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: 04/05/2015 at 0030 hours

Notified By: Police

On April 5, 2015, at 0030 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Peterborough Police Service (PPS) reported the following. On April 4, 2015, at 2344 hrs, the PPS received a call for service at the Tim Hortons restaurant at 157 George Street North, Peterborough, regarding a man later identified by the PPS investigation to be [Deceased] waving a knife around.

Civilian witnesses followed Deceased to the area of a location, Peterborough. A police officer later identified as [Subject Officer] arrived and at 2352 hrs, the officer reported shots fired. Deceased was pronounced dead at the scene. A police officer was taken to the hospital for treatment of a stab wound. Deceased was identified by a health card as bearing the name Deceased with a date of birth of ----redacted, 1991.

Overview - Tim Hortons

On the evening of April 4, 2015, Deceased attended the Tim Hortons coffee shop located at 157 George Street, Peterborough. While at the Tim Hortons Deceased had an interaction with a group of women street youths consisting of Civilian Witness #8, Civilian Witness #7, Civilian Witness #10 and Civilian Witness #11. The interaction escalated to a confrontation and Deceased decided to leave the area of the Tim Hortons and he walked northbound on George Street. The women began to follow behind Deceased and harass him. A short distance away from the Tim Hortons, Deceased turned and confronted the women and he produced two large kitchen style knives which he had been concealing on his person. Deceased briefly banged the blades of the knives together and then he turned away from the women and continued walking northbound on George Street. The women, undeterred, continued to follow and harass Deceased.

A few male friends of the women, who had been hanging around the Tim Hortons parking lot, saw the women following Deceased and decided to join in and follow Deceased. One of the men, Civilian Witness #5, got inside his vehicle along with Civilian Witness #6 and they drove northbound along George Street, following Deceased and the females.

Deceased walked northbound on George Street approximately 400 metres and then westbound on King Street with the women still following and harassing him. Deceased turned southbound off of King Street and ended up in the parking of the LCBO located at 196 Sherbrooke Street. In the parking lot of the LCBO a second confrontation took place, this time between Civilian Witness #5 and Deceased, wherein Civilian Witness #5 swung a four-foot piece of metal pipe at Deceased, but Deceased was not struck.

Deceased walked west on Sherbrooke Street towards his residence, which was located a location. The group of women followed Deceased on foot while Civilian Witness #5 followed in his vehicle. At some point along Sherbrooke Street, Civilian Witness #7 used Civilian Witness #5’s cell phone to call 911 and complain that Deceased was threatening them with knives. In the vicinity of Deceased’s residence, Civilian Witness #8 attempted to disarm Deceased by running up to him from behind and placing a bear hug maneuver on him. Deceased easily shed Civilian Witness #8 from his back and he continued toward his residence. Deceased went onto the porch at a location where he rented a room. Deceased could not gain entry into his residence as he did not have a key so he walked around the west side of the house and into the backyard. Deceased was followed by Civilian Witness #9 and Civilian Witness #4, who are friends of Civilian Witness #8, and who had also joined the group of individuals following Deceased.

Deceased walked in a southerly direction through his backyard and came out onto a location. Civilian Witness #5 drove around the block and located Deceased in the vicinity of Rutherford Road and Patterson Street and Civilian Witness #5 again began following Deceased with his vehicle as Deceased walked along the sidewalk.

Civilian Witness #5 followed Deceased to Wolfe Street, where Deceased began to walk eastbound. Civilian Witness #5 saw a PPS cruiser, operated by Subject Officer, parked at the east end of Wolfe Street, near Park Place. Civilian Witness #5 got the attention of Subject Officer by flashing his vehicle’s high beam lights. Subject Officer drove his cruiser westbound along Wolfe Street to where Civilian Witness #5’s vehicle was positioned in the vicinity of a location and still following Deceased.

Subject Officer recognized Deceased from the description broadcast by the dispatcher. Subject Officer exited his cruiser, drew his firearm and issued the police challenge to Deceased. Deceased did not heed Subject Officer’s warning to stop and he continued to walk away from Subject Officer along the sidewalk. Subject Officer then approached Deceased from behind and attempted to grab hold of Deceased’s jacket collar and wrestle Deceased to the ground. During the confrontation Deceased turned quickly to face Subject Officer and stabbed Subject Officer in the left thigh with a knife. Subject Officer pushed Deceased away and discharged his firearm at Deceased. Deceased received a fatal head wound and collapsed to the ground, coming to rest on his back. Subject Officer moved away from Deceased and called for assistance. Other PPS officers who were in the vicinity arrived quickly and attended to Subject Officer and handcuffed Deceased.

The investigation

Response Type: Attend Immediately

Date and Time Team Dispatched: 04/05/2015 at 0045 hours

Date and Time SIU Arrived on Scene: 04/05/2015 at 0130 hours

Number of SIU Investigator(s) assigned: 6

Number of SIU Forensic Investigator(s) assigned: 3

Complainant

Deceased N/A (deceased)

Civilian Witnesses

Civilian Witness #1 Initial Interview: April 5, 2015

Civilian Witness #2 Initial Interview: April 5, 2015

Civilian Witness #3 Initial Interview: April 5, 2015

Civilian Witness #4 Initial Interview: April 5, 2015

Civilian Witness #5 Initial Interview: April 6, 2015

Civilian Witness #6 Initial Interview: April 6, 2015

Civilian Witness #7 Initial Interview: April 10, 2015

Civilian Witness #8 Initial Interview: April 16, 2015

Civilian Witness #9 Initial Interview: April 16, 2015

Civilian Witness #10 Initial Interview: April 17, 2015

Civilian Witness #11 Initial Interview: April 17, 2015

Subject Officer

Subject Officer Initial Interview: May 1, 2015

Copies of notebook entries were provided by the subject officer.

Witness Officers

Witness Officer #1 Initial Interview: April 5, 2015

Witness Officer #2 Initial Interview: April 5, 2015

Witness Officer #3 Initial Interview: April 5, 2015

Witness Officer #4 Initial Interview: April 5, 2015

Witness Officer #5 Initial Interview: April 5, 2015

Upon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the Peterborough Police Service:

  • CAD Information PB----redacted
  • Civilian Witness list from ARU counter
  • Subject Officer Injury Photos April 20 2015
  • Subject Officer Injury Photos April 27 2015
  • Subject Officer Injury Photos April 5 2015
  • Subject Officer Injury Photos April 7 2015
  • Subject Officer Injury Photos April 9 2015
  • Firearm Acquired - CFP
  • Notes-Witness Officer #2
  • Notes-Witness Officer #5
  • Notes-Witness Officer #4
  • Notes-Witness Officer #3
  • Notes-Witness Officer #6
  • Notes-Subject Officer
  • Notes-Witness Officer #1
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • Sensitive Personal Information
  • PPS Media Release, and
  • Training Letter re: Subject Officer

On April 4, 2015, the SIU obtained a copy of the video recordings from Civilian Witness #1. The recording was from his residence at a location. Camera 4, which is positioned on Civilian Witness #1’s carport, and faced in a southwestern direction, captured a segment of the confrontation between Subject Officer and Deceased.

  • At 11:48:17, the recording commences and captures Subject Officer’s cruiser traveling in a westerly direction on Wolfe Street in front of and slightly west of Civilian Witness #1’s residence
  • At 11:48:25, Subject Officer appears to have exited his cruiser and his shadow can be seen
  • At 11:48:27, the headlights of Civilian Witness #5’s vehicle appear. Civilian Witness #5 is traveling eastbound on Wolfe Street. Civilian Witness #5’s vehicle is moving from right to left on the screen
  • At 11:48:28, Subject Officer’s leg comes into view and his torso is not visible due to the overhang of the carport. Subject Officer is moving from right to left on the screen
  • At 11:48:30, the lower half of Deceased’s and Subject Officer’s bodies are visible on the recording; they are both moving in an easterly direction on the sidewalk, with Subject Officer behind Deceased
  • At 11:48:31, Subject Officer is directly behind Deceased, and Deceased’s upper body appears to go forward and down as if Deceased is bending at his waist. Deceased spins and faces Subject Officer, still bent over. Deceased’s arms are moving as Deceased keeps his balance. Deceased and Subject Officer separate with Deceased backing up in an easterly direction and Subject Officer backing away in westerly direction
  • No weapons can be seen in either Deceased’s hands or Subject Officer’s
  • At 11:48:33, Deceased and Subject Officer are now off screen and their bodies are blocked by the structure of the carport. No muzzle flash is visible from Subject Officer’s firearm

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 Subject Officer committed a criminal offence when he shot and killed Deceased shortly before midnight on April 4, 2015, on Wolfe Street in Peterborough.

The evidence from the several civilian witnesses, the subject officer, surveillance footage, and police communications recordings provide a thorough and convincing picture of the events leading up to Deceased’s death. Earlier that evening Deceased walked out of a Tim Hortons restaurant near the intersection of Wolfe Street and George Street North. Three young women (Civilian Witness #8, Civilian Witness #11, and Civilian Witness #7) began following, and one might say harassing, him as he headed northbound on Wolfe Street because they believed he had assaulted their friend, Civilian Witness #6, a few nights prior. The situation escalated when, after half a block, Deceased turned around and stared at the women while he sliced two large knives together in a menacing fashion. He then put the knives in his pockets and continued to walk away. Confidential Witness Statements

At 2343 hrs, Civilian Witness #7 called 911 to report their location and that the man had tried to cut the women with two nine-inch knives. She stayed on the line to narrate Deceased’s movements to the police as he tried to enter the residence at a location (where he lived, though no one else was aware of this) and, when that failed, disappeared around the back of the house.

Subject Officer responded to the radio call for assistance. He was alone and had just turned onto Wolfe Street westbound from Park Street when he saw a vehicle at the other end of the block flashing its lights at him. It was Civilian Witness #5, who had located Deceased walking eastbound towards the officer. Subject Officer saw a shiny object in Deceased’s left hand and believed that it was a knife. The subject officer drove in his direction.

