SIU Director’s Report - Case # 15-TCD-194
Issued: August 8, 2016
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: 09/01/2015 at 2310 hours
Notified by: Police
On Tuesday, September 1, 2015, Notifying Officer of the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the death of 46-year-old Deceased. According to Notifying Officer, police were called to Yonge Street and Maitland Street for an unknown trouble call at 2116 hrs that evening. They found Deceased covered in blood and lying on his stomach on the street. Police officers removed him from the street to the sidewalk, but Deceased then went back into traffic. A brief struggle ensued and Deceased became unresponsive. He was transported to Toronto General Hospital (TGH), where he was pronounced dead.
At the time of the notification, it was believed that Deceased might have been struck by a vehicle that had then fled the scene, prior to the arrival of the police.
Overview
Deceased was a recovering drug user, who had enrolled in a support program to escape a life of drug use. On the evening of September 1, 2015, Deceased was acting unusually. He entered an A&W Restaurant located on Yonge Street and claimed that he had been shot, although that was not the case. He was in a frantic state at the time. Deceased exited the restaurant and ran along Yonge Street. He was then observed lying on the roadway on Yonge Street, as vehicles drove around him and bystanders tried to offer assistance. At one point, Deceased struck his head on a metal signpost and his head started to bleed. Police were summoned.
Police officers arrived and they escorted Deceased from the roadway onto the west sidewalk of Yonge Street. However, Deceased soon became agitated and moved toward Yonge Street. Subject Officer decided to ground Deceased. Deceased was brought down onto the pavement and police officers struggled to secure him. Almost immediately, Deceased became unresponsive. Deceased was transported to TGH, where he was pronounced dead.
The investigation
Response type: Attend Immediately
Date and time team dispatched: 09/01/2015 at 2346 hours
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 09/02/2015 at 0102 hours
Number of SIU investigator(s) assigned: 6
Number of SIU forensic investigator(s) assigned: 2
Complainant
Deceased N/A
Civilian witnesses
Civilian Witness #1 N/A
Civilian Witness #2 Initial interview: September 2, 2015
Civilian Witness #3 Initial interview: September 2, 2015
Civilian Witness #4 Initial interview: September 2, 2015
Civilian Witness #5 Initial interview: September 3, 2015
Civilian Witness #6 Initial interview: September 3, 2015
Civilian Witness #7 Initial interview: September 3, 2015
Civilian Witness #8 Initial interview: September 2, 2015
Civilian Witness #9 Initial interview: September 3, 2015
Civilian Witness #10 Initial interview: September 8, 2015
Civilian Witness #11 Initial interview: September 8, 2015
Civilian Witness #12 Initial interview: September 8, 2015
Civilian Witness #13 Initial interview: September 8, 2015
Civilian Witness #14 Initial interview: September 9, 2015
Civilian Witness #15 Initial interview: September 9, 2015
Civilian Witness #16 Initial interview: September 11, 2015
Civilian Witness #17 Initial interview: September 9, 2015
Civilian Witness #18 Initial interview: September 10, 2015
Civilian Witness #19 Initial interview: October 7, 2015
Civilian Witness #20 Initial interview: February 17, 2016
Subject officer
Subject Officer Initial interview: September 24, 2015
Copies of Subject Officer’s notebook entries were provided to the SIU.
Witness officers
Witness Officer #1 Initial interview: September 2, 2015
Witness Officer #2 Initial interview: September 2, 2015
Witness Officer #3 Initial interview: September 3, 2015
Witness Officer #4 N/A
Witness Officer #5 Initial interview: September 2, 2015
Witness Officer #6 Initial interview: September 2, 2015
Witness Officer #7 Initial interview: September 2, 2015
Witness Officer #8 Initial interview: September 2, 2015
Witness Officer #9 N/A
Witness Officer #10 N/A
The SIU reviewed the notes of all witness officers. Three witness officers were not interviewed because their involvement was limited to directing traffic (Witness Officer #4) and guarding Deceased’s remains at the hospital (Witness Officer #10 and Witness Officer #9), and their duties were well documented in their notes.
Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the TPS :
- Community Inquiry Report ----redacted
- Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Event Details Report-----redacted
- Known Offender Summary for Deceased
- the notebook entries of the witness officers
- the most recent use of force training certificate for Subject Officer
- photographs recorded of the scene
- a video recording the TPS obtained from a retail establishment (Adult Mart), and
- the Parade Sheet Report for 51 Division
The SIU obtained the ambulance call reports and paramedic Incident Reports from the Toronto Paramedic Services.
