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, April 16, 2012, at 0115 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the firearm injury to Mr. Peter Lumanglas. Notifying Officer reported that Subject Officer stopped a vehicle on Northmount Avenue. The TPS then received numerous 911 calls that shots had been fired. Police and emergency medical services (EMS) responded to the area. EMS reported that an officer had been stabbed in the neck and was being transported to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC). Another male was suffering several gunshot wounds (later identified as Mr. Lumanglas) and was also being transported to SHSC.

Overview

At about 2345 hrs, April 15, 2012, Subject Officer was doing traffic enforcement on Allen Road. A northbound Dodge Caravan driven by Mr. Lumanglas entered Subject Officer’s radar traveling at 146 km/h in an 80 km/h zone. Subject Officer proceeded after the Caravan which then traveled east on Highway (Hwy) 401. Subject Officer caught up to the Caravan as it exited at Avenue Road and he was able to obtain the licence plate number. Subject Officer activated his emergency lights and siren in an attempt to stop the Caravan. The Caravan sped away and Subject Officer decided not to pursue the Caravan, turning off his emergency equipment.

Subject Officer searched the area hoping to find that the driver of the Caravan had pulled into a nearby driveway. Subject Officer found Mr. Lumanglas walking east on Northmount Avenue. Subject Officer got out of his cruiser and spoke with Mr. Lumanglas. Mr. Lumanglas was not dressed for the weather and his responses to Subject Officer’s questions were suspicious. Subject Officer decided to arrest Mr. Lumanglas for dangerous driving and failing to stop for police. Subject Officer began to search Mr. Lumanglas. He found a buck knife in Mr. Lumanglas’ pants pocket. Subject Officer placed the knife on the trunk of his cruiser. Subject Officer also found what he suspected to be illegal drugs in Mr. Lumanglas’ pockets. Mr. Lumanglas suddenly grabbed the knife from the trunk of the cruiser. He stabbed Subject Officer twice in his left arm and once in the left side of his neck.

Subject Officer backed away and drew his pistol. Mr. Lumanglas came toward Subject Officer with the knife raised in his hand. Subject Officer fired three rounds at Mr. Lumanglas causing him to fall to the roadway. Mr. Lumanglas started to get up and Subject Officer fired two more rounds. Subject Officer was transported to SHSC and treated. Mr. Lumanglas was also taken to SHSC where he succumbed to his injuries on April 20, 2012.

The investigation

At 0115 hrs, April 16, 2012, eight investigators and two forensic investigators (FI) were assigned to commence the investigation. The first SIU investigators arrived at the scene at 0218 hrs. Subject Officer was designated as a subject officer. He provided a copy of his notes and was interviewed on June 7, 2012.

The following officers were designated as witness officers and they were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Witness Officer #1 (April 16, 2012)
  • Witness Officer #2 (April 16, 2012)
  • Witness Officer #3 (April 16, 2012)
  • Witness Officer #4 (April 18, 2012)
  • Witness Officer #5 (April 18, 2012)
  • Witness Officer #6 (April 18, 2012)
  • Witness Officer #7 (April 18, 2012)
  • Witness Officer #8 (May 14, 2012)
  • Witness Officer #9 (May 14, 2012)
  • Witness Officer #10 (May 15, 2012)
  • Witness Officer #11 (May 29, 2012)

The following civilian witnesses were located and interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (April 16, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (April 16, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (April 16, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (April 16, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (April 16, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (April 16, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #7 (April 16, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #8 (April 18, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #9 (May 2, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #10 (May 2, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #11 (May 4, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #12 (May 4, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #13 (May 28, 2012)
  • Civilian Witness #14 (May 28, 2012)

The SIU FI made a digital photographic record of the scene, collected physical evidence, and seized exhibits relevant to the incident. The FI took measurements and completed a scale drawing of the scene. The duty belt, firearm, and all use of force options of Subject Officer were seized and submitted to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) for examination, as were the cartridge cases and projectiles recovered from Mr. Lumanglas’ body and at the scene.

Investigators canvassed the area for witnesses to the incident. Seven residents of the neighbourhood were interviewed. None of these witnesses saw the original interaction between Subject Officer and Mr. Lumanglas. There is only one known witness who saw the altercation between Subject Officer and Mr. Lumanglas when Subject Officer fired the second volley of shots.

The area was also canvassed for video cameras that may have captured the incident. One camera was located from a house but the recording did not provide any information to further this investigation.

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

  • Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Report
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • Duty rosters for TPS 13 and 32 Divisions
  • Communications recordings
  • Cruiser video recordings
  • TPS Service Firearms, Arrest, Use of Force, Suspect Apprehension Pursuit and Search of Persons Policies, and
  • Firearms training records for Subject Officer

The SIU also received and reviewed the following documents:

  • Toronto Emergency Medical Service (EMS) reports, and
  • SHSC medical records for Mr. Lumanglas

At the time this report was written, the post-mortem report had not been completed and was therefore not reviewed.