Deceased was shot no more than ten seconds later. Through Civilian Witness #6, Civilian Witness #5, the subject officer, and surveillance footage from a person’s property it is possible to reconstruct these final moments. Subject Officer parked his vehicle facing or next to Deceased and got out of the car. From his truck, Civilian Witness #5 vigorously pointed at Deceased and warned that Deceased had used two 11-inch knives to threaten three women. Subject Officer shouted, “Police. Drop the knife!” Deceased did not comply. The officer drew his firearm and again challenged Deceased. Deceased kept walking on the sidewalk past the officer and his vehicle. Subject Officer caught up to him on foot and, using his left hand, tried to pull Deceased to the ground from behind. The officer was still holding his firearm in his right hand. Both civilians and the surveillance footage confirm that Deceased reacted by spinning around and stabbing Subject Officer in the thigh.footnote 2 Subject Officer reports that Deceased swung at him a secondtime and nicked his hand. This is not corroborated by the other eyewitnesses but the officer did have a small injury to his thumb that could have come from the knife. In any event, the witnesses and video agree that the two men quickly separated and Subject Officer fired a single, fatal bullet at Deceased.

I am satisfied that the subject officer was justified in using lethal force under either ss. 25(3) or 34 of the Criminal Code . Section 25(3) authorizes an officer to shoot in the course of carrying out a lawful duty if he reasonably believes that it is necessary to protect himself or another from death or grievous bodily harm. In a related vein, section 34(1) permits the use of force if three conditions are met: (1) the officer reasonably believes that someone is using or threatening to use force against him or another; (2) he acts for the purpose of defending himself or that other person from that force or threat of force; and (3) his defensive measures are reasonable in the circumstances. The nature of the threat, the availability of alternative measures, and the involvement of any weapons are among the many factors identified in section 34(2) for evaluating whether the officer’s response was reasonable.

Subject Officer was acting in lawful execution of his duties when he approached Deceased. He had received information that a man matching Deceased’s description was walking through the residential neighbourhood while armed with two large knives. Civilian Witness #5’s frantic actions, and the shiny object the officer saw in Deceased’s hand, left no doubt that the officer had found the correct person. Subject Officer had common law and Criminal Code duties at that point to protect the public safety by disarming Deceased and placing him under arrest. Subject Officer attempted to accomplish these tasks by verbally demanding that Deceased stop and drop the knives. When that failed, the officer tried to take Deceased to the ground by grabbing him from behind, as he was entitled to do under s. 25(1) of the Criminal Code. This had grave consequences for both men.

There is a disagreement in the evidence about whether Deceased made any concerning remarks to the officer in the moments before he was shot. According to Subject Officer, he said, “Fuck you,” “Go ahead and fuckin’ shoot me,” and, after he stabbed the officer, “You’re going to die.” Confidential Witness Statements As a result, while I do not rule out the possibility that Deceased threatened the officer as Subject Officer reports, I place little weight on this part of the officer’s account.

Nevertheless, the remaining, and undisputed, evidence establishes that lethal force was reasonably necessary in the circumstances for Subject Officer to protect himself and others from grievous bodily harm and that Subject Officer acted for this purpose. According to the surveillance footage no more than two seconds elapsed between when Deceased stabbed the officer and when Subject Officer pulled the trigger. In that short period of time a number of things became clear. First, Deceased had now used his knife at least twice against a person that night, including against a man Deceased had to have known was a police officer. After all, Subject Officer was driving a black car with reflective police decals; he wore a blue police uniform and black vest with “Police” written across the front on his ----redacted frame; and he had identified himself verbally to Deceased. Yet this did not deter the young man. Second, Deceased was still armed. Third, as it appeared to Subject Officer, the officer had only moments to react. When Subject Officer was stabbed he immediately felt blood pooling in his boot and believed he would lose consciousness soon, at which point he feared Deceased could continue his assault or move on to attack others in the neighbourhood. Fourth, no backup was on the way and none of the officers in the area even knew where Subject Officer or Deceased were. Alarmingly, Subject Officer had been unable to communicate over the radio because another officer was inadvertently blocking the airwaves. Fifth, the subject officer had already gone against his training to avoid shooting Deceased by using manual force to disarm him. That had failed, and so, after being injured, he was left with no other viable option but to use his firearm.

One can speculate whether the night would have ended differently had Deceased not been followed when he left the Tim Hortons. But ultimately, Deceased chose to set in motion a chain of events that led to his death. By the time Subject Officer encountered him on Wolfe Street the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to believe that Deceased was armed and dangerous. The officer did what he could to protect himself and the public without harming Deceased before he resorted to lethal force. It was only when Deceased responded with grievous violence that the officer shot him. In my view, Subject Officer’s actions were justified. Therefore no charges will issue.

Date: November 26, 2015

Original signed by

Tony Loparco

Director

Special Investigations Unit