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

Notification Date and Time: 04/12/2014 at 2112 hours

Notified By: Police

On Saturday, April 12, 2014, at 2112 hrs, Notifying Officer of the York Regional Police (YRP) notified the SIU of a firearm injury that occurred at 2100 hrs that evening.

Notifying Officer reported that an unknown male was shot by YRP officers after confronting an officer while armed with a firearm. The male was believed to have previously shot his wife and child, and YRP were conducting a search for the shooting victims.

Overview

On Saturday, April 12, 2014, at 2048 hrs, a 911 telephone call was made in which a male reported that a man with a gun had shot a little girl and her mother in the vicinity of State Farm Way and Leslie Street in Aurora. While officers were dispatched, the call taker obtained GPS location details from Telus, the caller’s cellular service provider. The caller’s location was confirmed as being on State Farm Way, east of Leslie Street.

Witness Officer #2 was the first officer to arrive and was immediately confronted by a male, later identified as Deceased, who approached him, armed with a pistol. Deceased did not comply with the officer’s orders to stop and drop the weapon. He pursued the officer, on foot, around the marked YRP SUV. When additional officers arrived, Deceased focused his attention on them and walked toward them, confronting them in close proximity while pointing the handgun at them. Two officers discharged- their firearms, with one of the officers striking Deceased twice, effectively terminating the threat.

At 2055 hrs, responding officers reported, "Shots fired. Suspect down. Need an ambulance."

First aid was administered and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) attended to Deceased and transferred him to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC). He underwent surgery and was subsequently transferred to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) where he was pronounced deceased at 0241 hrs of the following day.

The investigation

Response Type: Attend Immediately

Date and Time Team Dispatched: 04/12/2014 at 2250 hours

Date and Time SIU Arrived on Scene: 04/12/2014 at 2252 hours

Number of SIU lnvestigator(s) assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic lnvestigator(s) assigned: 3

Four investigators and three forensic investigators (FIs) were assigned and launched an investigation. The lead investigator contacted Notifying Officers at 2205 hrs at which time investigation details were discussed. The first SIU investigators arrived at the hospital at 2245 hrs and at the scene at 2252 hrs.

As a result of information provided by Notifying Officer, Subject Officer and Witness Officer #1 were designated as subject officers. When the post-mortem examination revealed that the fatal projectile was discharged by. Subject Officer, Witness Officer #1 was redesignated to a witness officer. Represented by counsel, Counsel, Subject Officer did not consent to the release of his memo book entries or to an interview with the SIU.

The following witnesses were interviewed on the dates indicated:

Complainant

Deceased N/A

Civilian Witnesses

  • Civilian Witness #1 Initial Interview: April 12, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #2 Initial Interview: April 13, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #3 Initial Interview: April 13, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #4 Initial Interview: April 16, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #5 Initial Interview: April 15, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #6 Initial Interview: April 16, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #7 Initial Interview: April 16, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #8 N/A
  • Civilian Witness #9 N/A
  • Civilian Witness #10 Initial Interview: April 23, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #11 Initial Interview: May 28, 2014
  • Civilian Witness #12 Initial Interview: May 28, 2014

Subject Officer

Subject Officer N/A

Copies of notebook entries were not provided by the subject officer.

Witness Officers

  • Witness Officer #1 Initial Interview: April 16, 2014
  • Witness Officer #2 Initial Interview: April 13, 2014
  • Witness Officer #3 Initial Interview: April 15, 2014
  • Witness Officer #4 Initial Interview: April 13, 2014
  • Witness Officer #5 Initial Interview: April 15, 2014
  • Witness Officer #6 Initial Interview: April 15, 2014
  • Witness Officer #7 Initial Interview: April 15, 2014
  • Witness Officer #8 Initial Interview: April 15, 2014
  • Witness Officer #9 Initial Interview: April14, 2014
  • Witness Officer #10 Initial Interview: April 15, 2014
  • Witness Officer #11 Initial Interview: April15, 2014
  • Witness Officer #12 Initial Interview: April 15, 2014

Upon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the YRP:

