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: 

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 at a 21-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On March 28, 2021 at 4:30 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of police firearms being discharged at a person.

According to PRP, at approximately 3:05 a.m. that morning, PRP officers responded to an address in the area of Mississauga Road and Mayfield Road, Brampton, regarding a report of a woman screaming. Upon their arrival the officers could still hear a woman screaming from inside the residence. The officers breached the front door and entered the residence. They followed the sounds of screaming to a door that led to the garage. Inside the garage they encountered a male and female inside a vehicle. The male was in the driver’s seat and the screaming female was in the rear seat. Officers demanded the male exit the vehicle. The driver was observed reaching around behind himself and then pointing a weapon at the officers. Two PRP officers opened fire on the male. The garage door then opened, and the male reversed the vehicle and fled the scene with the female still in the back seat of the vehicle. It was unknown at the time of the notification whether anyone in the vehicle had been injured by the gunfire.

The PRP also reported they had received a tip that a Toronto Police Service (TPS) homicide suspect by the name of [the Complainant] had been hiding out at that residence.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 03/28/2021 at 5:32 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 03/28/2021 at 6:20 a.m.

The Scene

The residence near Mississauga Road and Mayfield Road is a townhouse style home in a subdivision. It is a two-story home with a one-car garage next to the front door. Inside the home, a doorway connects the garage to the kitchen area. The front door of the residence showed obvious signs of having been forced open.

In the garage of the home, SIU forensic investigators recovered five .40 calibre cartridge cases and a projectile. Three additional cartridge cases were recovered from the driveway of the home.

Physical Evidence

SO #1 and SO #2 were both carrying Smith and Wesson M&P .40 calibre semi-automatic handguns. On March 28, 2021, a SIU forensic identification investigator collected their firearms and determined SO #2’s firearm was missing six rounds of ammunition. SO #1’s firearm was determined to be missing two rounds of ammunition.


Figure 1 - SO #1's firearm.

• When the Complainant could be observed (through the garage door window) walking around the vehicle, at one point he was carrying something that appeared to be a pole, but is believed to have been a shovel;
• At 2:45 a.m., when the garage door opened, a snow shovel that was leaning against the inside of the garage door fell to the floor of the garage;
• At 2:47 a.m., when the garage door opened again, the Complainant used his foot to shove something on the floor aside, which is believed to have been the snow shovel;
• At 3:05 a.m., as SO #1, SO #2 and WO #3 were at the garage door, SO #2 appeared to look into the garage through the door windows; and
• At 3:06 a.m., as the Honda Civic came to a stop after reversing out of the garage onto the street, SO #2 ran out of the garage holding his firearm in an isosceles stance. He clearly discharged his firearm while on the driveway.

The material events in question are relatively clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with two civilian eyewitnesses and one of the subject officials – SO #1 – as well as video recordings that captured the incident in parts. As was his legal right, SO #2 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

Shortly before 3:00 a.m. of March 28, 2021, the PRP received a 911 call from CW #1 from the area of Mississauga Road and Mayfield Road in Brampton. CW #1 reported the sounds of screaming coming from a neighbour’s residence. Officers were dispatched to the scene.

The screaming was coming from the Complainant and CW #2. CW #2 was returning home in her car when the Complainant ambushed her outside the residence, forced his way into the driver’s seat of her vehicle – a Honda Civic, and drove the vehicle into the garage. The two argued loudly in the vehicle, drawing the attention of CW #1.

After arrival of police, the interior door to the garage opened with SO #1 and SO #2 present at the threshold. Behind them was a police cadet – WO #3 – who had been partnered with SO #2 that day. The officers had arrived at the address shortly after 3:00 a.m. Hearing the screams of a female coming from within the garage pleading to be let go, the officers tried and failed to lift the garage door. SO #2 subsequently kicked open the locked front door of the home and the officers made their way to the interior door leading to the garage.

SO #2 stepped down onto the garage floor and made his way to the driver’s side of the vehicle as SO #1 remained at the doorway threshold, which was elevated by two steps. WO #3 stood behind SO #1. With their firearms drawn and pointed at the Complainant, they repeatedly yelled at him to shut the car off and step out from it.

The Complainant did not shut off the car and exit. With his left hand on the steering wheel, the Complainant reached his right arm over toward the passenger side of the vehicle. The exterior garage door started to lift behind the vehicle and the Civic began to reverse quickly. As this was occurring, the Complainant raised his right hand in the direction of SO #1. In it was a black object.

