‘Shots fired, shots fired’: SIU report details midtown Toronto shooting that left cop injured

Toronto Police work the scene where a police officer was shot in Toronto, on Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2024. The officer was rushed to hospital with life-threatening injuries. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Arlyn McAdorey (The Canadian Press)

Ontario’s police watchdog has released its final report into a midtown Toronto shooting in October, revealing the circumstances that led to an officer being shot in the stomach.

The incident happened on the afternoon of Oct. 2 in an underground parking lot of a building near Yonge Street and Eglinton Avenue East. According to the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), two plainclothes officers were looking for a stolen Honda Civic linked to a series of robberies.

FULL REPORT: SIU Concludes Investigation into Toronto Officer’s Gunfire at Man

The officers found the vehicle parked in the parking garage and sealed its doors. They then arranged to have a tow truck move the Civic to a secure location.

The SIU said that as the two officers were waiting, they saw two suspects walking towards the Civic. When they reached the vehicle, the officers emerged from a van and confronted the suspects.

One suspect, the SIU said, dropped to his knees as directed and was handcuffed by one officer. However, the other suspect, referred to in the SIU report as the 21-year-old Complainant, ran away, prompting the second officer to chase after him.

“Unknown to the officer at the time, the Complainant had a handgun in the area of his right waistband,” the SIU said.

The Complainant was struck by a vehicle as he was running towards the parking lot exit, which sent him tumbling into the front of a pickup truck.

The SIU said as a result, the second officer, identified as WO#1 in the report, took hold of him on the ground and brought his arms behind his back.

“The Complainant freed his arms from the officer’s hold and attempted to stand up. There followed a struggle in which the parties grappled with each other for upwards of a minute – the Complainant attempting to break loose of the WO#1’s hold, and WO #1 trying to keep him on the ground,” the SIU said.

“As the parties wrestled, the Complainant retrieved his firearm with his right hand. Moments later, with the officer front-first on the Complainant’s back, the two still on the ground, the Complainant’s gun discharged.”

The SIU said the officer then rolled off the Complainant while holding his lower left abdomen where he had been shot.

The Complainant returned to the Civic, subsequently dropping the gun as he was walking.

The SIU said at the same time, the other officer, who was still dealing with the other suspect, fired a shot in the Complainant’s direction but did not hit him.

The Complainant was able to get in the Civic and exit the garage. According to the SIU, he would later turn himself in to police. He was later charged with attempted murder as well as numerous firearm-related offences, failure to comply with a probation order, breach of a firearm prohibition order and breach of a probation order.

Toronto police communication recordings obtained by the SIU captured the sound of a single gunshot. A few seconds later, the other officer is heard yelling, “Shots fired, shots fired.”

He later told dispatch that his partner had been shot in the abdomen. Other officers shortly arrived and one of them informed dispatch that the injured officer was conscious and breathing and that the bullet wound appeared to be “through and through.”

No charges against officer who fired at the Complainant

The SIU was only looking into the conduct of the officer who fired his gun at the Complainant. The officer is designated as the subject official or SO in the investigation.

While the Complainant was injured, the officer’s firearm discharge falls under the SIU’s mandate.

“On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the discharge of his firearm,” SIU Director Joseph Martino said in the report.

Martino stated that he was satisfied the officer fired his weapon to defend himself from the Complainant who was running towards him holding a gun.

“There is also evidence that WO #1 called out to the SO about a gun moments after he had been shot, and that the SO would have been aware of his partner’s warning as the Complainant ran in his direction,” the SIU director said.

Martino, who reviewed surveillance footage from the parking garage, pointed out that the officer fired a split-second after the Complainant dropped his gun on the ground. But he said that did not disqualify the officer from defence.

“If the SO’s life was no longer strictly at risk the exact moment he pulled the trigger, his apprehension of a lethal threat remained a reasonable one in light of the fraught situation in which the officer found himself and the allowance that must be made for the delay inherent in reaction time,” Martino added.

The shot fired constituted reasonable force in self-defence, the SIU director concluded. Martino said withdrawal or retreat were not realistically available to the officer given the speed of the unfolding situation.

“If the officer believed that his life was in danger because of the advance of the Complainant and the gun in his hands, an apprehension supported by the evidence, than it would appear he had little option but to resort to the immediate stopping power that only gunfire could provide if he was going to preserve himself,” he said.