Use of Force by the Toronto Police Service Final Report

Use of force by the

Toronto Police Service

Final report

Dr. Scot Wortley, PhD, Associate Professor

Centre of Criminology and Sociolegal Studies,

University of Toronto

Dr. Ayobami Laniyonu, PhD, Assistant Professor

Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies,

University of Toronto

Erick Laming, Doctoral Candidate

Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies,

University of Toronto

Use of force by the

Toronto Police Service

Final report

Dr. Scot Wortley, PhD, Associate Professor

Centre of Criminology and Sociolegal Studies,

University of Toronto

Dr. Ayobami Laniyonu, PhD, Assistant Professor

Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies

University of Toronto

Erick Laming, Doctoral Candidate

Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies,

University of Toronto

Submitted to the Ontario Human Rights Commission: July 2020

ISBN: 978-1-4868-4617-7 PRINT

978-1-4868-4618-4 PDF

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3

Part A: ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Literature review: race and police use of force .................................................................. 5

Race and use of force: American research ................................................................................ 8

Race and use of force: Canadian research ................................................................................ 9

Racial disparity in context.......................................................................................................... 12

The results of multivariate analyses ........................................................................................ 22

Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 26

Part B: Community perceptions of racial bias .................................................................. 29

Part C: An examination of Special Investigations Unit cases involving

the Toronto Police Service .............................................................................................. 34

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 34

Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 35

Measuring racial disparity ......................................................................................................... 38

Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 40

The impact of sex ....................................................................................................................... 41

Cause of civilian injury ............................................................................................................... 44

Civilian injury not caused by police .......................................................................................... 46

Civilian injury caused by police-involved traffic accidents ..................................................... 46

Sexual assault cases ................................................................................................................... 47

Police use of force cases ............................................................................................................ 52

Police shooting cases ................................................................................................................. 56

Police use of force cases that resulted in civilian death ........................................................ 57

Police shooting deaths ............................................................................................................... 59

The context of police use of force ...................................................................................... 62

Civilian behaviour at time of use of force encounter

............................................................. 62

Possession of a weapon ............................................................................................................ 64

Possession of a weapon during police shootings ................................................................... 67

Civilian criminal history at time of police use of force incidents .......................................... 68

Civilian mental health at time of police use of force incidents ............................................. 69

Civilian impairment at time of police encounter .................................................................... 71

Type of police contact ................................................................................................................ 72

Community-level crime rates .................................................................................................... 74

Outcomes of SIU investigations ................................................................................................ 78

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Problems with police cooperation ........................................................................................... 80

Toronto-American comparisons ............................................................................................... 82

Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 84

Part D: An analysis of TPS “lower-level” use of force cases ............................................. 86

Coders’ process of identifying and coding lower-level use of force cases ......................... 88

Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 90

Representation in TPS use of force reports ............................................................................ 93

Type of force used by TPS officers ........................................................................................... 94

Type of civilian injury ................................................................................................................. 96

Involvement of paramedics ....................................................................................................... 97

Location of civilian medical treatment ..................................................................................... 98

Nature of police contact ............................................................................................................ 99

Civilian behaviour during use of force incident .................................................................... 101

Civilian weapons ....................................................................................................................... 102

How civilian weapon identified ............................................................................................... 103

Civilian arrests .......................................................................................................................... 104

Fled police custody ................................................................................................................... 105

Resisting arrest charges........................................................................................................... 106

Civilian criminal record ............................................................................................................ 107

Civilian substance use .............................................................................................................. 107

Civilian mental health .............................................................................................................. 109

Community-level crime rates .................................................................................................. 110

Summary ................................................................................................................................... 112

Part E – Multivariate analysis of use of force cases ....................................................... 116

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 116

The data

Variables .................................................................................................................................... 117

Results ....................................................................................................................................... 118

Results from models that exclude patrol zones 51 and 52 ................................................. 122

Conclusion and limitations ...................................................................................................... 124

Part F: Explaining Black over-representation in police use of force statistics .......... 126

Explanatory models ................................................................................................................. 130

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 136

Appendix A: SIU case template: 2013 – 2017 data

.......................................................... 140

Appendix B: Lower-level use of force data collection template ................................... 151

References ........................................................................................................................... 170

..................................................................................................................................... 117

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Introduction

Police use of force against Black people has emerged as one of the most controversial

issues facing the law enforcement community in North America. In the United States, high-

profile use of force incidents – including the cases of Rodney King, Abner Louima, Amadou

Diallo, Timothy Thomas, Arthur McDuffie, Freddie Grey, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Tamir

Rice, Philando Castille, Ataliana Jefferson, Breonna Taylor and George Floyd – serve to increase

tensions between the Black community and the police and solidify perceptions that the police

are racially biased (Walker 2005; Walker et al. 2004; Joseph et al. 2003). The negative impact of

police violence on community cohesion can be profound. For example, over the past 30 years,

specific incidents of police violence against Black civilians have sparked major urban riots in

several American cities including Ferguson (Missouri), Miami (Florida), Cincinnati (Ohio), Los

Angeles (California) and New York City (New York). Allegations of police brutality against people

of African descent have also directly contributed to large-scale urban unrest in both France and

England (Kawalerowicz et al. 2015).

As in the United States and Europe, police use of force against Black, Indigenous and other

minority civilians has emerged as a controversial issue in Canada. Over the past few decades,

well publicized police use of force cases in both Ontario and Quebec – including the cases of

Dudley George, Lester Donaldson, Allen Gosset, Sophia Cook, Buddy Evans, Jeffrey Reodica,

Wade Lawson, Marlon Neal, Eric Osawe, Michael Elgin, Ozama Shaw, Tommy Barnett,

Raymond Lawrence, Sammy Yatim, Pierre Coriolan, Jermaine Carby, Andrew Loku, Abdirahman

Abdi, Olando Brown, Dafonte Miller, D’Andre Campbell and Ejaz Choudry – have led to

community allegations of police discrimination, demonstrations, urban unrest and the rise of

the “Black Lives Matter” social movement.

Police use of force is a crucially important issue. It directly engages with issues of public

safety and the safety of law enforcement officers. However, when done improperly, police

use of force can cause the unnecessary death or serious injury of civilians, undermine public

trust in the police and compromise the legitimacy of the entire criminal justice system. Finally,

police use of force can erode social cohesion and contribute to radicalization, riots and other

social control issues. Unfortunately, despite its importance, police use of force has been

subject to surprisingly little empirical research – especially in the Canadian context. The

following report attempts to address this gap. The authors of this report were retained by the

Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) to examine a sample of use of force cases involving

the Toronto Police Service (TPS) – Canada’s largest municipal law enforcement agency. Details

about this sample are provided in the methodology section.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

The report is divided into six sections. Part A provides a review of previous academic

research on police use of force conducted in both the United States and Canada. Part B

explores public perceptions of police use of force, against the Black community, using

data from two surveys of Toronto residents. Part C examines TPS use of force cases that

resulted in the death or serious injury of civilians. The data for this analysis was derived

from the Ontario government’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU). Part D examines data on

“less serious,” lower-level use of force cases derived from internal TPS records. These are

cases that allegedly did not meet the injury threshold needed to trigger a SIU investigation.

Part E presents a variety of multivariate statistical models designed to examine the impact

of race on police use of force incidents after controlling for other theoretically relevant,

patrol zone-level variables. The final section of the report (Part F) summarizes major results

and presents a variety of explanatory models that might help explain the over-representation

of Black people in Toronto police use of force statistics. These explanatory models may help

guide future policy development.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Part A:

Literature review: race and police use of force

Both Canadian and American experts have identified that there is a dearth of high-quality

data on police use of force cases. During a 2015 speech, James B. Comey, the former

Director for the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), clearly articulated the extreme

challenges associated with conducting research on police use of force. Director Comey

stated that:

Not long after riots broke out in Ferguson late last summer, I asked my staff to

tell me how many people shot by police were African American in this country.

I wanted to see trends. I wanted to see information. They couldn’t give it to me,

and it wasn’t their fault. Demographic data regarding officer-involved shootings

is not consistently reported to us through our Uniform Crime Reporting Program.

Because reporting is voluntary, our data is incomplete and therefore, in the

aggregate, unreliable (Comey, 2015, paras 32-33).

The fact that in 2015, America’s top cop could not easily assess up-to-date, accurate

information on police use of force is both surprising and troubling. The failure to create

a national police use of force database, is an issue that exists in the United States and

Canada as well as many other Western nations (see Zimring 2017). Interestingly, most

developed nations consistently generate reliable national statistics on both minor and

serious criminal activity – including minor theft, car theft, physical assaults and burglaries.

It is therefore disappointing that similar data collection practices have not been used to

produce accurate, reliable statistics on police use of force – including information on cases

that involve the death or serious injury of civilians.

The lack of quality use of force data is a long-standing issue. In 1931, after confirming

allegations of widespread police brutality across the United States, the Wickersham

Commission recommended that all police agencies collect data on police use of force

incidents (Shane, 2016). Since then, several other American commissions and inquiries

have noted the poor quality of police use of force statistics and called for improved data

collection practices. For example, the 2015 President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing

argued that: “policies on use of force should require agencies to collect, maintain, and

report data to the Federal Government on all officer-involved shootings, whether fatal or

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

non-fatal, as well as any in-custody death” (cited in Shane, 2016: p. 3). Unfortunately, this

recommendation has not yet been translated into policy. In other words, U.S. law enforcement

agencies are still not legally required to report details about use of force incidents.

Zimring (2017) examines three U.S efforts to collect national data on police killings of civilians:

1) the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS); 2) the Uniform Crime Report’s Supplemental

Homicide Reporting System (which documents “justifiable homicides” involving police officers);

and 3) the Bureau of Justice Statistics Arrest-Related Deaths Program. Drawing on insights from

an FBI data quality exercise, along with information from crowd-sourced and media-compiled

datasets, Zimring (2017) argues that the U.S. government typically undercounts the true

number of police killing by more than half. While government statistics estimate that the

annual number of civilians killed by police in the United States is approximately 500, the true

figure appears to be closer to 1,000 (Zimring, 2017).

This gap emerges because the reporting of police killings – let alone less serious use of force

incidents – is only voluntary. Some services provide data on all incidents, others provide data

on only some incidents, while others provide no data at all. Zimring also questions the validity

and completeness of the police data that is provided to federal agencies and laments that

there are no data quality assurance checks. He notes that some police services may not want

to provide information that could cause reputational damage or challenge the legitimacy of

officers’ use of force decision-making (see also Ross 2015; Nix 2017; Williams et al. 2016). In

other words, even when data is provided by American police services, there are concerns that

it is often incomplete and/or inaccurate.

The data situation in Canada is even worse than the United States. Currently there is no

Canadian effort – voluntary or otherwise – to create a national database on police killings

or other police use of force incidents. Statistics Canada only tracks cases involving the very

small number of police officers who have been criminally charged with killing a civilian (Gillis,

2015). As a general practice, local police agencies in Canada also do not release official

statistics on use of force cases (Carmichael & Kent, 2015; Wortley, 2006). Furthermore, the

methodologies used to collect use of force data vary greatly between jurisdictions (Kiedrowski

et al., 2015). In 2015, to counter these limitations, a Federal/Provincial/Territorial Use of Force

Working Group was given the mandate to share information on use of force reporting policies

and practices with the goal of improving the quality of Canadian use of force data (Kiedrowski

et al., 2015). However, this working group has yet to materialize and no apparent progress has

been made in establishing a national database on police use of force in Canada.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

For many years, both researchers and community advocates have been arguing for better

data collection and reporting on police use of force incidents (see Royal Commission on

the Donald Marshall, Jr. Prosecution 1989; Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario

Criminal Justice System 1996; Foster et al. 2016; United Nations 2017). For example, Kane

(2007: 773) argues that “all police departments should adopt as a collective professional

standard the practices of (1) collecting comprehensive data on all coercive activities,

including disciplinary actions, and (2) making those data available with minimal filtering

and justification to members of the polity.” Hickman et al. (2008) note that local and

federal governments collect and report very little information about non-lethal (lower-level)

use of force cases. In the U.S., the only systematic, national-level indicator of police use of force

is the Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS) administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

Unfortunately, this survey may grossly underestimate the true extent of police use of force

because it excludes recently arrested and incarcerated persons (Hickman et al., 2008; Engel,

2008). Hickman et al. (2008) propose that using a Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (SILJ),

in combination with the PPCS, would provide a more sound and complete estimate of police

use of force incidents. However, they also note that the use of multiple sources can produce

data problems because of inconsistencies in collection and reporting practices (Klinger, 2008;

Williams, Bowman & Jung, 2016).

Researchers have also been vocal in highlighting that law enforcement agencies are often

uncooperative with respect to documenting use of force incidents. Smith (2008) reveals

that several attempts have been made to encourage police services to voluntarily report

use of force incidents for research and policy-development purposes. Little progress has

been made. Indeed, even when police services have been legislated to provide information

on use of force cases, resistance is common. For example, the Violent Crime Control and

Law Enforcement Act of 1994 required the Attorney General to collect data on police use

of excessive force and to publish annual reports from the data (McEwen, 1996). However,

the majority of police agencies failed to report cases of excessive force because they are

protected under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (Hickman & Poore, 2015;

Shane, 2016). In other words, policing is the responsibility of state legislatures and the

federal government cannot mandate local police agencies to report use of force data. This

creates a significant challenge with respect to creating a national database on police use

of force. Similar obstacles exist in Canada – since policing remains the responsibility of

provincial and territorial governments.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

The discussion above illustrates that, despite great public interest and policy relevance,

data collection and reporting on police use of force has been stalled, if not fiercely resisted,

by the policing community. As a result, in both the United States and Canada, research on

police killings and other use of force incidents is very limited. The research that does exist

has typically been conducted by individual researchers, special commissions of inquiry,

human rights agencies, local governments, police oversight agencies and media outlets.

Most academic researchers acknowledge the limitations of existing data and caution that

findings should be “interpreted with a grain of salt.” Others warn that, without a national

dataset, it is difficult, if not impossible, to compare use of force practices across jurisdictions or

draw broad conclusions about when the police are likely to use – or refrain from using – force

(Zimring 2017). The reader is thus advised to consider these data limitations while reviewing

the research results – on the police use of force against members of the Black community –

presented in the next section of this report.

Race and use of force: American research

Research on race and police use of force is much more prevalent in the United States than

Canada. The large racial disparities uncovered by these studies are not in dispute. Study

after study, conducted at different periods of time and in different regions of the country,

have found that African Americans are significantly over-represented in police shootings

and other cases involving police use of force (see reviews in Geller and Toch 1995; Rahtz

2003; Walker et al. 2004; Lersch and Mieczkowski 2005; Ross 2015; Zimring 2017; Menifield

et al. 2018). Importantly, research also suggests that the over-representation of African

Americans in use of force cases has declined significantly over the past 30 years. For

example, in the 1970s, American police shot and killed eight Black people for every one

White person. By 1998 that ratio had been reduced to 4:1 (see Walker 2005; Walker et al

2004). Nonetheless, by 2018, the available data suggest that Black Americans are still twice

as likely to be shot and killed by police than their White counterparts. Less is known about

other types of use of force.

Over the past several years, the Washington Post has carefully collected detailed data on all

police shooting deaths across the United States. These statistics are posted and updated

daily on their website

. In 2018, the Post recorded 992 police shooting fatalities. Twenty-

three percent of these shootings involved Black civilians, although Black people represent

only 13% of the American population. Furthermore, the Black police shooting rate (5.2 per

million) was 2.3 times greater than the White rate (2.3 per million). Findings based on the

Washington Post dataset are consistent. According to the Post, between 2015 and 2019, the

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

U.S. experienced between 967 and 998 police killings per year. Each year, between 22%

and 26% of all cases involved Black civilians. The rates are particularly high for Black males.

Over the past decade, studies using different local and national datasets have produced

very similar results (see Zimring 2017). It should be noted that, in approximately 10% of all

police shooting cases in the United States, the race of the civilian is listed as “unknown.”

If any of these “unknown” cases are, in fact, African American, racial disparities in police

shooting statistics could be even higher than documented by recent studies (Zimring 2017).

Finally, emerging American research further suggests that racial disparities exist with respect

to the police use of other use of force tactics – including Conducted Energy Weapons (CEWs),

pepper spray, baton use and open/closed handed techniques (see Goff et al. 2016; Crow &

Adrion, 2011; Gau et al., 2009; Lin & Jones, 2010).

Race and use of force: Canadian research

Despite growing public concern and allegations of police racial bias with respect to the use

of physical force, very little Canadian research has actually addressed this issue. Although a

growing number of studies have documented possible discrimination in other areas of the

criminal justice process – including racial differences in police surveillance practices (racial

profiling), racial differences in arrest decisions, racial differences in pre-trial outcomes and

racial differences in criminal sentencing – detailed research has yet to be conducted on

racial differences in the police use of force (see Tator and Henry 2006; Tanovich 2006;

Wortley and Marshall 2005; Wortley 2004).

Early Canadian studies were plagued by methodological issues, including small sample

sizes and a reliance on newspaper coverage of police shooting incidents. For example,

using media sources, Gabriella Pedicelli (1998) examined police shootings in Toronto

and Montreal between 1994 and 1997. She found that although Black people represented

less than 2% of Montreal’s Black population in 1991, five of the 11 people shot and killed by the

police during the study period (45%) were Black males. Similarly, although African Canadians

represented only 3.3% of Toronto’s population in 1991, six of the 12 civilians (50%) shot and

killed by the police during the study period were Black males (Pedicelli 1998: 63). A case-

by-case analysis of particularly controversial cases led Pedicelli to conclude that police officials

are often able to legitimize police violence by claiming that it is a normal reaction when

dealing with ethnic groups that are prone to “criminality” and “violence.”

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Furthermore, police officer claims that they had to make “split-second decisions” during

violent, “life and death” confrontations with civilians are usually enough to have the incident

deemed a “justifiable homicide.” Police versions of shooting incidents are rarely challenged

by the media or government officials.

Phillip Stenning (1994) further explored the issue of police violence by interviewing 150

inmates from three provincial detention centers in the Greater Toronto Area. In contrast to

Pedicelli’s work, Stenning found little evidence of racial differences in experiences with police

use of force. While Black inmates were much more likely to report verbal abuse

and racial insults during arrest situations, they were not more likely to report police brutality.

However, the author cautions that these findings are far from conclusive because they are

based on interviews with a small, non-random sample of prison inmates. Indeed, only 51 Black

inmates were interviewed as part of this study. Furthermore, this study did not examine racial

differences in the use of deadly force or police violence that led to serious injury.

A 2006 study, conducted on behalf of the Ipperwash Inquiry, examined police use of force

cases documented by Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit. This study revealed that both

Black and Indigenous people were highly over-represented in Ontario police use of force

cases (Wortley 2006). By contrast, White people and members of other racial groups –

including South Asians and Asians – were significantly under-represented. The SIU

is a

civilian law enforcement agency that conducts investigations into incidents involving police

officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The SIU

is independent of the police and is arm’s length to the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Between January 2000 and June 2006, the SIU conducted 784 investigations. While Black

people represented only 3.6% of the Ontario population, they represented 12% of all

civilians involved in SIU investigations, 16% of SIU investigations involving police use of

force, and 27% of all investigations into police shootings. Additional analysis indicates that

the police shooting rate for Black Ontario residents (4.9 per 100,000) was 7.5 times higher

than the overall provincial rate (0.65 per 100,000) and 10.1 times greater than the rate for

White civilians (0.48 per 100,000).

Finally, when examining cases where the death of a civilian was caused by police use of

force, the over-representation of Black people becomes even more pronounced: Black

people represent 27% of all deaths caused by police use of force and 34.5% of all deaths

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

caused by police shootings. The police shooting death rate for Black people (1.95 per

100,000) is 9.7 times greater than the provincial rate (0.20 per 100,000) and 16 times

greater than the rate for White people (0.12 per 100,000). The results for Indigenous people

were strikingly similar.

In another recent study, Carmichael and Kent (2014) examined variations in police killings

across 39 of Canada’s largest cities over a 15-year period. Information on police use of

force cases was derived from media accounts, not official statistics. The results of their

pooled time-series analysis are highly consistent with the ethnic threat hypothesis: police

killings are positively associated with the size of an urban centre’s racial minority population. In

other words, cities with high racial minority populations experience more cases of lethal police

activity than cities with small racial minority populations. This relationship persists even after

controlling for crime rate and various measures of socioeconomic disadvantage. Interestingly,

Carmichael and Kent (2014) also found that the greater the representation of female officers,

the lower the rate of police killing. The relationship between officer gender and use of force is

discussed further below. A limitation of this study is that it does not disaggregate the racial

minority category. In other words, the study cannot determine whether Canadian cities with

high Black populations have higher use of force rates than cities with high populations of other

racial minority groups.

The relationship between race and police use of force in Canada was further confirmed

by the release of a CBC report

in June 2018. A team of CBC researchers had scoured both

police reports and media accounts to compile a dataset of 461 individuals who had been

killed by police activity, in Canada, from 2000 to 2017. This is likely the first attempt at

establishing a national dataset of lethal use of force cases in Canada. The results strongly

indicate that both Indigenous and African Canadians are grossly over-represented in police

use of force incidents that result in death. For example, although Black people represented

less than 2.5% of Canada’s population during this period, they comprised almost 8% of all

police killings. Black over-representation was particularly large in certain urban centres. For

example, during this 17-year period, Black people in Toronto made up approximately 8.3%

of the city’s population. By contrast, they comprised nearly 37% of Toronto residents killed

Toronto data from this broader study of Ontario use of force cases will be explored in more detail

in Section C of this report.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

by police use of force. It is also important to note that in 22% of all cases, the CBC could

not identify the race of the civilian. In other words, if any of these missing cases involved

individuals of African Canadian background, Black over-representation in deadly force

incidents would actually be higher than the numbers above already indicate.

In sum, Canadian research on police violence has been greatly hindered by the fact that

police services in this country do not routinely collect or release official statistics on police

shootings or other use of force incidents.

Moreover, research on racial differences in

policing outcomes is equally difficult to conduct because there has traditionally been an

informal “ban” on the dissemination of any type of information that breaks down criminal

justice statistics – including police shootings – by civilian racial background (see Wortley

1999). Nonetheless, the limited Canadian data that does exist strongly suggests that, as in

the United States, Black Canadians are over-represented in police use of force statistics.

This disparity is an issue that deserves more research and policy attention.

Racial disparity in context

While there is little debate in the U.S about the fact that Black people are over-represented

in police use of force statistics, there is considerable debate among criminologists, police

officials and politicians about the reasons for that over-representation. In summarizing the

American research on deadly force by police, Locke (1996: 135) observes that: “What every

single study of police use of fatal force has found is that persons of colour (principally Black

males) are a disproportionally high number of the persons shot by the police compared

to their representation in the general population. Where the studies diverge are the

reasons for that disproportionality.” On the one hand, some argue that racial disparities

are a product of bias. Others, however, maintain that racial disparities are a product of

legitimate police practices.

Some American scholars and social critics have argued that a combination of explicit,

implicit and systemic racism explains the fact that Black people are more likely to be the

victim of police violence than members of the White majority. In order to support this

There is some evidence that the willingness to collect and disseminate race-based data has

recently increased among some Canadian policing agencies. For example, over the past year, both

the Toronto Police Services Board and Ontario’s Special Investigation Unit have committed to

collecting data on the race of civilians involved in police use of force incidents. However, it appears

that this data will not be available for a couple of years.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

argument, these authors frequently highlight specific cases in which the police have clearly

used excessive force when dealing with Black citizens (the Rodney King case, the Abner Louima

case, the Amadou Diallo case, the Tamir Rice case, the Freddie Grey case, the Michael Brown

case, the George Floyd case, etc.). They note that almost all of the “questionable” police

shooting deaths in the United States have involved African American males. Others focus on

the fact that Black males are particularly over-represented in official statistics that document

unarmed citizens who have been shot and killed by the police (see Ross 2015). For example,

Nix and his colleagues (2017) found that, in 2015, 38 of the 99 unarmed persons killed by a

police shooting were described as Black (38%), even though Black people represent only 13%

of the U.S. population. Overall, this study found that Black people were twice as likely as White

people to have been unarmed when shot and killed by the police. Support for the racism

hypothesis is further supported by survey results which suggest that the majority of Black

police officers in the United States feel that White officers are more likely to use physical force

against Black citizens than White citizens (Mann 1993; Sparger and Glacopassi 1992; Locke

1995; Tagagi 1978; Locke 1996; Walker et al. 2004).

Recently, scholars have argued that the over-representation of Black people in use of force

statistics may be strongly associated with racial bias at earlier stages of the policing process.

Racial profiling research, for instance, indicates that young Black males are much more likely

to be stopped and searched by the police than their White counterparts (Tanovich 2006;

Wortley 2018). In other words, Black youths have many more antagonistic street encounters or

confrontations with the police than White youths. This fact alone increases the probability that,

compared to White people, Black people may eventually become involved in a police

encounter that will escalate into a use of force incident (Menfield et al. 2018).

Despite these compelling results, most American policing scholars have nonetheless

argued that the positive correlation between Black racial background and police use of

force does not prove that there is a problem with police racism or racial bias. They argue

that disparity does not prove discrimination. The argument is that other factors, besides

race, must be taken into account before the presence of racial bias can be established.

Some of the most important variables – including civilian characteristics, officer characteristics

and situational factors – are described below.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Civilian characteristics

Gender: Males are significantly over-represented in American use of force statistics.

For example, over the past decade, males have constituted 90% to 95% of civilians killed

by police shootings in the United States, although they represent only 50% of the U.S.

population. Several studies suggest that, controlling for situational factors, the police are

more likely to use force – or greater levels of force – against male than female suspects

(Garner, Maxwell, & Heraux, 2002; McCluskey, Terrill, & Paoline, 2005; Terrill & Mastrofski,

2002; Terrill & Reisig, 2003; Terrill, Paoline, & Manning, 2003; Crawford & Burns, 1998;

Schuck, 2004; Terrill, 2005; Kaminski, Digiovanni and Downs 2004). By contrast, only a

handful of studies have found that suspect gender has no impact on the use of force

decisions (Engel, Sobol, & Worden, 2000; Lawton, 2007; Morabito & Doerner, 1997).

Age: In general, American research suggests that age is negatively associated with police

use of force. A number of studies suggest that, controlling for situational factors, officers

are more likely to administer force against younger than older civilians (McCluskey & Terrill,

2005; Paoline & Terrill, 2007; Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002; Terrill & Reisig, 2003). However,

some studies found that age is not a significant predictor of the level of force used by the

police (Crawford & Burns, 1998; Engel et al., 2000; Kaminski et al., 2004; Terrill et al., 2008).

Since American Census estimates suggest that the Black population is significantly younger

than the White population, racial differences in age might help explain racial disparities in

police use of force.

Socio-economic status: Despite the strong bivariate correlation between race and police

violence, some critical criminologists have argued that the over-representation of African

Americans in use of force incidents is more about social class than race (Walker et al. 2004).

They maintain that, regardless of race, police tactics of control and coercion are focused on

poor, socially disadvantaged segments of society. As Klockars (1996: 13) notes, when it comes

to police abuse, lower-class people are “the persons who are the least likely to complain and

the least likely to be believed if they do.” Thus, the over-representation of African Americans

in use of force cases could be partially explained by their over-representation in poor, socially

disadvantaged communities. This explanation is far from comforting. In theory, police

discrimination against poor people is just as upsetting – and unethical – as police

discrimination against racial minorities. A policing focus on poverty also represents a

form of systemic racism – since Black and other racialized groups are over-represented

within economically disadvantaged communities.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Despite the theoretical relevance of social class, research findings with respect to civilian

social class and use of force are somewhat inconclusive (Klahm & Tillyer, 2010). While

several studies suggest that there is a negative relationship between socio-economic class

and use of force (Friedrich, 1980; McCluskey & Terrill, 2005; Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002; Terrill

& Reisig, 2003), other studies indicate only a weak, statistically insignificant relationship (Sun &

Payne, 2004; Paoline & Terrill, 2005). It is important, however, to interpret any findings related

to civilian socio-economic class with caution. Social class, at the individual level of analysis,

is difficult to measure. Some studies have been criticized for using unreliable observer

perceptions of civilian social class rather than self-reports (see Weitzer & Tuch, 2004;

Klahm & Tillyer 2010).

Criminal record: A number of scholars have argued that police use of force studies should

try to control for civilian criminal history. Indeed, previous research suggests that a high

proportion of civilians involved in use of force cases have a previous criminal record

(see reviews in Menifield et al. 2018, Zimring 2017). Previous criminality may increase

the likelihood that a civilian will draw legitimate police attention, resist arrest and act in

a violent or aggressive manner towards law enforcement officials. Police officers may

also become “vigilant” when dealing with known violent offenders. Hypervigilance, in

turn, could increase the likelihood that force will be used. Importantly, in the absence of

more precise situational information, criminal record has often been used as a “proxy”

measure for civilian behavior during police encounters. Civilian criminal record, in other

words, is often used to legitimize use of force decisions (i.e., the person had a criminal

record and therefore must deserve the force they received). Critics, however, maintain

that a criminal record does not justify police use of force. For example, a person cannot

be shot by the police just because they have a criminal record. These scholars argue

that it is much more important to measure situational factors – including a civilian’s

actual behavior during police encounters – than criminal history.

Situational factors

Civilian impairment: Some scholars have suggested that civilian impairment could increase

the likelihood of police use of force. The logic is that persons, intoxicated on drugs or alcohol,

may act in a more irrational, aggressive or violent manner towards the police and eventually

compel police action. However, the empirical evidence is mixed. While some studies suggest

that civilian impairment increases the likelihood of police use of force (Engel et al., 2000;

Friedrich, 1980; McCluskey & Terrill, 2005; McCluskey et al., 2005; Paoline & Terrill, 2007; Terrill

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

& Mastrofski, 2002; Terrill et al., 2003; Terrill et al., 2008), other studies reveal no significant

relationship between intoxication and use of force decisions (Lawton, 2007; Morabito &

Doerner, 1997; Crawford & Burns, 1998). Doubt has also been raised about the validity of

“civilian intoxication” measures. Civilian intoxication measures are often based on officer

perceptions rather than self-reports and physiological testing. There are also concerns

that officers often conflate civilian intoxication with symptoms of mental illness.

Civilian mental illness: Civilian mental illness can be viewed as both an individual

characteristic and a situational variable. A growing body of American evidence suggests

that a large proportion of all police use of force cases involves civilians with mental

illness and/or experiencing a mental health crisis at the time of their interaction with

police (Morabito and Socia, 2015; Parent 2011). This includes cases of severe depression

in which civilians try to induce “suicide by cop.” It is hypothesized that, as with cases

of civilian intoxication, people in mental crisis may appear “irrational” during police

encounters, fail to obey police instructions, or act in a violent or threatening manner

towards police officers. All of these factors may increase fear and concerns about

officer safety and ultimately increase the likelihood of a use of force event.

Although a topic of growing public concern, empirical research on the relationship between

mental health and police use of force is quite limited. Most research on this topic has only

examined police perceptions of mental illness rather than official diagnoses or civilian self-

reports (Desmarais et al., 2014; Livingston et al., 2014; Watson, Corrigan & Ottati, 2004;

Wells & Schafer, 2006; Engel, 2015; Hails & Borum, 2003; Morabito, 2007; Morabito & Socia,

2015; Parent, 2007). It is estimated that approximately 10% of all police-civilian encounters

involve people with a mental illness (Hails & Borum, 2003; Morabito, 2007).

A number of studies have also produced findings that suggest a positive relationship between

mental illness and the likelihood of experiencing police use of force incidents. For example,

Bailey, Smock, Melendez and El-Mallakh (2016) found that the police are more likely to deploy

CEWs (Tasers) on mentally ill persons than on others. Similarly, Hall et al., (2013) found that

one in six use of force incidents involves a person exhibiting common signs of Excited Delirium

(often associated with a mental illness). Further, Parent (2011) examined all police killings in

British Columbia over a 10-year period and found that one-third of all cases involved a person

in mental health crisis.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

However, other studies suggest that mental illness has no impact on use of force decisions

(see Morabito & Socia, 2015). Moreover, in jurisdictions that have employed Crisis Intervention

Teams (CITs), use of force against persons with mental illness declines (Morabito et al., 2012).

CIT is a specialized police approach where officers are trained to effectively respond

and manage calls involving mentally ill persons and act as liaisons to the mental health

system (Morabito et al., 2012; see also Borum, Deane, Steadman, & Morrissey, 1998).

A major limitation of research on the policing of mentally ill populations involves the

identification of those with mental health problems. Data validity often depends on the ability

of individual police officers to identify the signs of mental illness and react accordingly.

As discussed above, officers often find it difficult to differentiate between people who are

impaired or intoxicated and people with mental health issues (Alpert, 2015; Morabito & Socia,

2015). As Morabito et al., (2012, p. 61) note: “police officers may encounter individuals who

have a mental illness and are also under the influence of drugs or alcohol – increasing their

difficulty in managing the incident and perhaps making it difficult for the officer to recognize

the mental illness.” Such measurement challenges may contribute to inconsistent research

findings and impede efforts to determine the true relationship between mental health and

police use of force.

Civilian behaviour during encounters with the police: Technically, the police are only

permitted to use physical force – including firearms – when they or others are either

threatened or attacked by a suspect. In other words, officers must fear for their own safety,

the safety of fellow officers, or the safety of other civilians before they make the decision

to use force. This fear must be considered reasonable. In support of this general principle,

previous research consistently reveals that, in a high proportion of police shooting cases,

civilians were alleged to have been threatening, attacking or shooting at police officers

(Balko 2014; Haider-Markel et al. 2017; Klinger et al. 2017; Zimring 2017). Research also

suggests that a high proportion of use of force derives from police attempts to arrest

suspects accused of criminal behavior. In many cases it is alleged that force is justified

because civilians have actively tried to resist arrest or avoid apprehension (Klahm & Tillyer,

2010). Most research suggests that officers enforcing an arrest are much more likely to use

force than officers involved in other types of civilian interaction (McCluskey & Terrill, 2005;

Paoline & Terrill, 2007; Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002; Terrill et al., 2003).

It is important to note, however, that research on the temporal ordering of the arrest/use of

force relationship is limited. Most studies, for example, are unable to determine whether force

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

was used before or after arrest initiation (Klahm & Tillyer, 2010). Furthermore, the

operationalization of “arrest” and “use of force” has been inconsistent across studies. Some

studies, in fact, classify arrests as a type of use of force – regardless of whether physical force

was used or not (see Alpert & Dunham, 2004). By contrast, other empirical studies measure

police use of force in terms of physical strikes and blows or the use of weapons against

civilians (see Bazley, Lersch, & Mieczkowski, 2007).

Civilian demeanour: Police scholars have also argued that the demeanour of civilians may

have a major impact on police decision making – including the decision to use force. Some

studies have observed that the police are more likely to use excessive force against citizens

who are argumentative, belligerent or defy their authority (Garner and Maxwell 2003;

Macdonald et al. 2003; Terrill 2003). It has been suggested that some police officers react

negatively to even legitimate questions from civilians. In other words, civilians who “flunk

the attitude test” or display “contempt of cop” may be more vulnerable to police violence

than those who are passive or compliant (see Worden 1995).

Other research has suggested that young Black males are more likely to be rude and

disrespectful towards the police than young White males (see Walker 2000). This has led

some to hypothesize that the poor or disrespectful demeanour some Black youth display

towards the police may partially explain their over-representation in police use of force

statistics. However, as with the social class hypothesis, the demeanour explanation

does not validate the over-representation of racial minorities in cases of police violence.

Poor civilian demeanour towards the police is not a legal justification for police use of

physical force.

Overall, the research record is mixed. Some studies indicate that police are more likely to

use force against suspects with poor demeanour towards the police (Brooks, 1993; Engel

et al., 2000; Garner et al., 2002), while other research suggests that civilian demeanour has

no impact (Paoline and Terrill, 2007; Terrill and Mastrofski, 2002; Terrill and Reisig, 2003).

Unfortunately, some scholars have questioned the measurement of civilian demeanour

and note that it has been operationalized inconsistently across studies (Klahm & Tillyer,

2010). Inconsistencies in the measurement of demeanour may, in fact, help explain

inconsistent results.

Previous research has also not explored the relationship between racial profiling and

civilian demeanour. This is an important oversight. For example, previous research (see

Wortley and Owusu-Bempah 2009; Wortley and Owusu-Bempah 2011) reveals that Black

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

people are much more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than White people.

Research also suggests that those who are frequently stopped and searched by the police

are more likely to develop negative attitudes towards the police and are more likely to believe

that the police are racially biased. These negative attitudes may translate into a more hostile,

non-compliant or questioning demeanour towards the police during subsequent police

encounters. Negative demeanour, in turn, could increase the likelihood of police use of force.

This is an issue that should be the subject of future research.

It should be further noted that some critics have suggested that researchers have focused

far too much on citizen demeanour towards the police and not enough on police demeanour

towards civilians (see Walker 1992; Walker 2000). Indeed, civilians may sometimes display

disrespectful or defiant attitudes towards the police as a response to police mistreatment,

verbal abuse or incivility. Is it the demeanour of citizens that leads to violent police encounters,

or does the demeanour of the police officer set the tone for many civilian-police interactions?

Presence of bystanders: Previous research has also examined whether the presence

of other police officers and/or civilian bystanders influences police use of force decisions.

Several studies have found that police officers are more likely to use force when additional

officers are present (Garner et al., 2002; Paoline & Terrill, 2007; and Terrill & Mastrofski,

2002). Other research has found no relationship between use of force and the number of

officers present (Engel et al., 2000; McCluskey, et al., 2005). To date, most studies suggest

that the presence of civilian bystanders has no impact on police use of force decisions

(McCluskey et al., 2005; Paoline & Terrill, 2005; Schuck, 2004; Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002;

Terrill et al., 2008). However, there has been some speculation that, in the future, the

presence of civilians with cell phones might curb police brutality within some crowded

social settings.

Community characteristics: Research suggests that neighborhood characteristics may

have a major impact on police use of force. Several studies have found that use of force

rates are significantly higher in economically disadvantaged, high-crime communities than

wealthy, low-crime communities. Importantly, American research reveals that neighbourhood

crime – especially violent crime – typically emerges as a stronger predictor of police use of

force than neighborhood poverty. In many American cities, high-crime communities also

have large Black populations. Thus, some scholars have argued that Black people are over-

represented in police use of force statistics because they are more likely to live in poor, high-

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

crime communities. Some American research, in fact, suggests that racial disparities in police

shootings are rendered statistically insignificant after controlling for community-level crime

rates (see review in Johnson et al. 2019).

However, critics warn that community-level crime rates should not be used to justify the

use of force against specific individuals. An individual’s presence in a high-crime community

does not justify police use of force. Indeed, many of the most celebrated cases of police

brutality have taken place in high crime neighborhoods. Nonetheless, many studies appear

to use community crime rates as a proxy measure for minority aggression against police

officers. The suggestion seems to be that – if the police use force in high crime neighbourhoods

– it is most likely “legitimate.” Others suggest that use of force may be more prevalent in high-

crime communities because of police deployment patterns (high-crime communities have a

greater police presence than low-crime communities) and more aggressive police strategies

(Menifield et al. 2018). Another possibility is that police officers are more vigilant (on edge) in

high-crime communities and more anxious about their personal safety. This fear or

apprehension could directly or indirectly impact use of force decisions.

Police officer characteristics

Officer gender: Some police scholars hypothesize that female police officers, due to

gender socialization norms and higher levels of empathy, are less aggressive and thus less

likely to use force than their male counterparts. However, research on the impact of officer

gender has been mixed. Most studies suggest that officer gender is not a significant predictor

of use of force (Klahm & Tillyer, 2010; Kaminski et al., 2004; Lawton, 2007; McCluskey & Terrill,

2005; Paoline & Terrill, 2007; Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002; Terrill, Leinfelt, & Kwak, 2008). Other

research, however, has found that, after controlling for situational factors, male officers are

more likely to use force – especially deadly force – than female officers (see reviews in Garner

et al., 2002; Alpert & Dunham, 1997; Charmichael & Kent, 2015).

Officer age and experience: Officer age and experience are highly correlated. Veteran

officers tend to be older than officers with little work experience. Some studies suggest that

officers with more experience are less likely to use force than younger, less experienced

officers (Worden 2015; McElvian and Kposawa 2008; Paoline & Terrill, 2007; Terrill & Mastrofski,

2002). However, other studies indicate that – after controlling for rank and type of policing

assignment – officer experience has no influence on use of force decisions (Lawton, 2007;

McCluskey & Terrill, 2005; Sun & Payne, 2004). Finally, other studies suggest that while officers

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

with more years of experience are less likely to use deadly force than younger officers, they

are actually more likely to employ other, non-lethal, use of force techniques (Crawford & Burns,

1998; see also Kaminski et al., 2004; Morabito & Doerner, 1997; Klahm & Tillyer 2010).

One factor that might influence the relationship between officer experience and use of

force is the type of policing assignment. Younger officers are more likely than older officers

to be assigned to frontline patrol work that involves aggressive or proactive policing tactics

– including stop, question and frisk practices (see Worden 2015). This type of work increases

the frequency of negative interaction with civilians and thus the probability of use of force.

By contrast, older, more experienced officers are more likely to be assigned to special units,

detective work or supervisory positions that will decrease their likelihood of experiencing a

use of force incident.

Officer racial background: A number of scholars have hypothesized that White police

officers, due to both explicit and implicit biases, should be more likely to use force against

Black civilians than Black police officers. However, a number of studies have found that

officer race is not a significant predictor of police shootings of Black civilians. In fact, a

few American studies have found the opposite – that Black civilians are more likely be shot

by Black than White officers (see Menifield et al. 2019; Johnson et al. 2019). A number of

factors might explain this unexpected relationship – including the fact that Black officers

are more likely to work in large urban centres and are more likely to be assigned to patrol

high-crime areas within those cities. Nonetheless, this finding has contributed to the argument

that increasing diversity will not necessarily decrease police use of force incidents. Importantly,

while research has focused on shootings in general – it has not yet adequately explored

whether White officers are more likely to be involved in the shooting deaths of unarmed Black

civilians or other “illegitimate” use of force cases.

Officer education: The education of an officer and whether this has any impact on the use

of force has received considerable attention through general discussion, but relatively little

empirical research has focused on this issue. It is argued that those who have attained a

higher level of education possess better decision-making skills and should be less likely to

resort to violence (Worden, 1990; see also Paoline & Terrill, 2007). The empirical evidence

around this issue has produced mixed findings. Sun and Payne (2004) reported that an

officer’s level of education did not influence the likelihood of force being used. Conversely,

Paoline and Terrill (2007) found that officers with a post-secondary degree were less likely

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

to use force compared to their colleagues with only a high school education (see also

McElvain & Kposowa, 2008). Similarly, Rydberg and Terrill (2010, p. 110) found that “officers

with some college exposure or a four-year university degree are significantly less likely to

use force relative to non-college-educated officers.”

The results of multivariate analyses

A growing number of studies have examined the impact of race on police use of force after

statistically controlling for other theoretically relevant factors. As with much of the research

on this controversial topic, the findings have varied. Some multivariate analyses have found

that race is a significant predictor of police use of force (see reviews in Shane 2018; Buehler,

2017; Nix et al. 2017; Goff et al. 2016; Ross 2015; Crow & Adrion, 2011; Gau, Mosher, & Pratt,

2009; Lin & Jones, 2010; Brown & Langan, 2001; Eith & Durose, 2011; Jacobs & O’Brien, 1998;

Smith, 2004; Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002), while others have found that the impact of race is

rendered statistically insignificant after controlling for other situational and community-level

variables (Tregle et al. 2019; Worrall et al. 2018; Engel et al., 2000; Garner et al., 2002; Lawton,

2007; McCluskey et al., 2005; Morabito & Doerner, 1997; Sun & Payne, 2004). The following

examples are illustrative of the range of research methodologies and findings that have

emerged within the American use of force literature over the last five years.

Ross (2015) examined the impact of race on police shootings using data from the U.S.

Public Shooting database. He used a geographically resolved, multilevel Bayesian analysis

to estimate county-level risk levels of being shot by the police. Ross (2015) found that, after

controlling for a wide variety of other factors, the median probability of being unarmed and

shot by the police was 3.5 times greater for Black civilians than White civilians. Furthermore,

this study found that the average risk of being shot by the police was the same for unarmed

Black suspects as it was for armed White suspects.

Other results indicate that police shootings were most likely to take place in larger urban

communities with high Black populations and high levels of poverty and socioeconomic

inequality. However, this study found no evidence to suggest that the observed racial

disparities in police shootings could be explained by county-level crime rates. Ross (2015)

concludes that these results support the argument that racial bias contributes to police-

related killings of unarmed Black men in the United States.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

In a similar study, Scott et al. (2017) examined deadly force cases, from 213 metropolitan

areas, over a 17-year period (1998-2015). The authors found evidence that American police

officers are more likely to shoot and kill Black suspects even after statistically controlling

for civilian behaviour, community characteristics and race-based measures of criminality.

Goff et al. (2016) examined use of force records for 12 large police services across the United

States. Their examination found that, even after statistically controlling for racial differences in

arrest patterns, participating departments still demonstrated racial disparities across multiple

levels of force severity. Second, even when controlling for the uncommon occurrence of

arrests for serious violent crime, “25%-55% of participating departments still revealed robust

racial disparities that disadvantaged Blacks” (Goff et al. 2016).

In another recent study, Menefield, Shin and Strother (2019) examined a dataset that captured

documented cases of police lethal use of force in the United States from 2014 to 2015. The

authors found that Black racial background still emerged as a significant predictor of lethal

force after controlling for various individual and situational factors, including whether the

civilian was armed at the time of the incident, had a criminal record, or if the police encounter

resulted from the commission of a violent crime. However, contrary to the racial bias

hypothesis, White police officers were no more likely to kill racial minority suspects than racial

minority police officers. Further analysis of the data revealed that lethal force is significantly

related to community racial composition (i.e., percentage Black), but not local rates of violent

crime. The authors conclude that the disproportionate killing of African Americans by police

officers does not appear to be driven by micro-level racism. It is more likely to be explained by

macro-level policing policies and practices that target predominantly Black communities.

In another recent study, Johnson, Tress, Burkel, Taylor and Cesario (2019) examined 2015

lethal police shootings in the United States. This study also found that officer race is

unrelated to the shooting of Black suspects. In other words, they found no evidence that

White officers were more likely to shoot and kill Black civilians than racial minority officers.

Furthermore, these authors argue that observed racial disparities in police use of force

statistics can be explained by race-specific, county-level crime rates. In other words, the

authors suggest that Black civilians are more involved in police shootings because, at the

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

aggregate level, Black people have a higher rate of criminal involvement than White people

(see also Tregle, Nix and Alpert 2019).

It is important to highlight the potential limitations

of this interpretation. The authors are using aggregate racial data (race-specific crime rates)

to explain racial differences that emerge during micro-level police-civilian encounters. This

is often referred to as the “ecological fallacy.” It implies that the individuals involved in

police shooting deaths must have been involved in criminal activity because – at the group

level – Black people have higher crime rates. An alternative explanation might suggest that,

because Black people as a group have a higher crime rate, officers are more wary, anxious

or vigilant in their presence and this may contribute to biased use of force decisions (for an

additional critique of this article see Knox and Mummolo 2020).4

A note on simulation studies

A growing body of research has examined the relationship between race and police use

of force under controlled, experimental conditions (see James, James & Vila, 2016; James,

Klinger & Vila, 2014; James, Vila & Daratha, 2013). These studies use highly realistic

simulation technology to explore the conditions under which officers decide to discharge

their firearm. The results of these studies suggest that, contrary to the discrimination

hypothesis, officers are slower to shoot armed Black suspects than armed White suspects.

The data also suggest that officers are less likely to shoot unarmed Black suspects than

unarmed White suspects. Importantly, simulation studies have also demonstrated that implicit

racial bias – as measured by the Harvard Implicit Association Test (IAT) – does not appear to

increase the likelihood of shooting unarmed Black suspects (see James et al. 2016).

Using data from a national American sample of lethal police shootings, Tregle et al. (2019) found

that racial disparities in deadly police encounters varied dramatically by the type of benchmark

employed. Black civilians were significantly over-represented in lethal police shootings using Census

benchmarks and benchmarks predicting the likelihood of involuntary police contact. However,

according to the authors, Black civilians appear to be less likely to be shot when benchmarked

on aggregate violent crime arrests or weapons arrests.

In another recent study, Worrall et al. examined a sample of 300 cases in which officers had drawn

their firearms on a civilian. About half these cases involved a Black person. Controlling for other

situational factors, the authors found that officers were less likely to shoot Black civilians than White

civilians after they had drawn their firearm. However, this study did not control for racial differences

in the likelihood of police contact or the possibility that, due to bias, officers have a lower threshold

when it comes drawing firearms on Black civilians. In other words, it is possible that the results were

skewed by the possibility that officers more frequently draw their firearms – without strong

justification -- when dealing with Black rather than White civilians.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Critics, however, are quick to identify the potential limitations of simulation research. For

example, Fridell (2016) argues that, no matter how realistic, artificial laboratory settings

cannot truly replicate “real world” conditions because officers know that there are no real

consequences (i.e., death, serious injury). This might cause officers to be “under-vigilant”

when dealing with scenarios involving minority suspects. Furthermore, although the purpose

of simulation studies are never fully disclosed to participants, officers can easily detect that

they are being tested for their use of force decision-making under different conditions. Thus,

during simulation studies, officers may be particularly careful when confronted with Black

suspects because they do not want to be identified as racially biased. The same caution might

not apply on the street (Terrill 2016).

A note on police subcultures

A number of scholars have examined the impact that the police subculture may have on

the nature and extent of police violence (see reviews in Kappeler et al. 1997; Kelling and

Kliesmet 1996). The literature reveals that the police subculture may increase the likelihood

of police violence for the following five reasons:

1) The militaristic “war on crime” orientation that permeates most modern police

services creates an “us against them” mentality among police officers. To the

police officer, every citizen becomes a potential “enemy” or “symbolic assailant.”

This ideology can create tensions with minority communities – particularly in

departments with few racial minority officers. These tensions are further aggravated

when officers do not live in the same communities that they police.

2) The police culture can further reinforce racial stereotypes through the telling of

“war stories” that depict racial minorities as dangerous. This may increase the level

of fear or apprehension officers experience when they encounter racial minorities

on the street.

3) The police subculture puts emphasis on “toughness” and “courage.” New officers

are often not accepted until they have proven that they can handle a violent or

dangerous civilian encounter. This increases the likelihood that officers will want

to prove their courage and demonstrate their willingness to resort to physical

force. It also reduces the probability that officers will try to diffuse citizen

confrontations through non-violent methods.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

4) The police subculture places an emphasis on respect. A good officer demands

respect and is able to quickly establish their legal authority when dealing with

civilians. The subculture also reinforces the belief that it is sometimes okay for

officers to respond to citizen hostility, disrespect or disobedience with violence.

Within the police subculture, “contempt of cop” is an offence that deserves

punishment.

5) Finally, the police subculture creates a code of silence among police officers. It is a

general subcultural dictate that a police officer should never “snitch” or “rat” on a

fellow officer. Officers who violate this general rule are often chastised by fellow

officers. They frequently become socially isolated, fear that they won’t receive

proper backup on the street and fear that their chances for promotion will be

damaged. This makes investigations into the illegitimate use of force difficult if

not impossible to conduct. In other words, the code of silence protects officers

who may use force in an illegitimate fashion and thus ensures that this type of

behaviour will continue.

Although scholars have recognized the potential importance of the local police subculture,

the idea of the subculture has rarely been incorporated into police use of force studies. This

likely reflects the fact that the concept of “the police subculture” is very difficult to measure or

quantify. For this reason it has been left out of all statistical analyses. Nonetheless, scholarship

suggests that the impact of the police subculture on use of force practices can be curtailed by

strong leadership and meaningful regulations. This will be discussed further in the

recommendations section of this report.

Summary

A large body of American research – and a small but growing body of Canadian research –

reveals that Black people are significantly over-represented in police shooting and use of

force statistics. While American researchers have tried to examine various individual,

situational and community-level factors that might explain these racial disparities, such

multivariate research is largely absent in the Canadian context. Overall, the results of

American research have been mixed. Divergent findings often reflect differences in

data collection strategies, the measurement of control variables and analytic strategies.

American researchers have also documented serious data quality issues. In fact, it is

believed that official government statistics in the United States capture only 50% of all

civilian deaths caused by police activity (Zimring 2017). The non-reporting rate is even

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

lower for non-lethal police violence. There is growing evidence to suggest that the racial

disparities documented by government statistics are significantly less pronounced than

the figures captured by non-official data collection efforts. It is maintained that these non-

official data collection efforts capture a much higher proportion of use of force cases and

are less impacted by the self-interest of individual police agencies (see Beck and Uchida 2019;

Klinger and Slocum 2017; Williams et al. 2016; Alpert 2015). Nonetheless, the preponderance of

American evidence suggests that racial disparities with respect to lethal and non-lethal police

use of force are both large and statistically significant. These aggregate findings are consistent

with allegations of racial bias and public concern over this issue.

Although the discussion is nuanced, two major explanations have dominated American

conversations around Black over-representation in use of force statistics: 1) Racial bias or

discrimination; and 2) Black over-representation in violent criminal activity. It is possible

that both explanations hold some validity. For example, it is possible that some use of force

incidents are directly caused by police racism. It is also possible that the over-representation

of Black people in police shootings and use of force cases is driven by systemic racism and

macro-level police policies and practices that focus on the Black community. Finally, it is likely

that some use of force incidents are entirely precipitated by the violent, criminal behaviour of

individual civilians and thus have little to do with racial bias. These incidents, however, may

serve to reinforce racial stereotypes among the police and contribute to the belief that all

Black people are potentially violent or dangerous. These stereotypes may subsequently

increase the amount of fear or apprehension that police officers experience when they

come into contact with racial minorities and ultimately increase the likelihood that force

will be used during such encounters.

In conclusion, there is a growing consensus, especially in the United States, that Black

civilians are over-represented in police use of force incidents. Although debate over the

causes of this over-representation persist, there is also general agreement that better data

collection and data analysis are required before this debate can be resolved. The need for

additional research is even more pronounced in Canada. Finally, although police officials and

academics continue to debate the fundamental reasons behind the over-representation of

racial minorities in use of force incidents, the research literature on controlling police violence

is much less controversial. A number of studies have identified that specific use of force

regulations and training regimes can significantly reduce the frequency that the police resort to

physical force (see Zimring 2017). As stated in a recent report by the United States Department

of Justice: “Many of the recommendations listed elsewhere have the potential to reduce

the level and impact of bias on police behavior (e.g., increasing positive interactions

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

between police and the community; increasing the collection and analysis of stop data; and

increasing oversight of the exercise of police discretion” (U.S Department of Justice 2016:

94). The OHRC will address this research in its final report and provide associated

recommendations. In the next three sections of this report, however, we present new

Canadian data on police use of force in Toronto, Ontario.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Part B: Community perceptions of racial bias

A large and growing volume of research suggests that racial minorities – particularly

Black people – have less trust in the police and broader criminal justice system than White

people (see Hagan and Albonetti, 1982; Schafer, Huebner and Bynum, 2003; Weitzer and

Tuch, 2005a; Weitzer, Tuch, and Skogan, 2008; Wu, Sun and Triplett, 2009; O’Connor 2008;

Wortley 1996; Wortley, Hagan and Macmillan, 1997; Wortley and Owusu-Bempah 2009;

Wortley and Owusu-Bempah 2011). However, relatively little research has examined public

perceptions of police use of force.

A few American studies have established that White civilians are more likely to support police

use of force than Black civilians or people from other racial backgrounds (Elicker 2008;

Thompson and Lee 2004; Halim and Stiles 2001; Cullen et al. 1996). Weitzer (2002) examined

public opinion polls in New York City and Los Angeles over a 20-year-period. The results

consistently reveal that, compared to White people, Black people are more likely to believe that

the police unjustly use physical force against Black civilians. The findings further suggest that

high-profile incidents of police misconduct tend to shape citizens’ attitudes. Weitzer (2002: 406)

claims that: “the incidents involving Rodney King, Abner Louina, and Amadou Diallo are now

part of the cultural repertoire with which African Americans conceive of the police. As a result,

they might become less cooperative toward officers and more predisposed to accept

allegations of police misconduct, even when officers act properly.”

These results are echoed by research on police officers. For example, Weisburd and his

colleagues (2000) found that a higher proportion of Black than White police officers feel

that civilian race has an impact on police use of force decisions. In another study, Johnson

and Kuhns (2009) found that Black people were more approving of police use of force

when the offender was White than when the offender was Black. They conclude that, when

it comes to police use of force, “it is clear that race (whether in the form of racial prejudice

or perceived racial injustice) informs Whites’ and Blacks’ views on this issue” (Johnson and

Kuhns 2009: 616).

Despite extensive research on public perceptions towards the criminal justice system, there

is a significant lack of research on public perceptions of police use of force, particularly in

Canada. As Kuhns et al. (2011: 236) state: “Our knowledge of citizen perceptions of police use

of force comes primarily from research conducted in the U.S.A.” (See also Silver & Pickett,

2015). The research presented in this section attempts to fill this void by presenting data from

two general population surveys of Toronto residents.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

The first survey, funded by the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal

Justice System, was conducted in 1994 by York University’s Institute for Social Research.

The second survey, conducted in 2007 by the Hitachi Survey Research Centre at the

University of Toronto, was a replication of the 1994 survey. Combined, these surveys can

help document changes in public attitudes towards the police over a 13-year period. Both

surveys employed similar techniques to produce representative samples of the White,

Black and Chinese population of Toronto. For each survey, over 400 respondents from

each racial group were interviewed (see Wortley and Owusu-Bempah 2011 for further

methodological detail). Random samples of this size produce population estimates that

are accurate – plus or minus 5% – 95 times out of 100. The results of these two surveys

suggest that perceptions of anti-Black bias with respect to police use of force are

widespread and did not decline over the study period.

In both surveys, respondents were first asked the following question:

Sometimes the police must use PHYSICAL FORCE when arresting a person who

might have committed a crime or to keep that person from escaping. In general,

do you think the police are more likely to use physical force against Black people,

against White people, or do you think there is no difference?

The results suggest that, in 1994, the majority of Toronto’s Black community (55.4%)

believed that the police were more likely to use force against Black people than White

people. By contrast, only 26.3% of White respondents and 22.7% of Chinese respondents

had the same opinion. However, between 1994 and 2007, the proportion of White and

Chinese respondents who perceived that the police were more likely to use force against

Black people rose by 10 percentage points for each group. The perceptions of Black

respondents remained unchanged (See Figure B1).

In both surveys, respondents were then asked:

In your opinion, all things being equal, are the police more likely to unfairly shoot

a Black person than a White person?

In both 1994 and 2007, over three-quarters of Black respondents reported that the police

were more likely to unfairly shoot a Black person than a White person. By contrast, fewer

than half of the White and Chinese respondents shared the same opinion. However, the

proportion of White and Chinese respondents who did perceive anti-Black bias with respect

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

police shootings increased by almost 10 percentage points between 1994 and 2007 (see

Figure B2). Why did perceptions of police discrimination increase between 1994 and 2007 –

but only among White and Chinese respondents? One possibility is that non-Black civilians

became more aware of police use of force issues because of greater media coverage and,

perhaps, the limited release of police use of force statistics. By contrast, the proportion

of Black respondents who perceive police discrimination remains high and unchanged

between 1994 and 2007. This may indicate that the Black community noticed relatively

few reforms in police use of force outcomes over this 13-year period.

Multivariate analysis reveals that these racial differences in perceptions of police bias remain

after controlling for racial differences in age, education, employment status, income,

immigration history and both direct and vicarious experiences with the police (see Wortley

and Laming 2017). In other words, racial differences in perceptions of police bias cannot be

completely explained by racial differences in social class position or personal experiences

with the police. Indeed, the survey results suggest that well-educated, high-income Black

citizens actually perceive more police discrimination than those who come from more

disadvantaged backgrounds. Neither can perceptions of bias be explained by racial

differences in place of birth.

In fact, Black people born in Canada are more likely to

perceive a problem with police discrimination than recent immigrants (Wortley et al. 1997;

Wortley and Owusu-Bempah 2009).

These survey findings are important. They reveal that the majority of Toronto’s Black

community perceive that the police are more likely to unjustly use physical force against

members of the Black community than others. This perception within the Black community

remained relatively unchanged between 1994 and 2007. However, the perception of police

racial bias appears to have increased among both White and Chinese people over this time

period. Have these perceptions changed between 2007 and 2010? This is a crucial question

that must be addressed by future research.

Some have argued that Black people are more likely to distrust the police because they have often

emigrated from countries where the police are violent and/or corrupt. Our research does not support

this hypothesis.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

However, there is some reason to believe that racial differences in perceptions of injustice

persist. For example, a 2018 survey, commissioned by the Toronto Police Services Board,

asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement:

Members of the Toronto Police Service may at times have to use physical force

against members of my community.

Almost half of the Black respondents to this survey (48%) disagreed with this statement,

compared to only 29% of White respondents (Fearon and Farrell 2019). Clearly, when it

comes to police use of force, racial differences in opinion remain widespread. This section

of the report briefly explored racial differences in perceptions of racial bias with respect to

police use of force. The fact that a significant proportion of Toronto’s population – and the

majority of Toronto’s Black residents – perceive bias in police use of force practices is, by

itself, a justification for further research. In the next two sections of the report we explore

whether public perceptions of racial bias are consistent with actual data on use of force

incidents. Our findings suggest that public concern is warranted.

22.7

26.3

55.4

36.9

35.2

57.9

Chinese White Black

Figure B1: Percentage of respondents who perceive that the

police are more likely to use force against Black civilians than

White civilians, by respondent race and year of survey

1994 2007

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

36.3

39.7

76.4

44.4

46.7

77.6

Chinese White Black

Figure B2: Percentage of respondents who believe that the

police are more likely to unfairly shoot a Black person than a

White person, by respondent race and year of survey

1994 2007

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Part C: An examination of Special Investigations

Unit cases involving the Toronto Police Service

Introduction

This section of the report provides an analysis of police use of force cases involving the

Toronto Police Service (TPS).

All cases included in this study were investigated by the

Government of Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU). The SIU is a civilian police

oversight agency with a mandate to investigate police-involved incidents that result in the

death or serious injury of a civilian and allegations of sexual assault. The study is designed to

address the following five research questions with respect to the TPS and use of force incidents:

1) To what extent are Black people represented in SIU investigations?

2) To what extent are Black people represented in police use of force cases –

including police shootings?

3) To what extent are Black people involved in TPS lethal use of force incidents?

4) To what extent do SIU cases involving Black civilians differ from cases involving

civilians from other racial groups?

5) What proportion of SIU investigations result in criminal charges against

police officers?

6) What proportion of SIU cases experience problems with police cooperation?

This study is one of the first Canadian studies to provide a detailed examination of racial

differences with respect to police use of force. In this section of the report, we focus on the

bivariate relationship between race and various use of force outcomes. In the next section, we

provide a series of multivariate analyses designed to gauge the impact of race after statistically

controlling for other theoretically relevant factors (see the literature review in Section B).

A considerable proportion of the SIU findings presented in this section of the report were

previously reported in the interim report (see A Collective Impact). However, new findings are

presented pertaining to police shootings, civilian weapons use and neighbourhood crime. A

Toronto-American comparison in police shooting rates has also been added.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Methodology

The current study examined SIU investigations related to the TPS over two periods of time:

1) January 1, 2000 to June 6, 2006; and 2) January 1, 2013 to June 30, 2017. The inclusion of

data over two time periods permits a trend analysis of how police use of force has changed

– or not changed – over time. During both time periods, the research team was not provided

with information about SIU investigations that were still open or cases that were before the

criminal courts at the time of data collection.

The 2000 to 2006 data was collected as part of a larger study on police use of force

commissioned by the African Canadian Legal Clinic and the Government of Ontario’s

Ipperwash Inquiry (see Wortley 2006). The 2000 to 2006 study is based on the examination

of data from SIU Director’s Reports. A Director’s Report provides detailed information

on each SIU investigation, including the time, date and location of the incident, the

personal characteristics of the civilian or civilians involved, the cause of civilian injury or

death, a description of the circumstances surrounding the incident, and the justification

behind the Director’s decision to either charge subject officers with a criminal offence

or clear them of any criminal wrongdoing.

During the 2000 to 2006 period the SIU completed 1,113 investigations across the province.

One data record was produced for each civilian involved in a SIU investigation. During this

period the SIU conducted 246 investigations involving the TPS. However, 59 of these TPS

cases were “closed by memo” soon after the file had been opened. SIU investigations are

“closed by memo” when, early in the investigation, it is determined that the civilian injury is

not serious enough to meet the SIU mandate or was not directly caused by police activity.

SIU cases can also be closed by memo if a civilian can’t be located or decides not to cooperate

with a SIU investigation. The final 2000 to 2006 sample includes 187 SIU investigations, all

involving the Toronto Police Service, that were completed over this six-and-a-half-year period.

By 2013, SIU investigation materials had been digitized. The research team was granted

access to these case materials – including Director’s Reports, officer notes and witness

statements – from January 1, 2013, to June 30, 2017. Between 2013 and 2017, the SIU

opened investigations into 319 incidents involving the TPS. However, 75 of these cases

were “closed by memo” shortly after the file had been opened. As a result, the 2013 to 2017

sample includes 244 SIU investigations, all involving the TPS, that were completed over this

four-year period.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

The data template used to collect information about each investigation is provided in

Appendix A. Important variables include the time, date and location of the incident, the

cause of civilian death or injury, the nature of the injury, civilian characteristics (including

age, gender, race, mental health, criminal record, etc.), number of subject officers, number

of witness officers, the characteristics of subject and witness officers, the actions of the

civilian at the time of the incident, weapons use by civilians and case outcome.

Measuring civilian race

It should be noted that the racial background of civilians is not regularly recorded by SIU

investigators. That is, there was no intentional or organized effort by the SIU to collect

racial statistics per se. The research team, therefore, had to rely on a variety of other

methods to make this determination, including: 1) case photographs; 2) police records (i.e.,

general occurrence reports); 3) interviews with the SIU investigators; and 4) photographs of

the civilian that appeared in newspaper coverage of the incident. Using these methods, we

were able to identify the civilian’s racial background in 86.1% of the 2000 to 2006 cases and

87.3% of the 2013 to2017 cases.

Table C1 compares how civilian race was identified during both the 2000 to 2006 and 2013 to

2017 study periods. During the 2000 to 2006 time frame, the majority of racial identifications

(59.9%) were made from photographs taken directly from SIU case files. By contrast, during the

2013 to 2017 period, only 16.5% of racial IDs were made via SIU case photos. Unfortunately,

most of the digitized case materials received from the SIU did not contain photos.

During the 2013 to 2017 study period, civilian race was most likely to be derived from

official TPS documents (General Occurrence reports, Arrest reports, Injury reports, etc.)

or SIU investigator notes. By contrast, during the 2000 to 2006 period, only 12.3% of racial

identifications were made from SIU investigator notes and none (0%) were made through

TPS documents.

In 2000 to 2006, 9.6% of all racial identifications were made via interviews or discussions

with the SIU investigators responsible for the case. During the second time period, the

research team had broader access to SIU records – including TPS General Occurrence

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Reports – and thus did not have to consult directly with SIU investigators.

In a small number

of cases, during both time periods, civilian race was identified via media coverage of the SIU

investigation or through social media.

Table C1: How race of complainant was identified,

SIU investigations, 2000 – 2006 and 2013 – 2017 study periods

Method of

racial identification

2000-2006

study period

2013-2017

study period

Number % Number %

SIU photos 112 59.9 16 16.5

SIU investigator notes 23 12.3 75 30.7

Discussions with SIU investigators 18 9.6 0 0.0

TPS documents 0 0.0 114 46.7

Media coverage 8 4.3 6 2.5

Social media 0 0.0 2 0.8

Race not identified 26 13.9 31 12.7

Sample size 187 100.0 244 100.0

For the purposes of the current analysis, three major racial groups are identified for

analysis purposes: 1) White; 2) Black and 3) other racial minority. The number of cases in

the “other racial minority” category is too small to be disaggregated. In other words, the

number of Asian, South Asian, Hispanic and Indigenous people in the SIU dataset are too

small to provide a meaningful analysis of each group.

For the 2013 to 2017 study period, the “other racial minority” category includes civilians

who were identified as “Brown” or “Brown-skinned” in TPS reports. Although we know they

are not “White,” the exact racial identity of these individuals is impossible to determine.

Brown-skinned people could come from a number of different racial backgrounds including

South Asian, Hispanic, West Asian, mixed race, etc. Indeed, it is quite possible that some

civilians who self-identify as “Black” were incorrectly coded as “Brown-skinned” by the police.

If this is the case, the actual number of “Black” people appearing in SIU cases may be greater

We want to stress that, during the second time-period (2013 to 2017), the drop in consultation with

SIU investigators was more a function of methodology than a lack of SIU cooperation. Overall, the

SIU was very cooperative during both study periods.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

than the numbers presented below

For example, due to our conservative coding strategy,

all 13 of the civilians identified as “Brown-skinned” by TPS documents were put into the

“other racial minority” category. However, if we had placed them into the “Black” category,

the number of Black civilians appearing in 2013 to 2017 SIU cases would have jumped from

62 to 75 individuals – or from 25.4% to 30.7% of the cases.

Measuring racial disparity

Tables C2 through C18 compare the representation of different racial groups in Toronto

with their representation in SIU investigations. For the 2000 to 2006 sample, population

estimates were derived from the 2006 Canadian Census. For the 2013 to 2017 sample,

estimates were derived from the 2016 Canadian Census (Statistics Canada 2016).

Estimates for the White population were calculated by taking the total population

estimate for Toronto and deducting the total racial minority population and the total

Indigenous population.

Odds ratios and SIU case rates were calculated to determine the representation of specific

racial groups in SIU investigations. Odds ratios were calculated by dividing the percentage

of all SIU cases involving a particular racial group by their percentage representation in the

general population. An odds ratio approaching 1.00 indicates that a racial group is neither

over- nor under-represented in SIU cases. An odds ratio less than 1.00 indicates that the

group is under-represented in SIU cases. An odds ratio greater than 1.00 indicates that the

group is over-represented. For example, an odds ratio of 2.00 indicates that a group is

twice as prevalent in SIU cases as they are in the general population. By contrast, an odds

ratio of 0.50 indicates that a group is 50% less represented in SIU investigations than their

proportion of the general population would predict.

My analysis of TPS street check data from 2008 to 2013, for example, reveals inconsistent coding

of Black and Brown individuals by TPS officers. For example, the same individual might be labelled

“Black” during some street checks, but “Brown” during others. We did not observe such inconsistencies

with respect to White civilians. Furthermore, we also found that immigrants from North Africa (Somalia,

Ethiopia, etc.), most of whom identify as Black or African, were often labeled “Brown” by TPS officers.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

There is no set standard for determining when racial disproportionality (i.e., the over- or

under-representation of a particular racial group with respect to a specific social outcome)

is cause for concern. For example, in the Ottawa Traffic Stop study, the authors used the

20% rule (or an odds ratio of 1.20 or higher) to determine when a group was significantly

over-represented with respect to involuntary police contact (Foster et al, 2016). For the

purposes of this study we have used a higher threshold of 50%. In other words, for the

purposes of the present analysis, an odds ratio of 1.50 or higher will be used to determine

whether racial disproportionality is noteworthy or not. At times we will discuss the notion

of “gross” racial disparity. For the purposes of this report, a gross racial disparity exists

when the level of over-representation is 200% or greater (i.e., as indicated by an odds

ratio of 3.00 or higher). In these cases, a particular racial group would be three times more

prevalent in SIU investigations than their presence in the general Toronto population

would predict.

A second disparity measure used in the current analysis was the SIU case rate. The SIU case

rate (per 100,000) was calculated by dividing the total number of SIU cases per racial group

by their population estimate and multiplying that figure by 100,000. The rate indicates the

number of people, per 100,000 population, that were involved in a SIU investigation during

the two study periods. This case rate allows us to directly compare the experiences of

different racial groups of varying size. For example, if Group A has a case rate of 10

per 100,000 and Group B has a rate of five per 100,000, we can accurately state that

the members of Group A are twice as likely to become involved in a SIU investigation

as the members of Group B.

We must stress that the figures presented in the following tables are based on Census

projections and the total population of SIU investigations over two study periods. These

are not figures based on a random sample and therefore are not subject to the rules

of probability theory. In other words, the observed racial differences do not have to be

tested for statistical significance. All the racial differences documented in these tables

should therefore be interpreted as “real” differences.

Finally, it should be noted that the odds ratios and SIU case rates presented below are

likely conservative. In other words, they may slightly under-estimate the true level of racial

disparity in police use of force cases. The issue involves the use of 2006 census estimates

for the entire 2000 to 2006 study period and the use of 2016 census estimates for the

entire 2013 to 2017 study period. Previous research suggests that Toronto’s Black and

other racial minority population is increasing at a faster rate than the White population.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Thus, using 2006 Census estimates to measure the Black/other minority population in 2000

may slightly over-estimate the population size of these groups for that year – and slightly

under-estimate the size of the White population. This would serve to reduce the size of the

racial differences that appear in the SIU data. In other words, the racial disparities outlined

in this report may be smaller than the racial disparities that actually exist with respect to

SIU investigations.

Findings

Table C2 and Table C3 reveal that, during both study periods, Black people are significantly

over-represented in SIU cases involving the Toronto Police Service. From 2000 to 2006, Black

people were involved in 30.5% of all SIU investigations, even though they represented only

8.3% of Toronto’s population. These figures produce an odds ratio of 3.67. In other words,

during this period, Black people were 3.67 times more likely to appear in SIU investigations

than their presence in the general population would predict. By contrast, both White people

and other racial minorities are under-represented. From 2000 to 2006, the Black SIU

investigation rate (27.33 per 100,000) was 4.6 times greater than the White rate (5.95

per 100,000) and 10.6 times greater than the rate for other racial minorities (2.58 per 100,000).

The results suggest that little changed between 2000 to 2006 and 2013 to 2017. Overall, Black

representation in SIU investigations dropped slightly from 30.5% to 25.4%. Nonetheless, Black

people are still 2.58 times more likely to appear in SIU investigations than their representation

in the general population would predict. From 2013 to 2017, both White people and other

racial minorities were, once again, under-represented in SIU cases. From 2013 to 2017, the

Black SIU investigation rate (25.65 per 100,000) was 3.1 times higher than the White rate (8.17

per 100,000) and 6.9 times higher than the rate for other racial minorities (3.68 per 100,000).

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Table C2: Total SIU investigations involving the Toronto Police Service,

by race of civilian, January 1, 2000 – June 6, 2006

Racial

group

Population

estimate

% of

population

Number of SIU

investigations

% of SIU

investigations

Odds

ratio

SIU investigation

rate (per 100,000)

White 1,327,151 53.0 79 42.2 0.79 5.95

Black 208,555 8.3 57 30.5 3.67 27.33

Other racial

minority

967,675 38.7 25 13.5 0.35 2.58

Race

unknown

---- ---- 26 13.9 ---- ----

Total 2,503,381 100.0 187 100.0 ---- 7.47

TABLE C3: Total SIU investigations involving the Toronto Police Service,

by race of civilian, January 1, 2013 – June 30, 2017

Racial

group

Population

estimate

% of

population

Number of SIU

investigations

% of SIU

investigations

Odds

ratio

SIU investigation

rate (per 100,000)

White 1,322,656 48.4 108 44.3 0.91 8.17

Black 239,850 8.8 62 25.4 2.89 25.65

Other racial

minority

1,169,065 42.8 43 17.6 0.41 3.68

Race

unknown

---- ---- 31 12.7 ---- ----

Total 2,731,571 100.0 244 100.0 ---- 8.93

The impact of sex

Further analysis reveals that the vast majority of SIU investigations involved male civilians.

From 2000 to 2006, 84% of SIU investigations involved males. From 2013 to 2017 this figure

drops, but only slightly, to 83.6%. With respect to the intersection of race and gender, the

data reveal that Black males are especially over-represented in SIU cases. From 2000 to

2006, Black males represented only 3.8% of the Toronto population, but accounted for 27.8%

of all SIU investigations. In other words, during this period, Black males were 7.3 times more

likely to appear in a SIU investigation than their presence in the Toronto population would

predict. By contrast, between 2000 and 2006, Black females were under-represented in SIU

investigations (4.6% of the general population but only 2.7% of SIU investigations).

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

From 2013 to 2017, Black males represented only 4% of the Toronto population, but

23.7% of all SIU investigations. In other words, during this period, Black males were

5.9 times more likely to appear in a SIU investigation than their presence in the Toronto

population would predict. By contrast, between 2013 and 2017, Black females were

under-represented in SIU investigations (4.8% of the general population but only 1.6%

of SIU investigations).

The results reveal that Black males have, by far, the highest SIU investigation rates (see

Figures C1 and C2). From 2000 to 2006, the Black male SIU investigation rate (54.53 per

100,000) was 5.2 times greater than the rate for White males (10.44) and 12.7 times greater

than the rate for other racial minority males (4.29 per 100,000). Female SIU investigation

rates are much lower than the rates for men. However, from 2000 to 2006, the SIU rate

for Black females (4.42 per 100,000) was higher than the rate for White females (1.95 per

100,000) and females from other racial minority backgrounds (0.99 per 100,000). From

2013 to 2017, the Black male SIU investigation rate (52.78 per 100,000) remained 3.7 times

higher than the White male rate (14.14 per 100,000) and 7.7 times higher than the rate for

males from other racial minority backgrounds (6.81 per 100,000). During the 2013 to 2017

period, the SIU investigation rate for females remained much lower than the rate for men.

However, Black females continued to have a higher rate (3.07 per 100,000) than White

females (2.90 per 100,000) or females from other racial backgrounds (0.82 per 100,000).

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

0.99

1.95

4.42

4.29

10.44

54.53

Other racial minority White Black

Figure C1: SIU investigation rates (per 100,000),

by race and gender, 2000 – 2006

Female Male

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Cause of civilian injury

A major part of the SIU mandate is to determine the exact cause of civilian injury. The SIU

determines cause of injury through interviews with subject and witness officers, interviews

with the complainant, interviews with civilian witnesses, video surveillance and collecting

physical evidence. It must be stressed that the data presented in Table C4 represent SIU

determinations or conclusions about cause of harm. These determinations are not without

conflict. For example, a civilian may claim that they were injured because of a police-related

assault. The police, by contrast, may claim that the person’s injury was the product of self-

harm. In the current study, if the SIU decided that the police version of events is valid, this

case would be categorized as “injury not caused by police” rather than “police use of force.”

From 2000 to 2006, 23.5% of all SIU cases involved civilian deaths or injuries that were

deemed not directly caused by police activity (see Table C4). This figure drops to 21.3%

from 2013 to 2017. In these cases, injuries could have been self-inflicted (i.e., suicide),

pre-existing (i.e., caused by a fight between civilians that occurred prior to police arrival)

or caused by civilian attempts to flee police (i.e., a civilian suffered a heart attack while

running from police).

0.82

2.9

3.07

6.81

14.15

52.78

Other racial minority White Black

Figure C2: SIU investigation rates (per 100,000),

by race and gender, 2013 – 2017

Female Male

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

From 2000 to 2006, 23% of all SIU investigations involved traffic accidents. A high proportion

of these accidents took place during police pursuits. From 2013 to 2017, this figure dropped

to only 12.7%. This noticeable decline in traffic accidents may reflect new regulations and

strategies governing how police conduct pursuits.

From 2000 to 2006, only 14 SIU investigations (7.5% of all cases) involved allegations of

sexual assault. This figure jumps to 36 investigations (14.8% of all cases) in 2013 to 2017.

It is unclear whether this increase represents an actual increase in police sexual assaults,

or an increased willingness of civilians to report allegations of sexual assault to the SIU.

From 2000 to 2006, 46% of all SIU investigations involved police use of force: 12.8% of

those cases involved police use of firearms and 33.2% involved other types of force

(including the use of Tasers, batons, pepper spray, etc.). From 2013 to 2017, 51.2% of all

SIU investigations involved police use of force: 10.2% involved a police firearm and 41%

involved other types of force, such as batons, Tasers and pepper spray. Thus, while the

data suggest that the proportion of SIU investigations involving TPS use of force incidents

increased between the two time periods (from 46% of all SIU investigations to 51.2%), the

proportion of cases involving police firearm use declined slightly (from 12.8% to 10.2%

of all SIU investigations). However, additional analysis suggests that, on an annual basis,

TPS shootings went up during the two study periods. For example, the SIU investigated

24 police shootings from 2000 to 2006 and 25 police shootings from 2013 to 2017. In other

words, the SIU investigated an average of four shootings per year from 2000 to 2006,

compared to an average of 6.25 shootings per year from 2013 to 2017.

Table C4: Cause of civilian harm, as determined by SIU investigations,

2000 – 2006 and 2013 – 2017 study periods

Cause of civilian

harm

2000 – 2006 2013 – 2017

Number % Number %

Harm not caused by police 44 23.5 52 21.3

Traffic accident 43 23.0 31 12.7

Sexual assault 14 7.5 36 14.8

Police use of force 62 33.2 100 41.0

Police shooting 24 12.8 25 10.2

Total 187 100.0 244 100.0

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Civilian injury not caused by police

The data reveal that Black people are over-represented in SIU investigations that concluded

the police did not cause civilian injury or death (see Tables C5 and C6). From 2000 to 2006,

Black people were 2.73 times more likely to appear in these types of SIU investigations than

their presence in the general population would predict. Similarly, from 2013 to 2017, they

were 2.41 times more likely to be involved in “injury not caused by police” cases than their

presence in the general population would predict. Over both time periods, White and other

racial minority civilians are either under-represented in “injury not caused by police cases”

or their representation in these types of SIU investigation approximates their

representation in the general population.

From 2000 to 2006, the Black rate of involvement in “injury not caused by police” cases

(4.79 per 100,000) was 4.2 times higher than the White rate (1.13 per 100,000) and 3.9

times higher than the rate for other racial minorities (1.24 per 100,000). Little changed

between the two study periods. By 2013 to 2017, the Black rate of involvement in “injury

not caused by police” cases (4.59 per 100,000) remained 2.3 times higher than the White

rate (1.96 per 100,000) and 7.65 times higher than the rate for other racial minorities.

Civilian injury caused by police-involved traffic accidents

Black people are also over-represented in SIU investigations in which civilian injuries were

caused by police-involved traffic accidents (see Tables C7 and C8). However, the level of

Black over-representation in these types of SIU investigations dropped noticeably between

2000 to 2006 and 2013 to 2017.

From 2000 to 2006, Black people were involved in 25.6% of “traffic accident” cases, even

though they represented only 8.3% of the general population. In other words, during this

time frame, Black people were 3.08 times more likely to appear in SIU “traffic” investigations

than their presence in the general Toronto population would predict. From 2013 to 2017, Black

people were involved in only 12.9% of SIU traffic-related investigations, even though

they represented only 8.8% of the general Toronto population. Thus, during this period,

Black people were 1.47 times more likely to appear in traffic-related SIU investigations

than their presence in the population would predict, compared to 3.08 times more likely

during the 2000 to 2006 period. During both time periods, White and other racial minority

citizens are significantly under-represented in SIU investigations that involve traffic accidents.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

From 2000 to 2006, the Black rate of “traffic-related” SIU investigations (5.27 per 100,000)

was 5.9 times greater than the White rate (0.90 per 100,000) and 6.3 times greater than the

rate for other racial minorities (0.83 per 100,000). By contrast, from 2013 to 2017, the Black

rate of “traffic-related” SIU investigation (1.47 per 100,000) was only 2.01 times higher

than the White rate (0.83 per 100,000) and 9.8 times greater than the rate for other racial

minorities (0.17 per 100,000).

Sexual assault cases

Black people are significantly over-represented in SIU sexual assault investigations (see

Tables C9 and C10). From 2000 to 2006, Black people were involved in 21.4% of sexual

assault investigations, even though they made up only 8.3% of the general Toronto

population. In other words, Black people were 2.58 times more likely to appear in SIU

sexual assault investigations than their presence in the population would predict. Similarly,

from 2013 to 2017, Black people were involved in 30.6% of sexual assault investigations,

even though they made up 8.8% of the general Toronto population. In other words, during

this period, Black people were 3.48 times more likely to appear in SIU investigations than

their presence in the general population would predict. During both time periods, other

racial minorities were significantly under-represented in SIU sexual assault investigations.

White civilians, on the other hand, were slightly over-represented in 2000 to 2006 sexual

assault cases (odds ratio = 1.21) and slightly under-represented in 2013 to 2017 cases

(odds ratio = 0.90).

From 2000 to 2006, the Black rate of SIU sexual assault investigations (1.44 per 100,000)

was 2.1 times greater than the White rate (0.68 per 100,000) and 6.9 times greater than the

rate for other racial minorities (0.21 per 100,000). These racial disparities appear to have

widened over time. Between 2013 and 2017, the Black rate of SIU sexual assault investigations

(4.57 per 100,000) rose to 3.8 times greater than the White rate (1.21 per 100,000) and 13.4

times greater than the rate for other racial minorities (0.34 per 100,000).

An interesting trend involves a dramatic rise in the number of Black males who have

made sexual assault allegations. Between 2000 and 2006, 11 of the 14 SIU sexual

assault investigations (78.6%) involved female civilians. Only three sexual assault

investigations (21.4%) involved males. By contrast, during the 2013 to 2017 period,

the majority of SIU sexual assault investigations (58.3%) involved male complainants

and only 41.7% involved females.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Between 2000 and 2006, Black males represented 3.8% of the Toronto population, but

accounted for 7.1% of all SIU sexual assault investigations. In other words, during this

period, Black males were only slightly more likely to appear in a SIU sexual assault

investigation than their presence in the Toronto population would predict. During this time

period, however, Black females were significantly over-represented in SIU sexual assault

investigations (4.6% of the general population, 14.2% of SIU sexual assault investigations).

By the 2013 to 2017 study period, Black males still represented only 4% of the Toronto

population. However, they were now involved in 25% of all SIU sexual assault investigations.

In other words, during this period, Black males were 6.3 times more likely to appear in a SIU

sexual assault investigation than their presence in the Toronto population would predict. By

contrast, by the second study period, Black female representation in sexual assault cases had

dropped significantly: from 14.2% of all sexual assault cases in 2000 to 2006, to only 5.5% of

SIU sexual assault investigations in 2013 to 2017). During the 2000 to 2006 period, Black

females had the highest SIU sexual assault investigation rate (1.77 per 100,000), followed

by White females (1.10), Black males (1.05) and White males (0.33). From 2013 to 2017,

however, Black males had by far the highest sexual assault investigation rate (see Figures

C3 and C4). During this period, the Black male sexual assault investigation rate (8.19 per

100,000) was 5.3 times greater than the rate for Black females (1.54 per 100,000), and 6.7

times greater than the rate for both White males (1.27 per 100,000) and White females

(1.22 per 100,000). As noted above, the number of SIU sexual assault investigations jumped

from 14 in 2000 to 2006 to 36 in 2013 to 2017. Much of this increase appears to be related

to Black male complainants who allege that they were sexually assaulted during police

frisks or strip-searches.

Table C5: SIU investigations involving the Toronto Police Service

in which civilian injuries were determined not to be caused by the police,

by race of civilian, January 1, 2000 – June 6, 2006

Racial

group

Population

estimate

% of

population

Number of SIU

investigations

% of SIU

investigations

Odds

ratio

SIU investigation

rate (per 100,000)

White 1,327,151 53.0 15 34.1 0.64 1.13

Black 208,555 8.3 10 22.7 2.73 4.79

Other racial

minority

967,675 38.7 12 27.3 0.71 1.24

Race

unknown

---- ---- 7 15.9 ---- ----

Total 2,503,381 100.0 44 100.0 ---- 1.76

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Table C6: SIU investigations involving the Toronto Police Service

in which Civilian injuries were determined not to be caused

by the police, by race of civilian, January 1, 2013 – June 30, 2017

Racial

group

Population

estimate

% of

population

Number of SIU

investigations

% of SIU

investigations

Odds

ratio

SIU investigation

rate (per 100,000)

White 1,322,656 48.4 26 50.0 1.03 1.96

Black 239,850 8.8 11 21.2 2.41 4.59

Other racial

minority

1,169,065 42.8 7 13.5 0.32 0.60

Race

unknown

---- ---- 8 15.4 ---- ----

Total 2,731,571 100.0 52 100.0 ---- 1.90

Table C7: SIU investigations of the Toronto Police Service

involving traffic accidents (including accidents caused by police

pursuits), by race of civilian, January 1, 2000 – June 6, 2006

Racial

group

Population

estimate

% of

population

Number of SIU

investigations

% of SIU

investigations

Odds

ratio

SIU investigation

rate (per 100,000)

White 1,327,151 53.0 12 27.9 0.53 0.90

Black 208,555 8.3 11 25.6 3.08 5.27

Other racial

minority

967,675 38.7 8 18.6 0.48 0.83

Race

unknown

---- ---- 12 27.9 ---- ----

Total 2,503,381 100.0 43 100.0 ---- 1.72

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Table C8: SIU investigations of the Toronto Police Service

involving traffic accidents (including accidents caused by police

pursuits), by race of civilian, January 1, 2013 – June 30, 2017

Racial

group

Population

estimate

% of

population

Number of SIU

investigations

% of SIU

investigations

Odds

ratio

SIU investigation

rate (per 100,000)

White 1,322,656 48.4 11 35.5 0.73 0.83

Black 239,850 8.8 4 12.9 1.47 1.67

Other racial

minority

1,169,065 42.8 2 6.5 0.15 0.17

Race

unknown

---- ---- 14 45.2 ---- ----

Total 2,731,571 100.0 31 100.0 ---- 1.13

Table C9: SIU investigations of the Toronto Police Service involving

allegations of sexual assault, by race of civilian, January 1, 2000 – June 6, 2006

Racial

group

Population

estimate

% of

population

Number of SIU

investigations

% of SIU

investigations

Odds

ratio

SIU investigation

rate (per 100,000)

White 1,327,151 53.0 9 64.3 1.21 0.68

Black 208,555 8.3 3 21.4 2.58 1.44

Other racial

minority

967,675 38.7 2 14.3 0.37 0.21

Race

unknown

---- ---- 0 0.0 ---- ----

Total 2,503,381 100.0 14 100.9 ---- 0.56

Table C10: SIU investigations of the Toronto Police Service involving

allegations of sexual assault, by race of civilian, January 1, 2013 – June 30, 2017

Racial

group

Population

estimate

% of

population

Number of SIU

investigations

% of SIU

investigations

Odds

ratio

SIU investigation

rate (per 100,000)

White 1,322,656 48.4 16 44.4 0.92 1.21

Black 239,850 8.8 11 30.6 3.48 4.57

Other racial

minority

1,169,065 42.8 4 11.1 0.26 0.34

Race

unknown

---- ---- 5 13.9 ---- ----

Total 2,731,571 100.0 36 100.0 ---- 1.32

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

0.4

1.05

1.77

0.32

1.05

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Other racial minority White Black

Figure C3: SIU sexual assault investigation rates

(per 100,000), by race and gender, 2000 ̶ 2006

Female Male

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Police use of force cases

Consistent with previous Canadian and American research (see Part A of this report),

Black people are grossly over-represented in SIU investigations that involve police use

of force (see Tables C11 and C12). However, the data also suggest that the level of Black

over-representation dropped slightly over time.

From 2000 to 2006, Black people were involved in 38.4% of use of force cases, even though

they represented only 8.3% of Toronto’s general population. In other words, Black people

were 4.63 times more likely to appear in SIU use of force investigations than their presence

in the general population would predict. From 2013 to 2017, however, Black people were

involved in 28.8% of SIU use of force cases – a decline of 10 percentage points during the two

time periods. In other words, Black people were now 3.27 times more likely to appear in SIU

use of force investigations than their presence in the general population would predict

– compared to 4.63 times in the 2000 to 2006 period. By contrast, White and other racial

minority citizens are both under-represented in police use of force cases.

0.33

1.22

1.54

0.36

1.27

8.19

Other racial minority White Black

Figure C4: SIU sexual assault investigation rates

(per 100,000), by race and gender, 2013 ̶ 2017

Female Male

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

From 2000 to 2006, the Black use of force investigation rate (15.82 per 100,000) was

4.9 times greater than the White rate (3.24 per 100,000) and 51 times greater than the

rate for other racial minority groups (0.31 per 100,000). Similarly, from 2013 to 2017,

the Black use of force investigation rate (15.01 per 100,000) was 3.6 times higher than

the White rate (4.16 per 100,000) and 5.8 times greater than the rate for other racial

minorities (2.57 per 100,000).

The vast majority of SIU use of force investigations (over 90% during both time periods)

involve male civilians. The data suggest that Black males are particularly over-represented

in police use of force cases (see Figures C5 and C6). From 2000 to 2006, Black males were

involved in 34.9% of all SIU use of force cases, even though they represented only 3.8% of

Toronto’s population. In other words, Black males were 9.2 times more likely to be involved

in a SIU use of force investigation than their presence in the general population would predict.

Similarly, from 2013 to 2017, Black males were involved in 28.8% of all SIU use of force

investigations, even though they represented just 4% of the population. In other words, during

this period, Black males were 7.2 times more likely to appear in a SIU use of force investigation

than their presence in the general population would predict.

From 2000 to 2006, the Black male use of force investigation rate (31.46 per 100,000) was

five times greater than the rate for White males (6.32 per 100,000), 12 times greater than

the rate for Black females (2.65 per 100,000), and 71.5 times greater than the rate for White

females (0.44 per 100,000). Similarly, from 2013 to 2017, the Black male use of force

investigation rate (32.76 per 100,000) was 4.1 times greater than the rate for White

males (7.95 per 100,000) and 43.1 times greater than the rate for White females (0.76

per 100,000). Interestingly, during this second period, no Black females were involved

in a SIU use of force investigation (rate = 0.0 per 100,000).

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Table C11: SIU investigations of the Toronto Police Service involving

police use of force, by race of civilian, January 1, 2000 – June 6, 2006

Racial

group

Population

estimate

% of

population

Number of SIU

investigations

% of SIU

investigations

Odds

ratio

SIU investigation

rate (per 100,000)

White 1,327,151 53.0 43 50.0 0.94 3.24

Black 208,555 8.3 33 38.4 4.63 15.82

Other racial

minority

967,675 38.7 3 3.5 0.09 0.31

Race

unknown

---- ---- 7 8.1 ---- ----

Total 2,503,381 100.0 86 100.0 ---- 3.43

Table C12: SIU investigations of the Toronto Police Service involving police

use of force, by race of civilian, January 1, 2013 – June 30, 2017

Racial

group

Population

estimate

% of

population

Number of SIU

investigations

% of SIU

investigations

Odds

ratio

SIU investigation

rate (per 100,000)

White 1,322,656 48.4 55 44.0 0.91 4.16

Black 239,850 8.8 36 28.8 3.27 15.01

Other racial

minority

1,169,065 42.8 30 24.0 0.56 2.57

Race

unknown

---- ---- 4 3.2 ---- ----

Total 2,731,571 100.0 125 100.0 ---- 4.58

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

0.44

2.65

0.64

6.32

31.46

Other racial minority White Black

Figure C5: SIU use of force investigation rates

(per 100,000), by race and gender, 2000 – 2006

Female Male

0.16

0.76

5.2

7.95

32.76

Other racial minority White Black

Figure C6: SIU use of force investigation rates

(per 100,000), by race and gender, 2013 – 2017

Female Male

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Police shooting cases

Black people are grossly over-represented in SIU shooting investigations that involve the

Toronto Police Service (see Tables C13 and C14). Between 2000 and 2006, Black people

were involved in 54.2% of shooting cases, even though they represent only 8.3% of the

population. In other words, during this time, Black people were 6.53 times more likely to

appear in SIU shooting investigations than their presence in the general Toronto

population would predict.

The over-representation of Black people in police shooting cases, however, appears to have

dropped somewhat between the first and second study periods. Between 2013 and 2017,

Black people were involved in 36% of TPS shooting cases – down from 54.2% during 2000

to 2006. According to the data, Black people were still 4.09 times more likely to appear in

SIU shooting investigations than their presence in the general population would predict –

but this is down from 6.53 times during the 2000 to 2006 study period. By contrast, during

both time periods, White people and members of other racial minority groups are noticeably

under-represented in police shooting investigations.

Between 2000 and 2006, the Black shooting investigation rate (6.23 per 100,000) was

9.2 times higher than the White rate (0.68 per 100,000) and 29.7 times higher than the

rate for other racial minorities (0.21 per 100,000). Between 2013 and 2017, the Black

shooting investigation rate (3.75 per 100,000) was 4.9 times higher than the White rate

(0.76 per 100,000) and 7.3 times greater than the rate for other racial minorities (0.51

per 100,000). Although racial disparities in SIU shootings investigations declined between the

two studies, racial differences in the likelihood of being shot by the place are still large.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Table C13: SIU investigations of Toronto Police Service shootings,

by race of civilian, January 1, 2000 – June 6, 2006

Racial

group

Population

estimate

% of

population

Number of SIU

investigations

% of SIU

investigations

Odds

ratio

SIU investigation

rate (per 100,000)

White 1,327,151 53.0 9 37.5 0.71 0.68

Black 208,555 8.3 13 54.2 6.53 6.23

Other racial

minority

967,675 38.7 2 8.3 0.21 0.21

Race

unknown

---- ---- 0 0/0 ---- ----

Total 2,503,381 100.0 24 100.0 ---- 0.96

Table C14: SIU investigations of Toronto Police Service shootings,

by race of civilian January 1, 2013 – June 30, 2017

Racial

group

Population

estimate

% of

population

Number of SIU

investigations

% of SIU

investigations

Odds

ratio

SIU investigation

rate (per 100,000)

White 1,322,656 48.4 10 40.0 0.83 0.76

Black 239,850 8.8 9 36.0 4.09 3.75

Other racial

minority

1,169,065 42.8 6 24.0 0.56 0.51

Race

unknown

---- ---- 0 0.0 ---- ----

Total 2,731,571 100.0 25 100.0 ---- 0.91

Police use of force cases that resulted in civilian death

This section of the report provides an analysis of all police use of force cases that resulted

in the death of the civilian. The data presented include police shootings as well as deaths

that were caused by other types of force (i.e., Taser, baton, physical attacks, etc.). Black

people are, once again, grossly over-represented in SIU police use of force investigations

that resulted in civilian death (see Tables C15 and C16). From 2000 to 2006, Black people

were involved in 46.6% of all use of force cases that resulted in civilian death, even though

they represented only 8.3% of the Toronto population. In other words, Black people were

5.61 times more likely to be involved in a SIU death investigation than their representation

in the population would predict.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Black over-representation in lethal use of force cases increased during the two study periods.

Between 2013 and 2017, Black people were involved in 61.5% of all use of force cases that

resulted in civilian death, compared to 46.6% of these cases during the first study period. Black

people are now seven times more likely to be involved in a SIU death investigation than their

presence in the general population would predict – up from 5.6 times during the 2000 to 2006

period. By contrast, over the two time periods, both White and other racial minority citizens

were under-represented in police use of force cases that resulted in civilian death.

Between 2000 and 2006, the Black use of force death rate (3.36 per 100,000) was 6.3 times

higher than the White rate (0.53 per 100,000) and 33.6 times greater than the rate for other

racial minorities. Similarly, between 2013 and 2017, the Black use of force death rate (3.34 per

100,000) was 11.3 times greater than the White rate (0.30 per 100,000) and 37.1 times greater

than the rate for other racial minorities. It is clear that, in Toronto, Black people are much more

likely to die as the result of police use of force than people from other racial backgrounds.

Table C15: SIU Investigations of civilian deaths caused by police use of force,

by race of civilian, Toronto Police Service, January 1, 2000 – June 6, 2006

Racial

group

Population

estimate

% of

population

Number of SIU

investigations

% of SIU

investigations

Odds

ratio

SIU investigation

rate (per 100,000)

White 1,327,151 53.0 7 46.6 0.88 0.53

Black 208,555 8.3 7 46.6 5.61 3.36

Other racial

minority

967,675 38.7 1 6.7 0.17 0.10

Race

unknown

---- ---- 0 0.0 ---- ----

Total 2,503,381 100.0 15 100/0 ---- 0.60

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Table C16: SIU investigations of civilian deaths caused by police use of force,

by race of civilian, Toronto Police Service, January 1, 2013 – June 30, 2017

Racial

group

Population

estimate

% of

population

Number of SIU

investigations

% of SIU

investigations

Odds

ratio

SIU investigation

rate (per 100,000)

White 1,322,656 48.4 4 30.8 0.64 0.30

Black 239,850 8.8 8 61.5 6.99 3.34

Other racial

minority

1,169,065 42.8 1 7.7 0.18 0.09

Race

unknown

---- ---- 0 0.0 ---- ----

Total 2,731,571 100.0 13 100/0 ---- 0.48

Police shooting deaths

Discharging a firearm at a civilian is widely considered the most serious form of police

use of force. Shootings also represent the use of force option that is most likely to result

in death. Indeed, over our two study periods, 19 of the 28 civilian deaths investigated

by the SIU (68%) were the result of a TPS shooting. Police shooting deaths also garner

significant media attention and thus likely have an impact on public attitudes. It can be

argued, therefore, that police shootings require extra research attention. This section of

the report includes an analysis of all civilian deaths that were caused by a police shooting

(i.e., police use of a firearm). It excludes cases where death was not caused by a firearm.

Black people are grossly over-represented in SIU investigations involving police shooting

deaths (see Tables 17 and 18). Between 2000 and 2006, Black people represented 77.8% of

all shooting deaths involving the Toronto Police Service, even though they represented only

8.3% of Toronto’s population at that time. In other words, according to SIU records, Black

people were 9.4 times more likely to be involved in a police shooting death than their

representation in the general population would predict. Similarly, between 2013 and 2017,

Black people represented 70% of all police shooting deaths, even though they made up

only 8.8% of Toronto’s population. In other words, during this period, Black people were

approximately eight times more likely to be involved in a police shooting death than their

presence in the general population would predict. Over both time periods, both White and

other racial minority civilians are under-represented in police shooting deaths.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Between 2000 and 2006, the Black police shooting death rate (3.36 per 100,000) was 48

times greater than the White rate (0.07 per 100,000) and 33.6 times higher than the rate

for other racial minorities (0.10 per 100,000). Similarly, between 2013 and 2017, the Black

police shooting death rate (2.92 per 100,000) was 19.5 times higher than the White rate

(0.15 per 100,000) and 32.4 times greater than the rate for other racial minority groups

(0.09 per 100,000).

Additional analysis reveals important racial differences in the percentage of police shootings

that result in death (see Table C19). From 2000 to 2006, the SIU conducted 24 investigations

into TPS shootings. Nine of those shootings (37.5%) resulted in the death of a civilian. However,

the shooting death rate for Black civilians (53.8%) was much higher than the shooting death

rate for White civilians (11.1%). Overall, during the first study period, seven of 13 Black shooting

victims died from their injuries, compared to only one of the nine White shooting victims.

During the 2000 to 2006 study period, seven of the nine TPS shooting deaths (77.8%) involved

Black civilians.

From 2013 to 2017, the SIU conducted 25 investigations into police shootings involving

the TPS. Ten of those shootings (41.7%) resulted in the death of a civilian. However, the

shooting death rate for Black civilians (77.8%) was much higher than the rate for White

civilians (15.8%) or other racial minorities (25%). Overall, during this period, seven of nine

Black shooting victims died from their injuries, compared to only two of 10 White shooting

victims. Furthermore, during this time period, seven of the 10 TPS shooting fatalities (70%)

involved a Black civilian.

During the entire study period, the SIU conducted 49 investigations into TPS shootings.

Nineteen of these 49 shootings (38.7%) resulted in the death of the civilian. Overall, the TPS

shooting death rate for Black civilians (63.6%) was more than four times higher than the

shooting death for White civilians (15.8%) or other racial minorities (25%). Overall, 14 of the

22 TPS shootings of Black civilians resulted in a fatality, compared to only three of the 19

shootings of White civilians. These racial differences are statistically significant (chi-square

= 10.596; df = 2; p > .01). During the entire study period, 14 of the 19 deaths that resulted

from police shootings (73.7%) involved Black civilians.

In sum, the data show that Black civilians are more likely to be involved in TPS shootings

cases than White civilians or civilians from other racial backgrounds. Furthermore, when

the police do discharge their firearms, they are more likely to kill Black civilians than

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

civilians from other racial backgrounds. The context of police shootings and other use

of force incidents – including important situational factors – may help explain some of

the gross racial disparities observed above. This issue is addressed in the next section.

Table C17: SIU investigations of civilian deaths caused by police shootings,

by race of civilian, Toronto Police Service, January 1, 2000 – June 6, 2006

Racial

group

Population

estimate

% of

population

Number of SIU

investigations

% of SIU

investigations

Odds

ratio

SIU investigation

rate (per 100,000)

White 1,327,151 53.0 1 11.1 0.21 0.07

Black 208,555 8.3 7 77.8 9.37 3.36

Other racial

minority

967,675 38.7 1 11.1 0.29 0.10

Race

unknown

---- ---- 0 0.0 ---- ----

Total 2,503,381 100.0 9 100.0 ---- 0.36

Table C18: SIU investigations of civilian deaths caused by police shootings,

by race of civilian, Toronto Police Service, January 1, 2013 – June 30, 2017

Racial

group

Population

estimate

% of

population

Number of SIU

investigations

% of SIU

investigations

Odds

ratio

SIU investigation

rate (per 100,000)

White 1,322,656 48.4 2 20.0 0.41 0.15

Black 239,850 8.8 7 70.0 7.95 2.92

Other racial

minority

1,169,065 42.8 1 10.0 0.23 0.09

Race

unknown

---- ---- 0 ---- ---- ----

Total 2,731,571 100.0 10 100.0 ---- 0.37

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Table C19: Percentage of police shootings that resulted in

civilian death, SIU investigations, by time period and race

Impact

of police

shooting

2000 – 2006 2013 – 2017 Total study period

White Black

Other racial

minority

White Black

Other racial

minority

White Black

Other racial

minority

Injury 88.9 46.2 50.0 80.0 22.2 83.3 84.2 36.4 75.0

Death 11.1 53.8 50.0 20.0 77.8 16.7 15.8 63.6 25.0

Sample 9 13 2 10 9 6 19 22 8

The context of police use of force

As discussed in Part A of this report, previous research suggests that many other factors –

in addition to race – may impact police decisions to use force. These factors include civilian

characteristics (age, gender, etc.), officer characteristics (i.e., years of experience, etc.)

and situational factors (i.e., community setting, civilian behaviour, mental illness, civilian

impairment, the presence of a weapon, etc.). Using information from SIU cases files,

this section of the report examines how race intersects with other variables that may

predict the likelihood of police use of force.

Civilian behaviour at time of use of force encounter

As discussed above, civilian behaviour during encounters with law enforcement is crucial

to our general understanding of police use of force. Civilians who threaten or attack police

officers, or other civilians, are much more vulnerable to police use of force than others.

C20 and C21 present information on alleged civilian behaviour at the time of the encounter

that led to police use of force.

It should be noted that this information reflects SIU conclusions. Alternative interpretations

of events do exist. For example, in some cases, civilians claim that they were assaulted by

the police for “no reason.” The police, by contrast, claim that they only used force because

they were first threatened or assaulted by the civilian. In most cases, the SIU accepts the

police versions of events.

The results suggest that, in most use of force cases, the civilian either threatened or

assaulted the police officer or was resisting arrest. In a small minority of cases force was

used because the civilian was trying to flee from the police or avoid police apprehension.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

For example, between 2013 and 2017, 54.4% of TPS use of force cases involved civilian

threats or assaults against the police, 29.6% involved civilians resisting arrest and 7.2%

involved civilians trying to escape police apprehension. In 8.8% of all cases, details about

civilian behaviour at the time of the incident were missing. Nonetheless, if we take the

testimony of the police in the SIU case files as truthful, very few of the civilians involved

in TPS use of force cases can be considered passive or non-threatening.

Few racial differences emerge with respect to civilian behaviour. However, during the

2000 to 2006 period, a higher percentage of cases involving Black (18.2%) than White

civilians (9.3%) involved civilian flight from the police. Similarly, during the 2013 to 2017

period, cases involving White civilians were more likely to involve threats/assaults against

the police (61.8%) than cases involving Black civilians (44.4%). By contrast, cases involving

Black civilians were more likely to involve allegations of resisting arrest (41.7%) than cases

involving White (25.5%) or other racial minority civilians (20.0%).

Table C20: Civilian actions at the time of police encounter (as concluded by

the SIU), SIU use of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2000 – 2006

Civilian actions

at time of incident

White Black

Other

racial minority

Race

unknown

Threatened or attacked police 39.5 36.4 66.7 57.1

Resisted arrest 34.9 33.3 33.3 28.6

Flee police 9.3 18.2 0.0 14.3

Not determined 8.1 4.7 0.0 0.0

Sample size 43 33 3 7

Ch-square = 4.457; df = 9; p > .879

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Table C21: Civilian actions at the time of police encounter (as concluded by

the SIU), SIU use of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2013 – 2017

Civilian actions

at time of incident

White Black

Other

racial minority

Race

unknown

Threatened or attacked police 61.8 44.4 56.7 25.0

Resisted arrest 25.5 41.7 20.0 50.0

Flee police 5.5 8.3 10.0 0.0

Not determined 7.3 5.6 13.3 25.0

Sample size 55 36 30 4

Ch-square = 8.844; df = 9; p > .452

Possession of a weapon

In most TPS use of force cases, the civilian was not in possession of weapon at the time of

their encounter with police (see Tables C22 and C23). This situation exists across the two

study periods.

Between 2000 and 2006, White civilians involved in police use of force investigations (74.4%)

were more likely to be unarmed than their Black counterparts (54.5%). By contrast, Black

civilians were more likely than White civilians to be in possession of a gun (24.2% vs. 7%) or

a knife (15.2% vs. 4.7%).

However, from 2013 to 2017, Black civilians (66.7%) were slightly

more likely to be unarmed than their White counterparts (63.6%). However, compared to

White civilians, Black civilians were slightly more likely to be in possession of a gun (8.3%

vs. 3.6%) or a knife (16.7% vs. 14.7%). White civilians, by contrast, were more likely to be in

possession of other types of weapons (18.2%) than Black civilians (8.3%).