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 officer, Subject Officer, committed a criminal offence in relation to the firearm death of Mr. Lumanglas on April 15, 2012. The subject officer provided his notes and submitted to an interview, the contents of which largely square with the other information gathered in this investigation.

In the late evening of April 15th, 2012, the subject officer was conducting traffic enforcement using radar on Allen Road north of Lawrence Ave. He clocked a northbound black Caravan travelling at 146 km/h in an 80 km/h zone. He entered his police vehicle and began to pursue it for the purpose of identifying the driver or the plate information. The Caravan went onto the collector lanes eastbound on Hwy 401 and continued to travel at excessive speed. The subject officer ascertained the licence plate number and called it into dispatch. Shortly thereafter, the Caravan exited from Hwy 401 onto the Avenue Rd. ramp in a dangerous manner. Subject Officer activated his emergency equipment, and a short pursuit took place leading to Bombay Ave. He last saw the pursued vehicle as it was driving through two stop signs on that street. Subject Officer discontinued his pursuit and began to look for the van.

Subject Officer saw a male power walking on nearby Northmount Ave. He appeared to be inappropriately dressed for the weather – he was wearing shorts and a basketball jersey on a late April evening. He stopped his cruiser and spoke to the male who was later identified as the decedent in this incident. After making further observations of Mr. Lumanglas that he was sweating and appeared agitated, and noting that his answers to questions about his driving were nonresponsive, he concluded that this man was the one who was driving the Caravan in a dangerous manner. He informed Mr. Lumanglas that he was under arrest for dangerous driving and failing to stop for police. He led Mr. Lumanglas to the back of his cruiser to effect the arrest. Mr. Lumanglas was compliant and placed his hands behind his back. Subject Officer did not immediately place handcuffs on the decedent’s wrist, and began patting down the pockets of his shorts. He found a closed pocket knife in his right pocket and placed it on the trunk of his cruiser. In his left pocket, the subject officer found drug paraphernalia. Immediately after notifying him that he was also under arrest for possession of contraband drugs, Mr. Lumanglas’ demeanour changed. He lunged forward and unbeknownst to the subject officer managed to grab the pocket knife and open the blade. He stabbed the subject officer three times, twice in the arm and once in the neck. Subject Officer took a few steps back, drew his police issued firearm and issued the police challenge, “police, don’t move.” Instead of complying, Mr. Lumanglas moved toward the subject officer with the knife raised above his head in his right hand. Subject Officer said he discharged his firearm three times aiming at Mr. Lumanglas’ torso causing him to fall down. Subject Officer was bleeding profusely. The decedent tried to get up again by raising himself by his arms. The subject officer could not see the whereabouts of the knife and was feeling weaker. He said he then discharged his firearm two more times at Mr. Lumanglas. Mr. Lumanglas fell back to the ground and this time he did not get up. While the subject officer said he discharged his firearm five times, seven cartridges were found at the scene.

Paramedics arrived and both the subject officer and the decedent were transported to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. Mr. Lumanglas died five days later on April 20, 2012 as a result of the multiple gunshot wounds. The subject officer survived the knife wounds Sensitive Personal Information .

In my view, the subject officer was justified in the use of lethal force leading to the death of Mr. Lumanglas. He had reasonable grounds to arrest the decedent based upon his observations of his dangerous driving and failing to stop for the police. While he did not see Mr. Lumanglas exit the Caravan, he saw him in close proximity both in time and location to his last sighting of the pursued vehicle. When one adds Mr. Lumanglas’ demeanour and lack of responsive answers, I am of the view that the subject officer had articulable grounds to believe that Mr. Lumanglas was the individual recently driving in a dangerous manner. Once the subject officer had the grounds to arrest, he also had the authority to conduct a pat-down search for weapons and the further arrest for contraband drugs. For reasons that will never be answered, Mr. Lumanglas took great exception to the arrest for drugs, broke away from the subject officer, grabbed the pocket knife from the trunk of the police cruiser, opened the blade and made a concerted effort to kill the officer. Under s. 34 of the Criminal Code the subject officer had the authority to use lethal force to repel the decedent because he had a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of dying; he had already been stabbed in the neck area, and Mr. Lumanglas was coming toward him after ignoring the police challenge. With respect to the latter two discharges, I am of the view that those too were justified; Mr. Lumanglas was attempting to get off the ground at a time when the subject officer had lost a significant amount of blood, could assume the assailant was still armed with the knife, and was in no condition to retreat. Accordingly, in my view, all of the subject officer’s firearm discharges were justified in these circumstances.

Date: July 23, 2012

Original signed by

Ian Scott
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Appendix "A"

Sensitive Personal Information

All of the witness officers provided a copy of their duty book notes. The officers were asked a series of questions pertaining to their notebook entries. There were no concerns about their answers to those questions.