Policy of silence keeps victims’ identity secret

Judge to review practice of requiring family consent to reveal the names of police-involved fatalities

What’s known about the victim of the latest fatal Toronto police shooting can be contained in a few scarce facts.

He was killed by Toronto police. He died along a dusty rail corridor in North Toronto. He was 42.

Nearly a week since his death, he remains nameless and faceless.

Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit, the civilian oversight agency that probes deaths involving police, said Tuesday the man’s identity is being kept secret in accordance with the watchdog’s naming policy, which requires consent from family to release the name of the victim of a police-involved fatality.

The watchdog’s policy means the man’s name may not be released for months, years or ever — and the practice has come under fire from critics who say that the name is critical to scrutinizing a policeinvolved death and ensuring accountability.

But the policy will now be closely scrutinized as part of Justice Michael Tulloch’s review of Ontario’s police oversight bodies.

Launched in the wake of public outrage about the SIU’s probe into the police shooting death of Andrew Loku, Tulloch’s review is now examining policies surrounding what information the province’s three police watchdogs keep secret — including the names of those killed by police.

“He will address as a priority ways in which the transparency of the SIU can be enhanced while preserving fundamental rights, including whether more information than is currently released to the public about an SIU investigation should be released and what form that should take,” said Jenna Mannone, spokeswoman for the Ministry of the Attorney General.

According to the SIU, the fatal shooting occurred around 9 a.m. Friday, after “numerous” police officers and members of the Toronto police Emergency Task Force arrived on a stretch of rail between Weston Rd. and Hwy. 400, just south of Sheppard Ave. W.

When police tried to arrest the man for trespassing under the federal Railway Safety Act, there was a “confrontation” and an officer shot him. A Taser was also deployed. The man was confirmed dead on scene.

The SIU has not released any information about whether the man was armed at the time of the shooting. Once the SIU takes over an investigation, Toronto police cannot provide any information about the incident.

Police later cordoned off an area that contained what appeared to be a makeshift shelter along the railway. Asked last week if the man was living there, an SIU spokesperson said police were still investigating.

Adopted in 2012, the SIU has said its policy requiring family consent to release the name of a relative killed by police came into effect as a result of concerns brought forward by complainants or their family members. It was developed after research into the practices of other police watchdogs, which vary from province to province.

The policy is in contrast to the usual police practice of routinely releasing the names of homicide victims, even if it’s against the wishes of family. In homicide cases, the release of the victim’s name can prompt valuable information.

The SIU’s policy remains in place even after the investigation into the shooting is completed — meaning the man’s name will not ever be released by the watchdog.

The name could ultimately come out if a coroner’s inquest is called into the man’s death, but inquests into deaths resulting from an interaction with police are not always mandatory.

The policy was revisited by the watchdog last year as a result of criticism, according to the 2015 annual report. That included consultation with mental-health professionals, a review of what experts had proactively shared with the SIU in past cases and conversations with SIU investigators “to get a sense of what families wanted and needed.”

The review determined the 2012 naming policy should be maintained.

“Based on the analysis, we made the decision to only release names of complainants with consent, unless there was an investigative purpose to release the name,” says the SIU in its annual report.

Lisa Taylor, a Ryerson University journalism professor and former lawyer, says she doesn’t understand how the SIU can determine when a case won’t benefit from the release of the victim’s identity. “How can they know what they don’t know? We can’t know when people might have information that’s relevant to an investigation until people have enough information about the deceased,” she said. “It’s very chicken and egg.”

When names are withheld, so too are the fuller narratives that provide greater understanding of the societal problems that lead to police shootings, Taylor added. Karyn Greenwood-Graham, who runs a support group for families of those killed by police, said the group met with Tulloch on Monday to discuss the changes they want to see made.

For the group, the issue of whether their relative’s name is released is divisive. Some appreciate the current SIU policy, while others believe it’s important that the name be public, said Greenwood-Graham.

Some families wish after the fact that their loved one’s name had been made public, she said.

But if they are asked for consent to release the name shortly after learning of their relative’s death, the “automatic, knee-jerk reaction is to say no.” Wendy Gillis can be reached at wgillis@thestar.ca

“Based on the analysis, we made the decision to only release names of complainants with consent.” SIU ANNUAL REPORT