A deeper analysis of the 2013 to 2017 dataset reveals that very few SIU cases involve

armed attacks on TPS officers (see Table C24). For example, during this time period, only

three of 125 use of force cases (2.4%) involved a civilian firing a gun at a police officer. Two

of these cases involved a White person, one case involved a Black person. In one of these

three cases, the firearm was described as a pellet gun. An additional three cases (2.4%)

In this analysis, guns include pellet guns, replicas and authentic firearms. Officers stressed that

they could not tell whether the guns were real or not during their interactions with civilians.

A variety of devices were included in the “other” weapons category. For example, the 10 “other”

weapons documented in the 2013 – 2017 dataset include two hammers, one motor vehicle, a brick,

a rock, a piece of wood, an ashtray, a barbell, a fire extinguisher and a retractable baton.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

involve police officers being attacked by a civilian with another type of weapon (a hammer,

a brick and a piece of wood). Seven cases involve civilians threatening officers with a gun

or pellet gun (5.6%) and 11 cases (8.8%) involve officers being threatened by a civilian with

another type of weapon (a knife, hammer, fire extinguisher, ashtray, etc.). In other words,

only six use of force cases (4.8%) involve armed assaults on police officers and only 14.4%

involve citizens threatening police officers with a weapon.

Armed attacks on civilians are equally rare. Only one case (0.8%) involves shots being fired

at a civilian and only three cases (2.4%) involve civilians being attacked by civilianswith

another type of weapon. By contrast, civilians were unarmed in almost two-thirds of all

TPS use of force cases (64.8%) that resulted in a SIU investigation. Racial differences with

respect to the presence of weapons, and how weapons were used, are very small and

do not reach statistical significance.

Table C22: Civilian possession of a weapon at the time

of police encounter (as concluded by the SIU), SIU use of force

investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2000 – 2006

Civilian weapon

at time of incident

White Black

Other

racial minority

Race

unknown

No weapon 74.4 54.5 33.3 100.0

Gun 7.0 24.2 0.0 0.0

Knife 4.7 15.2 66.7 0.0

Other weapon 14.0 6.1 0.0 0.0

Sample size 43 33 3 7

Ch-square = 22.713; df = 9; p > .007

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Table C23: Civilian possession of a weapon at the time of

police encounter (as concluded by the SIU), SIU use of force

investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2013 – 2017

Civilian weapon

at time of incident

White Black

Other

racial minority

Race

unknown

No weapon 63.6 66.7 70.0 100.0

Gun 3.6 8.3 3.3 0.0

Knife 14.5 16.7 16.7 0.0

Other weapon 18.2 8.3 10.0 0.0

Sample size 55 36 30 4

Ch-square = 5.417; df = 9; p > .797

Table C24: Civilian weapons use documented by SIU

investigations into TPS use of force incidents, 2013 – 2017

Type of weapons used Number of cases %

Unarmed (no weapon involved) 81 64.8

Gun fired at police 3 2.4

Gun used to threaten police 7 5.6

Gun fired at civilians 1 0.8

Police suspected firearm – but gun

not confirmed at time of arrest

2 1.6

Firearm present – but only identified

after arrest

2 1.6

Other weapon used to attack police 3 2.4

Other weapon used to threaten police 11 8.8

Other weapon used to attack civilians 2 1.6

Other weapon used to threaten civilians 3 2.4

Police suspected other weapon – but

weapon not confirmed at time of arrest

2 1.6

Other weapon identified after arrest 8 6.4

Total cases 125 100.0

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Possession of a weapon during police shootings

Civilian weapons possession was very common in cases where TPS officers decided to

discharge their firearm. According to SIU investigations, civilians were in possession of a

weapon in approximately 90% of all police shooting cases. This is consistent across the

two study periods (see Tables 25 and 26). During the 2000 to 2006 period, Black civilians

were more likely to be in possession of a firearm (53.8%) than White civilians (33.3%). Rates

of knife possession were almost identical between Black and White civilians (23.1% and 22.2%

respectively). However, White civilians (33.3%) were more likely to be in possession of “other

types” of weapon (33.3%) than Black civilians (15.4%). During the 2013 to 2017 period, White

civilians (20%) were slightly more likely to be in possession of a firearm than their Black

counterparts (11.1%). Black civilians, however, were more likely to be in possession of a knife

(44.4%) than White civilians (20.0%).

The data, however, further suggest that White people are more likely to survive TPS police

shootings, even when they do possess a weapon and use that weapon to threaten or

attack the police. Between 2013 and 2017, for example, White people were shot by TPS

officers on 10 occasions. Only two of these 10 shootings (20%) resulted in a fatality. In both

these cases, the White civilian had threatened police officers with a firearm. However, in four

other shooting cases, White civilians had either fired at the police (two cases), threatened the

police with a gun (one case) or shot at a civilian (one case). The civilians in these four cases

all survived the police encounter. In other words, White civilians survived four out of the six

shooting cases (66.6%) in which they had threatened or attacked police officers with a gun.

In the other four police shootings that involved White survivors, the civilian had either

threatened (three cases) or attacked the police (one case) with another type of weapon. None

of the White shooting victims were unarmed.

By contrast, the data suggest that Black civilians never survive police shootings in which they

have threatened or attacked the police. Between 2013 and 2017, the TPS shot nine Black

people. Seven of these shootings resulted in a fatality (77.8%). One of the Black shooting

survivors was unarmed and the other had threatened a civilian with a knife. Only one Black

shooting fatality involved a civilian firing a gun at police officers, two cases involved firearm

threats against the police, two involved other weapons threats against the police, and

two involved other weapons threats against civilians. These findings suggest that the high

police shooting death rate for Black civilians cannot be simply explained away by higher rates

of gun or weapons use during police shooting incidents.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Table C25: Civilian possession of a weapon at the time of

police encounter (as concluded by the SIU), SIU shooting

investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2000 – 2006

Civilian weapon

at time of incident

White Black

Other racial

minority

No weapon 11.1 7.7 0.0

Gun 33.3 53.8 0.0

Knife 22.2 23.1 100.0

Other weapon 33.3 15.4 0.0

Sample size 9 13 2

Ch-square = 6.734; df = 6; p > .346

Table C26: Civilian possession of a weapon at the time of

police encounter (as concluded by the SIU), SIU shooting

investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2013 – 2017

Civilian weapon

at time of incident

White Black

Other racial

minority

No weapon 10.0 11.1 16.7

Gun 20.0 11.1 16.7

Knife 20.0 44.4 50.0

Other weapon 50.0 33.2 16.7

Sample size 10 9 6

Ch-square = 2.785; df = 6; p > .797

Civilian criminal history at time of police use of force incidents

When faced with data on racial disparities in policing, a common response is that enforcement

agents focus on known criminals and criminal behaviour – not civilian race. If true, we might

expect a high proportion of those involved in police use of force cases to have a criminal

record. We might also expect that a higher proportion of Black civilians than White civilians

will have a criminal history. The results presented below do not support this contention.

Furthermore, while a criminal record may serve as a proxy measure of criminality – it is not a

justification for police use of force. The police cannot use force on an individual just because

they have a criminal record. Only civilian behaviour – at the time of the incident – can be used

to justify force. This should be noted when interpreting the following results.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Most civilians involved in police use of force investigations did not have a criminal record at

the time of their encounter with the police. This pattern exists for both study periods (see

Tables C27 and C28). During the 2000 to 2006 period, Black civilians involved in use of force

cases were only slightly more likely to have a previous criminal record (48.5%) than their White

counterparts (41.9%). During the 2013 to 2017 period, White civilians involved in police use of

force investigations were slightly more likely to have a previous criminal record (54.5%) than

Black civilians (44.4%) or civilians from other racial backgrounds (33.3%).

Table C27: Percentage of civilians with an existing criminal

record at the time of police encounter, by racial group,

SIU use of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2000 – 2006

Civilian criminal record

at time of incident

White Black

Other

racial minority

Race

unknown

No criminal record 58.1 51.5 66.7 57.1

Criminal record 41.9 48.5 33.3 42.9

Sample size 43 33 3 7

Ch-square = 0.490; df = 3; p > .921

Table C28: Percentage of civilians with an existing criminal

record at the time of police encounter, by racial group,

SIU use of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2013 – 2017

Civilian criminal record

at time of incident

White Black

Other

racial minority

Race

unknown

No criminal record 45.5 55.6 66.7 75.0

Criminal record 54.5 44.4 33.3 25.0

Sample size 55 36 30 4

Ch-square = 4.298; df = 3; p > .231

Civilian mental health at time of police use of force incidents

SIU investigations note whether the civilian was experiencing a mental health issue –

or was in a mental health crisis – during their encounter with the police. Most often this

information was found in TPS General Occurrence reports or in the statements of both

subject and witness officers. In most use of force cases, civilians were not exhibiting mental

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

health issues at the time of their encounter with police. This pattern persists during both

study periods. During the 2000 to 2007 study period, SIU case files reveal that a third of all

use of force investigations (34.9%) involved a civilian who was experiencing a mental health

crisis or issue at the time of their interaction with the police. This figure drops slightly, to

29.6%, during the 2013 to 2017 time period.

However, our analysis reveals that White civilians involved in SIU investigations were more

likely to be in mental health crisis than Black or other racial minority civilians (see Tables C29

and C30). During the 2000 to 2006 period, 37.2% of White civilians were exhibiting mental

health problems at the time of their encounter with the police, compared to 30.3% of Black

civilians. During the 2013 to 2017 period, 43.6% of White civilians were exhibiting mental

health issues at the time of their encounter with police, compared to only 16.7% of Black

civilians and 20% of civilians from other racial minority backgrounds.

Further analysis reveals that Black civilians are grossly over-represented in use of force

cases in which no mental health crisis was flagged. From 2013 to 2017, for example, Black

people represented only 8.8% of the general population, but 34.1% of civilians involved in

SIU use of force cases in which no mental health issues were noted (odds ratio = 3.87).

Black civilians are also over-represented in SIU use of force cases where mental health

issues were identified – but not to the same magnitude. During the 2013 to 2017 period,

Black civilians represented only 8.8% of the general Toronto population, but were involved

in 16.2% of use of force cases in which a mental health issue was noted (odds ratio = 1.84);

White civilians, by contrast, are over-represented in use of force cases that involve civilians

who were identified as being in mental health crisis, and under-represented in cases in

which no mental health issues were noted. For example, during the 2013 to 2017 period,

White people represented 48.4% of Toronto’s general population, but were involved in

64.9% of use of force cases in which a mental health issue was noted (odds ratio = 1.34).

By contrast, White people were involved in only 35.2% of use of force cases in which there

was no apparent mental health crisis (odds ratio = 0.71). These results suggest that White

people are most often exposed to police use of force when experiencing a mental health

crisis. Indeed, in the majority of use of force cases involving White civilians, mental health

issues were cited by the SIU investigation. By contrast, mental health issues were not noted

in the majority of use of force cases involving Black civilians. In other words, the data

suggest that, compared to White people, Black people do not have to be experiencing a

mental health issue to be subject to police use of force.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Table C29: Percentage of civilians experiencing a mental

health crisis at the time of police encounter, by racial group,

SIU use of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2000 – 2006

Mental health

at time of incident

White Black

Other

racial minority

Race

unknown

No issues noted 62.8 69.7 66.7 57.1

Mental health issues noted 37.2 30.3 33.3 42.9

Sample size 43 33 3 7

Ch-square = 0.606; df = 3; p > .895

Table C30: Percentage of civilians experiencing a mental

health crisis at the time of police encounter, by racial group,

SIU use of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2013 – 2017

Mental health at

time of incident

White Black

Other

racial minority

Race

unknown

No issues noted 56.4 83.3 80.0 75.0

Mental health issues noted 43.6 16.7 20.0 25.0

Sample size 55 36 30 4

Ch-square = 9.457; df = 3; p > .024

Civilian impairment at time of police encounter

Most civilians involved in use of force cases were not impaired by alcohol or drugs at the

time of their encounter with police. However, SIU investigations reveal that White civilians

were more likely to be intoxicated than Black or other minority civilians (see Tables C31 and

C32). During the 2000 to 2006 period, 44.2% of White civilians were intoxicated or impaired

during their encounter with police, compared to only 12.1% of Black civilians. During the 2013

to 2017 period, 49.1% of White civilians were intoxicated or impaired by alcohol or drugs

during their encounter with police, compared to only 25% of Black civilians.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Table C31: Percentage of civilians who were impaired by drugs

or alcohol at the time of police encounter, by racial group, SIU use

of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2000 – 2006

Impairment at time

of incident

White Black

Other racial

minority

Race

unknown

Not impaired 55.8 87.9 66.7 71.4

Impaired 44.2 12.1 33.3 28.6

Sample size 43 33 3 7

Ch-square = 9.124; df = 3; p > .028

Table C32: Percentage of civilians who were impaired by drugs

or alcohol at the time of police encounter, by racial group, SIU use

of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2013 – 2017

Impairment at time

of incident

White Black

Other racial

minority

Race

unknown

Not impaired 50.9 75.0 60.0 50.0

Impaired 49.1 25.0 40.0 50.0

Sample size 55 36 30 4

Ch-square = 5.439; df = 3; p > .143

Type of police contact

Our analysis next explores the type of police contact that led to SIU investigations. We

distinguish between reactive police activity (responding to civilian calls for service) and

proactive police activities (investigative stops of civilians). The literature suggests that

reactive policing involves very little police discretion – officers, for example, have no option

but to respond to a civilian call for service. Proactive police activities, however, are

discretionary and are thus more likely to expose bias. The results suggest that between

2003 and 2017, over half of all SIU investigations (52.9%) resulted from a civilian call for

service, 19.7% resulted from a proactive police stop, 16% resulted from the serving of a

search warrant or a police sting operation, 6.6% resulted from police investigation activities

and 3.7% emerged because a police officer witnessed a crime while on patrol.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

The numbers are similar with respect to use of force cases. Fifty-five per cent of all use of

force cases resulted from a civilian call for service, 16% from a police stop, 16% from police

search warrants of sting operations, 8% from investigative activities and 4.8% from patrol-

related observations (see Table C33).

Table C33: Percentage of SIU investigations that resulted from

proactive and reactive police activity, 2013 – 2017 cases

Type of police activity

All SIU

investigations

Use of force

investigations

Call for service 52.9 55.2

Police investigation 6.6 8.0

Proactive stop 19.7 16.0

Patrol activity 3.7 4.8

Warrant or sting operation 17.2 16.0

Sample size 244 125

Additional analysis reveals that SIU investigations involving Black civilians are more likely

to result from proactive than reactive policing activities (see Tables C34 and C35). For

example, over a quarter of Black cases resulted from proactive police stops, compared

to only 11.1% of White cases. By contrast, 59.3% of White cases resulted from a civilian call

for service, compared to only 46.8% of Black cases. This difference is statistically significant.

The results are similar with respect to use of force investigations. One-quarter of all Black

use of force cases (25%) emerged because of a proactive police stop, compared to only

10.9% of White cases. By contrast, 56.4% of White use of force cases emerged because of

a civilian call for service, compared to only 44.4% of Black cases. This finding is important

because it suggests a possible relationship between racial profiling and racial disparities in

police use of force statistics. Since Black people are more likely to be subjected to discretionary

police stops, they may also be more likely to experience a negative police encounter that

deteriorates into police use of force.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Table C34: Percentage of use of force investigations that resulted from

proactive and reactive police activity, by civilian race, 2013 – 2017 cases

Type of police activity White Black

Other racial

minority

Call for service 59.3 46.8 67.4

Police investigation 9.3 6.5 0.0

Proactive stop 11.1 27.4 14.0

Patrol activity 4.6 3.2 2.3

Warrant or sting operation 15.7 16.1 14.3

Sample size 108 62 43

Chi-square: 30.687; df = 12; p >.010

Table C35: Percentage of use of force investigations that resulted from

proactive and reactive police activity, by civilian race, 2013 – 2017 cases

Type of police activity White Black

Other racial

minority

Call for service 56.4 44.4 70.0

Police investigation 12.7 5.6 0.0

Proactive stop 10.9 25.0 13.3

Patrol activity 5.5 2.8 3.3

Warrant or sting operation 14.5 22.3 13.3

Sample size 55 36 30

Chi-square: 16.927; df = 12; p >.152

Community-level crime rates

As discussed above, community crime level may be an important predictor of police use

of force. Although presence in a high crime community is not a justification for police use

of force, it is often used as a proxy measure of civilian criminality or the dangers police

officers might face within certain geographical locations. Others argue that the police may

be more aggressive or vigilant in high-crime communities and this may lead to more use

of force incidents.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

The Toronto Police Service provided our research team with annual patrol zone-level

violent crime rates from 2013 to 2017. These figures were combined to produce the

average annual crime rate for each patrol zone during the study period. For presentation

purposes, patrol zones were divided into four equal groups – or quartiles – depicting their

crime rates relative to other patrol zones in the city. In other words, the low crime category

includes the 25% of patrol zones with the lowest crime rates. By contrast, the high crime

category includes the 25% of patrol zones with the highest crime rates. The results suggest

that, as anticipated, there is a positive relationship between community crime and the

number of SIU investigations. For example, almost 40% of use of force investigations

occurred in the patrol zones with the highest crime rates (see Table C36). However, it is

important to note that SIU investigations and use of force cases happen in low-crime as

well as high-crime patrol zones. In fact, according to the data, 22.3% of all TPS use of force

cases that resulted in a SIU investigation occurred within low-crime patrol zones.

Further analysis reveals no statistically significant relationship between the racial background

of those involved in SIU investigations and patrol zone crime rates (see Tables C37 and C38).

SIU investigations involving Black civilians are just as likely to emerge within high- and low-

crime communities as investigations involving White civilians. For example, 39.2% of use of

force cases involving White people took place in high-crime patrol zones, as did 32.6% of cases

involving Black civilians (see Table C37).

Finally, it is also important to stress that, regardless of patrol zone-level crime rates, Black

people are significantly over-represented in TPS use of force cases (see Tables C39 and

C40).

However, the data also reveal that the level of Black over-representation in SIU

investigations is greatest in low-crime rather than high-crime patrol zones. For example,

although Black people represent only 5.2% of the population of low-crime patrol zones,

they represent 22.2% of SIU investigations in these regions of the city (odds ratio = 4.50).

In other words, in low-crime patrol zones, Black people are 4.5 times more likely to end

up in a SIU investigation than their presence in the population would predict. By contrast,

Black people are only 2.1 times over-represented in SIU investigations that emerged within

high-crime patrol zones (see Table C39).

The racial demographics of specific TPS patrol zones was provided by the Toronto Star and is

based on 2016 Canadian Census projections.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Similar results pertain to SIU use of force investigations (Table C40). Black over-representation

in SIU use of force cases is 4.3 times greater than the Black population residing in low-crime

patrol zones, compared to only 2.1 times greater within high-crime patrol zones. This finding

suggests that Black over-representation in SIU investigations cannot be explained by Black

over-representation in high-crime communities. We return to an analysis of the relationship

between race, community crime levels and police use of force in Section E of this report.

Table C36: Percentage of SIU investigations,

by patrol zone crime rates, 2013 – 2017 cases

Patrol zone

crime rate

All SIU

investigations

Use of force

investigations

Low 22.2 22.3

Medium-low 19.7 14.0

Medium-high 21.4 24.0

High 36.8 39.7

Sample size 244 125

Table C37: Percentage of SIU investigations involving different racial groups

that took place in low and high crime patrol zones, 2013 – 2017 cases

Patrol zone crime rate White Black Other racial minority

Low 25.2 18.0 23.3

Medium-low 19.4 23.0 14.0

Medium high 15.5 26.2 30.2

High 39.8 32.8 32.6

Sample size 103 61 43

Chi-square: 7.078; df = 9; p >.629

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Table C38: Percentage of SIU use of force investigations

involving different racial groups that took place in low-

and high-crime patrol zones, 2013 – 2017 cases

Patrol zone crime rate White Black Other racial minority

Low 24.5 17.1 26.7

Medium-low 13.2 20.0 10.0

Medium-high 15.1 28.6 30.0

High 47.2 34.3 33.3

Sample size 53 35 30.0

Chi-square: 9.270; df = 9; p >.413

Table C39: Black representation in SIU

investigations, by patrol zone crime level

Black representation

Low-crime

patrol zones

Low-medium-

crime patrol

zones

Medium-high-

crime patrol

zones

High-crime

patrol zones

% patrol zone population 5.2 7.8 11.3 12.4

% SIU investigations 23.4 35.0 35.5 26.0

Odds ratio 4.50 4.49 3.14 2.10

Table C40: Black representation in SIU use of

force investigations, by patrol zone crime level

Black representation

Low-crime

patrol zones

Low-medium-

crime patrol

zones

Medium-high-

crime patrol

zones

High-crime

patrol zones

% patrol zone population 5.2 7.8 11.3 12.4

% use of force cases 22.2 41.2 37.0 25.5

Odds ratio 4.27 5.28 3.27 2.06

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Outcomes of SIU investigations

Very few SIU investigations result in criminal charges against police officers. Results do not

vary significantly by the race of the civilian (see Tables C41 to C44). Indeed, regardless of

race, over 90% of SIU cases result in the officers being cleared of wrongdoing.

During the 2000 to 2006 period, only 6.3% of all SIU cases involving White civilians resulted

in charges, compared to 1.8% of cases involving Black complainants and zero cases involving

civilians from other racial minority backgrounds (Table C41). Similarly, during the 2013 to 2017

period, only 3.7% of cases involving White civilians resulted in charges, compared to 1.6% of

cases involving Black and 4.7% of cases involving other racial minorities (Tables C42).

The results are similar with respect to SIU use of force investigations. During the 2000 to

2006 period, only two out of 43 use of force cases involving White civilians (4.7%) resulted

in charges against the officers. Likewise, only one out of the 33 use of force cases involving

Black civilians (3%) resulted in a charge (see Table C43). During the 2013 to 2017 period, only

two of the 55 use of force cases involving White civilians resulted in charges (3.6%). Similarly,

only one of the 36 cases involving Black civilians (2.8%) and two of the 30 cases involving other

minorities (6.7%) resulted in charges against the subject officers (see Table C44).

It should be noted that the 2013 to 2017 numbers, discussed above, do not include criminal

charges laid by the SIU that are still before the courts. At the time of the current analysis,

our records indicate that there are currently eight such cases. This would increase the total

number of charges laid by the SIU, during this time frame, from seven to 15.

Table C41: Outcome of all SIU investigations,

by racial group, Toronto Police Service, 2000 – 2006

Case outcome White Black

Other racial

minority

Race

unknown

Officers cleared (no charges) 93.7 98.2 100.0 100.0

Officers charged 6.3 1.8 0.0 0.0

Sample size 79 57 25 26

Ch-square = 4.556; df = 3; p > .207

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Table C42: Outcome of all SIU investigations,

by racial group, Toronto Police Service, 2013 – 2017

Case outcome White Black

Other racial

minority

Race

unknown

Officers cleared (no charges) 96.3 98.4 95.3 100.0

Officers charged 3.7 1.6 4.7 0.0

Sample size 108 62 43 31

Ch-square = 2.062; df = 3; p > .567

Table C43: Outcome of SIU use of force investigations,

by racial group, Toronto Police Service, 2000 – 2006

Case outcome White Black

Other racial

minority

Race

unknown

Officers cleared (no charges) 95.3 97.0 100.0 100.0

Officers charged 4.7 3.0 0.0 0.0

Sample size 43 33 3 7

Ch-square = 0.555; df = 3; p > .907

Table C44: Outcome of SIU use of force investigations,

by racial group, Toronto Police Service, 2013 – 2017

Case outcome White Black

Other racial

minority

Race

unknown

Officers cleared (no charges) 96.4 97.2 93.3 100.0

Officers charged 3.6 2.8 6.7 0.0

Sample size 55 36 30 4

Ch-square = 0.881; df = 3; p > .830

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Problems with police cooperation

Our analysis reveals that, in some investigations, the SIU Director noted problems with

police cooperation. Problematic investigations do not appear to be related to the race

of the civilians involved (see Tables C45 to C48).

During the 2000 to 2006 period, the Director noted problems with police cooperation

in 13.9% of all SIU investigations involving White civilians, compared to 10.5% of cases

involving Black civilians and 16% of cases involving people from other racial minority

backgrounds (see Table C45). During the 2013 to 2017 period, the Director noted problems

with police cooperation in 8.3% of cases involving White civilians, 9.7% of investigations

involving Black civilians and 7% of cases involving people from other racial minority

backgrounds (see Table C46).

The numbers are similar when we examine SIU use of force investigations in isolation.

During the 2000 to 2006 period, the Director noted problems with 20.9% of TPS use of

force investigations involving White civilians and 15.2% of cases involving Black civilians.

Problems were not noted with respect to any of the investigations involving other racial

minorities (Table C47). During the 2013 to 2017 period, the SIU Director noted problems

with 16.7% of the use of force investigations involving Black civilians, 10.9% of the cases

involving White civilians and 6.7% of the cases involving other minority civilians (Table C48).

Table C45: Percentage of all SIU investigations that experienced problems

with police cooperation, by racial group, Toronto Police Service, 2000 – 2006

Problems with SIU

investigation

White Black

Other racial

minority

Race

unknown

No problems noted 86.1 89.5 84.0 76.9

Problems noted 13.9 10.5 16.0 23.1

Sample size 79 57 25 26

Chi-square = 2.343; df = 3; p > .504

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Table C46: Percentage of all SIU investigations that experienced problems

with police cooperation, by racial group, Toronto Police Service, 2013 – 2017

Problems with SIU

investigations

White Black

Other racial

minority

Race

unknown

No problems noted 91.7 90.3 93.0 90.3

Problems noted 8.3 9.7 7.0 9.7

Chi-square = 0.291; df = 3; p > .962

Table C47: Percentage of SIU use of force investigations

that experienced problems with police cooperation,

by racial group, Toronto Police Service, 2000 – 2006

Problems with SIU

investigation

White Black

Other racial

minority

Race

unknown

No problems noted 79.1 84.8 100.0 85.7

Problems noted 20.9 15.2 0.0 14.3

Sample size 43 33 3 7

Ch-square = 01.166; df = 3; p > .761

Table C48: Percentage of SIU use of force investigations

that experienced problems with police cooperation, by racial group,

Toronto Police Service, 2013 – 2017

Problems with SIU

investigations

White Black

Other racial

minority

Race

unknown

No problems noted 89.1 83.3 93.3 100.0

Problems noted 10.9 16.7 6.7 0.0

Sample size 55 36 30 4

Ch-square = 2.211; df = 3; p > .530

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Toronto-American comparisons

In our consultations for this project, we found that Ontario residents tend to believe that

police use of force rates are much lower in Toronto than in the United States. We decided

to explore this hypothesis by comparing lethal police shooting rates (per million population)

for Toronto and the United States. The American data was drawn from the Washington Post’s

dataset on lethal police shootings from across the United States. The results reveal the United

States lethal police shooting rate is, in fact, three times greater than the corresponding rate

for Toronto. The data further reveal that the United States lethal police shooting rate for White

civilians (2.11 per million) is 5.5 times greater than the rate for White civilians (0.38 per million).

However, the data also reveal that the Toronto Police Service lethal shooting rate for Black

civilians is actually higher (7.29 per million) than the American lethal police shooting rate

for Black civilians (6.99 per million). In other words, our analysis reveals that, at least during

the study period, Black civilians are just as likely to be shot and killed by the police as Black

Americans (see Figure C7).

It must be stressed, however, that racial disparities in lethal police shootings vary dramatically

across American jurisdictions. As an example, Figure C8 compares police shooting rates for

Toronto and Chicago. Chicago is often compared to Toronto because they are both Great Lake

cities of similar size (approximately 2.7 million residents). The data reveal that, in both cities,

Black civilians are much more likely to be shot by the police than White civilians. However,

while Black civilians in Toronto are five times more likely to be shot by the police than White

civilians, Black Chicago residents are 24 times more likely to be shot by the police than their

White counterparts. Furthermore, the Chicago shooting rate for Black civilians (43.1 per million)

is four times greater than the Toronto rate (9.6 per million).

Overall, these data reveal that racial disparities in lethal police shootings are just as profound

in Toronto as in the United States. In fact, Black Toronto residents are slightly more likely to

be shot and killed by the police than Black Americans. Furthermore, while police shooting

rates may be significantly higher in some American cities, Black Toronto residents remain

grossly over-represented in the police shootings that have occurred in this city. These

findings underscore the urgent need to study patterns of police use of force in Canada.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

0.38

7.29

0.98

2.11

6.99

2.98

White Black Total population

Figure C7: Average annual lethal police shooting

rate (per million), by race, Toronto (2013 – 2017)

and United States (2015 – 2020)

Toronto United States

1.89

9.58

2.29

1.75

43.13

16.33

White Black Total population

Figure C8: Average annual police shooting rates

(per million), by race, Toronto (2013 – 2017) and

Chicago (2010 – 2015)

Toronto Chicago

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Summary

• Black civilians are over-represented in all types of SIU investigation.

• Black over-representation appears to increase with case seriousness. For example,

Black people are more over-represented in police shooting cases than cases involving

other types of force. Similarly, Black people are more over-represented in SIU death

investigations than SIU injury investigations.

• Use of force cases involving Black people are more likely to result from proactive

policing practices (police stops/search warrants) than cases involving White people.

By contrast, use of force cases involving White people are more likely to emerge from

reactive policing activities (civilian calls for service) than cases involving Black people.

• Use of force cases are slightly more likely to emerge in high-crime than low-crime patrol

zones. However, with respect to use of force cases, race and patrol zone crime rates are

unrelated. Furthermore, Black people are over-represented in TPS use of force cases

that take place in both low- and high-crime communities. In other words, the data suggest

that patrol zone crime cannot explain the over-representation of Black people in use of

force statistics.

• The circumstances surrounding police use of force cases vary little by race. However,

according to the results of SIU investigations, White civilians are more likely to have

threatened or assaulted the police than Black civilians. Black civilians, on the other

hand, are more likely to have resisted arrest than their White counterparts.

• In general, most civilians involved in police use of force cases were unarmed at the time

of their encounter with the police. However, Black civilians were slightly more likely to

have been found in possession of a gun or knife than White civilians. White civilians were

more likely to be in possession of other types of weapons (i.e., a bat, crowbar, etc.).

• During both time periods, only half of the civilians involved in SIU use of force cases

had a criminal record at the time of the incident. Black civilians were less likely to have

a criminal record than White civilians. This finding contradicts the argument that

serious use of force incidents typically involve “known criminals” with a lengthy history

of involvement in violent offending.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

• The police shooting death rate for Black civilians is much higher than the shooting death

rate for White people and other racial minorities. During police shooting incidents, the

police almost always kill Black civilians. By contrast, the majority of White civilians involved

in police shooting incidents survive. This discrepancy cannot be explained by racial

differences in civilian weapons use.

• Use of force cases involving White civilians are more likely to involve a mental health

crisis than cases involving Black civilians.

• Use of force cases involving White civilians are more likely to involve extreme

intoxication or impairment than cases involving Black civilians.

• Police officers are cleared of wrongdoing in over 95% of all SIU investigations involving

the Toronto Police Service. Only a small minority of cases result in criminal charges

against subject officers. Investigation outcomes do not vary significantly by civilian race.

• A minority of use of force cases experienced problems with TPS cooperation. Problematic

investigations appear to be unrelated to civilian race.

As discussed in Part B of this report, a high proportion of Toronto residents believe that

the police are more likely to use physical force against Black people than White people. The

results from an analysis of SIU use of force investigations suggests that these perceptions

are consistent with the empirical reality. The results presented above reveal that Black

civilians are grossly over-represented in SIU use of force cases that involve the Toronto

Police Service. Nonetheless, the cause of Black over-representation in police use of

force statistics will continue to be a topic of debate. While some may view the data as

evidence of overt, implicit or systemic racial bias, others will interpret it as evidence that

Black people are more likely to be engaged in criminal activity and thus more likely to

become subject to “legitimate” police use of force. We will return to this debate in the

conclusion of this report. Furthermore, additional analysis, to be presented in Part E of this

report, will use multivariate techniques to explore how other factors – including geographic

location – may help explain racial disparities in SIU use of force cases. In the next section,

however, we explore racial differences with respect to lower-level police use of force

incidents involving the Toronto Police Service.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Part D: An analysis of TPS “lower-level” use of force cases

In addition to an analysis of Special Investigation Unit (SIU) cases involving the Toronto

Police Service (TPS), the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) was also interested

in examining “lower-level” use of force cases involving the TPS. Lower-level use of force

cases refer to incidents in which physical force was used by TPS officers – but did not result

in serious civilian injury or death. In other words, we wanted to examine cases that fell

below the high SIU investigative standard (see Part C of this report).

Our first plan was to explore data from TPS Use of Force Reports (UFRs). According to Ontario

Regulation 926/901 and the Toronto Police Service’s own procedures, TPS officers are

mandated to complete a Use of Force Report (UFR) any time they: 1) draw their firearm in

the presence of a civilian; 2) point their firearm at a civilian; 3) discharge their firearm; 4) use

a police weapon – including a conducted energy weapon – against a civilian; or 5) use physical

force that results in an injury to a civilian that requires medical attention. Unfortunately, the

data from these use of force reports are not compiled into a use of force dataset. Rather, after

being reviewed by supervisors, the hard copies of these forms are forwarded to the Toronto

Police College for training purposes.

TPS Use of Force Reports capture a great deal of information about police-civilian interactions.

This information includes the date, time and location of the incident, the type of force used,

the reason force was used, the number of civilians and officers involved, whether the civilian

was armed with a weapon, whether alternative conflict resolution strategies were employed

and whether injuries were suffered by either the police or civilians involved. The Use of Force

Report also contains information on environmental conditions included the quality of both

natural and artificial lighting. However, the Use of Force Reports contain absolutely

no information about the demographic characteristics of the civilians involved (see

Appendix B). In other words, these reports include no information on the civilians’

age, gender or racial background.

The current inquiry examined over 140 TPS Use of Force Reports. However, we did not identify

a single report where officers were recommended for additional training as a result of a specific

use of force incident.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Critics might argue that that the forms appear to have been explicitly designed to prevent

an analysis of how civilian characteristics impact use of force decisions and examine whether

racial minority citizens are over-represented in use of force cases.

Nonetheless, despite these

limitations, the OHRC requested scanned copies of each TPS Use of Force Report completed

from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017. The OHRC eventually retrieved 1,237 scanned Use of Force

Reports completed by TPS officers during that time frame.

Due to the limitations of the UFRs, it became clear that OHRC researchers were going to

have to use another strategy to identify the race – and other demographic characteristics –

of civilians involved in lower-level use of force cases. Fortunately, during our preliminary

investigations, we discovered that the TPS also fills out Injury Reports. Injury reports (IRs)

are to be completed every time the police identify the existence of an injury or illness

requiring medical attention during their interactions with a civilian. These injuries and

illnesses may have taken place prior to arrest, during arrest or after arrest. Injuries may

have been the result of police activity – including use of force – but could also have been

caused by non-police factors. For example, suppose the police arrive at a fight and arrest

the combatants. Suppose also that one of the combatants was injured in the fight and

requires stiches. Even though the police did not cause the injury – an Injury Report should

be completed. It is important to note that Injury Reports are supposed to be completed

any time force is used – regardless of the extent of the injury or the level of medical

treatment received.

As with the Use of Force Reports, Injury Reports include a wealth of information including

the date, time and location of the incident, whether the injury occurred before, during or after

arrest, the nature of the injury, the cause of the injury, whether paramedics were summoned

and the type of medical treatment received. The Injury Reports also include a synopsis of

the incident that led to the identification of civilian injury. Although Injury Reports contain

information on the gender and age of civilians, they do not provide information on civilian

racial background. However, the Injury Report also includes a General Occurrence

identification number which can be used to link the Injury Report to a General Occurrence

Report (GO). The General Occurrence Report does have information on civilian racial

background. The OHRC requested and eventually received over 2,000 TPS Injury Reports

covering the period from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017.

Importantly, the Toronto Police Services Board recently decided to measure civilian race with

respect to TPS use of force incidents. Data from this new data collection practice has not yet been

released to the public.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

General Occurrence Reports (GOs) arguably provide the most detailed information about

police-civilian interactions. They capture the date, time and location of the incident, a detailed

synopsis of the incident and the nature of police actions during the incident (i.e., whether

force was used, whether an arrest was made, criminal charges laid, etc.). Importantly, for the

purposes of the OHRC inquiry, General Occurrence Reports also include information on the

personal characteristics of the civilians involved – including information on age, gender and

racial background as determined by TPS officers.

In sum, in order to conduct an examination

of race and lower-level use of force cases, the OHRC had to create their own dataset to extract

information from three different TPS data sources: 1) Injury Reports; 2) Use of Force Reports;

and 3) General Occurrence Reports. The process for compiling this dataset is described in the

next section.

Coders’ process of identifying and coding lower-level

use of force cases

The process for identifying and coding a single lower-level use of force case required a

close examination of three separate TPS reports: 1) an Injury Report (IR); 2) a Use of Force

Report (UFR); and 3) a General Occurrence Report (GO). The first stage of the process

began by examining Injury Reports for the purpose of identifying whether an incident was

in scope. A case was considered in scope if it was clear that the police had employed force

on the civilian at some time during the interaction. This included cases in which the injury

was directly caused by police use of force and cases in which the injury was caused by

other factors.

Once it was determined that a given Injury Report was in scope, the coders were then

tasked with finding a corresponding Use of Force Report. This was accomplished by going

through each of the scanned UFRs that the TPS provided to the OHRC. While each IR is

associated with the unique GO number – the UFRs lack this form of identification. The

coders thus had to rely on other information to match an IR with a UFR – including the

date and time of the incident. Once a potential match was made between an IR and UFR,

through the date and time filtering process, other information – including type of police

assignment, the location of the incident, the names of the officers involved, the type of

force used and other details from the case synopsis – were used to confirm the match.

It should be stressed that civilian race was identified by TPS officers in General Occurrence

Reports. We collapsed TPS racial designations into three major categories: White, Black and other

racial minority.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

It is important to note that there was often significant discrepancy in the data provided on

the IR and UFR. This rendered the matching process challenging. For instance, there were

a number of cases in which the ETF was recorded as affecting the arrest on the UFR,

but not disclosed on the IR. The coders also noted that despite R.R.O. 1990. Reg. 926:

Equipment and the Use of Force 14.5 stipulating that a UFR must be submitted when force

results in an injury requiring medical attention, it was difficult to use this as a predictive

factor in matching a UFR to an IR. This made it difficult to ascertain with a high degree of

certainty in cases where the IR did not indicate that medical attention was sought, but a

UFR with a similar time and location was found.

Furthermore, the coders noted significant difficulty in ascertaining a match with a high

degree of certainty when the type of incident was not explicitly identified in an IR. In these

cases, extensive investigation of the VDX_GO was necessary. This dataset provided both

the RIN# and the RUCR#, the latter of which linked the report to a specific offence

committed. After this re-tracing, it was possible to determine that the incident identified

through this dataset matched that of the IR. This incident was then used as a basis to

connect with the incident descriptors provided on the UFR to establish a match.

In a case where ambiguity persisted, despite examining these other avenues for possible

links, the IR was left unmatched. In other instances, IRs may have had no possible

corresponding UFRs. Overall, a very conservative matching strategy was employed. Unless

the information on the IR completely corresponded with the information on the UFR – the two

reports were left unmatched.

In both scenarios, where an IR was matched with a UFR or remained unmatched, the third

stage of the process involved linking a GO Report to the IR. This process was much easier

in that the GO# associated with an IR, in almost every case, was identical to the one associated

with a GO report. To make certain of the match, the name of the individual, as well as

prosecution summary and/or initial officer report enclosed within the GO report was

compared to the information provided on the IR. In circumstances where there was a partial

match of the IR’s GO# with the one associated with GO report, or where no corresponding

match could be found, a system search was conducted using the civilian’s name. In these

cases, the GO report was thoroughly read before determining whether or not it was indeed a

match for the corresponding IR (as often times the same individuals have multiple GO reports

for different incidents). Unlike with the UFR matching, it was highly unlikely that an IR was left

without a corresponding GO report.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

After matching was completed, the final stage of the process involved consolidating all

reports into a single case of lower-level use of force using a detailed use of force template

(see Appendix B). This template was designed to collect information from all three types of

report. In the ideal scenario, an entry included information from all three reports – the IR,

UFR, and GO report – thus presenting a complete picture of an occurrence. However, in

many cases, due to the lack of corresponding UFRs, entries only included data from the IR

linked with the GO report.

The initial screening process led to the identification of 912 “in-scope” cases. However, a

further vetting procedure, comparing information from all data sources, eliminated cases

in which there was any ambiguity about whether police use of force had been used or not.

Thus, the final dataset includes a sample of 652 TPS cases. Information from the three

reports explicitly confirms that use of force was involved in each of the cases in the final

sample. Additional analysis reveals that civilian race was missing from 61 of the 652 GO

reports included in the dataset (9.3% of the sample). This leaves us with a sample of 591

cases in which race could be determined. We now turn to an analysis of these 591 cases.

Findings

Tables D1 and D2 compare the representation of different racial groups in Toronto with

their representation in our sample of lower-level use of force cases. Population estimates

were derived from the 2016 Canadian Census (Statistics Canada 2016). Estimates for the

White population were calculated by taking the total population estimate for Toronto and

deducting the total racial minority population and the total Indigenous population.

Odds ratios and case rates were calculated to determine the representation of specific

racial groups in lower-level use of force incidents. Odds ratios were calculated by dividing

the percentage of all use of force cases involving a particular racial group by their percentage

representation in the general population. An odds ratio approaching 1.00 indicates that a racial

group is neither over- nor under-represented. An odds ratio less than 1.00 indicates that the

group is under-represented in lower-level use of force cases. An odds ratio greater than 1.00

The SIU study, described in Section C of this report, included cases from 2013 to 2017. The

lower-level use of force study described in this section only includes cases from July 1, 2016 to

June 30, 2017. The research team attempted to identify and flag all cases that were subjected

to a SIU investigation and remove them from the lower-level use of force dataset. The possibility

of data overlap is thus trivial and should not impact study findings.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

indicates that the group is over-represented. For example, an odds ratio of 2.00 indicates

that a group is twice as prevalent in lower-level use of force cases as they are in the general

population. By contrast, an odds ratio of 0.50 indicates that a group is 50% less represented in

use of force cases than their proportion of the general population would predict.

There is no set standard for determining when racial disproportionality (i.e., the over- or

under-representation of a particular racial group with respect to a specific social outcome)

is cause for concern. For example, in the Ottawa Traffic Stop study, the authors used the

20% rule (or an odds ratio of 1.20 or higher) to determine when a group was significantly

over-represented with respect to involuntary police contact (Foster et al, 2016). For the

purposes of this study we have used a higher threshold of 50%. In other words, for the

purposes of the present analysis, an odds ratio of 1.50 or higher will be used to determine

whether racial disproportionality is noteworthy or not.

At times we will also discuss the notion of “gross” racial disparity. For the purposes of

this report, a gross racial disparity exists when the level of over-representation is 300%

or greater (i.e., as indicated by an odds ratio of 3.00 or higher). In these cases, a particular

racial group would be three times more prevalent in use of force cases than their presence

in the general Toronto population would predict.

A second disparity measure used in the current analysis was the lower-level use of force

case rate. The lower-level use of force case rate (per 100,000) was calculated by dividing the

total number of cases per racial group by their population estimate and multiplying that figure

by 100,000. The rate indicates the number of people, per 100,000 population, that were

involved in a use of force case during the 2013 to 2017 study period. This case rate allows us

to directly compare the experiences of different racial groups of varying size. For example, if

Group A has a case rate of 10 per 100,000 and Group B has a rate of five per 100,000, we can

accurately state that the members of Group A are twice as likely to become involved in a lower-

level use of force case as the members of Group B.

The results indicate that Black people are grossly over-represented in TPS lower-level use

of force cases (see Table D1). Although they represent only 8.8% of Toronto’s population,

Black people are involved in 38.9% of the cases included in the OHRC lower-level use of

force dataset. These results suggest that Black people are 4.42 times more likely to appear

in a lower-level use of force incidents than their presence in the general population would

predict. By contrast, White people and people from other racial minority groups are under-

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

represented. The results further suggest that Black people are even more over-represented

in lower-level use of force cases (odds ratio = 4.42) than use of force cases that resulted in

a SIU investigation (odds ratio = 3.27).

Overall, the lower-level use of force rate (95.9 per

100,000) for Black people is five times greater than the rate for White people (19.4 per

100,000) and 11 times greater than the rate for other racial minorities (8.9 per 100,000).

The data indicate that 88.3% of all lower-level use of force cases involved a male civilian.

Only 11.7% involved females (see Table D2). However, further analysis indicates that the

involvement of Black males in lower-level use of force cases is particularly high. Although

they represent only 4% of Toronto’s population, Black males were involved in more than

a third (34.5%) of all lower-level use of force cases documented by the OHRC dataset. In

other words, Black males are 8.6 times more likely to appear in the use of force data than

their presence in the general population would predict. White males are also slightly over-

represented in lower-level use of force cases (odds ratio = 1.57). By contrast, males from

other racial minority groups, and females from all racial backgrounds, are significantly

under-represented.

Overall, the Black male lower-level use of force rate (185.7 per 100,000) is 5.5 times greater

than the White male rate (33.9 per 100,000) and 10.5 times greater than the rate for males

from other minority groups (17.7 per 100,000). Although Black females are under-represented

in the lower-level use of force dataset, the Black female rate (20.0 per 100,000) is 3.6 times

greater than the rate for White females (5.6 per 100,000) and 25 times greater than the rate

for females from other racial minority backgrounds (0.8 per 100,000).

Table D1: Total lower-level use of force cases, by race

of civilian, Toronto Police Service, July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017

Racial

group

Population

estimate

% of

population

Number of

cases

% of cases

Odds

ratio

Case rate

(per 100,000)

White 1,322,656 48.4 257 43.5 0.90 19.4

Black 239,850 8.8 230 38.9 4.42 95.9

Other racial

minority

1,169,065 42.8 104 17.6 0.41 8.9

Total 2,731,571 100.0 591 100.0 1.00 21.6

This figure was derived from the 2013 to 2017 SIU data presented in Table C12 above.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Table D2: Total lower-level use of force cases, by race and gender

of civilian, Toronto Police Service, July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017

Racial group

Population

estimate

% of

population

Number

of cases

% of cases

Odds

ratio

Case rate

(per 100,000)

White male 645,960 23.6 219 37.1 1.57 33.9

White female 676,690 24.8 38 6.4 0.26 5.6

Black male 109,870 4.0 204 34.5 8.63 185.7

Black female 129,980 4.8 26 4.4 0.92 20.0

Other racial

minority male

557,760 20.4 99 16.7 0.82 17.7

Other racial

minority female

611,315 22.4 5 0.8 0.03 0.8

Total 2,731,571 100.0 591 100.0 1.00 21.6

Representation in TPS use of force reports

As discussed above, the project coders identified 652 TPS use of force cases that were

considered “in scope” based on information provided by both the Injury and General

Occurrence Reports. However, the coders were only able to match these cases with 141

Use of Force Reports (or 21.6% of the sample). There are three possible reasons why the

matching rate is so low. First of all, it is possible that a corresponding Use of Force Report

does exist for each case but was just not located by the coders. As discussed above, the

matching process was difficult and complicated by the fact that: 1) the UFRs do not include

a General Occurrence number; and 2) the officers who filled out the Injury Reports were

often different than the officers who filled out the Use of Force Reports. The second possibility

involves the different thresholds for filling out Injury and Use of Force Reports. Use of Force

Reports must be filled out when, among other reasons, physical force causes an injury that

requires medical attention. Injury Reports, by contrast, must be filled out if the person sustains

any kind of injury – even if that injury does not require medical attention. Finally, for whatever

reason, some use of force incidents may not be captured or documented by Use of Force

Reports.

For example, our coding confirmed 47 cases in which the TPS deployed a Taser or

CEW on a civilian. However, a matching Use of Force Report could only be located for three of

these 47 cases (6.4%).

The data included in the above analysis includes only 141 of the 1,237 Use of Force Reports

(11.4%) acquired from the TPS. Some of these cases could not be matched to an Injury Report

because no injury occurred (i.e., as in cases where an officer points their firearm at a civilian but

does not cause injury).

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

The results reveal that Use of Force Reports were less likely to be located for cases involving

Black civilians (14.8%) than cases involving White civilians (24.5%) or civilians from other racial

minority backgrounds (26.9%). This difference is statistically significant (see Table D3).

However, it is important to note that Black people are still grossly over-represented in the

Use of Force Reports we were able to link to the General Occurrence reports. Although they

represent only 8.8% of the population, Black people represent 27.2% of the individuals

captured by the Use of Force reports included in the current study. In other words, they

are 3.1 times more likely to appear in a Use of Force report than their presence in the general

population would predict.

Table D3: Percentage of lower-use-of-force cases with a

corresponding TPS use of force report, by civilian race

TPS use of force

report completed

White Black Other race

No 75.5 85.2 73.1

Yes 24.5 14.8 26.9

Sample size 257 230 104

= 9.413; df = 2; p >.009

Type of force used by TPS officers

Table D4 documents the percentage of use of force incidents involving different police use

of force techniques. It should be noted that the figures do not add up to 100% because a

single incident could involve several different use of force tactics. The results suggest that

about half of all cases in the dataset involved “grounding” or ‘taking physical control” of a

civilian. Also included in this category are cases in which the exact nature of police force

was unclear. For example, in several synopses, the narrative only indicates that a “fight”

or “violent struggle” had taken place between the civilian and the police. Since the exact

nature of the force used by the police in these cases is undetermined, we placed these

cases in the “grounded/other force” category.

The second most prevalent category involves police “strikes” without a weapon. This

category includes cases in which the police punched, kicked, kneed, elbowed, slapped or

used other “hard empty handed” techniques on the civilian. Regardless of race, over 40%

of cases involved this type of force. One out of 10 cases (10%) involved an officer pointing

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

a firearm at a civilian. Other less prevalent use of force techniques identified by the data

include pepper (OC) spray, conducted energy weapons (CEWs), baton strikes, “less than

lethal” shotguns and police dogs. Only two statistically significant racial differences emerge

from the data. First of all, the data indicate that Black (8.7%) and other racial minority

civilians (13.5%) were more likely to be subjected to a Taser deployment than their White

counterparts (3.9%). In addition, it appears that other racial minority civilians were more

likely to be subjected to baton strikes (4.8%) than either Black civilians (0.4%) or White

civilians (1.2%).

Further analysis, however, suggests that Black people are grossly over-represented in most

use of force categories (see Table D4a). Although they represent only 8.8% of Toronto’s

population, they represent 32.2% of use of force cases involving a police firearm, 36% of

cases involving police use of pepper spray, 36.7% of cases involving police strikes, 41.1% of

cases involving police grounding/other force, 45.5% of cases involving police Taser use and

57.1% of cases involving a police dog. In other words, compared to their representation

in the general population, Black people are four times more likely to be involved in use of

force cases involving a police firearm, 4.1 times more likely to be involved in police pepper

spray cases, 4.2 times more likely to be involved in cases involving police strikes, 4.7 times

more likely to be involved in a case involving grounding or other force, 5.2 times more likely

to be involved in a case involving Taser use, and 6.5 times more likely to be involved in a case

involving a police dog. It appears that Black people are not significantly over-represented in

cases involving either baton use of a “less than lethal” shotgun.

Table D4: Percentage of cases involving different

types of police use of force, by civilian race

Type of

force used

White Black

Other racial

minority

Statistical

significance

OC spray 5.1 3.9 2.9 NS

CEW (Taser) 3.9 8.7 13.5 **

Baton 1.2 0.4 4.8 **

Strikes (no weapon) 44.0 40.0 44.2 NS

Firearm pointed 10.5 8.3 12.5 NS

Less than lethal shotgun 1.6 0.4 3.8 NS

Police dog 0.8 1.7 1.0 NS

Grounding/other force 47.1 49.1 37.5 NS

Sample size 257 230 104 ----

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Table D4a: Percentage of cases involving

different racial groups, by type of force used

Race

spray

CEW Baton

Strikes (no

weapon)

Firearm

pointed

Less than

lethal

shotgun

Police

dog

Grounding/

other force

White 52.0 22.7 33.3 45.2 45.8 44.4 28.6 44.3

Black 36.0 45.5 11.1 36.4 32.2 11.1 57.4 41.4

Other racial

minority

12.0 31.8 55.6 18.4 22.0 44.4 14.3 14.3

Sample size 25 44 9 250 59 9 9 273

Type of civilian injury

Table D5 presents data on the type of injury that resulted from lower-level use of force

cases. Once again, the figures do not add up to 100% because a single use of force case

could result in more than one type of injury. The data reveal that, in over half of all cases,

the civilian received a head injury. Head injuries include bloody noses, split or swollen lips,

black or swollen eyes, bumps and lacerations to the head and concussions. The next most

common injury involved abrasions or scratches. Approximately 40% of civilians experienced

this type of injury. Body pain (soft tissue damage) and cuts/lacerations were experienced by

about 20% of the civilians in the sample. Less than 5% experienced a fracture or broken bone.

Other less common injuries include Taser-related issues, pepper spray discomfort, chest pain

and handcuff rub. Only one statistically significant racial difference emerged. In general, Black

(25.3%) and White civilians (23%) are more likely to report body pain or soft tissue damage

than civilians from other racial minority groups (13.5%).

Further analysis reveals that Black people are grossly over-represented within each

injury category. Although they represent only 8.8% of the Toronto population, Black people

represent 23.5% of people with broken bones, 33.3% of people with a pepper spray-related

injury, 36.8% of people suffering from abrasions or scratches, 38.5% of people with a head

injury, 40.2% of people experiencing body pain, 41.4% of people suffering from a Taser-related

injury, 41.4% of people suffering from cuts or lacerations, 50% of people suffering from

handcuff rub, and 58.3% of people suffering from chest pain. In other words, compared

to their representation in the general population, Black people are 2.7 times more likely to

suffer from broken bones related to a police use of force incident, 3.8 times more likely to

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

suffer an injury from police use of pepper spray, 4.2 times more likely to suffer abrasions

or scratches, 4.4 times more likely to suffer a head injury, 4.6 times more likely to experience

body pain or soft tissue damage, 4.7 times more likely to experience cuts or lacerations, 4.7

times more likely to experience a Taser-related injury and 6.6 times more likely to experience

chest pains as the result of a police use of force incident.

Table D5: Percentage of cases involving different

types of civilian injury, by civilian race

Type of injury White Black

Other racial

minority

Statistical

significance

Eye pain from OC spray 1.2 1.3 2.9 NS

Injury from Taser (CEW) 3.1 5.2 8.7 NS

Body pain/soft tissue damage 25.3 23.0 13.5 *

Chest pains/breathing issues 0.8 3.0 2.9 NS

Broken bones/fractures 3.1 1.7 4.8 NS

Handcuff rub 5.8 8.7 4.8 NS

Cuts/lacerations 24.5 25.2 18.3 NS

Abrasions/scratches 41.6 38.3 42.3 NS

Head injury 54.9 53.0 51.9 NS

Injury details not provided 2.3 4.8 1.0 NS

Sample size 257 230 104 ----

Involvement of paramedics

Information drawn from the Injury Report was used to determine whether the injury to the

civilian was serious enough to warrant the involvement of paramedics (i.e., EMS services).

The results suggest that paramedics were involved in about one-quarter of the use of force

incidents documented by the current study. The use of paramedics did not vary significantly by

the racial background of the civilian (Table D6).

Further analysis reveals that Black people were grossly over-represented in both cases that

involved EMS services and cases that did not involve EMS services. Although Black people

represent only 8.8% of Toronto’s population, they were involved in 37% of the cases

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

that involved a paramedic and 39.6% of the cases that did not involve a paramedic. In

other words, compared to their representation in the general population, Black people were

4.2 times more likely to be involved in a TPS use of force case that involved a paramedic and

4.5 times more likely to be involved in a use of force case that did not involve EMS services.

Table D6: Percentage of lower-use-of-force cases that

involved a call for EMS Services, by civilian race

EMS called White Black

Other racial

minority

No 73.2 73.9 68.3

Yes 26.8 26.1 31.7

Sample size 257 230 104

= 1.219; df = 2; p >.544

Location of civilian medical treatment

Information from the Injury Reports was used to determine the nature and location of the

medical treatment received by civilians following TPS use of force incidents (see Table D7).

The results suggest that, in almost half of the cases documented by the OHRC, the civilian

either did not receive medical treatment or the type of treatment was not specified. In

approximately 20% of all cases, the civilian was transported to a hospital by ambulance.

In 15% of cases, the civilian was transported to the hospital by the police. In one out of

10 cases, the civilian was either treated on the scene by paramedics (7.4%) or by the police

(1.5%). In about 9% of cases, it was noted that the civilian refused medical treatment.

Compared to White civilians, the data suggest that Black civilians were slightly more likely

to be treated by paramedics at the scene. They were also slightly more likely to refuse

medical treatment. By contrast, White civilians were slightly more likely to be transported

to hospital by ambulance. Importantly, none of these slight racial differences reach

statistical significance.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

It is also important to note that Black people are grossly over-represented in all treatment

categories. For example, although they represent only 8.8% of Toronto’s population, Black

people represent 32% of people taken to hospital by ambulance, 40.9% of people taken to

the hospital by the police and 43.2% of people treated at the scene by paramedics. Similarly,

Black people represent 38.6% of people with missing treatment information and 46.3% of

people who refused medical treatment.

Table D7: Location of civilian medical treatment, by civilian race

Location of medical treatment White Black

Other racial

minority

No information provided 46.7 45.7 45.2

At scene by TPS officers 0.8 2.2 1.9

At scene by paramedics 6.2 8.3 8.7

Taken to hospital by ambulance 23.0 17.0 23.1

Taken to hospital by TPS officers 16.3 15.7 9.6

Went to hospital on own 0.0 0.4 1.0

Civilian refused treatment 7.0 10.9 10.6

Sample size 257 230 104

= 11.930; df = 12; p >.451

Nature of police contact

The research team examined the case synopses provided in the Injury, Use of Force and

General Occurrence reports to determine how contact between the police and civilians

involved in lower-level use of force cases was initiated. The results suggest that, compared

to their White counterparts, Black people are more likely to be involved in cases that involve

proactive rather than reactive policing. For example, 60.7% of the use of force cases involving

White civilians began as the result of a call for service, compare to only 48.3% of the cases

involving Black civilians. By contrast, compared to White people, Black civilians were more

likely to be involved in use of force cases that started with a traffic stop, warrant, follow-up

investigation or police raid (see Table D8). These racial differences are statistically significant.

This finding is important because it suggests a possible relationship between racial profiling

and racial disparities in police use of force statistics. Since Black people are more likely to be

subjected to discretionary police stops, they may be more likely to experience a negative police

encounter that eventually deteriorates into a use of force incident.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

100

Importantly, the data further suggest that Black people are grossly over-represented

in both reactive and proactive forms of police contact. However, the degree of Black

over-representation is higher for cases involving proactive rather than reactive policing.

Although they represent only 8.8% of Toronto’s population, Black people were involved

in 33.3% of use of force cases that stemmed from a pedestrian stop, 33.8% of cases that

stemmed from a call for service, 35.4% of cases that stemmed from police witnessing illegal

activity, 38.1% of cases that involved an offender already in custody, 47.4% of cases that

stemmed from a follow-up investigation, 51.9% of cases that stemmed from traffic stops,

54.8% of cases that stemmed from a police raid and 67.4% of cases than involved the

serving of a warrant. In other words, compared to their presence in the general population,

Black people are 3.8 times more likely to be involved in use force cases that stemmed from

a pedestrian stop, 3.8 times more likely to be involved in cases that stemmed from a call for

service, four times more likely to be involved in cases that involved the police witnessing illegal

activity, 4.3 times more likely to be involved in cases involving a civilian already in

custody, 5.4 times more likely to be involved in cases that stemmed from a follow-up

investigation, 5.9 times more likely to be involved in cases that stemmed from a traffic stop,

6.2 times more likely to be involved in cases that stemmed from a police raid, and 7.7 times

more likely to be involved in cases that involved a warrant.

Table D8: Type of police contact, by civilian race

Type of police contact White Black

Other racial

minority

No details provided 6.6 2.6 2.9

Call for service 60.7 48.3 58.7

Traffic stop 3.9 6.1 2.9

Pedestrian stop 5.8 3.9 2.9

Police witnessed illegal activity 8.2 7.4 9.6

Serving warrant 3.1 12.6 5.8

Police raid 5.1 10.0 5.8

Civilian initiated contact 1.2 1.7 2.9

Civilian already in custody 3.5 3.5 3.8

Follow-up investigation 1.9 3.9 4.8

Sample size 257 230 104

= 36.673; df = 18; p >.006

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

101

Civilian behaviour during use of force incident

The research team used information from the report synopses to determine the behaviour

of civilians prior to police use of force. Most cases (over 50%) involved civilian non-compliance

with police commands. In these cases, although the civilian was described as uncooperative,

there was no indication that they had threatened or assaulted the police prior to the decision

to use force. However, it should be noted that, in several cases, the civilian struggled with the

police after the police had initiated physical contact. In approximately one-third of all cases, the

synopsis indicated that the civilian had tried to physically assault the police – without a weapon

– and that this assault led the police to respond with force. Civilian threats and assaults with a

weapon were quite rare. Indeed, there were only three cases in which a civilian threatened the

police with a firearm. Racial differences with respect to civilian behaviour do not reach

statistical significance (see Table D9).

Black people are over-represented in most civilian behaviour categories. Although they

represent only 8.8% of Toronto’s population, they were involved in 39.4% of cases that

involved civilian non-compliance, 37.6% of cases than involved assaults against the police

and 37.5% of cases that involved resist arrest allegations. In other words, compared to their

presence in the general population, Black people were 4.5 times more likely to be involved

in a use of force case that involved civilian non-compliance, 4.3 times more likely to be

involved in a case that involves an alleged assault against the police, and 4.3 times more

likely to be involved in a case that involves an allegation of resist arrest.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

102

Table D9: Civilian behaviour prior to police

use of force interaction, by civilian race

Type of police contact White Black

Other racial

minority

Uncooperative/noncompliant 53.7 54.3 51.9

Threatened police (no weapon) 3.5 3.5 2.9

Threatened police (weapon) 1.2 1.3 3.8

Threatened police (gun) 0.4 0.9 0.0

Threatened civilian (weapon) 0.4 0.0 1.0

Threatened civilian (gun) 0.0 0.0 1.0

Assault police (no weapon) 33.9 29.6 25.0

Assault police (weapon) 0.8 1.3 2.9

Resisted arrest 5.8 6.5 9.6

Damaged police property 0.4 1.7 1.0

Threatened self-harm 0.0 0.9 1.0

Sample size 257 230 104

= 32.726; df = 22; p >.110

Civilian weapons

The research team examined report synopses to determine whether civilians were armed

during the lower-level use of force cases identified by the OHRC inquiry. The results indicate

that, regardless of race, the majority of civilians were unarmed (Table D10). However, the

results also indicate that a slightly higher proportion of Black civilians (27.4%) were armed

than White civilians (19.1%) or civilians from other racial minority groups (26.0%). Furthermore,

8.3% of Black civilians possessed or were suspected of possessing a firearm, compared to only

2.7% of White civilians and 3.8% of civilians from other racial minority backgrounds. These

racial differences are statistically significant.

Importantly, the data further reveal that Black civilians are grossly over-represented in all

four weapons categories. Although they represent only 8.8% of Toronto’s population, they

represent 36.9% of use of force cases involving unarmed civilians, 33.3% of cases involving

a civilian armed with an “other” weapon (i.e., bat, brick, glass bottle, piece of wood, etc.),

47.3% of cases involving a knife and 63.3% of cases involving a firearm. In other words,

compared to their representation in the general population, Black people are 4.2 times

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

103

more likely to be involved in use of force cases involving unarmed civilians, 3.8 times more

likely to be involved in cases involving “other” weapons, 5.4 times more likely to be involved

in cases involving a knife, and 7.2 times more likely to be involved in cases involving a firearm.

Table D10: Civilian weapons identified or suspected

during police interaction, by civilian race

Type of police contact White Black

Other racial

minority

No weapons 80.9 72.6 74.0

Firearms 2.7 8.3 3.8

Knife/cutting edge weapon 8.2 11.3 7.7

Other weapons 8.2 7.8 14.4

Sample size 257 230 104

= 14.415; df = 6; p >.025

How civilian weapon identified

Many in the public believe that police use of force cases involve confrontations with violent,

armed civilians. Analysis reveals that this stereotype simply is not true. According to the

data compiled by the OHRC, eight out of 10 use of force cases (80%) involved unarmed

civilians (see Table D10). Furthermore, even when armed, civilians rarely use weapons to

threaten or assault police officers. For example, the current data identified 30 use of force

cases in which the civilian had or was suspected of having a firearm. In five cases (16.7%

of the sample), the police suspected that the civilian possessed a firearm – but these

suspicions were unfounded. A firearm was not located post-arrest. In 15 cases (50% of the

sample), the police did not identify the firearm until a search had been conducted. In other

words, for 20 of the 30 gun-related use of force cases (66.7%) there is no evidence that the

civilian had brandished the weapon in front of officers. Of the remaining 10 cases, eight

involved gun-related threats or assaults on other civilians. Only two (6.7%) involved gun

threats against the police. Overall, racial differences in weapons use during police use of

force cases do not reach statistical significance (see Table D11). However, Black civilians

were slightly more likely to be involved in cases in which the weapon was not identified

until after arrest (9.6%) than both White (4.3%) and other minority civilians (2.9%).

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

104

Table D11: How civilian weapon identified

during police interaction, by civilian race

Type of police contact White Black

Other racial

minority

No weapon identified 81.7 73.9 76.9

Other weapon used to threaten civilian 5.8 4.8 2.9

Knife used to threaten civilian 0.8 0.4 0.0

Firearm used to threaten civilian 0.4 0.9 1.0

Other weapon used to assault civilian 1.9 3.0 5.8

Firearm discharged at civilian 0.4 0.9 1.0

Other weapon used to threaten police 0.0 0.9 1.9

Firearm used to threaten police 0.4 0.4 0.0

Other weapon used to assault police 1.6 2.6 2.9

Weapon used to threaten self-harm 0.4 0.4 0.0

Police suspected weapon – none recovered 0.0 0.0 1.0

Police suspected firearm – none recovered 1.6 1.3 1.9

Weapon only identified after arrest/search 4.3 9.6 2.9

Civilian tried to access officer’s firearm 0.4 0.0 1.0

Civilian holding weapon (no threats or assaults) 0.4 0.9 1.0

Sample size 257 230 104

= 30.099; df = 30; p >.446

Civilian arrests

Almost 90% of the lower-level use of force cases documented by the OHRC resulted in

a civilian arrest. Only 12.5% resulted in some other outcome (including mental health

apprehensions). Racial differences in arrest outcomes are not statistically significant (see

Table D12). Black people are grossly over-represented among both those who were and

were not arrested. For example, although they represent only 8.8% of the population,

Black people represent 36.5% of those not arrested and 39.3% of those arrested during

use of force altercations. In other words, compared to their representation in the general

population, Black people were 4.1 times more likely to appear in use of force cases that did

not result in arrest and 4.5 times more likely to be involved in cases that resulted in arrest.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

105

Table D12: Percentage of lower-use-of-force cases

that resulted in an arrest or charges, by civilian race

Civilian charged White Black

Other racial

minority

No charges laid 13.2 11.7 12.5

Arrested/charges laid 86.8 88.3 87.5

Sample size 257 230 104

= 0.246; df = 2; p >.884

Fled police custody

The research team examined police report synopses to determine whether the civilians

involved in lower-level use of force cases had been reported as having tried to flee or

escape police custody (see Table D13). The results indicate that, regardless of race, most

civilians (64.8%) had not been reported as having tried to escape custody. However, the

results also suggest that a higher proportion of Black civilians (39.1%) had been reported

as having tried to escape custody than White civilians (29.6%). This difference is statistically

significant.

Importantly, Black civilians are over-represented among those who were and were not

reported as having tried to escape police custody. Although they represent only 8.8% of

Toronto’s population, Black people account for 43.3% of people who were reported as

having tried to escape custody and 36.6% of people who did not try to escape custody. In

other words, compared to their representation in the general population, Black people

are 4.9 times more likely to be involved in reported escape custody cases and 4.2 times

more likely to be involved in cases in which the civilian was not reported as having tried

to escape custody.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

106

Table D13: Percentage of lower-use-of-force cases that

involved a civilian fleeing police custody, by civilian race

Civilian fled custody White Black

Other racial

minority

Did not flee 70.4 60.9 59.6

Fled custody 29.6 39.1 40.4

Sample size 257 230 104

= 6.353; df = 2; p >.042

Resisting arrest charges

The research team examined report synopses to determine whether the civilians involved

in lower-level use of force cases had been charged with resisting arrest (see Table D14).

The results reveal that although 35.2% of the civilians involved in lower-level use of force

cases had reportedly tried to escape police custody, only 14.3% were charged with resisting

arrest. This finding likely demonstrates that, regardless of civilian behaviour, individual

officers still wield considerable discretion when it comes to charge decisions. However, the

results reveal little evidence of racial bias when it comes to resist arrest charges. Although

Black civilians were slightly more likely to be charged with resist arrest (17%) than White

(15.2%) or other minority civilians (12.5%), these racial differences do not reach statistical

significance. Nonetheless, Black subjects are grossly over-represented among those

charged with resist arrest. Although they represent only 8.8% of the Toronto population,

they represent 42.9% of those involved in use of force cases that resulted in a resist arrest

charge (odds ratio = 4.90).

Table D14: Percentage of lower-use-of-force cases

that resulted in a resisting arrest charge, by civilian race

Civilian charged White Black

Other racial

minority

Not charged with resisting arrest 84.8 83.0 87.5

Charged with resisting arrest 15.2 17.0 12.5

Sample size 257 230 104

= 1.109; df = 2; p >.574

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

107

Civilian criminal record

The research team examined report synopses to determine whether the civilians involved

in lower-level use of force cases had a prior criminal record. The results reveal that Black

civilians were slightly more likely to have a prior criminal record (57.4%) than White civilians

(51.8%) or civilians from other racial minority backgrounds (41.3%). These racial differences

are statistically significant (see Table D15).

The results also reveal that Black civilians are grossly over-represented among both those

with and without a prior criminal history. Although they represent only 8.8% of the population,

they represent 34.6% of people without a previous criminal record and 42.9% of people with

a criminal record. In other words, compared to their representation in the general population,

Black people are 3.9 times more likely to appear in a use of force case involving civilians with

no criminal record. By contrast, they are 4.9 times more likely to appear in cases involving

civilians with a criminal record.

Table D15: Percentage of lower-use-of-force cases that involved

a civilian with a previous criminal record, by civilian race

Civilian criminal

record

White Black

Other racial

minority

No record 48.2 42.6 58.7

Have criminal record 51.8 57.4 41.3

Sample size 257 230 104

= 7.412; df = 2; p >.025

Civilian substance use

The research team examined report synopses to determine whether the civilians involved

in lower-level use of force cases were intoxicated or under the influence of drugs or alcohol

at the time of the incident (see Table D16). The results suggest that Black civilians (22.6%)

were much less likely to be intoxicated or high than White civilians (44.7%) or those from

other racial minority backgrounds (31.7%). These racial differences are statistically significant.

The results further reveal that Black people are significantly over-represented in both cases

It is important to note that, if bias exists within the criminal justice system, it is likely that Black

people will be more likely to have a criminal record than their White counterparts.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

108

that involve severe intoxication and cases in which intoxication was not noted. However,

the data also show that Black people are particularly over-represented in cases that did

not involve civilian intoxication. Although they represent only 8.8% of the population,

Black people were involved in 45.5% of cases in which the civilian was not intoxicated or

high (odds ratio = 5.2) and 22.6% of cases in which the civilian was intoxicated or high

(odds ratio = 2.6).

Additional analysis reveals that Black civilians were also less likely to have a noted substance

abuse history (18.3%) than either White (35.0%) or other minority civilians (24.0%). These racial

differences are statistically significant (see Table D17). However, further analysis reveals that

Black people are significantly over-represented among both people with and people without a

noted substance abuse problem. Compared to their representation in the general population,

Black people are 4.9 times more likely to be involved in use of force cases that involve civilians

without a history of substance abuse. By contrast, they are only three times more likely to be

involved in cases that involve civilians with a noted substance abuse problem.

Table D16: Percentage of lower-use-of-force cases that involved a civilian

who was intoxicated or high at the time of the incident, by civilian race

Civilian intoxication White Black Other racial

minority

Not intoxicated or high 55.3 77.4 68.3

Intoxicated or high 44.7 22.6 31.7

Sample size 257 230 104

= 26.281; df = 2; p >.001

Table D17: Percentage of lower-use-of-force cases that involved a

civilian who had a noted substance abuse problem, by civilian race

Civilian substance

abuse problem

White Black Other racial

minority

Problem not noted 65.0 81.7 76.0

Problem noted 35.0 18.3 24.0

Sample size 257 230 104

= 17.887; df = 2; p >.001

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

109

Civilian mental health

Finally, the research team examined report synopses to determine whether the civilians

involved in lower-level use of force cases were experiencing a mental health crisis at the

time of the incident (see Table D18). The results suggest that Black civilians (10.9%) were

slightly less likely to be in a mental health crisis than White civilians (14.4%) or those from

other racial minority backgrounds (15.4%). However, these racial differences are not

statistically significant. The results further reveal that Black people are significantly

over-represented in both cases that involve a mental health crisis and cases in which a

mental health crisis was not noted. Although they represent only 8.8% of the population,

Black people were involved in 40% of cases in which the civilian was not in a mental health

crisis (odds ratio = 4.5) and 32.1% of cases in which the civilian was in a mental health crisis

(odds ratio = 3.6).

Additional analysis reveals that Black civilians were less likely to have a noted history of

mental health problems (16.5%) than either White (26.1%) or other racial minority civilians

(22.1%). These racial differences are statistically significant (see Table D19). However,

further analysis reveals that Black people are significantly over-represented among both

people with and people without a history of mental health problems. Compared to their

representation in the general population, Black people are 4.7 times more likely to be

involved in use of force cases that involve civilians without a history of mental health

problems. By contrast, they are only 3.4 times more likely to be involved in cases that

involve civilians with a noted history of mental health issues.

Table D18: Percentage of lower-use-of-force cases that involved a civilian

who was in a mental health crisis at the time of the incident, by civilian race

Civilian mental health

at time of the Incident

White Black

Other racial

minority

Not in crisis 85.6 89.1 84.6

In crisis 14.4 10.9 15.4

Sample size 257 230 104

= 1.845; df = 2; p >.398

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

110

Table D19: Percentage of lower-use-of-force cases that involved a

civilian who had a noted mental health problem, by civilian race

Civilian mental

health history

White Black

Other racial

minority

Problem not noted 73.9 83.5 77.9

Problem noted 26.1 16.5 22.1

Sample size 257 230 104

= 6.537; df = 2; p >.038

Community-level crime rates

As discussed in the literature review, community crime level may be an important predictor

of police use of force. Although presence in a high-crime community is not a justification

for police use of force, it is often used as a proxy measure of civilian criminality or the

dangers police officers might face within certain geographical locations. Others argue that

the police may be more aggressive or vigilant in high-crime communities and this may lead

to more use of force incidents.

As discussed in Section C, the Toronto Police Service provided our research team with

annual patrol zone-level violent crime rates from 2013 to 2017. These figures were

combined to produce the average annual crime rate for each patrol zone during the study

period. For presentation purposes, patrol zones were divided into four equal groups – or

quartiles – depicting their crime rates relative to other patrol zones in the city. In other

words, the low crime category includes the 25% of patrol zones with the lowest crime rates.

By contrast, the high crime category includes the 25% of patrol zones with the highest

crime rates.

As with the SIU data, our analysis of lower-level use of force cases reveals that there is a

positive relationship between patrol zone crime levels and how often the police resort to

force. For example, almost 40% of lower-level use of force incidents, captured by our data,

occurred in the patrol zones with the highest crime rates. By contrast, only 14.7% took

place in low-crime patrol zones (see Table D20).

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

111

Further analysis reveals that lower-level use of force cases involving Black civilians (45.9%)

are more likely to take place in high-crime patrol zones (45.9%) than cases involving White

(33.5%) and other minority civilians (36.5%). By contrast, cases involving White and other

racial minority civilians are more likely to take place in low-crime patrol zones. This racial

difference is statistically significant (see Table D21).

Additional analysis, however, reveals that Black people are grossly over-represented in

lower-level use of force cases that take place in both low-crime and high-crime patrol zones

(see Table D22). For example, although Black people represent only 5.2% of the population

of low-crime patrol zones, they represent 28.7% of lower-level use of force incidents that

took place in these areas. In other words, Black people are 5.5 times more likely to be

involved in a use of force incident that took place in a low-crime patrol zone than their

residence in such communities would predict. Similarly, although Black people represent

only 12.4% of the population residing in high-crime patrol zones, they were involved in

45.9% of the use of force cases that took place in these areas. In other words, Black people

were 3.7 times more likely to be involved in a lower-level use of force incident that occurred

in a high-crime patrol zone than their residence in these zones would predict. These findings

indicate that the over-representation of Black people in lower-level use of forces incidents

cannot be explained by their presence in high crime communities.

Table D20: Percentage of lower-level use of force cases,

by patrol zone crime rates, 2013 – 2017 cases

Patrol zone

crime rate

Lower-level use

of force incidents

Low 14.7

Medium-low 22.0

Medium-high 24.4

High 38.8

Sample size 591

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

112

Table D21: Percentage of lower-level use of force cases,

involving different racial groups, that took place in low-

and high-crime patrol zones, 2013 – 2017 cases

Patrol zone crime rate White Black

Other racial

minority

Low 16.0 10.9 20.2

Medium-low 25.3 18.3 22.1

Medium high 25.3 24.9 21.2

High 33.5 45.9 36.5

Sample size 257 229 104

Chi-square: 12.791; df = 6; p >.046

Table D22: Black representation in SIU

investigations, by patrol zone crime level

Black representation

Low-crime

patrol zones

Low-medium

crime patrol

zones

Medium-high

crime patrol

zones

High crime

patrol zones

% patrol zone population 5.2 7.8 11.3 12.4

% lower-level use of force cases 28.7 32.3 39.6 45.9

Odds ratio 5.52 4.14 3.50 3.70

Summary

The findings presented above are based on an analysis of 591 lower-level use of force cases

involving TPS officers. These are cases that fall below the threshold for a SIU investigation

(i.e., they do not involve civilian death or serious injury). The findings reveal that:

• Black people are grossly over-represented in TPS lower-level use of force cases.

Although they represent only 8.8% of Toronto’s population, Black people are

involved in 38.9% of the cases included in the lower-level use of force dataset. These

results suggest that Black people are 4.4 times more likely to appear in a lower-level

use of force incidents than their presence in the general population would predict.

By contrast, White people and people from other racial minority groups are under-

represented.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

113

• Overall, the results suggest that Black people are even more over-represented

in lower-level use of force cases (odds ratio = 4.42) than use of force cases that

resulted in a SIU investigation (odds ratio = 3.27).

• Overall, the lower-level use of force rate for Black people (95.9 per 100,000) is five

times greater than the rate for White people (19.4 per 100,000) and 11 times greater

than the rate for other racial minorities (8.9 per 100,000).

• The involvement of Black males in lower-level use of force cases is particularly high.

Although they represent only 4% of Toronto’s population, Black males were involved

in more than a third (34.5%) of all lower-level use of force cases documented by the

current study; Black males are 8.6 times more likely to appear in the use of force data

than their presence in the general population would predict.

• White males are slightly over-represented in lower-level use of force cases (odds

ratio = 1.57). By contrast, males from other racial minority groups, and females

from all racial backgrounds, are significantly under-represented.

• Overall, the Black male lower-level use of force rate (185.7 per 100,000) is 5.5 times

greater than the White male rate (33.9 per 100,000) and 10.5 times greater than the

rate for males from other racial minority groups (17.7 per 100,000).

• Compared to their presence in the general population, Black females are under-

represented in the lower-level use of force dataset. However, the Black female rate

(20 per 100,000) is 3.6 times greater than the rate for White females (5.6 per 100,000)

and 25 times greater than the rate for females from other racial minority backgrounds

(0.8 per 100,000).

• The results suggest that most minor use of force cases involved either the physical

restraint or grounding of a civilian or police strikes (punches, kicks, etc.). About

10% involved police officers pointing their firearm at a civilian.

• In general, Black people are grossly over-represented within all use of force categories

including the use of pepper spray, Tasers, strikes without a weapon, grounding and

firearms deployment.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

114

• The results suggest that, compared to White people, minor use of force cases

involving Black people were more likely to result from proactive policing efforts

(traffic stops, raids, follow-up investigations, etc.) than from reactive policing

efforts (calls for service).

• The results suggest that the majority of TPS lower-level use of force cases involve

civilians described as non-compliant, cases involving civilians who attempted to

resist arrest or cases involving the physical assault of police officers.

• Three-quarters of all minor use of force incidents involve unarmed civilians. Less

than 5% involved civilians in possession of a firearm.

• While Black civilians were slightly more likely to be carrying a firearm than White

civilians, only 8% of Black civilians had a firearm at the time of the minor use of

force incident.

• In general, civilians did not brandish firearms in front of the police. In most cases,

firearms were either incorrectly suspected by the police (i.e., a firearm was never

located) or only identified after an arrest had been made. This finding challenges the

notion that TPS officers only use physical force when they are involved in shootouts

with dangerous, armed offenders.

• Regardless of race, almost half of all the minor use of force cases documented by

the study involved civilians without a criminal record.

• Compared to their White counterparts, Black civilians were less likely to be

intoxicated or high at the time of their minor use of force incident.

• Compared to their White counterparts, Black civilians were less likely to be

experiencing a mental health crisis at the time of their minor use of force incident.

• Regardless of race, almost 90% of minor use of force incidents involved the arrest

of a civilian.

• Black people are grossly over-represented in lower-level use of force cases that take

place in both low-crime and high-crime patrol zones.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

115

Overall, the findings from this study of TPS lower-level use of force cases are highly

consistent with the results of our analysis of SIU investigations (see Part C of this report).

Both investigations found that Black people are grossly over-represented in incidents

involving use of force by TPS officers. In the next section of this report we combine data

from the SIU study with data from the lower-level use of force study to further examine

whether local demographics and crime rates can help explain these racial disparities.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

116

Part E – Multivariate analysis of use of force cases

Introduction

This section of the report presents the results of several multi-level, negative binomial

regression models of police use of force. Negative binomial models are a type of “count”

regression model commonly used to model discrete police-citizen interactions (Edwards,

Lee, and Esposito 2019; Gelman, Fagan, and Kiss 2007; Geller and Fagan 2010).

Following

the example of these previous studies, we set the race-specific population of each patrol

zone as the “offset” or underlying population at risk for use of force, reflecting the expectation

that use of force against particular racial groups will be higher in patrol zones where more

members of that racial group reside. Following past studies, we estimate these models in a

Bayesian framework.

The principal purpose of these models is to test whether the observed racial disparities in

the odds of experiencing police use of force persist after controlling for the independent

effects of aggregate patrol zone characteristics. As discussed, patrol zone-level characteristics

may affect the odds that an individual will experience force in a variety of ways (see section B).

For example, residents of Toronto patrol zones where the violent crime rate is high may be at

greater risk of experiencing use of force if officers are especially vigilante or concerned for

their safety in these areas and, as a result, are more aggressive towards local residents. Racial

disparities in use of force, in this scenario, may be explained by the disproportionate

representation of Black civilians in patrol zones where violent crime rates are high. The multi-

level models we employ here allow us to assess this potential and other potential explanations

for observed racial disparities.

This section of the report was prepared by Dr. Ayobami, Assistant Professor, Centre for

Criminology and Sociolegal Studies, University of Toronto.

Edwards, Frank, Hedwig Lee, and Michael Esposito. 2019. "Risk of being killed by police use of

force in the United States by age, race–ethnicity, and sex." Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences 116.34: 16793-16798. Geller, Amanda, and Jeffrey Fagan. 2010. "Pot as pretext: Marijuana,

race, and the new disorder in New York City street policing." Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 7.4:

591-633. Gelman, Andrew, Jeffrey Fagan, and Alex Kiss. 2007. "An analysis of the New York City

police department's “stop-and-frisk” policy in the context of claims of racial bias." Journal of the

American Statistical Association 102.479: 813-823.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

117

The data

Our data on use of force by the Toronto Police Service (TPS) was derived from two sources.

The first set of data capture information from Special Investigation Unit (SIU) investigations

into use of force by the TPS. The sample includes 192 investigations that took place

between January 1, 2013, and June 30, 2017.

The second source of data capture details

regarding TPS lower-level use of force incidents. These police use of force incidents did not

result in the death of the civilian and were not considered serious enough to meet the

SIU’s investigative mandate. Information about lower-level incidents was extracted from

TPS Injury Reports, Use of Force Reports and GO reports. All incidents occurred between July 1

2016, and June 30, 2017. Examples of lower-level force include officer strikes (e.g. open-palm

techniques, punches and kicks), grounding, OC spray (e.g. pepper spray), or the application of a

conducted energy weapon (e.g. Taser). We limited our analysis to the 578 lower-level incidents

where it could clearly be determined that force had been used by the officers involved and the

patrol zone where the incident happened had been recorded. A full description of the SIU data

is provided in Section C of this report. A full description of the TPS “lower-level” use of force

data is provided in Section D.

The data used to control for the independent effect of patrol zone demographic

characteristics on police use of force was provided by Statistics Canada at the request of

the Toronto Star. This data is derived from 2006 Canadian Census and used as part of the

Star’s Race Matters series (Rankin 2010). Data on patrol zone-level crime rates – from 2010

to 2017 – were provided by the TPS at the request of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Variables

Our models control for the independent effect of several ecological variables characterized

in past research as potential explanations for use of force, including patrol zone-level

violent crime rate, median household income, and share of single-mother households

in the patrol zone. The patrol zone violent crime rate serves as a proxy for the potential

danger officers may face within particular regions of the city, as well as for how officers’

We were not able to use the SIU data from the 2000 to 2006 period. That study involved an

analysis of cases from across Ontario. Patrol zone information was not collected for specific police

services. Furthermore, TPS patrol zones changed between 2006 and 2013.

At the time of the current analysis, we were unable to acquire patrol zone-level data from the

2016 Canadian Census. However, we feel that the overall profile of these zones has likely not

changed dramatically over the last decade.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

118

concern for their personal safety may impact use of force decisions. Median household

income and proportion of single-mother households also allow for an estimate of how

economic disadvantage/social disorganization within patrol zones might impact the odds

that a resident of those patrol zones will experience police use of force. Past studies

suggest that if all else is held constant, police use of force will be higher in poorer areas

and areas characterized by higher levels of disadvantage, whether due to civilian or officer

behavior (Terrill and Reisig 2003).

Multi-level models also allow researchers to control for the impact that unmeasured patrol

zone-level characteristics may have on use of force rates. For example, the presence

of a public park, the density of public housing, and the share of young males who have not

completed high school in a patrol zone may all affect the odds that residents of a particular

patrol zone will experience police force. Our multi-level models control for systematic

variation in these (and other) characteristics across Toronto patrol zones, but do not allow

us to identify specifically the independent effect that they have on the odds that a resident

will experience force. What is important here, however, is testing the extent to which racial

disparities persist while controlling for these characteristics.

Results

Our results suggest that the gross racial disparities in both serious and lower-level use

of force incidents, documented in Sections C and D of this report, cannot be explained

by patrol zone-level characteristics. In other words, we still view striking disparities in

the relative risk that Black civilians will experience serious and minor police use of force

relative to their White counterparts – even after statistically controlling for patrol zone-

level characteristics.

Each table depicts the results of five different regression models. Model 1 simply estimates

the risk that Black civilians and civilians belonging to other racial minority groups

in a patrol

zone (relative to White civilians in that patrol zone) will experience police use of force, given

their share of the population. Model 2 estimates racial disparity while statistically controlling

for average violent crime rates over the study period. Model 3 estimates racial disparity while

controlling for (the log of) median household income. Model 4 estimates racial disparity while

controlling for the share of single-mother households in the patrol zone. Finally, Model 5

For the purpose of the following analysis and because of the relative infrequency of cases, civilians

who are not identified as either Black or White were coded as other racial minority

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

119

estimates racial disparity while controlling for violent crime rate, median household income

and single-mother households simultaneously.

This final model controls for other,

unmeasured characteristics of the patrol zone as well. For parsimony, for each analysis,

only the results from Model 5 are discussed.

Table E1 examines the impact of race on SIU investigations controlling for patrol zone

characteristics. White civilians are set as the “reference” group, so the model coefficients

can be interpreted as the effect that race has on the odds that a member of a particular

racial minority group will experience force, relative to the odds that a White civilian will

experience force. When looking at SIU cases in isolation, we estimate that the odds (relative

to their share of the population) that a Black civilian will experience injury or death related

to use of force resulting in a SIU investigation are 50 times the odds that White civilians will

experience an injury resulting in a SIU investigation (see Table E1). The odds that civilians

belonging to other racial minority groups will experience force resulting in an SIU

investigation (relative to their share of the population) are 14 times the odds that White

civilians will experience force. Note that an increase in the log of the mean violent crime

rate is also associated with an increase in the odds that a civilian will experience an injury –

related to use of force – resulting in a SIU investigation. In other words, people residing

in high-crime communities are more likely to experience a SIU investigation than people

residing in low-crime communities. However, race remains a significant predictor of SIU

investigations after statistically controlling for patrol zone characteristics. Furthermore, the

overall effect of patrol zone violent crime rates pale in comparison to the impact of race.

Single-mother households is often used as an alternative measure of social disadvantage.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

120

Table E1: Predictors of SIU cases in Toronto

by race and patrol zone factors

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Race (White set as reference group)

Black 49 48 49 51 50

Other racial minority 14 13 14 15 14

Patrol zone factors

Violent crime rate (log) — 1.9 — — 4.1

Median household income (log) — — 1 — 0.94

% Single mother households — — — 0.96 0.89

Note: Negative binomial models of SIU cases in Toronto patrol zones. Effect of race is

relative to White reference group. Cell values give effect of a unit change on odds of force.

Values in bold Values in bold are those where 95% credible intervals do not overlap with 1.

Table E2 examines the impact of race on lower-level use of force incidents controlling for

patrol zone characteristics. The analysis identifies significant disparities in the relative risk

that Black civilians – and civilians belonging to other racial minority groups – will experience

lower-level police force. Model 5 estimates that, relative to their share of the population in

specific patrol zones, the odds that a Black civilian will experience force are 37 times the

odds that a White civilian will experience low-level force. The odds that civilians belonging to

other racial minority groups will experience force are six times the odds that a White civilian

will experience lower-level force. Patrol zone violent crime rates also predict the likelihood of

experiencing lower-level use of force – as does median household income. In other words,

people who reside in poor, high-crime communities are more likely to experience lower-level

use of force than people residing in wealthy, low-crime communities. However, controlling for

these factors does not reduce the impact of civilian race.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

121

Table E2: Predictors of lower-level use of force cases

in Toronto, by race and patrol zone factors

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Race (White set as reference group)

Black 47 39 47 42 37

Other racial minority 7 5 7 8 6

Patrol zone factors

Violent crime rate (log) — 5 — — 5

Median household income (log) — — 0.29 — 0.67

% single mothers — — — .94 .99

Note: Negative binomial models of lower-level use of force cases in Toronto patrol zones.

Effect of race is relative to White reference group. Cell values give effect of a unit change on

odds of force. Values in bold are those where 95% credible intervals do not overlap with 1.

Table E3 examines the impact of race on both SIU and lower-level use of force cases controlling

for patrol zone characteristics. The results reveal that, relative to their share of the general

population in a patrol zone, the odds that a Black civilian will experience force are 55

times the odds that a White civilian will experience force. The odds that civilians belonging

to other racial minority groups will experience force are 13 times the odds that White

civilians will experience force. Once again, patrol zone violent crime rate predicts the

likelihood of experiencing police use of force. Median household income does not, and

(interestingly) the odds of force decline as the share of single mothers in the patrol zone

increases. In other words, the odds that people who reside in high-crime communities will

experience force resulting in injury are greater than the odds that people who reside in

low-crime communities will experience force resulting in injury. However, crime rates do not

explain why Black people are over-represented in police use of force statistics. Indeed, the data

suggest that race is a stronger predictor of police use of force than crime.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

122

Table E3: Predictors all use of force cases

in Toronto by race and patrol zone factors

Model 1 Model 2

Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Race (White set as reference group)

Black

53 45 53 47 55

Other racial minority

9 7 8 9 13

Patrol zone-level factors

Violent crime rate (log)

— 5 — — 3.6

Median household income (log)

— — — .94 0.90

Note: Negative binomial models of lower-level use of force cases in Toronto patrol zones.

Effect of race is relative to White reference group. Cell values give effect of a unit change on

odds of force. Values in bold are those where 95% credible intervals do not overlap with 1.

Results from models that exclude patrol zones 51 and 52

Tables E4, E5 and E6 present the results of the same models as above, but limit analysis to

patrol zones beyond the downtown core, which are serviced by 51 and 52 Divisions. Our

concern here is the potential that most use of force cases that occur in these divisions may

involve individuals who did not reside in these areas. However, the results presented in

these tables are highly consistent with results presented above. Relative to their share

of the population, the odds that Black civilians will experience injury resulting in an SIU

investigation are still 58 times the odds of White civilians. Similarly, the odds that Black

civilians will experience lower-level or any type of force are 30 times and 46 times the odds

what White civilians will experience force, respectively. Comparable rates for civilians

belonging to other racial minority groups are 15 times, five times and 13 times respectively.

As with the overall data, patrol zone crime rate is also a consistent and significant

predictor of police use of force. In other words, excluding patrol zones from 51 and 52

Divisions, the odds that people residing in high-crime communities will experience force

resulting in injury are still greater than the odds of people from low-crime communities.

However, patrol zone crime rates do not explain away racial disparities. In fact, the data

suggest that Black racial background is a much stronger predictor of police use of force

than patrol zone characteristics.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

123

Table E4: Predictors of SIU cases in Toronto by race and

patrol zone factors, (patrol zones from 51 and 52 Divisions omitted)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Race (White set as reference group)

Black 69 57 69 67 58

Other racial minority 16 13 16 17 15

Patrol zone-level factors

Violent crime rate (log) — 3.8 — — 3.8

Median household income (log) — — 0.4 — 0.71

% single mother households — — — 0.92 0.9

Note: Negative binomial models of low level use of force cases in Toronto patrol zones.

Effect of race is relative to White reference group. Cell values give effect of a unit change on

odds of force. Values in bold are those where 95% credible intervals do not overlap with 1.

Table E5: Predictors of lower-level use of force cases in Toronto by race

and patrol zone factors (patrol zones in 51 and 52 Divisions omitted)

Model 1 Model 2

Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Race (White set as reference group)

Black

33 32 32 34 30

Other

6 5 5 5 5

Patrol zone-level factors

Violent crime rate (log)

— 2.6 — — 2.5

Median household income (log)

— — .37 — .81

% single mother households

— — — 1.5 .9

Note: Negative binomial models of low level use of force cases in Toronto patrol zones.

Effect of race is relative to White reference group. Cell values give effect of a unit change on

odds of force. Values in bold are those where 95% credible intervals do not overlap with 1.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

124

Table E6: Predictors of all use of force cases in Toronto by race and

patrol zone factors (patrol zones in 51 and 52 Divisions omitted)

Model 1 Model 2

Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Race (White set as reference group)

Black

38 38 38 39 46

Other

7 7 7 7 13

Patrol zone-level factors

Violent crime rate (log)

— 2.3 — — 3.7

Median household income (log)

— — .53 — 1.02

% single mother households

— — — 1.01 .9

Note: Negative binomial models of low level use of force cases in Toronto patrol zones.

Effect of race is relative to White reference group. Cell values give effect of a unit change on

odds of force. Values in bold are those where 95% credible intervals do not overlap with 1.

Conclusion and limitations

The totality of the analysis suggests that Black people, and people belonging to other racial

minority groups, are markedly more likely to experience all types of police use of force relative

to their White counterparts. These gross racial disparities remain after statistically controlling

for patrol zone characteristics including violent crime rates. Our multi-level negative binomial

models explicitly control for the independent effect that the patrol zone violent crime rate,

average income, and percentage of single-mother households have on use of force incidents.

We find, consistent with expectations, that individuals living in neighborhoods with higher

violent crime rates are more likely to experience police use of force. Furthermore, individuals

living in patrol zones with higher average incomes are less likely to experience force in some

models. We did not uncover a statistically significant effect for the percentage of single-mother

households in most of our models. Most importantly, however, the sizeable effect of race –

particularly Black racial background – persists even after patrol zone characteristics have been

taken into statistical account.

Some important words of caution are warranted. Our results do not provide conclusive

evidence that individual police officers are engaged in individual acts of racial discrimination

in their decisions to apply force. Our results, more narrowly, demonstrate that racial disparities

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

125

in police use of force against Black civilians cannot be explained by the disparate distribution

of Black civilians in patrol zones with higher rates of violent crime or by other patrol

zone-level factors.

Our models are also limited in that we, in contrast with the majority of American studies,

cannot statistically control for race-specific arrest rates or race-specific police contact rates

(Gelman, Fagan, and Kiss 2007). The availability of such data would enable us to estimate

racial disparities in police use of force relative to arrest or the likelihood of police-citizen

contact. The availability of that type of information may further contextualize the findings

and help explain observed racial disparities (Tregle, Nix, and Alpert 2019). Accordingly, our

models in this section treat the share of the patrol zone that are Black, White, or belong to

other racial minority groups as the population “at risk“ for use of force, which – in conjunction

with the inclusion of patrol zone-level factors – explains why the disparities estimated here

exceed those reported elsewhere in the report. Other data, such as data on police-citizen

contacts that did not result in injury, would aid in our estimation of racial disparities. As noted,

the current TPS system of data collection lags behind peer police departments, such as those

in New York, Chicago and London, England. Nevertheless, the data gathered and analyzed here

clearly demonstrate the persistence of population-level disparities – despite patrol zone-level

characteristics. Our findings are consistent with racial bias arguments and further underscore

the need for race-based police statistics.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

126

Part F: Explaining Black over-representation

in police use of force statistics

The results of the research conducted in this report confirm that Black people are greatly

over-represented in police use of force incidents involving the Toronto Police Service (TPS).

Hopefully, this data can close the debate over whether Black people are more exposed to

police use of force than White people. They are. We must now turn our efforts to explaining

why this over-representation exists.

To begin with, the gross racial disparities in police use of force documented by this study are

strongly consistent with the argument that racial bias exists within the Toronto Police Service.

As stated in a document entitled Policy and guidelines on racism and racial discrimination,

the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) maintains that:

Numerical data that demonstrated that members of racialized groups

are disproportionately represented may be an indicator of systemic or

institutional racism. Numerical data can be evidence of the consequences

of a discriminatory system in the following ways: 1) Under-representation

in an organization relative to the availability of qualified individuals in the

population or in the applicant pool suggests systemic racism in hiring

practices or may be indicative of on-the-job discrimination resulting in a

failure to retain racialized persons; 2) Unequal distribution of racialized

persons in an organization, for example, high concentration in entry-level

positions and low representation in managerial positions, may demonstrate

inequitable training and promotion practices; and 3) Over-representation of

racialized persons in police stops, jails and other areas of the justice system may

be indicative of the practice of racial profiling or other forms of racial

discrimination (OHRC 2005: 32).

However, the OHRC cautions that: “Except in the most obvious circumstances, for example,

where data show gross disparities in treatment that are unlikely to be the result of random

selection, numerical data alone will not be proof of systemic discrimination.

However, it

It is somewhat difficult to determine whether the huge racial disparities observed in the current

SIU study reach the “gross disparity” standard highlighted by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

At what level do racial disparities become large enough to indicate discrimination?

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

127

will constitute strong circumstantial evidence of the existence of inequitable practices.

An organization can challenge the statistics and their validity or can demonstrate a

non-discriminatory reason for disproportional representation” (OHRC 2005: 32).

In its new anti-racial profiling policy, the OHRC extends this conversation by stating that:

It is important to collect data using the best available methodological approaches.

Also, keep in mind that numbers cannot be interpreted by themselves, without

understanding the assumptions that underlie them, the lived experiences of

communities represented by the numbers, and analysis of relevant contextual

factors. Where the data reveals that there is a problem, even if it cannot reveal

the cause of a disparity, law enforcement organizations must be prepared to act.

In a recent case, the HRTO described the “critical secondary work” that is needed

when data reveals a problem. It said that “data collection is just a first step, albeit

a significant one, in addressing racial disproportionalities arising from policing

practices.” The HRTO strongly urged the police service to take the next steps in the

process – “to identify to the best of its ability what is causing or contributing to these

disparities through conducting further research, and then based on the research

findings, to develop and implement specific strategies to reduce and hopefully

eliminate these disparities.”

The evidence, from the current study, that supports the biased policing argument includes

the following:

• Black people are grossly over-represented in police use of force cases involving the

Toronto Police Service.

• Black people are grossly over-represented in lower-level use of force cases as well

as use of force cases that resulted in a SIU investigation.

• Depending on the specific measure used, the Black use of force rate is four to 19

times greater than the White rate. The more serious the police use of force, the

greater the racial disparity. For example, racial disparities are greater with respect

to police shootings, particularly shooting deaths, than other use force cases.

• Police shooting cases involving the police are quite rare. However, when the police

do decide to shoot, they almost always kill Black people. By contrast, more than

70% of White people who were shot by the police survive.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

128

• The results suggest that, compared to White people, use of force cases involving

Black people were more likely to result from proactive policing efforts (traffic stops,

street checks, etc.) than reactive policing efforts (calls for service). This finding suggests

that racial bias with respect to police surveillance tactics (racial profiling) may increase

the probability of violent confrontations between the police and Black people.

• Perhaps as a result of media depictions, citizens tend to believe that Toronto police

are often involved in violent confrontations with dangerous, armed criminals. The

data from this study paint a different picture. Regardless of race, most of the citizens

involved in the use of force cases documented by this study were unarmed.

Furthermore, regardless of race, approximately half of the civilians involved in the

TPS use of force cases had no previous criminal record.

• Regardless of race, a high proportion of police use of force cases involve non-

compliance with police commands and resist arrest rather than physical assaults

or threats against the police.

• While a significant proportion of cases involve civilians armed with a knife, bat,

hammer, piece of wood, brick or other weapon, very few cases involve civilians in

possession of a firearm. Even fewer cases involve civilians who have actually pointed

or fired a gun at a police officer or civilian. In some firearm cases, the gun was either

suspected (but never found) or only discovered after the arrest had been made.

• This is not to say that Toronto police do not arrest dangerous, violent criminals or

gang members. However, to their credit, these arrests often involve coordinated

paramilitary operations, involving hundreds of officers, who overwhelm suspects

and dramatically reduce the likelihood of injury to both the suspects and the police.

Examples of such investigations and raids involving the Toronto Police Service include

Project Patton, Project Kraken, Project Traveller, Project Kronic and Project Marvel.

• A high proportion of use of force cases involve individuals who are intoxicated or

high on drugs. However, compared to their White counterparts, Black civilians were

less likely to be intoxicated or high at the time of their use of force incident.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

129

• A high proportion of police use of force cases involve individuals described as being

in a mental health crisis. However, compared to their White counterparts, Black

civilians were less likely to be experiencing a mental health crisis at the time of their

use of force incident.

• In other words, the data suggest that intoxication and mental illness are variables

that seem to increase the likelihood that the police will use force against a White

person. However, race alone seems to increase the risks for Black people. A Black

person does not have to be intoxicated or in mental health crisis to be viewed as

potentially dangerous and thus a legitimate target for police use of force.

• Finally, the analysis presented above reveals that racial disparities in police use of

force cannot be explained by patrol zone-level poverty, racial composition or crime

rates. After statistically controlling for these factors, Black people are still grossly

over-represented in TPS use of force incidents – especially those that involve serious

injury or death. In fact, Black people are significantly over-represented in use of

force cases in both low and high crime patrol zones.

In the past, both police services and police associations have vigorously disputed the

argument that gross racial disparities in use of force statistics are evidence of overt, implicit

or systemic racial bias. They have previously argued, for example, that racial minority

criminality or aggressiveness during police encounters can explain this over-representation.

This argument is bolstered somewhat by the finding, presented above, that indicates that the

Special Investigations Unit rarely lays criminal charges against the police in use of force cases.

In other words, the data clearly indicate that SIU officials, as a result of their intensive and

detailed investigations, almost always conclude that there is not enough evidence to charge

police officers with a criminal offence. Furthermore, the data also show that the SIU Director

is not more likely to lay criminal charges against the police in cases involving Black civilians –

a finding that suggests that police use of force against minorities is just as “lawful” as the use

of force against White people.

Of course, this finding will not necessarily convince members of the Black community that

racial bias does not exist within the TPS. In the past, for example, community advocates

have argued that SIU investigations are compromised by the fact that many SIU investigators

are ex-police officers and that subject officers do not have to give a statement explaining their

use of force decisions. Furthermore, community members have frequently expressed the

belief that, during any formal inquiry into police misconduct, investigators and adjudicators

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

130

are much more likely to believe the statements of police officers over the statements of civilian

victims and witnesses (especially racial minority victims and witnesses). In other words, SIU

investigations often develop into “our word against their word” scenarios, and in such cases,

civilians are often viewed as having less credibility than sworn police officers. Others have also

argued that, even when use of force against Black civilians is deemed technically legitimate,

alternative forms of conflict resolution should have been employed. In other words, just

because Black over-representation in police use of force cases may be technically “lawful,”

it does not make it any less “awful.”

To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies of its kind in Canada. Thus, as is the case

with most “first studies,” certain data limitations emerged. First of all, unlike most American

research, we were unable to statistically control for race-specific crime rates. To date

such race-crime data are not publicly available to Canadian researchers (see Wortley

1996; Wortley and McCalla 2003). Finally, although we made an attempt (see Appendix

B), we were often unable to gather information on other important case characteristics

(including the age, gender, race, education, rank and experience of the subject officers,

the number of police and civilian witnesses, whether the statements of civilians conflicted

with the statements of police officers, etc.). Such information would have permitted a

more detailed analysis of SIU and lower-level use of force cases.

Nonetheless, we do feel that this is a landmark study in the Canadian context. For the

first time, community allegations that certain racial groups are more vulnerable to police

violence than others have received empirical validation. Now we must try to explain this

vulnerability. We hope, therefore, that this study will be used as a catalyst and justification

for future research – research that will be help address the issues, debates and questions

that still remain. To begin this conversation, we must first consider the various explanations

that might account for why Black people in Toronto are so greatly over-represented in police

use of force incidents.

Explanatory models

Below we outline a number of different explanatory models or factors that might account

for the over-representation of Black people in TPS use of force cases. Each of these

explanatory variables has very different policy implications. In our opinion, the relative

validity or strength of any particular model or factor cannot be established with the

current data. This must be determined by future studies. However, we do believe

that each model may have validity under certain circumstances. In other words, the

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

131

appropriateness of each model may vary from case to case, situation to situation. Thus,

we strongly believe that it is the responsibility of police supervisors and policy-makers

to acknowledge that each of these models may hold some value and subsequently

develop programs, procedures and regulations that will provide an integrated approach to

the issue of police use of force.

The Racial Animus Model

The Racial Animus Model proposes that blatantly racist police officers (often referred to

as “bad apples”) sometimes deliberately abuse their legal authority and illegitimately use

coercive force against racial minority civilians – often as an act of racial hatred or animus.

In other words, the overtly racist attitudes and beliefs of a relatively small number of police

officers may directly contribute to the over-representation of racial minority civilians in

police use of force incidents. Removing these officers from policing will dramatically reduce

observed racial disparities.

The Devaluation Model

The Devaluation Model maintains that, in general, racial minority citizens are devalued by

mainstream society – especially if they reside in socially disadvantaged communities. The

roots of such devaluation are deeply rooted in our shared history of colonialism and slavery.

As a result, police use of force against racial minorities is less likely to be questioned or come

under state scrutiny. This devaluation ultimately puts racial minorities at greater risk of

becoming a victim of police violence. In other words, the police may be more reluctant

to use physical force against White people because they feel that the legitimacy of such

actions is more likely to be questioned by the White power structure. Furthermore, White

victims, or their family members, may have the power and resources needed to successfully

challenge the legal authority of the police. On the other hand, the police may be more likely

to use violence against certain racial minorities because they view them as less valued, and

less powerful, members of society. This is particularly true when racial minorities are more

likely to occupy positions of economic or social disadvantage.

Interestingly, several personal conversations with police officers have suggested that, if they had

to be involved in a police shooting, they would prefer that the shooting involve a White civilian than

a minority civilian. Several officers felt that, because of concerns over racism, incidents involving

racial minority civilians actually come under more public scrutiny than cases involving White civilians.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

132

The Racial Stereotype Model

The Racial Stereotype Model proposes that racial stereotypes may lead to a belief among

some police officers that racial minorities, particularly racial minority males, are more

dangerous or violent than other members of society. Such racial stereotypes could develop

as a result of exposure to negative media images of racial minorities or through negative

contact with racial minority criminals in the course of a policing career (especially if such

negative contacts are not balanced with more positive interactions with non-criminals).

Negative racial stereotypes, in turn, may cause some police officers to become more

fearful, apprehensive or vigilant when they encounter racial minority males on the street.

This fear or apprehension, in turn, may increase the probability that the police will use

physical force against racial minority males compared to other groups. The stereotyping

of other groups as “dangerous,” including people with mental health disabilities, may

similarly increase their vulnerability to police use of force.

The Statistical Discrimination Model

The Statistical Discrimination Model is quite similar to the Racial Stereotype Model.

However, rather than rely on informal processes, the Statistical Discrimination Model

develops race-specific risk profiles using statistical information. Much like the actuarial

practices employed by insurance companies, statistics may reveal that Black people and

other racial minority groups are more involved in violent crime – including firearm-related

homicides – than others. These statistics, in turn, can be used to flag all individuals in this group

as “potentially more dangerous” than others. This empirically supported “dangerous” label may

impact officer fear and vigilance and how they interact with Black males in the community.

It should be stressed that even though risk profiles appear to be justified by empirical

data, they can still constitute a major source of racial bias. It must be remembered that,

regardless of race, the vast majority of people from the Black community never engage

in violence. Thus, using the violence of a few people to justify the differential treatment of

They argued that the “White community” rarely questions the legitimacy of police actions against

White civilians. White people, they claimed, generally feel that the person must have done something

to deserve it. On the other hand, it was felt that racial minority community organizations, the media

and civil rights groups will attempt to make a “race issue” in cases where police force is used against

racial minorities.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

133

an entire group constitutes racial discrimination. Furthermore, the police can never justify

force against an individual because they belong to a group with a higher than average

violent crime rate. Only the behaviour of the individual, at the time of the incident, can

justify use of force.

The Minority Crime Model

The Minority Crime Model proposes that Black males are over-represented in police use

of force statistics because they are actually more involved in crime and violence than other

racial groups, and thus are more likely to have violent confrontations with police. In other

words, racial minorities are more involved in the types of violent or aggressive behaviors

(carrying firearms, threatening police, shooting at police, threatening or shooting at other

civilians, etc.) that ultimately result in the legitimate use of force by police. In sum, this model

maintains that the over-representation of racial minorities in police use of force incidents

has nothing to do with police racism or bias. The blame must be placed on the actions or

behaviours of individual Black citizens at the time of their encounters with the police.

The Neighbourhood Model

The Neighbourhood Model proposes that people who live in poor, socially disorganized,

high-crime neighbourhoods are at greater risk of police violence than people who live in

more affluent, low-crime communities. The idea is that some police officers may be more

wary, vigilant or fearful when working in such neighbourhoods, and are thus quicker to

resort to the use of physical force. To the extent that racial minorities are over-represented

in such socially disadvantaged communities, they will be at significantly greater risk of

becoming over-represented in police use of force statistics.

The Proactive Policing (Profiling) Model

As reviewed in other areas of the OHRC inquiry, data collected over the past two decades

has consistently revealed that Black people are more likely to be subjected to proactive

police surveillance practices than their White or other racial minority counterparts. Both

survey research and official police statistics, for example, reveal that Black people are much

more likely to be subjected to street checks. Compared to their White counterparts, Black

people are also much more likely to be report being stopped, questioned and searched by

the police for investigative purposes. These findings are consistent with allegations of racial

profiling. It should be stressed that frequency of police contact alone may increase the

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

134

likelihood or probability of experiencing police use of force. The greater a group’s involuntary

contact with the police, the greater the likelihood some of these encounters will escalate into

a dispute that results in police force being used. In other words, there may be a strong

correlation between racially biased police surveillance practices and racial disparities in police

use of force.

The Demeanour Model

The Demeanour Model proposes that people who are aggressive, belligerent or demonstrate

blatant disrespect to police authority are more vulnerable to police use of force than people

who are polite and compliant (Macdonald et al. 2003; Terrill 2003). This model is completely

consistent with the results of a recent American study, sponsored by the National Institute of

Justice, which found that, holding other legally-relevant factors constant, the police are much

more likely to use physical force when arresting verbally abusive suspects than compliant,

non-abusive suspects (see Garner and Maxwell 2003). This model therefore anticipates that

the over-representation of racial minorities in police use of force statistics may – at least

partially – be explained by the fact that some racial minority citizens may be less likely to show

respect to police than White civilians. In sum, this model assumes that police violence is

sometimes used to punish civilians who do not demonstrate appropriate deference

(the Contempt of Cop phenomena).

The Police Subculture Model

Finally, the Police Subculture Model argues that the police subculture may increase the

likelihood of police violence because it: 1) reinforces racial stereotypes through the telling

of “war stories” that depict minorities as dangerous; 2) increases the likelihood that young

officers will want to prove their courage and toughness on the street; this may reduce the

probability that officers will try to diffuse confrontations with citizens through non-violent

methods; 3) reinforces the belief that the police should respond to citizen hostility, disrespect

or disobedience with violence; and 4) creates a code of silence among police officers

that makes investigations into the illegitimate use of force difficult, if not impossible.

This code of silence serves to protect police officers who may use force in an illegitimate

fashion. Future research should explore the extent to which the TPS culture promotes or

de-emphasizes the use of force. This is a topic that is impossible to explore without

researcher access and the opportunity to both interview officers and observe police

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

135

activity. However, there is some reason for concern. For example, in his book, Alok

Mukherjee, former head of the Toronto Police Services Board, discussed how police

culture may impact how police treat non-compliant civilians:

Another thing that isn’t being talked about publicly that points to a cultural

factor is something I learned from Blair and Mike McCormack, the police

association president. They believed there was a generational factor. The new

generation of police officers, the young ones, just don’t know when to back

off, they said. During a conversation McCormick, Blair and I had in Blair’s office

some months before he stepped down as Chief, McCormick said, “You know,

this is a real problem.” He went on: “Bill, you and I were street cops and when

somebody swore at us or gave us lip, we would back off and say, ‘Okay, fine.’

But this generation of officers must have the last word.” So, if someone swears

at them, they get in their face with a “What did you say?” Rather than disengaging

and walking away, they tend to escalate confrontation to such an extent that

McCormick claimed he was going to division to division to talk to officers and

telling them to lay off” (Murherjee and Harper 2018: 94).

The Integrated “Fear” Model

The Integrated Fear Model combines elements of the Stereotype, Statistical Discrimination,

Neighbourhood, Minority Crime and Demeanor Models. This perspective maintains that the

police are most likely to use force when they fear for their own safety, the safety of fellow

officers or the safety of civilians. The greater the level of fear, the higher the probability that

physical force will be used. For example, a civilian carrying a gun may legitimately create “fear”

among responding police officers. However, if racial stereotypes exist, this fear may be greater

if it is a Black man carrying a gun rather than a White man. Similarly, fear may be even greater

if it is a Black man, carrying a gun in a poor, high-crime neighbourhood and yelling insults at

the police. Fear may be higher still if it is a Black man, displaying signs of mental illness, yelling

insults at the police and carrying a gun in a high-crime area.

The idea is that police use of force is most likely to occur when a high number of fear-

generating factors – some of them legitimate (violent behaviour, weapons possession, etc.),

some of them illegitimate (racial stereotypes, disrespectful civilian demeanor, etc.) – converge

at the same place and time. Use of force incidents, in other words, must be seen as part of a

fear quotient or equation. The higher the fear “score” attributed to a particular police-civilian

encounter, the higher the probability that physical force – particularly deadly force –

will be used.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

136

Conclusion

The results of this study reveal that Black people are grossly over-represented in police

use or force incidents. The data also reveal that this gross racial disparity cannot be easily

explained away by racial differences in criminal history, civilian behaviour towards the

police at the time of the incident, civilian weapons use, civilian mental illness, civilian

intoxication or local crime rates. In our opinion, these findings are completely consistent

with allegations of racial bias. Nonetheless, a counter-narrative will inevitably emerge.

This counter narrative will hold that racial disparity does not mean racial discrimination.

In other words, it will be argued that racial disparities in police use of force tactics merely

reflect legitimate police practices and that data-driven allegations of police bias only serve

to damage police-community relations.

This is a difficult argument to resolve. One limitation with our findings is that the current data

was not able to statistically control for race-specific crime rates. However, the availability of

such data – and the documentation of racial differences in criminal behaviour – cannot alone

be used to justify police use of force in individual cases. The police cannot use force on an

individual just because they belong to a “high-crime” group. A second major limitation of this,

and the vast majority of other use of force studies, is that the sample only includes incidents

in which the police actually used force. The sample does not include other aggressive police-

civilian encounters in which the police could have used force but did not. Future research

needs to include such cases in order to determine whether – controlling for other factors –

the police are more likely to use violence against Black people than White people.

Nonetheless, the gross racial disparities documented by this study underscore the great

need for the continued, systematic collection of disaggregated racial data on police use of

force and other important police decisions. Such data is needed to monitor racial disparities

over time and examine how police policies, programs and tactics that may either reduce or

increase racial differences in exposure to coercive police actions.

Ultimately, police agencies must pursue the goal of reducing police use of force, reducing

racial disparities in use of force statistics and improving police-community relations. Strategies

that may help achieve this goal include:

• Clearly articulated and enforced use of force policies and regulations

• Clearly articulated use of force reporting and review requirements

• Police recruiting procedures that screen for anti-racism, cultural competence

and non-violent tendencies

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

137

• Increased recruitment and promotion of both female and racial minority officers

• Improved use of force training that promotes non-violent disengagement and

conflict resolution strategies. De-escalation strategies must challenge the police

“stand-your-ground” mentality – especially with respect to encounters with unarmed

civilians or civilians not in possession of a firearm

• Improved anti-bias, cultural competence training

• Data-driven early warning systems that identify problematic officers and target

them for additional training, re-assignment or dismissal

• Improved civilian oversight and independent investigation of police complaints and

use of force incidents

• Improved assessment and evaluation through improved data collection and

dissemination practices.

With respect to data collection, at the very least, police services should be mandated to

collect data on the citizens they decide to stop and/or search, the citizens they arrest and

the citizens upon which they use physical force. At the very least, data collection efforts

should specify the racial background, gender and age of the civilian, along with their home

address, criminal history, the location of the incident, the reason for the encounter and

an explanation of how the situation was resolved (i.e., did the encounter result in an arrest,

a ticket, a warning, the use of force, etc.). A more detailed process would also include

information on the officers involved including officer age, gender, racial background, years

of experience and rank.

There are three important arguments in favour of the collection of race-based data. First

of all, from a social science perspective, such information would be valuable with respect

to determining whether racial bias exists within policing or not. Second, the collection and

dissemination of such data would demonstrate to the public that the police are transparent

in their operations – that they have nothing to hide. Ultimately, such transparency could

help improve relationships with minority communities and increase confidence in the

criminal justice system. Finally, the official monitoring of police activities may actually

reduce or eliminate racial profiling and racial bias in the police use of physical force. If

police officers know that they must record and justify their decisions – they may be less

likely to engage in racially-biased “fishing expeditions.”

A more detailed discussion of these and other policy recommendations is provided in other

documents related to the current OHRC inquiry.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

138

For example, one of the most common racial profiling complaints involves Black men who

claim that they were stopped and investigated by the police simply because they were

driving a nice car. These men often complain that they were targeted because the police

felt that their car might be stolen or that they fit the profile of a drug dealer. It could be

argued, however, that these types of stops would be largely eliminated if officers had to

officially record the encounter and justify their reasons for making the stop. In other words,

rather than an exercise to determine the mere existence or non-existence of racial profiling,

data collection should be seen as an effective monitoring strategy that may reduce racial

profiling in and of itself.

We should stress that in order for monitoring to be effective, data collection needs to be

on-going. Special studies that collect data on police activities over a limited time period are

of dubious value. For example, it is possible that some criminal justice agents may refrain

from stopping and searching racial minority citizens during the identified study period,

but return to normal racial profiling practices after the study has been completed. Without

longitudinal designs, the long-term impact of data collection efforts will be impossible

to determine.

Arguments against the official collection of race-criminal justice data range from

methodological difficulties (including issues related to the measurement of race and

the establishment of meaningful baseline population estimates) and how race-based

research might impact police effectiveness. For example, opponents of data collection

maintain that, if police officers are required to record the race of people that they stop

and question, many officers will refrain from initiating contact with minority citizens out

of fear of being labelled a racist. Indeed, in the past, the Toronto Police Association announced

that they would encourage their officers to adopt a “no contact, no complaint” philosophy if

required to collect data on stop and search encounters. Critics argue, therefore, that data

collection initiatives would permit racial minority criminals to roam free and that crime rates

would ultimately soar. Interestingly, there is no evidence to suggest that crime rates have

increased or that police productivity has diminished in American or British jurisdictions that

have adopted data collection procedures. Nonetheless, we do agree that such concerns should

be a focus of future research.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

139

Accountability measures

Unfortunately, any anti-racism policy is likely doomed to failure unless specific accountability

mechanisms are put into place. These accountability measures include: 1) data collection; 2)

specific disciplinary consequences for criminal justice personnel found guilty of racial bias; and

3) a public complaints system that will encourage and empower citizens to report racial bias in

police encounters. We would also encourage a policy that would hold supervisors accountable

for the racially biased behaviour of those under their supervision. Such efforts would ensure

that supervisors take racial profiling and anti-racism regulations seriously and subsequently

increase the monitoring of criminal justice personnel in the field.

The need for evaluation

Finally, we strongly believe that any effective anti-racism policy must include a strong

evaluation component. Without objective evaluation research, how are we to determine

whether specific policy initiatives are effective or not? Research designed to evaluate anti-

profiling or anti-racism policies might include: 1) studies that examine police attitudes

towards racial minorities before and after race relations training; 2) studies that examine

official data on racial differences in stop and search activities and police use of force; 3) data on

public complaints about racial profiling and police brutality; 4) general population surveys that

measure public perceptions of discrimination within the criminal justice system and minority

attitudes towards the police and other criminal justice agents; and 5) surveys of police officers,

Customs officers and other security agents that examine how race-related issues are impacting

job performance and job satisfaction.

We strongly believe that without a strong evaluation effort, policies and programs designed

to eliminate racism within the criminal justice system are reduced to nothing more than

public relations endeavours. Racial minority groups can easily identify “window dressing”

when they see it and such efforts are unlikely to improve police-community relations. Without

collecting information on police stop and search activities how can we really determine

whether efforts to reduce racial profiling are working? Without collecting data on civilians killed

or injured by the police, how can we really determine the effectiveness of programs designed

to reduce racial bias in the police use of force? Clearly the time to face these issues in a

transparent and honest manner has arrived.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

140

Appendix A: SIU case template: 2013 – 2017 data

Study case number: _______________________

SIU file number: ___________________________

Part A: Complainant information

Age at time of incident (in years): _________________

Gender:

Male

Female

Other (specify): ___________________

Racial background:

White (European)

Black (African Canadian)

Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc.)

South Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Tamil, etc.)

Native Canadian (Indigenous/Aboriginal)

West Asian (Arab, Middle-Eastern, etc.)

Hispanic (Latin American)

Mixed Race (specify): ___________________________

Other (specify): _________________________________

Unknown

Civilian race determined by:

SIU photos (from case files)

SIU notes (from case files)

TPS documents (specify) ________________________

Media coverage (specify) ________________________

Other (specify) __________________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

141

Employment history:

Employed

Unemployed

On social assistance

Retired

Other (specify): _________________________

Unknown

Details of employment/social class position (i.e., type of job, income, financial problems,

any details noted in file):

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Criminal history:

Has criminal record – not under supervision at time of incident

Has criminal record – under supervision at time of incident

Other known to police (specify): ____________________________________________________________

No criminal record

Unknown

Details of criminal history (i.e., type of offences, type of mental health problem, etc.):

______________________________________________________________________________________________

History of mental illness:

Mental health issues not noted

Depression

Suicidal Ideation

Schizophrenia

Bi-polar Disorder

Anxiety Disorder

Other (specify): ______________________________________________________________________________

Details of mental health history (i.e., type of mental health problems, etc.):

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

142

Complainant’s residence:

Resident of Toronto

Resident of GTA (Peel Region, Durham, York, Halton, etc.)

Resident of Ontario

Other Canadian province/territory (specify): _____________________________________________

Resident of the United States

Resident of another country (specify): ____________________________________________________

Unknown

Complainant’s home address (city or community, postal code, closest main intersection, etc.):

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Immigration status:

Born in Canada

Canadian citizen born outside of Canada

Landed immigrant

Refugee

Migrant worker (work visa)

Foreign visitor/tourist

Other (specify) ___________________________________________________________________________

Note: If born outside of Canada try to identify year of immigration to Canada ____________

Part B: Police information

Subject officer information

Number of subject officers: ________________

Rank of subject officers:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Gender of subject officers:

Male

Female

Both male and female (specify # from each gender) _____________________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

143

Age of subject officers:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Years of experience of subject officers: _____________________________________________________

Race of subject officers (if possible):

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Platoon of the subject officers

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Unit of the subject officers

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Division of the subject officers

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Did the subject officers belong to a special unit? 1. Yes 2. No

Name/description of special unit:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Did the subject officer(s) make a statement to the SIU? 1. Yes 2. No

Did the subject officer(s) provide their notes to the SIU? 1. Yes 2. No

Did the subject officer(s) provide the SIU with a General Occurrence Report? 1. Yes 2. No

Was there an arrest during the incident? 1. Yes 2. No

If yes, did the subject officer(s) provide the SIU with the Arrest Report?

Yes

Not applicable

Did the incident involve officer use of force (see part C) 1. Yes 2. No

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

144

If yes, did the subject officer(s) provide the Use of Force Report?

Yes

Not Applicable

Did the subject officer(s) provide their disciplinary records? 1. Yes 2. No

Did the subject officer(s) provide their photos? 1. Yes 2. No

Details about the subject officer(s) statements:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

According to the SIU case file, have any of the subject officers been the subject of a

previous SIU investigation?

Yes

Unknown

According to the SIU case file, have any of the subject officers been subject to previous use

of force complaints/charges/internal investigations, etc.?

Yes

Unknown

Details about previous SIU/use-of-force investigations provided to the SIU

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Witness officer(s) information

Number of witness officers: _________________

Rank of witness officers (if possible):

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Gender of witness officers:

Male

Female

Both male and female (specify # from each gender): ____________________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

145

Age of witness officers:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Years of experience of witness officers:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Race of witness officers (if possible):

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Did the witness officers belong to a special unit? 1. Yes 2. No

Name/description of special unit:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Did the witness officer(s) make a statement to the SIU? 1. Yes 2. No

Did the witness officer(s) provide notes to the SIU? 1. Yes 2. No

Nature of witness officer(s) notes:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Nature of witness officer(s) statements:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Part C: Incident information

Date of incident (month/year only): _______________________________________________

Approximate time of incident: ____________________________________________________

Number of civilians involved in incident: __________________________________________

Number of civilian witnesses: _____________________________________________________

Location of incident (postal code or major intersection):

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

146

Description of location (i.e., house, apartment, nightclub, street, park, housing project, etc.):

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Patrol zone of incident: ________________________________________________

Type of harm to complainant

Death

Sexual assault

Injury (specify):

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Cause of harm to complainant

Police shooting

Police use of baton

Conducted energy weapon/CEW/Taser

Police vehicle used as a weapon

Traffic accident

Police physical assault (punching, kicking, holding, other impact, etc.)

Other police use of force (specify): ___________________________________________

Investigation found that injury not caused by police

Other (specify): _______________________________________________________________

Complainant involvement (check all that apply)

Complainant committing a crime (specify): ___________________________________

Complainant threatening police

Complainant threatening another citizen(s)

Complainant physically attacked police

Complainant physically attacked another citizen(s)

Complainant fleeing police on foot

Complainant fleeing police in a vehicle – car chase

Complainant resisting arrest

Other (specify): ______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Complainant’s use of weapons (check all that apply)

Complainant had a handgun

Complainant had a rifle/long gun

Complainant had a knife

Complainant had a bat/club (specify): _______________________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

147

Complainant used other weapon (specify): _____________________________________

Complainant used motor vehicle as a weapon

Complainant was unarmed

Other (specify): __________________________________________________________________

Mental health of civilian at time of incident

1. No mental health problems noted in Director’s Report

2. Mental health problem noted

3. Director’s Report notes that complainant was suicidal

Details about civilian’s mental state at time of incident

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Complainant drug or alcohol use at time of incident

1. Alcohol use noted – but not impairment

2. Complainant drunk/inebriated/impaired on alcohol at the time of incident

3. Drug use noted – but not impairment

4. Complainant intoxicated (high or impaired) on drugs at time of the incident

5. No drug or alcohol use noted

Details about complainant drug/alcohol use noted in file (including type of drugs used)

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Part D: Reporting to and investigation by the SIU

How was incident reported to the SIU?

Was reported to the SIU by the Toronto Police Service

Was reported to the SIU by another police service

Was reported to the SIU by the complainant

Was reported to the SIU by the complainant’s family

Was reported to the SIU by the complainant’s lawyer

SIU found out about the case through court proceedings

SIU found out about case through the media

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

148

Date incident reported to the SIU: ___________________________________________

Time incident reported to the SIU: ___________________________________________

How soon was the SIU informed about the case?

Immediately (within an hour of the incident)

Two to four hours after the incident

Four to 10 hours after the incident

10 to 24 hours after the incident

From 24 to 48 hours

Between 48 hours and one week after the incident

Between one week and one month after the incident (specify): __________________________

More than a month after the incident (specify): __________________________________________

Reason for late reporting of the incident:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Brief description/synopsis of incident:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Length of SIU investigation (days): _____________________________________

Part E: Director’s Report

Page length of Director’s Report (# of pages): _______________________

Investigation terminated (indicate reasons for termination and length of memorandum):

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Outcome of SIU investigation

Officer(s) cleared – no criminal charges laid

Criminal charges laid

Nature of charges

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

149

Issues noted in Director’s Report

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Police service – level of cooperation

No problems noted in Director’s Report

Problems noted

Problems with police service cooperation

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Subject officer – level of cooperation

No problems noted in Director’s Report

Problem with subject officers’ cooperation noted in Director’s Report

Nature of problems with subject officers’ cooperation

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Police witness officer – level of involvement and cooperation

1. No witness officers involved in case

2. No problems noted in Director’s Report

3. Problems with witness officers’ cooperation notes in Director’s Report

Nature of problems with witness officer cooperation

Complainant “victim” – level of involvement and cooperation

1. Victim deceased

2. No problems noted in Director’s Report

3. Problem with complainant’s cooperation noted in Director’s Report

Nature of problems with complainant’s cooperation

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Civilian witness – level of involvement and cooperation

1. No civilian witnesses identified in case

2. No problems noted in Director’s Report

3. Problem with civilian witnesses’ cooperation noted in Director’s Report (specify)

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

150

Nature of problems with civilian witnesses

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter to the chief of police

No difficulties with investigation noted

Difficulties with investigation noted

Nature of difficulties highlighted in Director’s letter to chief

Letter to the chief of police

No request for a written response by chief of police to issues arising from investigation

Request for a written response by the chief of police to issues arising from investigation

Nature of request

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Response letter from chief of police to SIU

No request made

Request made but no response received

Request made and response received

Details of response from police chief

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

151

Appendix B: Lower-level use of force data collection

template

Study number: ____________________________________

GO (occurrence) number: _________________________

Part A: Data from TPS injury report

A1. Circumstances of the injury:

Sustained prior to arrest

Sustained during arrest

Sustained after arrest

No arrest: unintentional or indirect use of force application

No arrest: unintentional other (specify): ______________________________

A2. Causal factors:

Firearm discharge

Conducted energy weapon

Impact weapon

Handcuffs

Other use of force (specify): __________________________________________

Self-inflicted injury

Accidental injury (specify): ____________________________________________

Prisoner taken to hospital

Other (specify): ________________________________________________________

A3a. Cause of injury/illness: Review both the response field and the synopsis for details

______________________________________________________________________________________________

A3b. Was injury/illness caused by police use of force?

Yes

Not determined/not clear

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

152

A4. Description of injury/illness: Please review entire document, including both the specific

response field, the case synopsis and any other section of the report for details about the

injury/illness:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

A5. Date of incident: _______________________________________

A6. Time of incident: _______________________________________

A7. Occurrence no: _________________________________________

A8. Location of incident (address):

______________________________________________________________________________________________

A9. Location of incident (zone):

______________________________________________________________________________________________

A10. Address of injured party:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

A11. Age of injured party: ___________________________

A12: Description of medical treatment received: Please review entire document, including

both the specific response field, the case synopsis and any other section of the report for

details about the nature of medical treatment received:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

A13. EMS no. provided

Yes

A14. Location of treatment (review synopsis for details):

Treatment at scene by officers

Treatment at scene by paramedics

Other treatment at scene (specify): ______________________________________________________

Taken to hospital by officers

Taken to hospital by ambulance/EMS

Taken to hospital by other party (specify): ________________________________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

153

Visited hospital on own

Visited doctor’s office or medical clinic

Civilian refused medical treatment

Other treatment (specify): ________________________________________________________________

A15. Name of hospital (if applicable): _______________________________________________________

A16. Case synopsis from Injury Report (record as many details as possible):

______________________________________________________________________________________________

A17. Details of officer(s) who completed Injury Report (name, rank, employee number and

unit). Note this information is for matching purposes only:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

A18. Coder’s comments regarding Injury Report:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

154

Part B: Data from TPS use of force report

B1. Date of incident: ____________________________________________________

B2a. Time incident commenced: _________________________________________

B2b. Time incident terminated: __________________________________________

B3a. Type of report:

Individual

Team: specify team type: ______________________________________________

Missing

B3b. Officer length of service: ____________________________________________

B3c. Officer rank: _________________________________________________________

B4. Type of police assignment (circle all that apply):

General patrol

Foot patrol

Traffic

Investigation

Drugs

Off duty

Other (specify): ________________________________________________________

Missing

B5. Type of incident (circle all that apply):

Robbery

Break and enter

Domestic disturbance

Other disturbance:

Traffic

Suspicious person

Serious injury

Homicide

Weapons call

Alarm

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Missing

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

155

B6. Number of police officers present at incident: __________________________________________

B7. Attire of officers:

Uniform

Civilian clothes

Missing

B8. Number of civilians (subjects) involved in the incident: _________________________________

Type of force used

Check

if used

(B9a)

Sequence of use

(B9b)

B10. Was force effective?

Yes No

a) Firearm discharged

b) Firearm pointed

at person

c) Firearm drawn

d) Aerosol weapon used

e) Impact weapon (hard)

f) Impact weapon (soft)

g) Empty hand

techniques (hard)

h) Empty hand

techniques (soft)

i) Conducted energy

weapon

j) Other (specify):

_________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

156

B11. Reason for use of force (circle all that apply):

Protect self or other police officers

Protect public

Effect arrest

Prevent commission of offences

Prevent escape

Accidental

Destroy animal

Other: (specify): __________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Missing

B12. Alternative strategies used:

Verbal interaction

Cover

Concealment

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

B13. Type of police firearm used (circle all that apply):

Revolver

Semi-automatic

Rifle

Shotgun

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________________________________

Not applicable

B14. Total number of rounds fired: _____________________________________

B15. Distance:

Less than 2 metres

2-3 metres

3-5 metres

5-7 metres

7-10 metres

Greater than 10 metres

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

157

B16. Weapons in civilians’ possession (type and number). Check box if weapon was in

possession of the civilian:

Type of weapon

Civilian

one (B16a)

Civilian

two (B16b)

Civilian three

(B16c)

a) No weapon present

b) Unknown

c) Revolver

d) Semi-automatic

e) Rifle

f) Shotgun

g) Knife or edged weapon

h) Baseball bat/club

i) Other (specify):

B17. Location of civilian weapon (at the time use of force decision was made):

Location of weapon

Civilian

one

(B17a)

Civilian

two (B17b)

Civilian

three (B17c)

a) In-hand

b) At-hand

c) Concealed

d) Not applicable

i) Other (specify):

______________________________

B18. Number of rounds fired by civilian: __________________________________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

158

B19. Location of incident:

Roadway

Laneway

Yard

Park

Rural

Motor vehicle

House

Apartment

Hallway

Financial institution

Commercial site

Public institution

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________________________________

B20. Weather conditions:

Clear

Sunny

Cloudy

Rain

Snow/sleet

Fog

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________________________________

B21a. Natural lighting conditions:

Daylight

Dusk

Dark

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________________________________

B21b. Artificial lighting conditions:

Good artificial lighting

Poor artificial lighting

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________________________________

Not applicable

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

159

B22. Did the subject police officer require medical attention?

Yes

B23. Did another police officer require medical attention?

Yes

B24. Did the civilian subject require medical attention?

Yes

B25. Did a third party (civilian) require medical attention?

Yes

B26. Nature of injuries to subject officer:

Minor

Serious

Fatal

Unknown

Not applicable

B27. Nature of injuries to other police officer(s):

Minor

Serious

Fatal

Unknown

Not applicable

B28. Nature of injuries to civilian subject:

Minor

Serious

Fatal

Unknown

Not applicable

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

160

B29. Nature of injuries to third party:

Minor

Serious

Fatal

Unknown

Not applicable

B30. Use of Force Report reviewed by supervisor:

Yes

Not known

B31. Use of Force Report reviewed by training analyst:

Yes

Not known

B32. Officer recommended for post-traumatic counselling?

Yes

Not known

B33. Officer recommended for other training?

Yes

Not known

B34. Date of review: ________________________________________________________________________

B35: Use of Force Report synopsis/narrative:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

B36. Officer involved details (name, rank and badge number). For matching purposes only:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

161

B37. Date of last use of force refresher training: ___________________________________________

B38. Would officer like to discuss the incident with a training sergeant/analyst?

Yes

B39. Additional training recommended by:

Training analyst

Supervisor

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________________________________

B40. Type of training recommended:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

B41. Coder’s comments regarding Use of Force Report:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Part C: Data from General Occurrence (GO) report

Incident details

C1a. Date of incident (occurrence date): ____________________________________________________

C1b. Date of GO report (date incident was reported on): ___________________________________

C1c. Date report approved: _________________________________________________________________

C2. Time of incident: ___________________________

C3a. Location of incident (district): __________________________________________________________

C3b. Location of incident (zone): ______________________________

C4. Location of incident (atom): _____________________________________________________________

C5. Location of incident (address):

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

162

C6. Location of incident (X-Y coordinates – to be extracted from access table):

X-coordinate: ______________________

Y-coordinate: ______________________

C7. Description of incident location:

Private residence – house

Private residence – apartment or condo

Hotel (public area)

Hotel room

Shelter

Rooming house

On the street (vehicle involved)

On the street (no vehicle involved)

In the public area of a mall

Store in mall

Store outside mall

Restaurant or cafe

Nightclub or bar

In a park

At a school, college or university

At a bank or other financial institution

In a government building

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________________________________

C8. Incident synopsis: This can be ascertained from several sections of the General

Occurrence Report including: 1) Narrative: prosecution summary/synopsis for a guilty plea;

and 2) Narrative: initial officer report:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

163

C9. Did the police use physical force? Circle all that apply.

No force used

Police discharged firearm – did not hit civilian

Police discharged firearm – hit civilian

Police pointed firearm at civilian

Police drew firearm but did not point it at civilian

Police used Taser (conducted energy weapon)

Police used pepper spray

Police used baton

Police engaged in empty-hand techniques (hard)

Police engaged in empty-hand techniques (soft)

Police vehicle used as a weapon

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________________________________

Information not provided

C10. Did the police attempt verbal resolution prior to use of force?

Yes

No information provided

C11. Did the officers warn the civilian that they would use force?

Yes

No information provided

C12. How was police contact with civilian initiated?

Call for service from member of the public (reactive)

Follow-up investigation (reactive)

Traffic stop (proactive)

Pedestrian stop (proactive)

Police witnessed crime in progress (proactive)

Police search warrant (proactive)

Police raid/sting operation (proactive)

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________________________________

Missing

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

164

C13. What were the actions of the civilian(s) during the encounter?

Civilian did not threaten or attack the police

Civilian threatened police (no weapon)

Civilian threatened police with a firearm

Civilian threatened police with another weapon

Civilian assaulted officers (no weapon)

Civilian discharged firearm at police

Civilian assaulted officers with another weapon

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________________________________

C14. Flee police custody:

The civilian did not try to flee police or escape police custody

The civilian tried to flee police to avoid apprehension

The civilian tried to escape police custody

No information provided

C15. Was the civilian charged with a crime as a result of this incident?

Yes

No information provided

C16. Was the civilian charged with resisting arrest?

Yes

No information provided

C17. Criminal charges. Please list all the charges against the civilian that emerged from

this incident.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

165

C18. Was the civilian in the possession of a weapon at the time of this incident?

No weapons involved

Handgun

Shotgun

Rifle

Knife or another edged weapon

Bat or club

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________________________________

C19. When was the weapon or weapons identified (when did it emerge)?

No weapon associated with this case

Gun used to threaten police

Gunshots fired at police

Gun used to threaten civilians

Gunshots fired at civilians

Civilian suspected of firearm possession (did not view before arrest)

Presence of firearm only identified after arrest

Other weapon used to threaten police

Other weapon used to threaten civilians

Other weapon used to attack police

Other weapon used to attack civilians

Civilian suspected of “other” weapon possession

Weapon only identified after arrest

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________________________________

C20. Description of case disposition:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Civilian characteristics

C21. Civilian gender

Female

Male

Other (specify): ________________________________________________

Not provided

C22. Civilian age: __________________________________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

166

C23. Civilian race/ethnicity

White

Black

Brown

South Asian

Asian

Indigenous

West Asian/Arab

Other (specify): ___________________________________________________

Not provided

C24. Civilian address:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

C25. Criminal history: Did the civilian have a criminal record prior to this incident?

Yes

Information not provided

C26. Details of prior criminal record:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

C27. Prior to this incident, hade the civilian ever been convicted of the following types of

offences. Check all that apply:

Homicide, manslaughter or attempted murder

Armed robbery

Extortion

Aggravated assault

Domestic assault

Firearms offences

Sexual assault

Assault police

Drug trafficking

Organized crime-related offences

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

167

C28. According to the file is the civilian a suspected gang member?

Yes

No information provided

C28a. How was gang membership determined by the coder?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

C29. According to the file, does the civilian have a history of mental illness?

Yes

Information not provided

C29a. How was mental health history determined by the coder?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

C30. According to the file, was the civilian experiencing a mental health crisis at the time of

the incident?

Yes

No information provided

C30a. How was “mental health crisis” determined by the coder?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

C31. According to the file, was the civilian drunk or intoxicated on alcohol at the time of

the incident?

Yes

No information provided

C31a. How was intoxication on alcohol determined by the coder?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

168

C32. According to the file, does the civilian have a history of alcohol abuse?

Yes

Information not provided

C32a. How was alcohol/drinking history determined by the coder?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

C33. According to the file, was the civilian intoxicated or high on drugs at the time of

the incident?

Yes

No information provided

C33a. How was drug-related intoxication determined by the Coder?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

C34. According to the file, what types of drugs had the civilian been using? Skip if no drugs

used. Indicate “drug not listed” if file says drugs were used but does not specify the types

of drugs used.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

C35. According to the file, does the civilian have a history of drug abuse?

Yes

Information not provided

C35a. How was drug abuse history determined by the coder?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

169

C36. Officer information (please see section of the General Occurrence Report on police

role involvement):

Officer characteristics Officer one (C36a) Officer two (C36b) Officer three (C36c)

a) Name

b) Rank

c) Badge number

d) Gender: (derive from

name):

1. Male

2. Female

3. Can’t tell

e) Rank:

f) Years of service

g) Was officer deemed a

victim in this incident

h) Unit

C37. Coder’s comments regarding General Occurrence Report:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

170

References

Abraham, J., Field, J., Harding, R. & Skura, S. 1981. “Police Use of Lethal Force: A Toronto

Perspective.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 19(2): 200-36.

Alpert, G. P. 1989. “Police Use of Deadly Force: The Miami Experience.” In Dunham, R.G.

& Alpert, G.P. (Eds.), Critical Issues in Policing. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.

Alpert, G. P. (2015). “Police Use of Force and the Suspect with Mental Illness.” Criminology

& Public Policy, 14(2), 277-283.

Alpert, G. P. (2016). “Toward a National Database of Officer‐Involved Shootings.”

Criminology & Public Policy, 15(1), 237-242.

Alpert, G. P., & Dunham, R. G. (1997). The force factor: Measuring police use of force relative to

suspect resistance. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Alpert, G. P., & Dunham, R. G. (2004). Understanding police use of force: Officers, suspects, and

reciprocity. Cambridge University Press.

Alpert, G. P., & Dunham, R. G. (2010). “Policy and training recommendations related to

police use of CEDs: Overview of findings from a comprehensive national study.” Police

Quarterly, 13(3), 235-259.

Alpert, G. P., & MacDonald, J. M. (2001). “Police use of force: An analysis of organizational

characteristics.” Justice Quarterly, 18(2), 393-409.

Alpert, G. P., & Smith, M. R. (1999). “Police use-of-force data: Where we are and where we

should be going.” Police Quarterly, 2(1), 57-78.

Adams, K., & Jennison, V. (2007). “What we do not know about police use of Tasers™.”

Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30(3), 447-465.

Andrews, A. 1992. Review of Race Relations Practices of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Service.

Toronto: Metropolitan Toronto Audit Department.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

171

Amnesty International. (2004). Excessive and lethal force? Amnesty international’s concerns

about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use of Tasers. Retrieved January 28, 2017,

from http://www.amnestyusa.org/node/55449

Archbold, C. (2004). Police accountability, risk management, and legal advising. LFB

Scholarly Pub.

Arena, M., Arnaboldi, M., & Azzone, G. (2010). “The organizational dynamics of enterprise

risk management.” Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(7), 659-675.

