SIU report details fatal police shooting outside Toronto Pearson Airport

(Arlyn McAdorey / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

The province’s police watchdog is not laying charges against two Peel police officers who shot and killed a 30-year-old man outside Toronto Pearson International Airport in April.

The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) released on Friday the findings of its investigation into the April 24 fatal shooting at the departures level of Terminal 1.

“The Director of the Special Investigations Unit, Joseph Martino, found no reasonable grounds to believe Peel Regional Police officers committed a criminal offence in connection with the fatal shooting of a 30-year-old man at Toronto Pearson Airport in April,” the news release read.

• READ MORE: Full SIU report on Toronto Pearson shooting

Friday’s SIU report details what occurred that spring morning based on evidence investigators gathered. They include the firearms of the officers and the man, who was designated as the Complainant in the investigation, body-worn camera footage, radio communications, notes of witness officials and multiple police and non-police interviews.

The SIU noted that one of the Peel police officers involved, referred to as subject official #1 (SO #1), agreed to be interviewed and submitted their notes. The other officer, subject official # 2 (SO #2), declined to be interviewed, as is their legal right but provided their notes.

Began as family dispute

The SIU said the incident began when airport security asked police to attend the departures level outside the terminal for a family dispute. A woman had approached security asking for assistance regarding her brother, who was the Complainant.

“The Complainant was reportedly in distress, owing to some combination of mental illness and drug consumption, and refusing to leave their vehicle to catch a flight,” the report stated.

SO # 2 and her partner, designated as witness official #1 or WO # 1 made their way to the Complainant’s vehicle, a Jeep Grand Cherokee.

The SIU said the 30-year-old’s relative explained to the two officers that he was refusing to get out of the Jeep to take a flight to the Yukon, where he had been registered in a treatment program.

“She and her husband, also present on scene, wanted him out of the Jeep. Talk turned to possible options, including having the Complainant exit the vehicle to take a bus to wherever he wanted to go, or offering to take him to hospital on a voluntary basis,” the report stated.

Shortly after, SO #1 arrived and joined in the conversation.

“At the same time, SO #2 and WO #1 alternately spoke to the Complainant, seated in the back seat of the Jeep. He complained that he had been taken against his will to the airport, and did not want to attend the program. Repeatedly asked to exit the vehicle, he refused, indicating he wanted to be driven back to his residence,” the report stated.

“He expressed frustrations with the police, whom he did not trust, and his sister and her husband, whom he believed were manipulating him.”

The SIU said the Complainant became more “fatalistic” as talks continued, informing the officers that he was concerned that his life would end if he stepped out of the Jeep.

Despite this, SO #2 became more insistent that he exit the Jeep, according to the SIU.

‘Gun, gun, gun, gun’

As the officer continued to speak with him, the Complainant suddenly stepped out of the vehicle through the open rear passenger door and was holding what appeared to be a gun in his left hand, the report stated.

“He told SO #2 to “shut the f--- up” and pointed the weapon in her direction,” the report stated.

All three officers then ran for cover and, from their positions, drew their pistols. At the same time, SO #2 announced on the radio, “10-33, gun, gun, gun, gun.”

“The Complainant pointed his gun from side to side at the officers. Approximately four seconds after his exit from the Jeep, he was shot and collapsed to the pavement beside the rear passenger side corner of the vehicle. The gunfire continued for another three seconds before coming to an end,” the report stated.

In the body-worn camera footage, the Complainant’s sister was heard saying, “You murdered him,” and SO #2 informed her that he had a gun.

According to the SIU, SO #2 fired 11 times in rapid succession, while SO #1 discharged seven continuous rounds. WO #1 did not fire his weapon.

As life-saving measures were being performed and more police arrived, SO #2 was heard in the body-worn camera footage telling another officer, “He pulled a f------ gun on me.”

The 30-year-old Complainant was pronounced dead at the scene. An autopsy determined that the cause of death was gunshot wounds to the chest.

Officers protecting themselves and others: SIU director

In his report, SIU Director Martino stated that he was satisfied that the two officers fired their weapons to protect themselves and others from the Complainant. He noted that video footage confirmed that the 30-year-old got out of the Jeep with a gun pointed at the officers.

“Though the gun was an air pistol, it gave every indication of being an actual firearm capable of causing grievous bodily harm or death,” Martino said in his report.

The gun was specifically identified in the SIU report as a black replica Glock .177 calibre air pistol. The report stated that it was an accurate replica of a Glock Model 19 semi-automatic pistol.

“I am satisfied that the subject officials’ resort to their firearms constituted reasonable defensive force. When the Complainant emerged suddenly from the Jeep with what appeared to be a firearm pointed at the officers, SO #1 and SO #2 would have had every reason to believe that their lives were in imminent peril,” the director added.

Martino said withdrawal or retreat was not an option as the events unfolded rapidly.

“What was required was the immediate incapacitation of the Complainant, and the only weapons capable of doing that were the officers’ firearms,” he said.

While the SIU Director concluded that the first three or four gunshots were justified, he said the “more difficult issue” was the rounds that followed after the Complainant was already on the ground.

Martino noted that in the body-worn camera footage, he saw the Complainant was already seriously following the initial shots.

“Very likely, he was at that point no threat to anyone. That said, faced with what must have felt like a grave and mortal threat to their lives, neither SO #1 nor SO #2 had the luxury of hindsight or the benefit of time. Their foremost concern in the highly charged atmosphere of the moment was to make absolute certain that the Complainant was no longer a threat,” the director stated.

“When allowance is made for that imperative, the delay inherent in reaction times and the common law principle that officers embroiled in dangerous situations are not expected to measure their responsive force with precision, I am unable to reasonably conclude that either subject official exceeded the remit of authorized force through their gunfire.”