Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.

Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019

Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
• Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
• Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
• Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
• Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
• Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act

Pursuant to section 14 (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
• Information that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.

Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
• Location information;
• Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence; and
• Other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation.

Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004

Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may also have been excluded from this report because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.

Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.

A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.

In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the discharge of a firearm by the police at a 33-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 29, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

Earlier that morning, OPP officers responded to a residential building in Orillia for a person in crisis [later identified as the Complainant]. The Complainant was on the roof of the building and threatening to jump. After a couple of hours of negotiations, the Complainant descended. He was armed with an edged weapon, and refused to drop it. Emergency Response Team (ERT) officers were present, and an Anti-riot Weapon ENfield (ARWEN) was fired at the Complainant. He was apprehended and transported to Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital. He did not sustain any serious injuries.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/03/29 at 10:18 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/03/29 at 1:20 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

33-year-old male; not interviewed (declined)

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on April 3, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the exterior grounds of a residential building in Orillia.

Physical Evidence

A black metallic ARWEN cartridge case and a green and black ARWEN projectile were photographed and collected at the scene.

The SO’s 37 mm ARWEN was photographed. It was manufactured by Royal Ordnance Nottingham England. The device was operational and functioned properly. The device contained a rotary five-round drum magazine. Four rounds were still in the magazine.

Figure 1 – The SO’s ARWEN

Figure 2 – ARWEN projectile

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Police Communications Recordings

Starting at about 4:33 a.m., March 29, 2024, the OPP received a call concerning the Complainant. He was reported to be on the roof of a building and had threatened to hurt himself unless he was allowed to speak to a resident.

WO #2 requested that more police officers attend the scene to contain the building perimeter. Shortly after, police officers were on scene. Some of them attended at the rear of the building where the Complainant was reported to be on the roof. A request was made for an ambulance to attend the scene.

At three minutes and 14 seconds into the recording, WO #2 announced there was information from the sergeant on scene - WO #1 - that the Complainant had a knife.

At three minutes and 41 seconds into the recording, a police officer reported there were grounds for the Complainant’s arrest as he was in breach of a release order. A police officer spoke of the option of using a less-lethal weapon in case of any engagement, but warned the Complainant was on the roof with a knife.

At six minutes and 36 seconds into the recording, it was announced that the Complainant was in custody and an ARWEN had been deployed.

Video Footage from the Building

Police officers were captured taking various positions around a building.

At about four minutes into the recording, the Complainant was seen hitting the ground after apparently jumping from the roof of the building. He got up and, as he began to run away, three ERT officers with rifles began to chase him.

At four minutes and 18 seconds into the recording, the Complainant fell to the ground. The ERT officers rushed forward and held him to the ground. Other officers joined them as they controlled and handcuffed the Complainant.

At five minutes and six seconds into the recording, the Complainant was escorted away from view.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between March 29, 2024, and April 19, 2024:

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• Involved Officials List;
• Communications recordings;
• Arrest Report;
• In-car camera footage;
• Notes – WO #2;
• Notes – WO #1;
• Notes – WO #3;
• Incident Summary;
• Policy – Use of Force; and
• Policy – Person in Crisis.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on April 2, 2024:

• Video footage from the building

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with officers present at the time of the events in question and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the early morning of March 29, 2024, police received a report of a disturbance in progress at a residential building in Orillia. A male – the Complainant – had climbed onto the roof of the building and was threatening to hurt himself unless he was allowed to see a resident of the building. The Complainant was subject to a court condition prohibiting him from contacting the resident and had been refused.

Uniformed officers arrived on scene followed by a team of ERT officers, including the SO. Police negotiators attempted to calm a highly agitated Complainant and have him safely descend from the roof. The Complainant was in possession of a knife, which he threatened to harm himself with. At one point, in an effort at de-escalation, officers had the resident whom the Complainant wanted to see talk to him. That seemed to increase the Complainant’s agitation.

At about 7:20 a.m., approximately two-and-a-half hours after police arrival on scene, the Complainant jumped from the roof. He landed on his feet, tumbled to the ground, righted himself, and ran northwards along the east side of the grounds. ERU officers positioned south of the Complainant’s location began to chase him. Among them was the SO, armed with an ARWEN. From about ten to 15 metres away, the SO fired his weapon once at the Complainant. The Complainant was struck by the projectile and felled. Officers quickly rushed at the Complainant’s location on the ground and took him into custody. He had not sustained any serious injuries.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code - Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

On March 29, 2024, the OPP notified the SIU that one of their officers had fired an ARWEN at a male – the Complainant – earlier that morning. The SIU initiated an investigation naming the SO the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the shooting.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.

The Complainant had breached the conditions of a release order by attempting to visit a resident at a building. He was subject to arrest on that basis.

The force used by the SO, I am satisfied, constituted lawful force in aid of the Complainant’s arrest. It was clear following an hours-long negotiation and the Complainant’s flight immediately upon landing on the ground that he was not inclined to surrender peacefully to arrest. The officers also had reason to believe that the Complainant was in possession of knife – he was seen with one and had threatened to use it against himself. This meant a couple of things. First, it was imperative that he be arrested as soon as possible in the interests of public safety. Second, a hand-to-hand physical intercession to take him into custody would have risked serious harm or death coming to the officers were the knife brought into play by the Complainant. On this record, it is apparent the SO acted reasonably when he fired a single shot from his ARWEN at the Complainant from a distance. If it worked as designed, the force would temporarily incapacitate the Complainant and allow for his safe arrest without the infliction of serious injury. In fact, that is what happened.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: July 26, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit