OPP probe clears Toronto police officers of collusion in trial involving 2021 death of veteran officer

An Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) criminal investigation stemming from the case of Umar Zameer, who was acquitted in the death of Det. Const. Jeffrey Northrup, found no evidence of collusion among three Toronto police officers who served as key witnesses for the prosecution at the murder trial.

A jury acquitted Zameer in the death of Northrup who was hit by a vehicle in an underground parking garage at Toronto City Hall on July 1, 2021. Zameer pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and claimed he didn’t realize Northrup and his partner, who were in plain clothes, were police officers.

He further testified that he didn’t realize he had run over Northrup as he panicked to flee and protect his child and pregnant wife from what he thought was a robbery attempt.

The OPP independent 55-page review, which was released by the Toronto Police Service (TPS) on Tuesday, was initiated by Chief Myron Demkiw after the judge overseeing the case suggested that three witness officers who took the stand may have possibly colluded in their testimonies, something they all denied.

“The independent investigation has now determined that they did not lie, but the personal toll this process has taken on these officers has been enormous,” Demkiw said at a news conference.

The OPP said that given the seriousness of the trial judge’s assertions, it determined that an independent criminal investigation was needed and asked the OPP’s Criminal Investigations Branch (CIB) to oversee the probe. The CIB concluded its investigation in January 2026 and presented its findings to the TPS in February 2026.

The OPP’s mandate included reviewing investigative steps, officer statements and whether any misconduct occurred during the original homicide investigation.

The scope of the OPP investigation looked at three assertions from the trial judge, Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy:

1. Det-Const. Scharnil Pais and Det.-Const. Antonio Correa intentionally lied about the position of Det.-Const. Northrup at the time when he was struck by a vehicle
2. Det-Const. Pais and Det.-Const. Correa lied about pointing their firearms during the arrest of Zameer
3. Det-Const. Pais, Det.-Const. Correa and Sgt. Lisa Forbes (then a detective constable) colluded to lie in their notes, statements and testimony about the events that lead to Det.-Const. Northrup’s death

In assertion number three, the OPP investigation examined whether the three officers had opportunities for collusion. However, they found that not to be the case.

“Analysis of the timeline revealed only limited windows during which Detective Constables Pais and Correa could have interacted, with no corroborating evidence of communication or collaboration on the events. Independent witnesses reported no such contact or exchange between these officers, suggesting they collaborated to falsify what happened.  The similarity in the officers’ accounts reflects their shared observations of the same event, not evidence of intentional deceit of collusion,” the report states.

The OPP said based on the written comments of the trial judge, the investigation looked at whether charges of obstructing justice or perjury should be laid against the three officers.

“The OPP investigation found no evidence to support the belief that Detective Constables Lisa Forbes, Pais or Correa lied or colluded to lie. The allegations made regarding the officers’ conduct, amounting to an obstruction of justice, were not found to be based on the actual testimony and evidence presented. The OPP has concluded this investigation with no reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence has been committed by the officers involved,” the report concludes.

Relating to assertion number one, three police officers, including Northrup’s partner, provided eyewitness testimony during the trial claiming that the veteran detective was standing with his hands up the moment before he was fatally struck. However, two crash reconstruction experts – one called by the Crown and one by the defence – had told the court they concluded Northrup had been side swiped and knocked down by the car as it was reversing and was already on the ground when he was run over.

During the trial, the TPS reconstructionist and defence engineers presented a theory that Northrup was struck beside the BMW driven by Zameer while it was reversing.

“The theory was accepted by the trial judge; however, the OPP’s re-investigation of the collision found no evidentiary basis to support this theory,” the OPP report states. “The evidence showed that Detective Constable Northrup was standing in front of the BMW when it accelerated forward and struck him down. This finding matches the statements, notes and testimony of the three eye-witness officers.”

Moreover, the OPP investigation concluded the collision was not random.

“The OPP reconstructionist concluded that the collision was not a chance encounter by Detective Constable Northrup suddenly entering the BMW’s path of travel, as they were in each other’s presence for at least 76 seconds before the collision,” the report states.

“There was insufficient evidence to support the TPS reconstructionist’s conclusion that the BMW’s front left fender knocked Detective Constable Northrup to the ground with a reversing motion. The primary cause of this collision was from the BMW accelerating forward and striking a standing Detective Constable Northrup at its front left corner.”

With regards to the assertion number two about the firearms used during the arrest, the OPP probe determined that the accounts of officers of Pais and Correa are “truthful.” Both officers had testified that they drew their firearms at Zameer and wife but were “holding them pointing towards the ground beside their leg,” the judge wrote in her Reason for Decision. However, Zameer and his wife said the officers’ firearms were pointed at them.

“Based on the testimony of both officers, it is concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the belief that neither officer intentionally lied in their testimony regarding having pointed their firearms during the arrests.”

While the trial judge provided written submissions during and after the trial, the OPP said it determined not to seek an interview with the judge.

“The purpose of an interview would be to establish consensus on the meaning of her written comments relating to the TPS officers’ conduct. Through careful review, it was determined that the written comments were clear and did not require clarification or interpretation,” the report states.

It goes on to say that the judge’s comments “cannot reasonably be interpreted as anything other than an allegation of police misconduct amounting to a serious obstruction of justice.”

The OPP investigation also limited their interviews to a select group of people.

“Interviews conducted with only those individuals who had specific relevance to the three main allegations raised by the trial judge. Twelve interviews were conducted with independent witnesses.”

The OPP emphasized the main allegations were obstruction of justice and perjury. “The interviews were focused on obtaining information that had not already been provided under oath at trial,” read the statement to CityNews.

Zameer’s lawyer calls report ‘a farce’

Zameer’s lawyer, Nader Hasan, said this report represents a missed opportunity and the investigation should’ve been public.

“The best disinfectant is sunlight, and that’s why, when you have a good faith independent review, that’s done through a public process. This was a secretive process,” said Hasan.

---

Hasan added he doesn’t believe this report could lead to the reopening of Zameer’s case.

“I don’t think that any serious person reading this report is going to take it seriously. It’s a farce, and it will be understood as such.”

When asked how Zameer had responded to the report, and Hasan said he is a perpetual optimist, and he believes in the good of people, but, “he was profoundly disappointed that the Toronto Police Service seems intent on not learning anything from the mistakes it made in his case.”

These conclusions from the OPP report have not been proven in court.

Read the full OPP report below:

With files from CityNews Staff