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: 02/18/2015 at 2150 hours

Notified By: Police

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at about 2150 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the firearm death of Mr. David Doucette. TPS officers responded to a 911 call in regards to a man stabbed at 140 Spadina Road. Subject Officer and Witness Officer #1 arrived at the scene and observed Civilian Witness #2 standing on the street with multiple stab wounds around his neck. Subject Officer and Witness Officer #1 began to administer first aid to Civilian Witness #2 and requested that an ambulance attend.

Subject Officer noticed Mr. Doucette standing nearby with a knife in his hand. Subject Officer instructed Mr. Doucette multiple times to drop the knife. Mr. Doucette ignored Subject Officer’s instruction and began to approach him, prompting Subject Officer to discharge his firearm.

Mr. Doucette was subsequently transported to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) where he eventually succumbed to his injuries.

The investigation

Response Type: Attend Immediately

Date and Time Team Dispatched: 02/18/2015 at 2252 hours

Date and Time SIU Arrived on Scene: 02/18/2015 at 2306 hours

Number of SIU Investigator(s) assigned: 7

Number of SIU Forensic Investigator(s) assigned: 3

Complainant

Mr. David Andrew Doucette Deceased

Civilian Witnesses

  • Civilian Witness #1 Sensitive Personal Information
  • Civilian Witness #2 Initial Interview: March 2, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #3 Initial Interview: February 19, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #4 Initial Interview: February 19, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #5 Initial Interview: February 19, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #6 Initial Interview: February 26, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #7 Initial Interview: February 19, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #8 Initial Interview: March 5, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #9 Initial Interview: March 5, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #10 Initial Interview: February 20, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #11 Initial Interview: February 20, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #12 Initial Interview: February 20, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #13 Initial Interview: February 20, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #14 Initial Interview: February 19, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #15 Initial Interview: February 19, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #16 Initial Interview: February 19, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #17 Initial Interview: February 19, 2015
  • Civilian Witness #18 Initial Interview: February 19, 2015

Subject Officer

Subject Officer Initial Interview: March 9, 2015

Copies of notebook entries were provided by the subject officer.

Witness Officers

  • Witness Officer #1 Initial Interview: February 19, 2015
  • Witness Officer #2 Initial Interview: February 19, 2015
  • Witness Officer #3 N/A
  • Witness Officer #4 N/A
  • Witness Officer #5 N/A
  • Witness Officer #6 N/A

The SIU designated six witness officers but only interviewed Witness Officer #1 and Witness Officer #2.

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

  • COMM-Summary of Conservation ADS ----redacted
  • General Occurrence ----redacted
  • Intergraph Computer Aided Dispatch (ICAD) Event Details Report ----redacted
  • List of Emergency Medical Service (EMS) personnel names and roles
  • In-car camera system (ICCS) from cruisers ----redacted and ----redacted
  • Notes- Witness Officer #5
  • Notes- Witness Officer #2
  • Notes- Witness Officer #4
  • Notes- Witness Officer #3
  • Notes- Subject Officer
  • Notes- Witness Officer #6
  • 14 Division Parade Sheet Report
  • TPS Communications Audio Request, and
  • Witness Statement of Civilian Witness #7 taken by TPS

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

David Doucette was shot and killed by a TPS officer at about 2120 hours of February 18, 2015. Subject Officer was that officer. For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds that the shooting was justified and that there is no basis to proceed with criminal charges against the subject officer.

The evidence gathered in the investigation, including statements from the subject officer, his partner, Witness Officer #1, and a slew of civilian witnesses, paints a clear and compelling picture of the events leading to the shooting. The story begins with what appears to have been a vicious attack perpetrated by Mr. Doucette on Civilian Witness #2. Earlier that evening, Civilian Witness #2, a resident of the residential complex at 140 Spadina Road, had invited Mr. Doucette to his place for a few drinks. Their get-together went south when, for reasons which remain unclear, Mr. Doucette took hold of a knife in Civilian Witness #2’s residence and started stabbing Civilian Witness #2. Civilian Witness #2 fled his home in fear of his life, yelling at neighbours in the complex to call the police and making his way outside the building’s front door. He was bleeding profusely from a serious neck wound.

Subject Officer and Witness Officer #1 got the call and hurried in their cruiser to the address where they encountered Civilian Witness #2 on the sidewalk in front of the residence. Civilian Witness #2 confirmed that he had just been stabbed. The officers were preparing to render first aid when they noticed Mr. Doucette several metres north of their location on the sidewalk. He was holding a knife in his left hand and was slowly walking south in their direction. Subject Officer pulled Civilian Witness #2 behind him and drew his firearm, yelling at his partner to remove Civilian Witness #2 from harm’s way. He shouted at Mr. Doucette to stop and drop the knife, warning him that he would shoot if he continued to advance. Mr. Doucette was undeterred. As he neared to within three to five metres of Subject Officer, the officer discharged his firearm once in Mr. Doucette’s direction, dropping him to the ground. Witness Officer #2 rushed to Mr. Doucette, kicked the knife away from his hand and handcuffed him. The knife would later be recovered at the scene by SIU forensic investigators.

The pathologist at autopsy confirmed that a gunshot wound to the neck was the cause of Mr. Doucette’s death.

Pursuant to section 34 of the Criminal Code, a person who uses force that would constitute an offence is shielded from criminal liability if the force was intended to repel a reasonably apprehended assault on one’s person or a third party, and was itself reasonable in the circumstances. I have no hesitation in concluding that the shooting in question fell within the confines of section 34. Subject Officer had every reason to believe that Mr. Doucette was a clear and present danger to his life and the lives of his partner and Civilian Witness #2 when he decided to pull the trigger. He said as much in his SIU interview and there is no reason to disbelieve him. Arriving at the scene of a grizzly injury and faced with a knife-wielding assailant mere metres away, there could be little doubt that Mr. Doucette was ready, willing and able to inflict further harm. The officer quickly drew his firearm and gave Mr. Doucette every opportunity to avoid a fatal showdown. Time and again he ordered Mr. Doucette to desist and disarm himself. Recognizing that words were having little effect, Subject Officer continued to weigh his options. He called for an officer with a CEW to get to the scene, but the speed with which events were unfolding meant that was not going to happen. He considered the possibility of retreat, and appears to have taken a few steps back as Mr. Doucette moved toward him, but decided he could not disengage given the violence with which Mr. Doucette had and was continuing to pursue his purpose and the presence of Witness Officer #1 and Civilian Witness #2 in the area. As Mr. Doucette continued to close the distance, Subject Officer had a decision to make. He could continue to wail at Mr. Doucette to stand-down, hoping his exhortations would finally hit home, or perhaps wait some more and backtrack himself, hoping others in the vicinity would themselves find positions of safety. He dismissed those options and chose instead to stand his ground and discharge his firearm as the only available recourse to preserve himself and protect those around him from a potentially lethal knife attack. For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied on the record that Subject Officer’s apprehensions and the decision to shoot as Mr. Doucette neared to within three to five metres of the officer were reasonable in the circumstances, and that the officer is therefore entitled to the protection of section 34.

Date: August 31, 2015

Original signed by

Joseph Martino
Acting Director
Special Investigations Unit

Appendix “A”

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