The SIU also obtained video recordings from two bystanders that had used their cellular telephones to record events.
Post-mortem examination
On September 2, 2015, Dr. Doctor conducted a post-mortem examination at the Forensic Services and Coroner’s Complex building in Toronto. At the conclusion of the examination, Dr. Doctor was not able to identify any injuries sufficient to cause Deceased’s death, and no anatomical cause of death was established at that time. Toxicology results were needed to assist Dr. Doctor in determining the cause of Deceased’s death.
Dr. Doctor’s post-mortem examination report was received by the SIU on March 30, 2016. Dr. Doctor determined the cause of Deceased’s death to be “sudden cardiac death in a man with struggle and restraint, agitation and acute cocaine and methamphetamine intoxication.”
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
On September 1, 2015, a number of civilians called the Toronto Police Service to report the actions of the complainant, Deceased. Deceased had caused a disturbance in a restaurant, and then injured himself by falling or perhaps running (the civilian accounts differ on this point) headfirst into a street sign on Yonge Street in downtown Toronto. He collapsed in the middle of the road with an obvious head wound. Members of the Toronto Police Service, including the subject officer, Subject Officer, arrived on scene and helped him off of the road. After Deceased was removed from the roadway, he began to fight against the officers resulting in Subject Officer forcing him to the ground. During the ensuing struggle, Deceased lost consciousness. He was subsequently taken to the hospital where he was pronounced dead. For the following reasons, I have concluded that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that Subject Officer committed a criminal offence in the course of his interaction with Deceased.
The factual circumstances surrounding Deceased’s death are clear. The SIU investigation included interviews of 19 civilian witnesses, seven witness officers and the subject officer.
All of the witnesses described a consistent version of events, encompassing the actions of both Deceased and the police officers on scene.
By way of background, Deceased was 46-years-old at the time of his death.
Sensitive Personal Information
At approximately 9:10 p.m., Deceased entered an A&W restaurant and exhibited strange behaviour. His first course of action was to attempt to lock the door of the restaurant from the inside. After being instructed not to do so, he approached the service counter and claimed that he had been shot. This was despite the lack of any apparent injury. He demanded water, and began making accusations directed at people who were not there. After receiving a cup of water, he approached a married couple who were eating a meal together. He spilled his water on the wife and fell on top of her. The husband responded by grabbing hold of Deceased and shoving him towards the main entranceway. Deceased then ran out of the restaurant at approximately 9:11 p.m.
Once outside the A&W Deceased caught the attention of various civilians. He was seen lying on the sidewalk and screaming. He was also swatting at the air. He continued thrashing about as he rose to his feet. Deceased then moved forward (either running or falling) with significant momentum and smashed into a street sign pole headfirst. The force of the impact was evidenced by the fact that it was audible to a number of people. Deceased then lowered himself to the roadway. He continued to scream, and it was observed that his head was bleeding profusely. A number of passersby then stepped onto Yonge Street to ensure that Deceased was not hit by a car. At 9:16 p.m. the police were contacted and advised of an injured man lying in the middle of the road.
Subject Officer and his partner, Witness Officer #8, arrived on scene at approximately 9:21 p.m. in response to a radio dispatch call. Witness Officer #2 and Witness Officer #1 were also on scene. Subject Officer approached Deceased who was lying face down in the passing lane on Yonge Street. There was blood on the back of his head and he was nonresponsive. Witness Officer #1 took hold of Deceased and assisted him in standing up. Deceased appeared to regain consciousness and, although assisted, was able to walk under his own power towards the sidewalk.
As they neared the sidewalk, Deceased began to struggle and pull away from Witness Officer #1 and scream incoherently. Subject Officer ran towards the two men to assist, who were near the side of a building. Each of the two officers took hold of one of Deceased’s arms. They managed to briefly get Deceased into a semi-seated position with his back against the wall of the building. During this brief period, both officers observed that Deceased was sweating profusely and exhibiting tremendous strength, consistent with a state of drug-induced intoxication. While leaning against the wall Deceased suddenly darted forwards towards Yonge Street.
By the time Deceased lunged forward, Subject Officer had decided that it was necessary to affect an apprehension pursuant to the Mental Health Act. He did not believe that Deceased would be receptive to verbal direction given the behaviour he had displayed up to that point. As Deceased moved forward, the officer pulled downwards on his arm while extending his own leg outward to trip him. The two men then fell to the ground. Witness Officer #1 then assisted in gaining control of Deceased, while Witness Officer #2, Witness Officer #8 and Witness Officer #7 all provided further assistance in order to handcuff Deceased.
