Cop didn’t videotape 2016 interview in McArthur case, source says

Officer accused of not following rules in probe of alleged assault

When a man reported to Toronto police in 2016 that serial killer Bruce McArthur pinned him down in his van and violently choked him, the sergeant tasked with investigating the incident failed to conduct a video interview with the victim, the Star has learned.

Sgt. Paul Gauthier, the Toronto officer facing professional misconduct charges stemming from the incident, is alleged to have conducted a negligent investigation into the June 20, 2016, accusation against McArthur, who was convicted last week of eight counts of first-degree murder.

It is also alleged that Gauthier failed to have photographs taken of the victim’s injuries within 72 hours after the event, as required by policy, Gauthier’s lawyer confirmed to the Star, though he noted the victim’s injury was documented.

After an encounter in which the man alleged McArthur strangled him — an assault that left him unable to properly swallow for a week — McArthur was arrested, but was let go without charges. He went on to kill two more men in 2017, Selim Esen and Andrew Kinsman.

Gauthier was scheduled to make his first appearance at the Toronto police disciplinary tribunal Tuesday but was not present, meaning the details of the two Police Services Act charges he faces — neglect of duty and insubordination — were not released at the public hearing.

But a police source with knowledge of the allegations, and Gauthier’s lawyer, confirmed to the Star that Gauthier, a former member of the sex crimes unit, is alleged to have broken procedure when the victim’s statement was not video-recorded. Instead, a written statement was taken, contrary to policies on how investigators conduct probes involving alleged domestic assaults.

The policy is in place for domestic incidents because of a higher likelihood that a victim of intimate partner violence might recant a statement.

“Gauthier denies that he did anything wrong,” said the officer’s lawyer, Lawrence Gridin, in a statement Tuesday evening.

Gridin told reporters Tuesday he is confident the evidence will show Gauthier’s work “contributed to the identification of McArthur as a serial killer,” rather than detracted from it. The decision not to charge McArthur was made in conjunction with Gauthier’s supervisor “and based on the information available at the time.”

During the brief hearing, Gridin had requested the case be overseen by an independent adjudicator, instead of the usual arrangement in which a highranking officer chosen by the police chief acts as a de facto judge.

The tribunal rarely brings in an independent hearing officer for Police Act charges, but has done so in other high-profile cases where it’s perceived that Toronto police shouldn’t scrutinize its own — including for a misconduct case stemming from the G20 summit in 2010.

“You have no independence from the chief of police,” Gridin told the hearing officer, Toronto police Insp. Richard Hegedus.

“This is a matter obviously that has some sensitivity; it’s a matter of great public interest,” Gridin said. “Accordingly, this matter deserves the transparency and accountability that the Toronto Police Service strives for and that can only be achieved by the appointment of a judge.”

In an address to the hearing officer, Gridin had begun discussing how, in December 2017, police Chief Mark Saunders held a press conference denying the existence of a serial killer in Toronto’s Gay Village.

“We now know … that the information at the press conference was not correct,” he said.

But Gridin was interrupted by Toronto police prosecutor Alexandra Ciobotaru, who said in the early stages of the hearing, comments should only pertain to the behaviour of the officer in question. Gridin replied that he was providing the information to show justification for an independent adjudicator.

The Toronto police handling of the 2016 incident has come under the microscope amid criticism that investigators failed for years to catch McArthur, who killed eight men between 2010 and 2017. Most of McArthur’s victims were vulnerable — some were homeless, others were closeted gay men — leading to concerns within the LGBTQ community that bias may have impacted the investigation.

New details about the incident were revealed in Ontario Superior Court on Monday during McArthur’s ongoing sentencing hearing, included a detailed summary of the facts read out in court.

The unnamed 2016 victim, who had a previous acquaintance with McArthur, said he joined him for an encounter inside McArthur’s van in a parking lot, and noticed he had removed a seat on the driver’s side so that there was room to lie down. McArthur asked the victim to lie on a coat on the floor of the van, and instructed him to put an arm behind his back.

The victim said McArthur then grabbed his throat and started strangling him. He managed to escape the van and called 911.

McArthur went to the police station on his own and was arrested, but gave an exculpatory statement, court heard. He was released without charge after an officer believed McArthur’s statement.

In 2014, two years before the van strangling incident, McArthur received a record suspension from the Parole Board of Canada for a vicious 2001 assault against a male sex worker. At the time he received the record suspension, McArthur had already committed three murders.

Mike McCormack, president of the Toronto Police Association, said he supports bringing in an outside judge for the disciplinary hearing, saying the officer will “vigorously defend” himself against the charges.

McCormack challenged the fact that Gauthier had been charged with misconduct before a broader review of Toronto police handling of the McArthur case could be conducted.

Before he was charged in connection to the McArthur incident, Gauthier previously faced two unrelated counts of professional misconduct. The charges were ultimately dropped and the matter was dealt with internally.

According to a police document outlining those charges, Gauthier had failed to arrest an alleged perpetrator when he had grounds to do so — specifically, DNA evidence identifying the alleged perpetrator.