Fearing that the Complainant was holding a handgun and was getting away, SO #2 fired three shots. This was followed closely by SO #1 firing twice in the direction of the Complainant. None of these shots struck the Complainant or disabled the vehicle.

The Complainant continued to reverse and made it onto the roadway. As the Complainant stopped and then began to accelerate eastward down the roadway, SO #2 fired an additional three shots at the vehicle from the driveway of the home. the Complainant made good his escape with CW #2 still in the vehicle.

The Civic was subsequently located abandoned on Whitepoppy Drive, about five kilometres from the scene.

CW #2 walked into a PRP station on March 29, 2021. She had not been physically injured during the events of the day before.

The Complainant, who was wanted at the time on an arrest warrant in Toronto for first degree murder in relation to a homicide in July 2020, was arrested in a drug raid in Timmins on May 7, 2021. He too was uninjured.

Section 34, Criminal Code -- Defence of person - Use of threat of force

(a) They believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person; 

(b) The act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) The act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

(c) the person’s role in the incident;

(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon; 

(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and 

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

On March 28, 2021, two PRP officers discharged their firearms in the direction of the Complainant. Though the Complainant was not struck or injured in the shooting, the PRP notified the SIU and the SIU invoked its jurisdiction given its expanded mandate under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, in force as of December 1, 2020, which now includes the investigation of police firearm discharges at persons. The two officers – SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as subject officials for purposes of the SIU investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either officer committed a criminal offence in connection with the shooting.

Section 34 of the Criminal Code sets out the limits of the justified use of force in defence of oneself or another. Defensive force of this nature is legally authorized if it is intended to protect against a reasonably apprehended attack, actual or threatened, and is itself reasonable. Whether the force is reasonable is to be assessed against all the relevant circumstances, including such considerations as: the nature of the force or threat; the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force; whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon; and, the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force. In the instant case, the issue is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe on the evidence that either of the subject officials transgressed the limits of section 34 in discharging their firearms. In my view, there are not.

SO #1 and SO #2 were in the lawful discharge of their duties when they responded to a 911 call reporting a domestic disturbance in progress. Once at the residence, they could hear screams coming from the garage. When they were unable to lift the garage door, they were reasonably of the view that exigent circumstances existed warranting a forced entry into the home.

Thereafter, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officers’ gunfire was unlawful. At the time, the officers were operating in a confined space and highly volatile atmosphere with the Civic running in the garage and CW #2 in distress in the backseat of the vehicle. They repeatedly directed the Complainant to stop and exit the car, but he failed to do so. Rather, the Complainant was intent on escape. He opened the garage door and started to reverse the Civic while simultaneously coming up with his right hand, holding a black object and pointing it at SO #1. At that moment, an already dire situation had escalated to life and death proportions. SO #1 indicated that she believed that a handgun was about to be fired at her. SO #2 did not provide a statement to the SIU, but the circumstances described by SO #1 and the officer’s conduct - immediately discharging his weapon at the vehicle – persuade me that he too believed he was being confronted with a firearm in the hands of the Complainant. Whether the object was in fact a firearm remains uncertain, though I am inclined to believe that it was in fact such on the evidence gathered by the SIU. Be that as it may, the officers’ belief was a reasonable one in the heat of the moment, as was their responsive force. SO #1 fired twice at the Complainant – a reasonable choice given she legitimately believed her life was in imminent danger by gunfire from the Complainant. SO #2 fired three times at the vehicle’s lower front in an apparent attempt to disable it. At the time, the officer had good cause to fear that CW #2’s life would be in danger at the hands of the Complainant if he was allowed to escape. In the circumstances, there was logic to the officer’s conduct even if the Civic was not immediately immobilized. The same may be said of the second volley of three shots fired by SO #2 from the driveway at the front left tire of the Civic. In arriving at these findings, I am mindful of the inherent risks associated with firing at a moving vehicle. However, those risks, including the potential for stray bullets to harm third persons, were not prohibitive in this case given the countervailing risks to the health and wellbeing of CW #2 associated with the Complainant if unchecked.

For the foregoing reasons, and on the aforementioned-record, I am not satisfied on reasonable grounds that either of SO #1 and SO #2 comported themselves unlawfully when they fired their weapons in the course of this incident. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and the file is closed.


Date: July 26, 2021


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit