to the incident
  • A number of civilian witness statements taken by YRP investigators
  • A copy of the YRP General Occurrence Hardcopy, and
  • A copy of the Detail Call Summary surrounding the incident

Confidential 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

In my view, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the named subject officers, Subject Officer #1, Subject Officer #2 and/or Subject Officer #3, committed a criminal offence in relation to the firearms death of the decedent, Mr. Tabatabaei, on August 1, 2011. In the evening of that day, the three subject officers, along with five other officers, responded to an urgent 911 call concerning blood in a residence at a location. Some of the officers breached the front door and others went around the back and entered through a sliding door. Ultimately, all found their way into the kitchen. There, they saw the decedent’s estranged spouse, Affected Person, lying unconscious on the kitchen floor with multiple stab wounds to her body. Mr. Tabatabaei was lying beside her with his left hand holding his wife’s right hand. In his right hand, the decedent was holding a large kitchen knife. There were significant amounts of blood on the kitchen floor, as well as more smeared around the cupboards and walls. The officers observed Mr. Tabatabaei alternating between stabbing himself with the knife and swinging it at the officers. Many of the officers drew their handguns and shouted at Mr. Tabatabaei to drop the knife.

There were numerous attempts to disarm Mr. Tabatabaei. One of the subject officers tried to pin the decedent down with a kitchen chair. Another tried advancing with his ASP baton. Two officers used pepper spray. None of these tactics were successful in subduing the decedent. He continued to lash out with the knife when officers attempted to approach him. Deployment of a conducted energy weapon was not an option because none of the officers at the scene were assigned one.

Subject Officer #3 said words to the effect “there’s nothing more we can do. We’ll have to shoot him.” Subject Officer #2 had independently made the decision to shoot Mr. Tabatabaei and discharged his/her, firearm two times at the decedent. Subject Officer #1 had also independently made the same decision and discharged his/her firearm three times. Mr. Tabatabaei went limp and officers immediately went to the aid of Affected Person. Unfortunately, she could not be revived and was declared dead at the scene. Mr. Tabatabaei also died at the scene as a result of a gunshot wound to the heart.

As a preliminary matter, all officers were justified in entering the residence without a warrant due to the exigent circumstances that prevailed – they had reasonable grounds to suspect that entry into the house was necessary to prevent imminent bodily harm or death after receiving information concerning blood in the house.

Further, in my view, the three subject officers’ actions leading to the demise of Mr. Tabatabaei were justified under s. 27 of the Code. This section permits the use of lethal force to prevent the commission of a serious offence that would likely cause immediate and serious injury to anyone else. Here, the officers were confronted with a man who had already caused very serious wounds to his estranged wife, and continued to wield a large knife, harming himself and threatening any officer who came close to him. The officers tried a series of less than lethal force options in an attempt to disarm the decedent and were unsuccessful due to no fault of their own. The subject officers could reasonably believe that Mr. Tabatabaei was going to cause even more harm to Affected Person by stabbing her again. Even if he did not attempt to stab her again, he was preventing the officers from rendering immediate aid to an individual who was in clear medical distress. Given the close proximity of Affected Person to Mr. Tabatabaei, his resistance to any attempt to disarm himself and his threatening movements with the knife, I am of the view that the officers were justified in using lethal force in an attempt to both prevent another stabbing and to permit immediate first aid. Tragically, she succumbed to the stab wounds that had been inflicted upon her by the decedent before the arrival of the involved officers. This outcome, however, does not detract from the reasonable belief of the subject officers that it was necessary to use lethal force in an attempt to save her.

I intend to add the following to the Chief’s letter:

As you will see from the attached appendix, a number of witness officers refused to answer a question posed by the SIU investigators, an apparent breach of s. 8 of O.Reg 267/10 to the Police Services Act.

Original signed by

Date: September 20, 2011

Ian Scott
Director
Special Investigations Unit