The province’s police watchdog has cleared the Toronto police officer of any wrongdoing in the shooting of a 17-year-old boy during a takedown in North York in March.
On Friday, the Special Investigations Unit released its report into the March 23 incident that occurred at a plaza near Islington Avenue and Satterly Road, south of Islington Avenue.
“The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO (subject official) committed a criminal offence in connection with the shooting,” SIU Director Joseph Martino wrote in the report.
The officer who fired the shot is designated as the SO, while the teen is referred to as the Complainant in the report.
Using materials gathered at the scene and obtained from the Toronto police, as well as through interviews with the Complainant, SO, and other witnesses, the SIU detailed what unfolded that Sunday afternoon.
The SO and other members of the Guns and Gangs Task Force began covertly tracking a Nissan that they believed was being driven by the Complainant who was suspected to be in possession of illegal firearms.
The report stated that officers planned to arrest the Complainant ahead of the execution of a search warrant they obtained.
Police followed the vehicle into a plaza on Islington Avenue and they subsequently decided to execute a takedown.
The Complainant got out and entered a store, leaving three males in the vehicle. When he returned and got into the Nissan, officers surrounded the vehicle.
“They maneuvered their unmarked cruisers around the Nissan to prevent its egress, exited, and surrounded the Complainant and the others with their guns drawn,” the report stated.
The SO positioned himself by the rear passenger side door. Officers yelled at the four occupants not to move. The report stated that the Complainant climbed over the centre console into the back of the Nissan, intending to escape via the rear passenger door.
“He was stretched across the front and rear, chest facing up, when he was shot in the right leg,” the report stated. “The SO had fired his weapon once at the Complainant through the open rear passenger-side door.”
Shortly after, all occupants were removed from the vehicle and arrested. The SIU said officers located multiple firearms, including a semi-automatic pistol on the Complainant.
He was taken to the hospital and diagnosed with a gunshot wound to the lateral aspect of the right knee joint, the SIU said.
In his report, Martino pointed out that there was a body of evidence indicating that the Complainant was not reaching for his gun when he was shot. The director said the SO contested the evidence during his interview, recounting that the Complainant grasped the handle of the gun located in his waistband. The SIU said the SO feared for his life, prompting him to fire his gun.
Martino said the SO’s account was supported by two officers who were at the scene.
“On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO did not harbour an honest belief that it was necessary to shoot the Complainant to protect himself and others from a reasonably apprehended attack,” the director said.
Martino also concluded that the use of force by the SO was reasonable given the circumstances.
“If the SO genuinely believed the Complainant had taken hold of a gun while attempting to escape police apprehension, as the evidence reasonably suggests he did, then the use of the firearm would appear commensurate with the exigencies of the situation,” the director said.
“At that moment, faced with the very real risk that the Complainant would use his gun against the officers, nothing short of a firearm had the immediate stopping power required to preserve the SO and others from grievous bodily harm or death.”
