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 by the police at a 37-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On April 5, 2021, at 1:19 p.m., the Brantford Police Service (BPS) notified the SIU of a discharge of a firearm at a person.

BPS reported that on April 4, 2021, at 1:21 p.m., an ambulance was parked on Grey Street, Brantford. A man approached paramedics with a machete and threatened them. BPS police officers arrived and recognized the Complainant, who was wanted on a warrant. The Complainant retreated to, and barricaded himself in, his house. At some point, the Complainant advanced towards the police officers with a knife in his right hand and a sword in his left. An Anti-riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN) was discharged but did not affect the Complainant. A conducted energy weapon (CEW) was deployed without affect. The Complainant again retreated into his house and barricaded himself.

A perimeter had been established and multiple police services attended, including the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS), Waterloo Regional Police Services (WRPS) and Guelph Police Service (GPS). A negotiator was used in an attempt to arrange the Complainant’s surrender.

On April 6, 2021, at 8:51 a.m., the GPS reported that the Subject Official (SO) had discharged an ARWEN at the Complainant.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 04/06/2021 at 8:51 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 04/06/2021 at 9:26 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned:   2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

37-year-old male interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on June 28, 2021.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the 

The Scene

The scene was attended and processed by SIU Forensic Investigators on April 7, 2021, at the conclusion of the four-day stand-off. Grey Street is a two-lane residential street that travelled east and west. The residence was a house designed for single family occupancy.

Physical Evidence

Evidence collected from the scene included several ARWEN baton projectiles and cartridge cases, a CEW cartridge and deployed CEW paraphernalia, and an oleoresin capsicum canister.

The nature of the ARWEN projectiles is such that they cannot be matched to the ARWEN responsible for its launch.

The SO’s ARWEN was inspected and photographed.

• Arrest Policy;

• Disclosure letter to SIU;

• Notes – WO #2;

• Notes – WO #1;

• Communication Recordings; and

• Use of Force Policy.

• Video footage from a Residence on April 6, 2021.

The following scenario emerges from the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant and the SO.

In and around 1:00 p.m. of April 4, 2021, the Complainant approached paramedics on Grey Street brandishing a sword in their direction. Police were called.

BPS officers confronted the Complainant, who had by then retreated to the driveway of his home on Grey Street. The Complainant was agitated, spoke incoherently, and threatened to kill the officers while holding a sword in his right hand.

There ensued a days-long stand-off between the police and the Complainant involving multiple police services and the use of ARWENs on several occasions. The first of those incidents occurred on April 4, 2021 and the third, on April 7, 2021. Each of those events was the subject of separate SIU investigations (21-OFP-105 and 21-PFP-112, respectively). The instant case relates to the second such transaction with the Complainant involving the use of an ARWEN by the SO.

GPS tactical officers, including the SO, arrived to assist in the stand-off on April 5, 2021. They were briefed on the events of the prior day, in which the Complainant had displayed a sword at paramedics and was subsequently struck by an ARWEN round fired by a BPS officer. They were further advised that the Complainant appeared to be in the middle of a psychotic episode and that negotiations, which had not proven fruitful to that point, had been assessed by a forensic psychiatrist as unlikely to result in his peaceful surrender.

The GPS tactical officers, divided into two teams, took up positions in the front and rear of the house. The SO was with the unit by the front door, armed with an ARWEN. His colleagues were variously armed with weapons at the ready, including a C8 rifle, a sidearm and a CEW.

At about 1:00 a.m. of April 6, 2021, after the officers had tried and failed to communicate with the Complainant through the locked front door, the decision was taken to force open the door. A distraction device was deployed into the home through a rear window, after which an officer used a ram to breach the front door. The Complainant was seen by the rear of the house near a bathroom. He paced back and forth, carried a large sword, and was speaking but not making any sense. At one point, he started to move toward the open doorway.

The officers by the front door told the Complainant to stop and warned that force would be used against him if he crossed a certain threshold. The Complainant continued past the threshold and was shot twice by ARWEN rounds fired by the SO.

One of the rounds hit the Complainant in the abdomen and the other impacted his backside. Though neither round dislodged the sword from the Complainant’s hand, they did stop his forward progress. The Complainant retreated back to the bathroom.

The GPS tactical officers did not pursue the Complainant into the home. Instead, they took up containment positions throughout the night until they were relieved in the morning by BPS officers.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code -- Protection of persons acting under authority

(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,

In the early morning hours of April 6, 2021, the Complainant was struck by two rounds fired from the ARWEN of a GPS officer. The incident occurred on day three of a four-day stand-off with police at his home in Brantford. The officer who discharged his weapon – the SO – was identified as a subject official for purposes of the SIU investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with his ARWEN discharge.

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. By the time of the SO’s ARWEN discharge, a warrant authorizing the forcible entry of police officers into the Complainant’s home to arrest him was in effect. That warrant was prompted by the Complainant’s threatening behaviour toward paramedics on his street and his subsequent conduct in relation to the police response that followed. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the SO was attempting to lawfully take the Complainant into custody at the time he fired his weapon.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO, namely, the two ARWEN discharges, was not excessive. The Complainant was in the possession of a weapon capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm and death. He had also threatened the lives of officers and managed to keep them at bay over the previous two days. In the circumstances, it does not appear that the police acted precipitously in breaking open the door in what was ultimately a failed attempt to take the Complainant into custody, particularly as they had received expert advice indicating the Complainant would not be inclined to surrender peacefully. On this record, having warned him that force would be brought to bear if he got too close to the officers, I am unable to characterize as unreasonable the SO’s decision to attempt to neutralize the Complainant from a distance by deploying his weapon, even if the discharges did not incapacitate the Complainant or dispossess him of the sword.

For the foregoing reasons, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than lawfully in the course of his engagement with the Complainant. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case, and the file is closed.


Date: August 3, 2021

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit