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, June 8, 2013 at about 1854 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of a firearm death of an unknown male individual. Notifying Officer reported that about 1800 hrs, TPS officers responded to an emotionally disturbed person (EDP) at 140 Adanac Drive with the Emergency Medical Services (EMS). An unknown male individual was armed with a knife and the officers discharged three shots. The individual was transported to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC) where he was pronounced dead.

Notifying Officer further advised that the scene and the evidence at the hospital were secured and the involved officers were attending TPS 43 Division station to be segregated and complete their notes.

Overview

On Saturday, June 8, 2013 at about 1800 hrs, Subject Officer and Witness Officer #1, along with EMS, responded to a 911 call at 140 Adanac Drive in Scarborough to deal with a male EDP, a person. Prior to entering the building the officers met Mr. Charles Francis who advised that a black male, later identified as Mr. Malcolm Jackman, tried to stab him with a knife while he was at the bus stop. Mr. Jackman then went inside the apartment building of 140 Adanac Drive.

The officers observed Mr. Jackman in the south stairwell of the building. Mr. Jackman was about to exit the building through the stairwell exit when Subject Officer instructed him to stop and identify himself. Mr. Jackman had a knife in his hand and was instructed multiple times to drop the knife. He ignored the officers’ instructions and began to approach them. Subject Officer discharged her canister of Oleorsin Capsicum (OC) spray at Mr. Jackman.

Mr. Jackman then exited the building and grabbed an individual, later identified as Civilian Witness #1, from behind and pointed a knife towards his neck. Subject Officer later discharged her firearm at Mr. Jackman.

Mr. Jackman was then transported to SHSC where he eventually succumbed to his injuries.

The investigation

On June 8, 2013, the SIU assigned five investigators and three forensic investigators (FI) to investigate the incident. The scene was secured by the SIU, examined, photographed, video recorded and documented by Total Station. A kitchen knife, knapsack, cellular phone, a set of keys, a used cigarette butt, an OC spray canister, a baseball hat and four cartridge cases were observed at the scene and seized by the SIU. The subject officer’s pistol and duty belt were also seized.

As a result of information provided by Notifying Officer, Subject Officer was designated as a subject officer. Represented by counsel, Counsel, Subject Officer consented to the release of her memo book entries in relation to this incident and to an interview with the SIU, conducted on Friday, June 14, 2013.

The following five officers who were involved in this incident were designated as witness officers and were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Witness Officer #1 (June 9, 2013)
  • Witness Officer #2 (June 9, 2013)
  • Witness Officer #3 (June 9, 2103)
  • Witness Officer #4 (June 9, 2013)
  • Witness Officer #5 (June 9, 2013)

The following ten civilian witnesses were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (June 8, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #2 (June 8, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #3 (June 8, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #4 (June 9, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #5 (June 10, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #6 (June 11, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #7 (June 11, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #8 (June 12, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #9 (June 17, 2013)
  • Civilian Witness #10 (June 20, 2013)

In the course of this investigation, the SIU received and reviewed the following materials from the TPS:

  • Copy of Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) report
  • Copy of communications recordings
  • Copy of duty roster for TPS 43 Division
  • Copy of incident report for EDP call at 140 Adanac Drive at 1722 hours
  • Copy of contact information of civilian witnesses identified by TPS
  • Copy of in-car video recordings from car ----redacted
  • Copy of TPS policies on EDP, Use of Force and dealing with incidents involving hostages
  • Copy of training information and Use of Force most recent qualification dates for Subject Officer, Witness Officer #1, Witness Officer #2 and Witness Officer #3
  • Copy of TPS occurrence involving Mr. Jackman on June 8, 2013, and
  • Sensitive Personal Information

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 subject officer, Subject Officer, committed a criminal offence in relation to the firearm death of Mr. Jackman on June 8, 2013. The subject officer provided her notes and a statement to the SIU, the contents of which square with other aspects of this investigation.

The subject officer and witness officer, Witness Officer #1, were dispatched to a location, 140 Adanac Drive to assist paramedics with an allegedly emotionally disturbed person. When they arrived, a man approached the subject officer about Mr. Jackman attacking him at a bus stop with a knife. (This information regarding Mr. Jackman was not the original reason for the attendance of the emergency responders.) The subject officer went to the apartment’s second floor with her partner and the paramedics, opened the door to the stairwell, and heard Mr. Jackman talking to himself in the stairwell. She went down the stairs, and saw Mr. Jackman standing on the main floor area of the stairwell. She instructed him to show her his hands. He raised his hands over his head, displaying a knife in his right hand. Both officers drew their firearms and ordered Mr. Jackman to drop the knife. He shouted at the officers, asking them to shoot him as he paced to the left and the right brandishing the knife. The subject officer discharged pepper spray in the direction of Mr. Jackman’s face but to no affect. Mr. Jackman fled out of the building through the stairwell exit door with the two officers following him. Once outside, she observed the decedent holding a civilian with his left arm wrapped around his/her shoulders and his right hand holding the same knife that was pointed toward that individual’s throat. Both officers commanded Mr. Jackman to drop the knife multiple times while pointing their firearms at him. The subject officer observed Mr. Jackman moving the knife closer to his hostage’s neck, and discharged her firearm four times in Mr. Jackman’s direction. Mr. Jackman fell to the ground. Another officer approached him and handcuffed his wrists. He was transported to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Hospital where he later succumbed to his injuries.

A post-mortem examination determined that the cause of death was a single gunshot wound to the abdomen. There were three projectile-related graze wounds, one on his left leg, one near his waist and another on his left arm.

In my view, the subject officer’s use of lethal force was justified in these circumstances. She had received information that Mr. Jackman had attacked someone with a knife, and had seen him approach her and her partner in a menacing manner with a knife. She had tried to use a non- lethal use of force option – pepper spray – to no avail. She then witnessed him take a stranger hostage with the knife, and refuse to drop that knife after multiple commands. Finally, she saw him move the knife in a menacing fashion toward the neck of the hostage. Mr. Jackman represented an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the citizen. Accordingly, pursuant to s. 27 of the Criminal Code, I am of the view that she had no reasonable choice but to discharge her firearm to stop this imminent threat to the person who the decedent had taken hostage.

Date: July 19, 2013

Original signed by

Ian Scott
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Appendix “A”

All the officers interviewed were asked the SIU questions regarding their notes and there were no issues.