Bailey, C. A., Smock, W. S., Melendez, A. M., & El-Mallakh, R. S. (2016). “Conducted-Energy

Device (Taser) Usage in Subjects with Mental Illness.” Journal of the American Academy of

Psychiatry and the Law Online, 44(2), 213-217.

Bazley, T. D., Lersch, K. M., & Mieczkowski, T. (2007). “Officer force versus suspect

resistance: A gendered analysis of patrol officers in an urban police department.” Journal

of criminal justice, 35(2), 183-192.

Bebbington, J., Larrinaga, C., & Moneva, J. M. (2008). “Corporate social reporting and

reputation risk management.” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(3), 337-361.

Berry, J., O’Connor, G., Punch, M., & Wilson, P. (2008). “Strange union: changing patterns

of reform, representation, and unionization in policing.” Police Practice and Research: An

International Journal, 9(2), 113-130.

Binder, A. & Scharf, P. 1982. “Deadly Force in Law Enforcement.” Crime and Delinquency

28 (7): 1-23.

Bittner, E. (1970). The functions of the police in modern society: A review of background factors,

current practices, and possible role models. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.

Bowling, Ben, & Phillips, Coretta. 2002. Racism, Crime and Justice. Britain: Pearson

Education Ltd.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1999. Police Use of Force, 1976-98. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Governmental Printing Office.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

172

Boivin, R., & Lagacé, M. (2015). “Police Use-of-Force Situations in Canada Analyzing the

Force or Resistance Ratio Using a Trichotomous Dependent Variable.” Police Quarterly, 1-19.

Borum, R., Deane, M. W., Steadman, H. J., & Morrissey, J. (1998). “Police perspectives on

responding to mentally ill people in crisis: perceptions of program effectiveness.” Behavioral

sciences & the law, 16(4), 393-405.

Brooks, L. W. (1993). “Police discretionary behavior.” Critical Issues in Policing: Contemporary

Readings, 140-164.

Brown, J. M., & Langan, P. A. (2001). Policing and homicide, 1976-98: Justifiable homicide by

police, police officers murdered by felons. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Butler, C., & Hall, C. (2008). “Police/Public Interaction: Arrests, Use of Force by Police, and

Resulting Injuries to Subjects and Officers – A Description of Risk in One Major Canadian

City.” Law Enforcement Executive Forum, 8(6), 141-157.

Carmichael, J. T., & Kent, S. L. (2015). “The Use of Lethal Force by Canadian Police Officers:

Assessing the Influence of Female Police Officers and Minority Threat Explanations on

Police Shootings Across Large Cities.” American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(4), 703-721.

Comey, J. B. (2015, February 12). Hard Truths: Law Enforcement and Race. Retrieved

from https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/hard-truths-law-enforcement-and-race

Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System. 1996. Final Report

of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System. Toronto:

Queen’s Printer.

Conrow, E. H. (2000). Effective Risk Management: Some Keys to Success. American Institute

of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Inc., Reston, VA.

Coombs, W. T. (2007). “Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The

development and application of situational crisis communication theory.” Corporate

reputation review, 10(3), 163-176.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

173

Canadian Police Association. (n.d.). The National Voice for Canadian Police Personnel.

Retrieved from https://www.cpa-acp.ca/

Crawford, C., & Burns, R. (1998). “Predictors of the Police Use of Force The Application of

a Continuum Perspective in Phoenix.” Police Quarterly, 1(4), 41-63.

Crow, M. S., & Adrion, B. (2011). “Focal Concerns and Police Use of Force Examining the

Factors Associated with Taser Use.” Police Quarterly, 14(4), 366-387.

Davis, Peter. 1994. “Rodney King and the Recriminalization of Police Brutality in America:

Direct and Judicial Access to the Grand Jury as Remedies for Victims of Police Brutality

When the Prosecution Declines to Prosecute.” Maryland Law Review 53: 281-83.

DeLone, G. J., & Thompson, L. M. (2009). “The application and use of TASERs by a

Midwestern police agency.” International Journal of Police Science & Management,

11(4), 414-428.

Desmarais, S. L., Livingston, J. D., Greaves, C. L., Johnson, K. L., Verdun-Jones, S., Parent, R.,

& Brink, J. (2014). “Police perceptions and contact among people with mental illnesses:

Comparisons with a general population survey.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(4), 431.

Edwards, A. (2000). Reported use of force by Queensland police: Findings from the 1999

Queensland Defendants Survey. Queensland Criminal Justice Commission Research Paper,

6(2), 1-8.

Eith, C., & Durose, M. (2011). Contacts between police and the public, 2008. Washington, DC.

Engel, R.S. & E. Silver. 2001. “Policing Mentally Disordered Suspects: A Re-examination of

the Criminalization Hypothesis.” Criminology 39: 225-52.

Engel, R. S. (2008). “Revisiting Critical Issues in Police Use‐of‐Force Research.” Criminology &

Public Policy, 7(4), 557-561.

Engel, R. S. (2015). “Police Encounters with People with Mental Illness.” Criminology & Public

Policy, 14(2), 247-251.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

174

Engel, R. S., Sobol, J. J., & Worden, R. E. (2000). “Further exploration of the demeanor

hypothesis: The interaction effects of suspects' characteristics and demeanor on police

behavior.” Justice Quarterly, 17(2), 235-258.

Ferdik, F. V., Rojek, J., & Alpert, G. P. (2013). “Citizen oversight in the United States and

Canada: an overview.” Police Practice and Research, 14(2), 104-116.

Forcese, Dennis. 1999. Policing Canadian Society: 2

Edition. Toronto: Prentice-Hall.

Foster, Lorne, Jacobs, Les & Siu, Bobby. 2016. Race Data and Traffic Stops in Ottawa, 2013-

2015: A Report on Ottawa and the Police Districts. Ottawa: Report prepared for the Ottawa

Police Services Board and the Ottawa Police Service.

Fraternal Order of Police. (n.d.). The Voice of our Nation’s law Enforcement Officers. Retrieved

from http://www.fop.net/

Fridell, L. A. (2016). “Racial Aspects of Police Shootings.” Criminology & Public Policy, 15(2),

481-489.

Friedersdorf, C. (2014, December 2). “How Police Unions and Arbitrators Keep Abusive Cops

on the Street.” The Atlantic. Retrieved

from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/how-police-unions-keep-

abusive-cops-on-the-street/383258/

Friedrich, R. J. (1980). “Police use of force: Individuals, situations, and organizations.”

The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 452(1), 82-97.

Fryer Jr, R. G. (2016). An empirical analysis of racial differences in police use of force

(No. w22399). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Fyfe, J. J. (1981a). “Observations on police deadly force.” Crime & Delinquency, 27(3), 376-389.

Fyfe, James. 1995. “Training to Reduce Police-Civilian Violence.” In Geller, William & Toch,

Hans (Eds). And Justice for All: Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of Force.

Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum: 163-176.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

175

Fyfe, James. 1988. “Police Use of Deadly Force: Research and Reform.” Justice Quarterly 5:

165-205.

Fyfe, James. 1982. “Blind Justice: Police shootings in Memphis.” Journal of Criminal Law and

Criminology 73(2): 707-22.

Fyfe, James. 1979. “Administrative Interventions on Police Shooting Discretion.” Journal of

Criminal Justice 7: 309-23.

Gabbidon, Shaun & Taylor Greene, Helen. 2005. Race and Crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Garner, J. & Maxwell, C. 2003. “Study Links Use of Force to Suspect’s Back Talk.” Law

Enforcement News. January: 15-31.

Garner, J., Schade, T., Hepburn, J., & Buchanan, J. 1995. “Measuring The Continuum of Force

Used By and Against The Police.” Criminal Justice Review 20, 146– 168.

Garner, J. H., Maxwell, C. D., & Heraux, C. G. (2002). “Characteristics associated with the

prevalence and severity of force used by the police.” Justice Quarterly, 19(4), 705-746.

Garner, J. H., Schade, T., Hepburn, J., & Buchanan, J. (1995). “Measuring the continuum of

force used by and against the police.” Criminal Justice Review, 20(2), 146-168.

Gau, J. M., Mosher, C., & Pratt, T. C. (2009). “An inquiry into the impact of suspect race on

police use of Tasers.” Police Quarterly, 13(1), 27-48.

Gauvin, R. (1994). Oleoresin Capsicum Spray: A Progress Report. Portland, OR: Portland Police

Department, Internal Affairs Unit.

Geller, W. A., & Scott, M. (1992). Deadly force: What we know: A practitioner's desk reference on

police-involved shootings. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Geller, Amanda, & Fagan, Jeffrey. (2010). "Pot as pretext: Marijuana, race, and the new

disorder in New York City street policing." Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 7.4: 591-633.

Geller, William & Toch, Hans. 1995. And Justice for All: Understanding and Controlling Police

Abuse of Force. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

176

Gelman, Andrew, Fagan, Jeffrey, & Kiss, Alex. 2007. "An analysis of the New York City police

department's “stop-and-frisk” policy in the context of claims of racial bias." Journal of the

American Statistical Association 102.479: 813-823.

Gephart, R. P., Van Maanen, J., & Oberlechner, T. (2009). “Organizations and risk in late

modernity.” Organization Studies, 30(2-3), 141-155.

Gerring, J. (1997). “Ideology: A definitional analysis.” Political Research Quarterly, 50(4),

957-994.

Gillis, W. (2015, August 16). “How many black men have been killed by Toronto police?

We can’t know.” Toronto Star. Retrieved from

www.thestar.com/news/crime/2015/08/16/

how-many-black-men-have-been-killed-by-toronto-police-we-cant-know.html

Gillis, W., & Gallant, J. (2017, April 6). “Ontario commits to releasing past and future SIU

reports.” Toronto Star. Retrieved from www.thestar.com/news/crime/2017/04/06/judges-

report-recommends-more-powers-for-ontario-police-oversight-bodies.html.

Goff, Phillip, Lloyd, Tracey, Geller, Amanda, Raphael, Steven, & Glaser, Jack. 2016.

The Science of Justice: Race, Arrests and Police Use of Force. Los Angeles, CA: Centre for

Policing Equity.

Goldkamp, John. 1976. “Minorities as Victims of Police Shootings: Interpretations of Racial

Disproportionality and Police Use of Deadly Force.” Justice System Journal 2: 169-83.

Greenfeld, L. A., Langan, P. A., Smith, S. K., & Kaminski, R. (1997). Police use of force:

Collection of national data. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau

of Justice Statistics.

Hails, J., & Borum, R. (2003). “Police training and specialized approaches to respond to

people with mental illnesses.” Crime & Delinquency, 49(1), 52-61.

Hall, C. A., Kader, A. S., McHale, A. M. D., Stewart, L., Fick, G. H., & Vilke, G. M. (2013).

“Frequency of signs of excited delirium syndrome in subjects undergoing police use of

force: descriptive evaluation of a prospective, consecutive cohort.” Journal of forensic and

legal medicine, 20(2), 102-107.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

177

Hale, D.C. & Wyland, S. 1997. “Dragons and Dinosaurs: The Plight of Patrol Women.” In P.

Comwell & R. Dunham (Eds). Crime and Justice in America. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall:

124-134.

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2010). “Toward a theory of brand co-creation with implications

for brand governance.” Journal of Brand Management, 17(8), 590-604.

Henry, Frances, Tator, Carol, & Mettis, Todd. 2006. The Colour of Democracy: Racism in

Canadian Society. Toronto: Nelson Thomson Publishing.

Hickman, M. J., Piquero, A. R., & Garner, J. H. (2008). “Toward a national estimate of police

use of nonlethal force.” Criminology & Public Policy, 7(4), 563-604.

Hickman, M. J., & Poore, J. E. (2015). “National Data on Citizen Complaints About Police

Use of Force Data Quality Concerns and the Potential (Mis) Use of Statistical Evidence

to Address Police Agency Conduct.” Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(5), 455-479.

Ho, J. D., Miner, J. R., Lakireddy, D. R., Bultman, L. L., & Heegaard, W. G. (2006).

“Cardiovascular and physiologic effects of conducted electrical weapon discharge in resting

adults.” Academic Emergency Medicine, 13(6), 589-595.

Hoffman, R., Lawrence, C., & Brown, G. (2004). “Canada's national use-of-force framework

for police officers.” Police Chief, 71(10), 125-126.

Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department (Christopher

Commission). (1991). Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police

Department. Los Angeles: Independent Commission of the Los Angeles Police Department.

International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2001). Police Use of Force in America.

Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Jacob, H. (1984). Using published data: Errors and remedies (Vol. 42). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Jacobs, David & O’Brien, Robert. 1998. “The Determinants of Deadly Force: A Structural

Analysis of Police Violence.” American Journal of Sociology 103 (4): 837-862.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

178

Jacobs, D., & Britt, D. (1979). “Inequality and police use of deadly force: An empirical

assessment of a conflict hypothesis.” Social Problems, 26(4), 403-412.

James, L., James, S. M., & Vila, B. J. (2016). ‘The Reverse Racism Effect.’” Criminology & Public

Policy, 15(2), 457-479.

James, L., Klinger, D., & Vila, B. (2014). “Racial and ethnic bias in decisions to shoot seen

through a stronger lens: experimental results from high-fidelity laboratory simulations.”

Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(3), 323-340.

James, L., Vila, B., & Daratha, K. (2013). “Results from experimental trials testing participant

responses to White, Hispanic and Black suspects in high-fidelity deadly force judgment and

decision-making simulations.” Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(2), 189-212.

Jennings, J. T., & Rubado, M. E. (2017). “Preventing the Use of Deadly Force: The

Relationship between Police Agency Policies and Rates of Officer‐Involved Gun Deaths.”

Public Administration Review, 77(2), 217-226.

Johnson, D., & Kuhns, J. B. (2009). “Striking out: Race and support for police use of force.”

Justice Quarterly, 26(3), 592-623.

Joseph, Janice, Taylor, Dorothy & Muraskin, Roslyn. 2003. With Justice for All: Minorities and

Women in Criminal Justice. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

Kaminski, R. J., Digiovanni, C., & Downs, R. (2004). “The use of force between the police and

persons with impaired judgment.” Police Quarterly, 7(3), 311-338.

Kaminski, R. J., Edwards, S. M., & Johnson, J. W. (1999). “Assessing the incapacitative effects

of pepper spray during resistive encounters with the police.” Policing: An international

journal of police strategies & management, 22(1), 7-30.

Kane, R. J. (2007). “Collect and release data on coercive police actions.” Criminology & Public

Policy, 6(4), 773-780.

Kane, R. J., & White, M. D. (2016). “TASER® Exposure and Cognitive Impairment.”

Criminology & Public Policy, 15(1), 79-107.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

179

Kania, R. R., & Mackey, W. C. (1977). “Police violence as a function of community

characteristics.” Criminology, 15(1), 27-48.

Kedir, S. H. (2006). “Stunning Trends in Shocking Crimes: A Comprehensive Analysis

of Taser Weapons.” JL & Health, 20, 357.

Kelling, G. L., & Kliesmet, R. B. (1995). “Police Unions, Police Culture, The Friday Crab Club,

And Police Use of Force.” In And Justice For All: Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of

Force, Geller, W., and Toch, H. (eds). Police Executive Research Forum.

Kennedy, Randall. 1997. Race, Crime and the Law. New York: Pantheon Books.

Kiedrowski, J., Melchers, R., Petrunik, M., & Maxwell, C. (2015). A Discussion of the Collection

and Analysis of Data on the Use of Force in Encounters between the Police and Members of the

Public. Compliance Strategy Group, Ottawa, ON.

Kingshott, B. (1992). “Do we need a graded response to violent situations.” Police J., 65, 297.

Klahm, C. F., Frank, J., & Liederbach, J. (2014). “Understanding police use of force: Rethinking

the link between conceptualization and measurement.” Policing: An International Journal of

Police Strategies & Management, 37(3), 558-578.

Klahm, C. F., & Tillyer, R. (2010). “Understanding police use of force: A review of the

evidence.” Southwest journal of criminal justice, 7(2), 214-239.

Klinger, D. A. (1995). “The micro-structure of nonlethal force: Baseline data from an

observational study.” Criminal Justice Review, 20(2), 169-186.

Klinger, D. A. (2008). “On The Importance of Sound Measures Of Forceful Police Actions.”

Criminology & Public Policy, 7(4), 605-617.

Klinger, D. A. (2012). “On the problems and promise of research on lethal police violence:

A research note.” Homicide Studies, 16(1), 78-96.

Klinger, D., Rosenfeld, R., Isom, D., & Deckard, M. (2016). “Race, Crime, and the Micro‐

Ecology of Deadly Force.” Criminology & Public Policy, 15(1), 193-222.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

180

Laming, E. (2015). The Expansion of Conducted Energy Weapon Use in Ontario: Pacification and

Policy Development. Retrieved from Carleton University CURVE Theses and Dissertations.

Laming, E. (2016, December 2). “Ontario Police Boards Need To Change.” Huffington Post

Canada. Retrieved from www.huffingtonpost.ca/erick-laming/ontario-police-

boards_b_13360216.html

Laming, E. (2017, June 27). “Here's how Canada could properly police the police.” Ottawa

Citizen. Retrieved from http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/laming-heres-how-

canada-could-properly-police-the-police

Landau, T. (2000). “Back to the future: The death of civilian review of public complaints

against the police in Ontario, Canada.” In Civilian oversight of policing: Governance,

democracy and human rights, 187-195, Goldsmith, A. & Lewis, C. (eds). Portland, OR:

Oxford Publishing.

Lawton, B. A. (2007). “Levels of Nonlethal Force: An Examination of Individual, Situational,

and Contextual Factors.” Journal of research in crime and delinquency, 44(2), 163-184.

Levine, S. D., Sloane, C., Chan, T., Vilke, G., & Dunford, J. (2007). “Cardiac monitoring of

subjects exposed to the TASER.” Academic Emergency Medicine, 33(2), 113-117.

Lin, Y. S., & Jones, T. R. (2010). “Electronic control devices and use of force outcomes:

Incidence and severity of use of force, and frequency of injuries to arrestees and police

officers.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 33(1), 152-178.

Livingston, J. D., Desmarais, S. L., Verdun-Jones, S., Parent, R., Michalak, E., & Brink, J. (2014).

“Perceptions and experiences of people with mental illness regarding their interactions

with police.” International journal of law and psychiatry, 37(4), 334-340.

Lersch, K.M. & Mieczkowski, T. 2005. “Violent Police Behaviour: Past, Present, and Future

Directions.” Aggression and Violent Behaviour 10: 552-568.

Lersch, K.M & Mieczkowski, T. 1996. “Who Are The Problem Prone Officers? An Analysis

of Citizen Complaints.” American Journal of Police 15: 23-44.

Lewis, C. 1992. Report of the Task Force on Race Relations and Policing. Toronto: Queen’s Printer.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

181

Locke, Hubert. 1995. “The Color of Law and the Issue of Color: Race and the Abuse of

Police Power.” In Geller, William & Toch, Hans (Eds). And Justice for All: Understanding and

Controlling Police Abuse of Force. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum:

133-148.

Mann, C. R. 1993. Unequal Justice: A Question of Color. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

McCluskey, J. D., & Terrill, W. (2005). “Departmental and citizen complaints as predictors

of police coercion.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management,

28(3), 513-529.

McDowell, J. 1992. “Are Women Better Cops.” Time 139 (7): 70-72.

McElvain, J. P., & Kposowa, A. J. (2008). “Police officer characteristics and the likelihood of

using deadly force.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(4), 505-521.

McEwen, T. (1996). National data collection on police use of force. US Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

McStravick, M. E. (2011). “The Shocking Truth: Law Enforcement's Use and Abuse of Tasers

and the Need for Reform.” Vill. L. Rev., 56, 363.

Morabito, M. S. (2007). “Horizons of context: Understanding the police decision to arrest

people with mental illness.” Psychiatric Services, 58(12), 1582-1587.

Morabito, M. (2014). “American Police Unions: A Hindrance or Help to Innovation?”

International Journal of Public Administration, 37(11), 773-780.

Morabito, E. V., & Doerner, W. G. (1997). “Police use of less-than-lethal force: Oleoresin

Capsicum (OC) spray.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management,

20(4), 680-697.

Morabito, M. S., Kerr, A. N., Watson, A., Draine, J., Ottati, V., & Angell, B. (2012). “Crisis

intervention teams and people with mental illness exploring the factors that influence the

use of force.” Crime & Delinquency, 58(1), 57-77.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

182

Morabito, M. S., & Socia, K. M. (2015). “Is dangerousness a myth? Injuries and police

encounters with people with mental illnesses.” Criminology & Public Policy, 14(2), 253-276.

Murherjee, Alok & Harper, Tim. 2018. Excessive Force: Toronto’s Fight to Reform City Policing.

Madeira Park, BC: Douglas and McIntyre.

Nelson, Samantha. 2016. “Paper finding no racial bias in shootings by police criticized.”

USA Today, July 2

Nix, J., Campbell, B. A., Byers, E. H., & Alpert, G. P. (2017). “A Bird's Eye View of Civilians

Killed by Police in 2015.” Criminology & Public Policy, 16(1), 309-340.

O'Callaghan, T. (2007). “Disciplining multinational enterprises: The regulatory power of

reputation risk.” Global Society, 21(1), 95-117.

Ogletree, Charles, Prosser, M., Smith, Abbe & Talley, William. 1995. Beyond the Rodney

King Story: An Investigation of Police Misconduct in Minority Communities. 1995. Boston:

Northeastern University Press.

Ontario Human Rights Commission. 2005. Policy and guidelines on racism and racial

discrimination. Toronto: Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Palmiotto, M. 2001. Police Misconduct: Reader for the 21

Century. Upper Saddle River:

Prentice-Hall.

Paoline, E. A., Gau, J. M., & Terrill, W. (2016). “Race and the Police use of Force Encounter

in the United States.” The British Journal of Criminology. doi: https://doi-

org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.1093/bjc/azw089

Paoline, E. A., & Terrill, W. (2007). “Police education, experience, and the use of force.”

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(2), 179-196.

Paoline, E. A., & Terrill, W. (2011). “Police use of force: varying perspectives.” Journal of

Crime and Justice, 34(3), 159-162.

Parent, R. (2007). “Crisis intervention: The police response to vulnerable individuals.”

The Police Journal, 80(2), 109-116.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

183

Parent, R. (2011). “The police use of deadly force in British Columbia: Mental illness and

crisis intervention”. Journal of police crisis negotiations, 11(1), 57-71.

Peak, K. 2006. Policing America: Methods, Issues, Challenges. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

Pedicelli, Gabriella. 1998. When Police Kill: Police Use of Force in Montreal and Toronto.

Montreal: Vehicule Press.

Power, M. (2004a). “Counting, control and calculation: Reflections on measuring and

management.” Human relations, 57(6), 765-783.

Power, M. (2004b). The risk management of everything: Rethinking the politics of uncertainty.

Demos Elizabeth House: London, UK.

Power, M., Scheytt, T., Soin, K., & Sahlin, K. (2009). “Reputational risk as a logic of organizing

in late modernity.” Organization studies, 30(2-3), 301-324.

Phillips, S. W. (1994). Oleoresin capsicum in Buffalo. Canadian Police Research Centre.

Rahtz, H. 2003. Understanding Police Use of Force. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Rankin, Jim. 2010. “Race Matters: When Good People are Swept up with the Bad.” Toronto

Star, February 6: A1.

Rappert, B. (2001). “The distribution and resolution of the ambiguities of technology, or

why Bobby can't spray.” Social Studies of Science, 31(4), 557-591.

Rappert, B. (2002). “Constructions of legitimate force. The case of CS sprays.” British Journal

of Criminology, 42(4), 689-708.

Reaves, B. A. (2015). Local police departments, 2013: personnel, policies, and practices.

Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Assistance.

Reiss, A. J. (1980). “Controlling police use of deadly force.” The Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 452(1), 122-134.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

184

Rikaheim, E. & Chermack, S.M. 1993. “Causes of Police Behaviour Revisited.” Journal of

Criminal Justice 21: 353-82.

Roberg, R. R., & Kuykendall, J. L. (1990). Police organization and management: Behavior,

theory, and processes. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.

Rogers, T. S., & Johnson, S. L. (2000).” Less than lethal: An analysis of the impact of oleoresin

capsicum.” Int'l J. Police Sci. & Mgmt., 3(1), 55-67.

Ross, Cody. 2015. “A multi-level Bayesian Analysis of Racial Bias in Police Shootings at the

County-level in the United States, 2011-2014. PLoS One: 10 (11).

Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr. Prosecution. 1989. Royal Commission on the

Donald Marshall, Jr. Prosecution: Digest of Findings and Recommendations. Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Rydberg, J., & Terrill, W. (2010). “The effect of higher education on police behavior.” Police

Quarterly, 13(1), 92-120.

Scheytt, T., Soin, K., Sahlin‐Andersson, K., & Power, M. (2006). “Introduction: Organizations,

risk and regulation.” Journal of Management Studies, 43(6), 1331-1337.

Schuck, A. M. (2004). “The masking of racial and ethnic disparity in police use of physical

force: The effects of gender and custody status.” Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(6), 557-564.

Seals, E. (2007). “Police use of tasers: The truth is shocking.” Golden Gate UL Rev., 38, 109.

Shane, J. M. (2016). “Improving Police Use of Force A Policy Essay on National Data

Collection.” Criminal Justice Policy Review. doi: 10.1177/0887403416662504

Sherman, L. W., & Langworthy, R. H. (1979). “Measuring homicide by police officers.” J. Crim.

L. & Criminology, 70, 546.

Sherman, Lawrence W., & Blumberg, Mark. (1981). “Higher Education and Police Use of

Deadly Force.” Journal of Criminal Justice 9: 317-31.

Sklansky, D. A., & Marks, M. (2008). “The role of the rank and file in police reform.” Policing

& Society, 18(1), 1-6.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

185

Skolnick, J. H. 2002. “Corruption and the Blue Code of Silence.” Police Practice and Research

3(1): 7-19.

Skolnick, J. H., & Fyfe, J. J. 1993. Above the Law: Police and the excessive use of force. New York:

Free Press.

Smith, B. W. (2004). “Structural and organizational predictors of homicide by police.”

Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 27(4), 539-557.

Smith, M. R. (2008). “Toward a national use‐of‐force data collection system: one small

(and focused) step is better than a giant leap.” Criminology & Public Policy, 7(4), 619-627.

Smith, J., & Greaves, I. (2002). “The use of chemical incapacitant sprays: a review.” Journal

of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 52(3), 595-600.

Smith, M. R., Kaminski, R. J., Rojek, J., Alpert, G. P., & Mathis, J. (2007). “The impact of

conducted energy devices and other types of force and resistance on officer and suspect

injuries.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30(3), 423-446.

Stanley, J. (2013). “Police body-mounted cameras: With right policies in place, a win for all.”

New York: ACLU.

Stenning, P., Birkbeck, C., Adang, O., Baker, D., Feltes, T., Gabaldón, L. G. & Waddington, P.

A. (2009). “Researching the use of force: the background to the international project.” Crime,

law and social change, 52(2), 95-110.

Stenning, P. 2003. “Policing the Cultural Kaleidoscope: Recent Canadian Experience”.

Police & Society 7:21-87.

Stenning, Phillip. 1994. Police Use of Force and Violence Against Members of Visible Minority

Groups in Canada. Ottawa: Centre for Police Race Relations.

Sun, I. Y., & Payne, B. K. (2004). “Racial differences in resolving conflicts: A comparison

between Black and White police officers.” Crime & Delinquency, 50(4), 516-541.

Sussman, A. (2012). “Shocking the conscience: what police tasers and weapon technology

reveal about excessive force law.” UCLA Law Review, 59(5), 1342-1415.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

186

Swaine, J., & Ciara McCarthy, C. (2017, January 8). “Young black men again faced highest

rate of US police killings in 2016.” The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/us-

news/2017/jan/08/the-counted-police-killings-2016-young-black-men

Sweetman, S. (1987). Report on the Attorney General's Conference on Less than lethal Weapons.

US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Communication and

Research Utilization.

Tanovich, David. 2006. The Colour of Justice: Policing Race in Canada. Toronto: Irwin Law.

Tator, Carol & Henry, Frances. 2006. Racial Profiling in Canada: Challenging the Myth of a

Few Bad Apples. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Terrill, William. 2000. “Police Use of Force: A Transactional Approach.” Justice Quarterly 22

(1): 107-38.

Terrill, William. 2003. “Police Use of Force and Suspect Resistance: The Micro-Process of

the Police-Suspect Encounter.” Police Quarterly 6: 51-83.

Terrill, William. 2001. Police Coercion: The Application of the Force Continuum. New York: LFB

Scholarly Publishing.

Terrill, W., Alpert, G.P., Dunham, R.D., & Smith, M.R. 2003. “A Management Tool Evaluation

Police Use of Force: An Application of the Force Factor.” Police Quarterly 5: 150-71.

Terrill, W. & Mastrofski, S. 2002. “Situational and Officer Based Determinants of Police

Coercion.” Justice Quarterly 19: 215-48.

Terrill, R. J. (1988). “Police Accountability in Philadelphia: Retrospects and Prospects.” Am. J.

Police, 7, 79.

Terrill, W. (2005). “Police use of force: A transactional approach.” Justice Quarterly, 22(1),

107-138.

Terrill, W. (2016). ‘Deadly Force.” Criminology & Public Policy, 15(2), 491-496.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

187

Terrill, W., Leinfelt, F. H., & Kwak, D. H. (2008). “Examining police use of force: A smaller

agency perspective.” Policing: an international journal of police strategies & management,

31(1), 57-76.

Terrill, W., & Mastrofski, S. D. (2002). “Situational and officer-based determinants of police

coercion.” Justice Quarterly, 19(2), 215-248.

Terrill, W., & Paoline III, E. A. (2012). “Conducted energy devices (CEDs) and citizen injuries:

The shocking empirical reality.” Justice Quarterly, 29(2), 153-182.

Terrill, W., & Paoline III, E. A. (2013). “Examining less lethal force policy and the force

continuum results from a national use-of-force study.’ Police Quarterly, 16(1), 38-65.

Terrill, W., Paoline III, E. A., & Manning, P. K. (2003). “Police culture and coercion.”

Criminology, 41(4), 1003-1034.

Terrill, W., & Reisig, M. D. (2003). “Neighborhood context and police use of force.” Journal

of research in crime and delinquency. 40(3), 291-321.

Thomas, K. J., Collins, P. A., & Lovrich, N. P. (2010). “Conducted energy device use in

municipal policing: Results of a national survey on policy and effectiveness assessments.”

Police Quarterly, 13(3), 290-315.

Tregle, Brandon, Nix, Justin & Alpert, Geoffrey. 2019. “Disparity does not Mean Bias: Making

sense of observed racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shooting with multiple

benchmarks.” Journal of Crime and Justice 42 (1): 18-31.

Trostle, L. C. (1990). “The force continuum: From lethal to less-than-lethal force.” Journal of

Contemporary Criminal Justice, 6(1), 23-36.

Tulloch, M. H. (2017, March 31). Report of the Independent Police Oversight Review.

Retrieved from

www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/police_oversight_

review/#_idTextAnchor841

United Nations. 2017. Report of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent on

Its Mission to Canada. Retrieved from: https://documents-dds-

ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/239/61/PDF/G1723961.pdf?OpenElement

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

188

U.S. Department of Justice. 2016. Investigation of the Baltimore City Police Department.

Washington DC: United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.

Vilke, G. M., & Chan, T. C. (2007). “Less lethal technology: medical issues.” Policing: An

International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30(3), 341-357.

Walker, Samuel. 2005. The New World of Police Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Walker, Samuel, Spohn, Cassia & Delone, Miriam. 2004. The Color of Justice: Race, Ethnicity

and Crime in America. Toronto: Wadsworth.

Walker, Samuel, Alpert, G. & Kenney, D. 2001. Early Warning Systems: Responding to the

Problem Police Officer. Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Justice.

Walker, K. (2010). “A systematic review of the corporate reputation literature: Definition,

measurement, and theory.” Corporate reputation review, 12(4), 357-387.

Walker, S. (2001). Police accountability. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Walker, S. (2008). “The neglect of police unions: exploring one of the most important areas

of American policing.” Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 9(2), 95-112.

Walker, S. (2012). “Institutionalizing police accountability reforms: The problem of making

police reforms endure.” Louis U. Pub. L. Rev., 32, 57.

Walker, S. E., & Archbold, C. A. (2013). The new world of police accountability. Sage

Publications.

Watson, A. C., Corrigan, P. W., & Ottati, V. (2004). “Police officers' attitudes toward and

decisions about persons with mental illness.” Psychiatric Services, 55(1), 49-53.

Weitzer, R. (2002). “Incidents of police misconduct and public opinion.” Journal of criminal

justice, 30(5), 397-408.

Weitzer, R., & Tuch, S. A. (2004). “Race and perceptions of police misconduct.” Social

problems, 51(3), 305-325.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

189

Wells, W., & Schafer, J. A. (2006). “Officer perceptions of police responses to persons with

a mental illness.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 29(4),

578-601.

Westley, W. A. (1953). “Violence and the police.’ American journal of sociology, 34-41.

White, M. D. (2015). “Transactional Encounters, Crisis‐Driven Reform, and the Potential

for a National Police Deadly Force Database.” Criminology & Public Policy, 15(1), 223-235.

White, M. D., & Ready, J. (2009). “Examining fatal and nonfatal incidents involving the

TASER.” Criminology & Public Policy, 8(4), 865-891.

White, Michael. 2001. “Controlling Police Decisions to Use Deadly Force: Re-examining the

Importance of Administrative Policy.” Crime and Delinquency 47: 131-151.

Williams, H. E., Bowman, S. W., & Jung, J. T. (2016). “The Limitations of Government

Databases for Analyzing Fatal Officer-Involved Shootings in the United States.” Criminal

Justice Policy Review. doi: 10.1177/0887403416650927.

Worden, A. P. 1993. “The Attitudes of Women and Men In Policing: Testing Conventional

and Contemporary Wisdom.” Criminology 31: 203– 237.

Worden, R. E. (1990). “A badge and a baccalaureate: Policies, hypotheses, and further

evidence.” Justice Quarterly, 7(3), 565-592.

Worrall, John, Bishopp, Steven, Zinser, Scott, Wheeler, Andrew & Phillips, Scott. 2018.

“Exploring Bias in Police Shooting Decisions with Real Shoot/Don’t Shoot Cases.” Crime

and Delinquency 64 (9): 1171-1192.

Wortley, Scot. (2006). Police use of force in Ontario: An examination of data from the special

investigations unit. Final report to the African Canadian Legal Clinic for Submission to the

Ipperwash Inquiry. Retrieved from:

www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipperwash/

policy_part/projects/pdf/AfricanCanadianClinicIpperwashProject_SIUStudybyScotWortley.pdf

Wortley, Scot. 2004. “Hidden Intersections: Research on Race, Crime and Criminal Justice in

Canada” Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal 35 (3): 99-117.

Use of force by the Toronto Police Service

_______________________________________________________

Ontario Human Rights Commission

190

Wortley, Scot. 2003. The Illusion of Accountability: Civilian Governance of the Police in a

Multi-cultural Society. Ottawa: Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration – Heritage Canada.

Wortley, Scot. 1999. “A Northern Taboo: Research on race, crime, and criminal justice in

Canada”. Canadian Journal of Criminology 41(2): 261-274.

Wortley, Scot. 1996. “Justice for All? Race and Perceptions of Bias in the Ontario

Criminal Justice System -- A Toronto Survey”. Canadian Journal of Criminology 38:

439-467.

Wortley, Scot & Marshall, Lysandra. 2005. Police Stop Search Activities in Kingston, Ontario.

Kingston: Kingston Police Services Board.

Wortley, Scot & Tanner, Julian. 2005. “Inflammatory Rhetoric? Baseless Accusations?

Responding to Gabor’s Critique of Racial Profiling Research in Canada.” Canadian Journal

of Criminology and Criminal Justice 47 (3): 581-609.

Wortley, Scot & Tanner, Julian. 2003. “Data, Denials and Confusion: The Racial Profiling

Debate in Toronto.” Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 45 (3): 367-389.

Wortley, Scot & McCalla, Andrea. 2003. “The Debate Continues: Evidence of Bias Against

Black People in the Canadian Criminal Justice System.” Pp. 212-228 in Julian Roberts (Ed.).

Criminal Justice in Canada: 2

Edition. Toronto: Harcourt-Brace.

Wortley, Scot, Macmillan, Ross & Hagan, John. 1997. “Just Des(s)erts? The Racial

Polarization of Perceptions of Criminal Injustice”. Law and Society Review 31: 637-676.

Yang, J., & Gillis, W. (2017, March 19). “Should police be required to collect race-based data

to fight discrimination?” Toronto Star. Retrieved

from

www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/03/19/after-decades-of-debate-is-ontario-ready-for-

police-to-collect-data-based-on-race.html

Zimring, Franklin. 2017. When Police Kill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

www.ohrc.on.ca

www.ohrc.on.ca/fr

@the.ohrc

@LaCODP

@OntHumanRights

@LaCODP

Onthumanrights