SIU clears Toronto police officer who fatally shot man armed with hammer

The hammer and metal file collected by SIU in the fatal police-involved shooting in Scarborough on June 3, 2024. (SIU)

The province’s police watchdog has cleared a Toronto police officer who fatally shot a man armed with a hammer in Scarborough last year, concluding that she did so to protect herself from being attacked.

On Friday, the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) Director Joseph Martino said in his report into the June 3, 2024, shooting that occurred on 520 Ellesmere Road, west of Birchmount Road, that there was no basis to lay criminal charges against the officer.

“There is no doubt that the SO (subject official) fired her weapon believing it was necessary to protect herself from a reasonably apprehended attack by the complainant,” Martino wrote in his report. In the investigation, the officer involved was designated as the SO, while the 34-year-old man who died in the shooting was referred to as the Complainant.

The final report detailed what transpired that afternoon based on the evidence the SIU gathered, which included police body-worn camera footage, eyewitnesses and 911 call recordings.

Police received numerous calls regarding a man of “unsound mind” who was disrupting traffic in the area, the SIU said, adding that he had torn off windshield wipers and tried to carjack a vehicle waiting to turn.

One caller told a 911 operator that the man was “throwing himself on the street.” Another reported that “a drunk guy tried to carjack me,” but she was able to fight him and push him to the ground.

The SIU said the man had also gone inside a Home Depot and stole a hammer and metal file.

The SO and her partner, referred to as witness official #1 (WO #1) in the report, were in the area when they heard the 911 calls over the radio.

Once they arrived, officers located the man who was holding a hammer in his right hand and a metal file in his other hand, the SIU said.

When WO #1 exited the cruiser, he was confronted by the man.

“The Complainant walked towards the officer, the hammer held high in his right hand, the file in his left. WO #1 drew his CEW (conductive energy weapon), pointed it at the Complainant and backed up to a position behind the cruiser,” the SIU said.

Meanwhile, the SO exited the cruiser with her firearm out, tracking the man as he advanced on her partner. She repeatedly told the man to “get back,” but he continued his approach.

The SIU said that when the man was within three metres of WO #1, he fired his CEW twice, causing the man to fall to the ground.

Seconds later, the man was able to rise to his feet, turned towards the SO and started to run at her with the hammer held high, the SIU said.

“The SO ran backwards along the passenger side of the cruiser. The parties had just cleared the front end of the cruiser when the SO fired a single shot. The Complainant was no more than a metre or two from the officer at the time. He was struck in the torso and immediately felled by the shot,” the SIU said.

WO #1 announced over the radio: “Shots fired, shots fired.”

The officers then handcuffed him, and first aid was later administered. The man was transported to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

The SIU said an autopsy revealed that the cause of death was a penetrating gunshot wound to the abdomen.

In his report, SIU Director Martino said there was little doubt that the officer was at imminent risk of attack and that defensive action was necessary to protect herself.

“The Complainant had just threatened her partner, advancing on him with purpose while brandishing a hammer and file, and he was now running towards her with the same weapons,” Martino wrote.

He also found that the SO’s use of defensive force, a single gunshot, was reasonable.

“Knowing what she knew of the Complainant’s behaviour prior to police arrival, and knowing that her partner’s CEW discharges had not proven effective in deterring the Complainant, it would have been apparent to the officer that her life hung in the balance if action was not taken to stop the Complainant’s advance,” the SIU director said.

“The hammer in the Complainant’s hands was clearly capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm or death, and nothing short of the immediate stopping power of a firearm would do in the circumstances.”