SIU clears Toronto police officer of any criminal wrongdoing in shooting of stabbing suspect in North York

The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) has invoked its mandate after a Toronto police officer shot a male late Monday afternoon in North York.

A Toronto police officer shot a stabbing suspect in North York in December to protect himself from an attack, Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU) has found.

The SIU released on Tuesday its final report into the Dec. 22 shooting, clearing the officer of any criminal wrongdoing.

“The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the shooting,” wrote SIU Director Joseph Martino in the report. SO or subject official, refers to the officer who shot at the 24-year-old man.

The SIU detailed in the report what transpired that afternoon at a residence on Shoreham Court, south of the Jane Street and Steeles Avenue West area.

READ IN FULL: SIU Concludes Investigation into Toronto Police-Involved Shooting

Toronto police got a call about a man armed with a knife and attacking people inside a home. The man is identified in the SIU report as the Complainant.

Shortly after arriving at the front of the home, officers saw the interior door open and a male was pushed by the Complainant.

“The male was escorted a distance from the home as officers attempted to kick open the door. As this was occurring, the dispatcher reported an ongoing commotion inside the residence, including utterances to the effect of, ‘I stabbed him,’ and ‘I killed him.’ Blood was said to be everywhere inside the residence,” the SIU report stated.

A person inside the home also called 911 and urged police to break the door open.

“The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time. He had taken possession of a knife and inflicted serious lacerations to (two people). He pushed back against the front door as officers attempted to force it open,” the SIU said.

The SO remained alone in the front door as his fellow officers explored other access points.

Seconds later, the Complainant opened the interior door and moved quickly towards the officer while holding a red-handled knife in his right hand, the SIU said.

“The officer immediately stepped back off the front door stoop, drew his firearm and fired two shots in quick succession. The Complainant was just past the door’s threshold at the time, approximately a metre from the officer,” the SIU said.

The Complainant was struck in the left chest and right abdomen and fell to the ground.

Officers quickly handcuffed him behind his back, and seals were applied to his wound. He was later taken to the hospital for treatment.

Police said two stabbing victims were also transported to the hospital.

“I am satisfied that the SO fired his gun to protect himself from a reasonably apprehended attack on the part of the Complainant,” SIU Director Martino said. He noted that body-worn camera footage supports this account.

“The footage indicates that the Complainant moved in the SO’s direction with a knife and was no more than about a metre from the officer when the shots were fired.”

Meanwhile, Martino also determined that the officer’s use of gunfire was “reasonable defensive force.” He said the officer knew he was responding to a call involving a person who had a knife and was attacking people inside the home.

The SIU director stated that when the Complainant opened the door and confronted the officer at close range with a knife, “there is little doubt that the Complainant constituted a lethal threat to the SO.”

“The officer would have had every reason to believe that his life was at imminent risk by a knife attack and that immediate action was necessary to incapacitate the Complainant. The weapon with the greatest chance of doing just that was a firearm,” he said.

Martino noted that retreating was not an option for the officer, given how fast the situation evolved.

“Lesser force without the stopping power of a gun would have left the officer dangerously exposed had they been ineffective in deterring the Complainant.”