Peel police officers involved in mental health call that left Malton man dead in 2020 faced previous misconduct allegations

And for the first time, the Star can report them: Const. Jason Sandilands, Const. Adam Paiement, Const. Marc Charlebois, Const. Marc Roach and Insp. Sean Brennan.

In naming them the Star learned that the interaction that killed Choudry wasn’t the first time that the actions of four of the officers have been called into question.

One of the officers was docked days off for his role in the botched Peel investigation of the death of a Mississauga woman in 2010, one of three family members that would be found dead in the same home.

Another was docked four days’ pay for his involvement, along with other Peel officers, in an incident that led to claims from three 16-year-old Brampton high school football players that they were assaulted during a September 2005 altercation with the officers.

The new court filings are the culmination of the Choudry family’s legal battle after an April 2024 court ruling cleared the way to reveal the names of the officers. The court filings seek to have the courts update previously filed records including the statement of claim against the officers who are now embroiled in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed by the Choudry family.

Peel police have denied the allegations, filing a statement of defence calling for the family’s lawsuit to be dismissed with costs.

“These defendants expressly deny that Choudry was assaulted or that excessive or unnecessary force was used,” the statement of defence reads, adding that the officers “rely on the defences of self-defence, necessity and legal authority.”

Peel police told the Star that “the incident involving Mr. Choudry was thoroughly investigated by the SIU, following which an internal investigation was conducted. Both investigations were concluded with no findings of wrongdoing against any involved officer.”

The plaintiffs’ bid to “revise the statement of claim to name the officers as defendants” comes almost a year after an Ontario Superior Court judge rejected a rare request for an “extraordinary” publication ban on the identities of the officers, ruling the public’s right to know about the killing outweighs “speculative” safety concerns from police.

The notice of motion, filed last month, also shows that the defendants tried to fight the court order to unseal their names by trying to appeal, but that request was dismissed in October.

In the wake of that dismissal, Simon Bieber, the Choudrys’ lawyer, said the family “wants to see justice done, and accountability is a big part of it. We think all this should be done out in the open.”

Choudry, a Muslim father of four, was killed in Malton in June 2020, after his daughter called a non-emergency line and requested medical assistance, saying her father, who had schizophrenia, was acting in a confused manner. The killing sparked a widespread uproar, including in the Muslim community. 

It was his daughter’s belief that her father’s erratic behaviour was because he did not take his medication, the statement of claim filed by the Choudry family says. The family informed police that Choudry had “a small pocket knife but was not dangerous.”

When the first set of officers arrived at 5:30 p.m. Choudry was alone in the apartment. Police found him sitting in his bedroom, the statement of claim noted, adding, Choudry made numerous requests for the officers to leave. The officers struggled to communicate with Choudry, who wasn’t fluent in English. Within 30 minutes of their arrival a decision was made to deploy a tactical unit, the statement of claim states.

When Choudry moved toward police with a “large kitchen knife,” officers Tasered, fired rubber bullets at, then eventually shot Choudry, according to the report by the SIU.

Choudry’s death sparked a wave of protests in Peel and raised questions about the need for police reform. 

The Choudry family allege the officers used deadly force without justification against a frail, South Asian man who did not speak fluent English. The statement of claim says several officers barricaded the front door of the apartment, while others climbed on to the second-storey balcony to enter from the back. After surrounding Choudry, the officers on the balcony broke in, brandishing their weapons, it states. The officers fired multiple shots within 11 seconds of entering through the balcony door and Choudry fell to the floor, the revised statement of claim said.

“They negligently allowed a straightforward mental health call to spiral out of control and become a high-risk tactical operation,” the claim states.

The Choudry family’s revised court filing alleges that officer Sandilands shot Choudry twice with his handgun. Paiement was armed with an Anti-Riot Weapon Enfield (a device that fires large plastic projectiles — also known as ARWEN), from which he fired three ARWEN bullets at Choudry, according to the revised statement of claim.

It claims that Charlebois fired his Taser at Choudry.  Roach — now identified in the court filings as one of the supervising officers on the night of the incident — requested that a Tactical Response Unit (“TRU”) team attend Choudry’s home, while Brennan, who was noted only as a witness officer, is now being accused by the plaintiffs “as the officer that crafted the deliberate action plan (DAP) that resulted in the killing of Ejaz.”

Officers Sandilands, Paiement and Charlebois “subjected Ejaz to a physical attack that far exceeded the scope of force that they were permitted to use in the course of their duties as police officers,” the statement of claim alleges. “It was not necessary for any of these officers to have used their weapons to subdue or restrain Ejaz, a 62-year-old man in poor health.”

It adds that it was “certainly excessive for Sandilands to fire two bullets from a semi-automatic handgun after Paiement had fired three ARWEN projectiles at him and after Charlebois fired his Taser.

“It was also gratuitous and unnecessary for officer Paiement to fire two additional ARWEN bullets at Ejaz and break his elbow when the 62-year-old had already been shot in the chest and was on the ground,” the statement of claim says.