  • Canine Unit Schedule
  • CFRO Check
  • Sensitive Personal information
  • Sensitive Personal information
  • Crime Scene log- Hospital
  • Sensitive Personal information
  • Detailed Call Summary ---- ------- {--pages)
  • Detailed Call Summary ---- -------
  • Disclosure list
  • Duty Roster ----redacted 12 April 2014
  • Email-screen shots Twitter 12 Apr 2014
  • Email-twitter posts 12 Apr 2014
  • Sensitive Personal information
  • Sensitive Personal information
  • General Occurrence 2014-102234
  • LEIP check
  • local synopsis-Person Hardcopy- Deceased
  • Names of Witnesses to Incident
  • Notes- Witness Officer #2
  • Notes- Witness Officer #10
  • Notes- Witness Officer #3
  • Notes- Witness Officer #3
  • Notes – Witness Officer #4
  • Notes- Witness Officer #12
  • Notes- Witness Officer #11 (Part 2)
  • Notes- Witness Officer #11
  • Notes- Witness Officer #1
  • Notes- Witness Officer #5
  • Notes- Witness officer #6 (Part 2)
  • Notes- Witness Officer #6
  • Notes- Witness Officer #7 (Part 2)
  • Notes - Witness Officer #7
  • Notes- Witness Officer #8
  • Notes- Witness Officer #8 (Part 2)
  • Officers dispatched to call
  • Procedure-Use of Force
  • Scene Crime log
  • Use Of Force lnventory-Subject Officer
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • Sensitive Personal Information, and
  • Sensitive Personal Information

Additionally, SIU received the following material from the sources noted:

  • Security video from Wai-Mart
  • York Region EMS Incident Reports
  • York Region EMS Ambulance Call Report, and
  • Video recording by Civilian Witness #2

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

There are no reasonable grounds, in my view, to believe that the subject officer- Subject Officer - committed a criminal offence in connection with the shooting and death of Deceased on April12 and 13, 2014, respectively.

The facts in issue are not in dispute. With rare exception, the civilian witnesses present at the time of the shooting all gave materially consistent accounts of what occurred. As did the witness officers, including an officer who also shot at Deceased at the same time and from the same general area that the subject officer discharged his firearm. The accounts are corroborated by video recordings from cameras within several police vehicles at the scene which captured the action from start to finish. The evidence paints a harrowing tale.

Sensitive Personal Information

At about 2048 hrs, YRP received a 911call from a male reporting that he had just observed another man shoot a girl and her mother in the vicinity of State Farm Way and leslie Street. The 911caller was, in fact, Deceased and the reported shooting a ruse to lure police officers to the area. It worked. Witness Officer #2 was the first to arrive at the scene. The time was 2053 hrs. While proceeding eastbound on State Farm Way just east of leslie Street, Witness Officer #2 spotted Deceased emerging from a building across the street with what appeared to be a gun in his right hand. He performed aU-turn to confront the male. Deceased approached Witness Officer #2 as the officer brought his vehicle to a stop facing northwest in the westbound lanes. Witness Officer #2 radioed that he was on scene with an armed male. He exited his vehicle, drew his firearm and ordered Deceased repeatedly to drop his weapon and get on the ground. Deceased persisted. He began to pursue Witness Officer #2 around the police vehicle,gun in hand and pointed at the officer.

Witness Officer #3 was the next officer to arrive on scene. He observed Deceased with a gun in hand chasing Witness Officer #2 around the police vehicle. The officer stopped his vehicle west of Witness Officer #2's vehicle, exited and also· ordered Deceased to desist, drop his weapon and get on the ground. Deceased turned his attention on Witness Officer #3. He pointed his gun at the officer and began to advance in his direction, prompting Witness Officer #3 to re-enter his vehicle and reverse westward into the intersection with leslie Street.

Witness Officer #1, followed quickly by Subject Officer, arrived in their marked police SUVs just as Deceased was making his way toward Witness Officer #3 . Witness Officer #1 parked his vehicle in the northbound curb lane of leslie Street at the south end of the intersection with State Farm Way. Subject Officer brought his SUV to a stop in the northbound through lane just west of Witness Officer #1's vehicle and slightly behind. They exited their vehicles, drew their weapons, pointed them at Deceased and ordered him repeatedly to drop his gun. Witness Officer #1 was armed with a shotgun; Subject Officer had a rifle. Deceased again changed course, turned left and made his way toward Witness Officer #1 and Subject Officer. His gun was raised in his right hand and pointed in the direction of the officers. He walked with purpose and could not be persuaded to stop. When he neared to about a car’s length of their position, near the front of Witness Officer #1's SUV, the officers discharged their firearms. Deceased was struck and fell to the ground. He was quickly handcuffed by the officers on scene. The time was about 2055 hrs - seven minutes from the time Deceased placed the 911call and less than two minutes from Witness Officer #2's arrival at the scene.

