For anyone who has wondered WHAT a NON-REDACTED "director's report looks like .. AND .. how the decision is explained to the family?  Read Below !!  Of Course .. We have decided to review the findings of the SIU?  And highlight the inaccuracies & exaggerations used to justify the decision to clear the officer(s) involved.

In the minutes that followed, the police received additional calls from citizens about a   male (Mr. MacIsaac) running and walking naked in the neighbourhood. Mr. MacIsaac   eventually made his way onto Dring Street. He approached the driver’s side door of a   pickup truck and banged forcefully on the window

 He then took aim at another female   motorist in the area, pounding on the hood of her         vehicle and the driver's door window.    He did the same to another female who was in her   vehicle parked on her driveway having   just returned home at 7 Dring Street.   That   female drove away as Mr. MacIsaac   approached her with a large rock retrieved from a   rock garden.

Mr. MacIsaac proceeded  onto the front porch of of that residence, picked up a patio   table and used it to strike the front door.

 Director’s Decision Under s. 113(7) of the Police Services Act

     There are no reasonable grounds, in my view, to believe that the subject officer,   Constable Brian Taylor, committed a criminal offence in connection with the shooting and   death of Michael MacIsaac on December 2 and 3, 2013, respectively.

     There is no doubt that Cst. Taylor shot Mr. MacIsaac twice on Dring Street in Ajax   on the morning of December 2, 2013. It is clear that the gunshot wounds sustained by   Mr. MacIsaac were the cause of his death, which occurred in hospital the following day.   For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the officer’s use of lethal force against Mr.   MacIsaac was legally justified notwithstanding the dire consequences.

 

     The eyewitness accounts of the events in question provided by a number of civilians,   the subject officer himself and two witness officers on scene at the time paint a fairly   clear picture of what occurred. The story begins on December 2, 2013 with a violent   outburst at   home on the part of Mr. MacIsaac, related it seems to a medical history of     head trauma sustained in childhood.  According to Mr. MacIsaac's sister in law at about   9:45 naked and belligerent Mr. MacIsaac confronted his wife and attacked her when   his  sister in law attempted to intervene he threatened her with death and physically   assaulted   her.  Still naked, Mr. McIsaac left the residence the sister in law called the   police and   reported the assaults.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The   table broke and Mr. MacIsaac was left holding two of its legs – made of   metal and measuring   about 94 centimetres in length. It is just about this time that /Cst.   Taylor, Cst. Williams and Cst. Brown arrived on Dring Street.

     With the police now on scene, things moved very quickly.  A male bystander attracted   Cst. Taylor's attention and pointed him in Mr. MacIsaac’s direction. The subject officer   exited his vehicle and was making his way around the rear driver’s side when he was   confronted by Mr. MacIsaac moving in his direction. Mr. MacIsaac was in possession of   one of the two metal poles (having dropped the other one) and was brandishing it in a   threatening fashion.   Fearing an imminent attack, the officer drew his firearm, pointed it at   Mr. MacIsaac and ordered him to stop and drop the weapon.

     Mr. MacIsaac continued to   advance towards the  officer, prompting Cst. Taylor to shoot twice. Mr. MacIsaac was   felled by the shots and restrained by the officers, who proceeded to administer first aid   until paramedics arrived.

Cst. Taylor says he shot Mr. MacIsaac believing it to be necessary to thwart what he   believed to be a lethal threat heading in his direction. I believe him. An honest belief   in the   necessity of a resort to lethal force will not avail the officer,   however, unless such a belief   was objectively reasonable in the   circumstances. Here, too, I am satisfied the officer is on   firm ground. The context is   important. In what appears to have been an episode of bizarre   behaviour related to a   neurological condition, Mr. MacIsaac had set upon a violent course  on the morning in   question. He physically attacked his wife and her sister without warning or provocation.   He then left his home unclothed and walked and ran along neighbourhood roads until   finding himself on Dring Street, where he angrily confronted motorists and destroyed a   patio table. Cst. Taylor would not have been aware of much this. However, the evidence   is important because it lends credence to the officer’s fear at the time he discharged his   firearm. Put simply, Mr. MacIsaac was a perceived and real threat.

     Narrowing in on the circumstances that immediately prevailed at the time of the   shooting, Mr. MacIsaac was moving in the officer’s direction brandishing a metal patio   table leg. The witnesses gave various descriptions of the object, but a common descriptor   was that it was metal and about three feet in length. About this they were right. The object,   a patio table leg, in fact measures some 94 centimetres (3.08 feet) in length and consists   of metal. Having personally examined the item, I have no doubt that it could be used as a   weapon to inflict  grievous bodily harm or death.

 

The weight of the evidence also   establishes that Mr. MacIsaac was within close proximity of Cst. Taylor at the time of the   shooting. Again,  this distance is variously described by the witnesses within a range of   about five to seven  feet. A short video clip taken by one of the eyewitnesses of what   appears to be the   immediate aftermath of the shooting depicts the subject officer within   the range described   by the witnesses.

 

The evidence varies as to whether Cst.   Taylor shot twice in immediate succession, or whether there was a discernible pause     between the two shots. Cst. Taylor suggests he fired once and, noticing no apparent   effect on Mr. MacIsaac and believing he might have missed his target, shot again. Some   third party witnesses support the officer’s account on this score. And of those who   describe consecutive shots, none say that Mr. MacIsaac was shot after he was on the   ground.

 

 

In the final analysis, the evidence indicates that Cst Taylor was in the lawful   discharge of his duties when he was confronted by a violent aggressor, armed with a   metal table leg approximately one metre in length who was bearing down on him in a   threatening fashion.   He says that seeing Mr. MacIsaac approaching him he thought that   “he was going to get his head pummeled in.” When, after ordering him to stop and drop   his weapon, Mr. MacIsaac moved menacingly to within striking distance, he indicates he   shot Mr. MacIsaac then while thinking, “Don’t miss, I have to shoot or he is going to drive   that thing through my skull.   He’s going to kill me.” In the circumstances, the officer’s fear   for his life seems a reasonable   one to have harboured, as was his belief that lethal force   was necessary to preserve   himself. 

 

 

Consequently, whether pursuant to section 25(3) of   the Criminal Code (prescribing   the ambit of justifiable force by police officers in the   discharge of their duty) or section 34 of   the Code (setting out the defence of self-   defence), I am satisfied the shooting in question   was legally justified.

 Date: May 26, 2014

Michael - "Dude, where are my clothes?" - Unknown Artist
00:00 / 00:00

Where physical evidence has been destroyed, and the opposing party hasn’t been given the opportunity to inspect or test that evidence, the court can also preclude the admission of expert reports or testimony relating to that evidence. Other sanctions include costs orders against the spoliating party and even the potential dismissal of a claim.

Recently, Canadian courts opened up the possibility of an independent tort of spoliation. This broadens the principle to include not only the sanctions discussed above, but also an independent cause of action and monetary damages for spoliation.

Whether or not sanctions will be imposed – and what those sanctions will be – depend upon a variety of factors. Sanctions are infrequently imposed, for example, when the destruction or inference with evidence is not intentional. Even in such cases, however, sanctions are possible if the prejudice to the other party is great, or if the spoliation resulted from bad faith dealings – even if those bad faith dealings don’t amount to intentional destruction. The purpose of having sanctions imposed on an opposing party in litigation is to:

* Prove evidence has been altered or destroyed,

* Prove you have suffered prejudice as a result, and

* Demonstrate the sanctions you propose will correct or address that prejudice.