The family’s initial statement of claim, filed in 2022, against the then unnamed officers, Peel police chief Nishan Duraiappah and the Peel Police Service Board, claims that “Choudry is dead because of the reckless manner in which the defendants responded to a mental health distress call.”

The statement of defence filed by Peel police said Duraiappah is not vicariously liable for the acts of the officers, nor did he personally have any direct or indirect involvement in the case.

Duraiappah has said that police should not have sole responsibility for responding to people in crisis.

“More has to be done to support those in crisis, and police should not be the primary responders called upon to manage mental health calls,” he said.

The Star found previous instances where four of the officers were investigated over use of force or faced scrutiny over the execution of their duties.

Paiement was one of three Peel officers involved in the March 2015 death of Marc Ekamba, who was shot and killed at a Mississauga townhouse complex, The Star previously reported.

Ekamba was killed, Peel Const. Branden Dary was shot in the back by Const. Jennifer Whyte, and an innocent bystander was struck in the back by a bullet. Paiement testified that he started shooting at Ekamba when he was about 20 feet away, saying he thought Ekamba was “going to run to me and stab me again.”

Paiement, who was a detective constable at the time of the inquest, and his two colleagues were cleared by the SIU of criminal charges for firing a total of 19 bullets in quick succession inside the complex.

Eleven of those bullets struck Ekamba, who the SIU said was advancing on police with a kitchen knife that had a six-inch blade.

Peel police told the Star that Paiement, who was stabbed during the altercation with Ekamba, “was investigated by the SIU as well as a subsequent internal investigation which concluded that there was no wrongdoing on his part.”

Brennan was one of two Peel police officers who admitted to neglect of duty in the botched 2010 probe into the death of Bridget Harrison, who was one of three family members found dead at a Mississauga home over the span of four years. Brennan forfeited days off as punishment, but with the misconduct deemed to be of a less serious nature by their chief, a full and public disciplinary hearing was not held.

Bill Harrison, 63, was found dead in his home on Pitch Pine Crescent in 2009. His wife, Bridget Harrison, 63, died there in 2010. But it was only after their son, Caleb Harrison, 40, was discovered strangled in the same home in 2013 that police determined all three Harrisons had been victims of homicide. The case raised serious questions about how police, coroners and forensic pathologists failed to make connections between the deaths sooner.

Peel police confirmed that Brennan was only “issued a forfeiture of days off, in response to the the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) investigation.”

Sandilands was subjected to an internal probe for a 2005 incident where he was accused of pulling a paraplegic man from his wheelchair and dragging him to a cruiser, before the man was charged with causing a disturbance. The altercation took place at a Mississauga building complex after police responded to reports of a stabbing at the address. The paraplegic man was at the scene when police arrived. Testimony shared at a 2006 trial that led to “not guilty” verdicts against two men indicates that the then 24-year-old, who is paralyzed from the waist down, was pulled from his chair by Sandilands. A second man who was tending to a friend who had been stabbed was also charged with causing a disturbance.

Peel police told the Star that Sandilands “was investigated for both incidents, and none of the allegations were substantiated.”

Roach was among several officers who were charged with neglect of duty following claims from three 16-year-old Brampton high school football players that they were assaulted during a September 2005 altercation.

The families of the students filed a $3.6 million lawsuit in 2006 that Peel police settled without filing a statement of defence.

Roach and seven other officers also faced a police discipline hearing in which he was charged with neglect of duty.

Peel police confirmed that Roach did face disciplinary action and received a penalty of a forfeiture of four days’ pay “however since this time he has been an exemplary employee.” 

Peel police spokesperson Richard Chin explained that following any significant use-of-force incident, Peel police “examines the circumstances from a training perspective to better equip officers for the unpredictabilities of the job.” All officers are required to partake in incident response training annually, and the training continues to evolve, Chin said.

Bieber said the fact that one or more of the officers now named in the Choudry case have been involved in other use-of-force incidents where someone was hurt or killed might come into play in this case.

“The public has a right to know if an officer is involved in incidents where there is force, potentially excessive force,” Bieber said.

The Choudrys’ lawyer also wants the case to be tried before a jury, saying “actions against police officers involving the wrongful use of force, and associated Charter violations, are suitable for jury determination.” But it appears, the defendants’ counsel have “communicated their refusal to consent to a jury trial.”

The lawyer for the Peel officers, Eugene Mazzuca, told the Star that his clients did consent to the amendment of the statement of claim, “on the condition that doing so would not be treated as a reopening of pleadings for the purpose of serving a jury notice.”

In a statement from the family, that was published by the CBC, Choudry’s daughter Nemrah Amhad said “this is not simply about disclosing their identities, it is about putting faces to the decisions that led to the loss of my father. These individuals made choices during a mental health crisis that culminated in tragedy, and they must be held accountable for their actions.”

Amhad writes that “public accountability may not bring my father back, but it ensures that his story, and our fight for justice is heard. My father’s life mattered, and by revealing these names, we ensure that those responsible can no longer remain faceless, or anonymous.”

She spoke to how his death at the hands of police “hits deeper than words can express” and that Choudry “didn’t deserve force and aggression, he needed help.”

Editor’s note — Feb. 18, 2025

This article has been updated.