Witness Officer #1 shot twice. Subject Officer discharged at least six rounds, and possibly as many as ten rounds. The shots were fired in quick succession. The results of the post mortem examination established that it was a bullet discharged from Subject Officer's rifle that inflicted the fatal wound- a shot to the chest.

The officers removed Deceased's handcuffs at the scene and began to administer CPR. An ambulance soon arrived and transported Deceased to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. He died there the following day at 0241hrs.

I am satisfied that Witness Officer #1 and Subject Officer reasonably believed that their lives were in danger and that a resort to lethal force was necessary to preserve themselves when they discharged their weapons at Deceased. Witness Officer #1 says as much in his interview with the SIU and there is no reason to disbelieve him. Subject Officer did not submit to an interview, but the circumstances are such that the same mindset may safely be inferred. Importantly, he was in the same general position as Witness Officer #1 at the time of the shooting and would have very likely seen the same things in the lead up to the fateful moment. As it turns out, Deceased was not wielding a firearm during the incident. It was actually a pellet gun. However, the officers cannot be faulted for having perceived the object as a legitimate firearm. Its red tipped barrel and clear slide had been painted black and made to look like an authentic gun. When Deceased neared the officers' position at the southeast corner of the State Farm Way and leslie Street intersection, his right arm raised and "gun" pointed in their direction, they had every reason to believe their lives were in imminent risk. Having ignored multiple calls to stop and drop his weapon, the officers were well within their rights to shoot Deceased as he neared to within a car’s length of their location. In the final analysis, whether pursuant to sections 25(3) (authorizing lethal force in the execution of an officer’s duty) or 34 (authorizing force in self-defence), it is clear that the shooting in question was legally justified and that, therefore, there are no grounds to proceed with charges in this case.

A hand-written note on paper taped to one of Deceased's forearms during the incident suggests that Deceased was suicidal (',NO FUNERAL NO MARKER please") and provoked the confrontation with the intention of being shot by the police. To reiterate, it was Deceased who called 911 pretending that he had witnessed a·male shoot a little girl and her mother in the area of Leslie Street and State Farm Way. He would have known that the police would respond in force. And he would have known that pointing a "gun" at police officers while advancing toward them would very likely prompt the officers to use their firearms. He was right on both counts. In a sense, whether Deceased was motivated by suicide is really of little consequence in terms of the liab lity analysis. What matters are the circumstances perceived by the subject officer, not Deceased's state of mind at the time. While that is true as far as it goes, the fact that Deceased appears to have been motivated by suicidal intentions can be important in understanding what precisely occurred. It lends credence, for example,to the eyewitness evidence that portrayed Deceased as approaching the officers with single-minded purpose, ignoring all entreaties to desist, seeming bent on provoking a lethal confrontation at all costs. With this context in mind, one can better appreciate the fear felt by Subject Officer and Witness Officer #1, and the belief they had that a resort to deadly force was necessary to protect themselves. Indeed, it is somewhat astounding that Witness Officer #2 did not shoot Deceased earlier while being chased around his vehicle.

While the police service should be commended for having reported the incident within about 20 minutes of the shooting, it is regrettable that Witness Officer #7 embarked on interviews with two civilian interviews prior to the SIU's arrival. The regulation governing SIU investigations is clear. Pursuant to section 5 ·of 0. Reg. 267/10, the SIU is the "lead investigative agency" and it was simply improper for the officer to have engaged in interviews ahead of the SIU. I will be raising this matter in my reporting letter to the chief of police.

I will also be raising the following serious issue with the chief of police. During his interview with the SIU,Witness Officer #1 said that he did not shoot Deceased earlier than he did, despite fearing for his life, because, "I was afraid I was gonna end up at a table like this and have to justify my actions". Witness Officer #1's statement betrays a fundamental lapse of judgment in need of immediate redress. A police officer is duty bound to preserve the peace and protect life. He or she is simply not entitled to refrain from acting in pursuit of his or her duty based on some misguided fear of the scrutiny that may follow. In fact, just the opposite is true. Where a resort to force, including a resort to lethal force, is required to protect life and preserve the peace, he or she is duty bound to take action. Failure to do so not only risks placing the lives of citizens, fellow officers and themselves at risk, it may also attract liability in the form of disciplinary sanctions and, in egregious cases, criminal charges. I trust the chief of police will give this matter the serious attention it deserves.

Date: July 8, 2014

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit