Carjacking suspect shot at by Toronto police officer in Mississauga parking garage remains at large, SIU says

The SIU is investigating after a Toronto officer discharged their firearm at carjacking suspects, police say. (Jacob Estrin/ CP24)

The province’s police watchdog says a carjacking suspect who was shot at by a Toronto police officer during a takedown in Mississauga in October remains at large.

The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) released its final report into the Oct. 29 incident that transpired in the parking garage of a residential complex near Tomken Road and Dundas Street East.

The report detailed what transpired that night. Members of the Toronto police mobile support services were in and around the parking garage to conduct surveillance after officers tracked a stolen Rolls-Royce there.

Just before 9 p.m., officers observed a BMW SUV approaching the parking garage and followed it inside to see it coming to a stop by the Rolls-Royce, the SIU said.

One person wearing a mask and blue gloves then exited the BMW and entered the Rolls-Royce.

“The team called for a takedown, and police vehicles moved in to block the Rolls-Royce before it could move,” the SIU report stated. The person got out of the vehicle and was arrested.

As that was happening, the SIU said the driver of the BMW accelerated in reverse before travelling forward to seek an escape route to the garage’s exit ramp.

One officer, designated as the subject official (SO), exited his vehicle around the same time, armed with a C8 rifle.

“The officer fired his C8 rifle five times at the BMW, causing at least one gunshot wound to the driver’s right hand,” the SIU report said.

When the driver saw that his path out of the garage was blocked by a surveillance team member’s car, he got out of the BMW and ran towards a stairwell.

“He remains at large and his identity unknown to this date,” the SIU said.

In the report, SIU Director Joseph Martino stated he did not find reasonable grounds to believe that the officer committed a criminal offence in the shooting.

While the SO, as his legal right, chose not to be interviewed or authorize the release of his notes, he told his fellow officers that he fired shots to protect himself from being struck by the reversing BMW.

“Those statements must be accorded some weight, particularly as the witness and forensic evidence is consistent with the BMW reversing in the SO’s direction in and around the time of the gunfire. However, there are important aspects of the story that remain unanswered,” Martino stated.

“How close to the BMW was the SO when he fired? How fast was the BMW travelling? Where was the SO positioned through the gunfire? Were positions of withdrawal or retreat available as options to the officer before he resorted to gunfire?”

The witness officers who were interviewed by the SIU did not see the shooting.

Martino concluded that due to the lack of evidence to suggest that the actions of the SO were outside the scope of the protection of the law, “there is an insufficient evidentiary foundation to warrant moving forward with criminal charges.

TPS did not notify SIU

The SIU director also indicated in the report “what appears to have been a non-notification of the incident by TPS,” which could be in contravention of the law.

“Though it was immediately apparent that a TPS officer had triggered the SIU’s jurisdiction by discharging his firearm at a person, it was left to the PRP (Peel Regional Police) to make the notification more than three hours later,” Martino said.

The SIU’s mandate is invoked when an officer discharges their firearm. As a result, Martino said he will be raising the issue in his reporting letter to the Toronto police chief.

He added that he will also refer the matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency, the province’s independent civilian oversight agency that handles public complaints regarding police conduct in Ontario.