After Deceased was handcuffed, he suddenly became very quiet. He was rolled onto his side into the recovery position and a combination of vomit and mucus was seen coming from his mouth. Dispatch was advised of Deceased’s apparent medical distress at approximately 9:27 p.m., and EMS Toronto Paramedic Services were provided updated information. Subject Officer remained with Deceased while he waited for the ambulance to arrive. Witness Officer #7 kept Deceased in the recovery position so that he would not choke on his own vomit.
After paramedics arrived, Deceased was placed onto a stretcher and loaded into an ambulance. Resuscitation efforts were commenced, and he was transported to Toronto General Hospital. They arrived at 10:01 p.m., and Deceased was pronounced dead shortly thereafter. A subsequent post-mortem examination, aided by toxicological analysis of Deceased’s blood, concluded that the cause of death was sudden cardiac death in a man who was engaged in an active struggle and restraint, was agitated and was labouring under acute cocaine and methamphetamine intoxication. The pathologist indicated that Deceased’s death was characteristic of a “classic” case of excited delirium syndrome (EDS). Deceased had a significant concentration of both methamphetamine and cocaine-related compounds
There is no basis to impugn the actions of the subject officer, or any of the members of the Toronto Police Service on scene that evening. After a review of the post-mortem examination, I am confident in concluding that Deceased died as a result of a sudden lethal cardiac arrest set into motion by his abuse of illegal drugs
Neither the subject officer, nor any of the other officers present, applied any degree of force that could serve as a conceivable causal explanation for Deceased’s death. Consequently, no charges will issue. Deceased’s death is a tragic outcome, but one that does not attract criminal liability. Based on the statements of both civilians and officers in this case, and the post mortem report, there is no basis to conclude that the officers were anything less than professional and responsive when dealing with Deceased. The adverse effects of drug abuse were clear on the evening of September 1, 2015.
However, there is another issue that causes me concern which I will bring to your attention.
While Deceased was bring loaded into the ambulance by the paramedics, Witness Officer #6 arrived on scene and met with Witness Officer #1, Witness Officer #2, Witness Officer #8, Subject Officer and Witness Officer #7. He/She conversed with the officers as a group, and ascertained factual details concerning their involvement with Deceased.
Although this may have been done to quickly understand the scene and expedite supervision over the incident scene, his/her action is a clear contravention of section 6(1) of Regulation 267/10 under the Police Services Act. Given that Witness Officer #6 was not involved in the incident concerning Deceased, he/she was permitted to speak to the officers about their respective involvement. However, speaking to the officers in a group flouted the officer segregation requirements of the Regulation.
In this particular case, the facts are beyond dispute. This is due to the substantial amount of evidence collected from civilian witnesses, which quite clearly established that Subject Officer did nothing to causally contribute to Deceased’s death. However, if I were required to draw my conclusions from a smaller body of evidence—specifically from the accounts of the subject and witness officers—then Witness Officer #6’s actions would have required me to address the issues of collusion and potential witness tainting.
The provisions of Regulation 267/10 are in place for a reason. They ensure public confidence in the investigative procedures and conclusions of the SIU. Aside from their compelling underlying rationale, there is a more practical reason to ensure adherence to their requirements: They are the law. These types of legislative contraventions should not occur, and I cannot understand why a senior officer would choose to engage in a group discussion with officers that he/she should know are required, at law, to be segregated.
I have raised these concerns with the Chief of the Toronto Police Service. It is my hope that Chief Saunders will take appropriate steps to remedy this issue, and implement sufficient safeguards to ensure that similar breaches do not arise in the future. However, given the frequency with which we encounter such contraventions of the Police Services Act, I am not optimistic about the efficacy of such an intervention. In my view, the only way that this type of misconduct can be meaningfully addressed is legislative change.
Date: August 8, 2016
Original signed by
Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Appendix regarding officer notes
No issues were identified.
Footnotes
- footnote[1] Back to paragraph In addition, the CFS Toxicology report indicates that cocaine and methamphetamine intoxication can cause sudden and unexpected death (both with and without EDS) by precipitating a sudden lethal cardiac arrhythmia.
- footnote[2] Back to paragraph In fact the toxicology report concluded that the detected blood concentration of methamphetamine in Deceased could have on its own caused death – although not necessarily so.