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 40-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On October 1, 2021, at 10:15 a.m., the Dryden Police Service (DPS) reported the following information to the SIU.

On September 30, 2021, at 9:24 p.m., DPS officers attended a disturbance call at a rural address on Highway 17, Dryden. When DPS officers arrived, they saw the Complainant running across the yard. The Complainant entered a truck and drove into a DPS SUV. DPS officers were standing outside their vehicles at the time. The Complainant then reversed his truck again to ram the DPS SUV. DPS officers discharged their firearms at the vehicle.

The Complainant was taken into custody with no serious injuries.

Two DPS officers attended the hospital for treatment of minor injuries.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 10/01/2021 at 11:08 a.m.

Date and time SIU responded: 10/01/2021 at 5:30 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

The Scene

On October 2, 2021, SIU Forensic Investigators processed the scene – the driveway and front yard area of the property at Highway 17, Dryden.

Highway 17 ran in a north-south direction. The property was accessed by a long gravel and dirt driveway off Highway 17. There were large trees along the side of the driveway near the property fence.

Two damaged vehicles were stopped by the trees with a red GMC Sierra pickup truck directly in among the trees. A DPS fully marked Ford Explorer cruiser was beside the pickup truck partially on the driveway.

The GMC Sierra pickup truck was facing in a southwest direction. Tree branches were on top of the hood of the vehicle. The vehicle had extensive damage. The hood was crumpled, and the hood and bumper were pushed in. The two side passenger windows were smashed. Numerous small holes were noted on the vehicle.

The second vehicle, a fully marked and decaled DPS Ford Explorer cruiser, was facing in a southwest direction. It was only a few centimetres from the passenger side of the GMC Sierra. This vehicle also had extensive damage. The front left corner and quarter panel along with the front end, bumper and hood were crumpled and pushed in.

Tire marks along the driveway and large lawn of the property led from the northeast corner of the property to the damaged vehicles, and then circled around the lawn to the south and back to the damaged vehicles.

Initially, thirty spent cartridges were located to the south of the vehicles among the trees. Two more were later found in the same area.

Physical Evidence

Firearms and Ammunition

SIU Forensic Investigators examined the firearms assigned to SO #1 and SO #2. SO #2’s firearm was a Glock 17 9 mm pistol. It had a Streamlight light attached to the pistol. The magazine was removed and found to have fifteen live bullets in it along with one chambered round for a total of sixteen rounds. The duty belt was examined and found to have two ammunition pouches. One pouch was empty. The second had a magazine containing sixteen rounds.

SO #1’s firearm was a Glock 17 9 mm pistol. It had a Streamlight light attached to the pistol. The magazine was removed and found to be empty. There was one chambered round. The duty belt was examined and found to have two ammunition pouches. Both magazines from these pouches contained sixteen rounds each.

If each magazine contained sixteen rounds with one in the chamber of the pistol, each officer should have had forty-nine rounds on his duty belt. SO #2 had thirty-two rounds and SO #1 had thirty-three rounds.


Figure 1 - One of the subject official's Glock 17 9 mm pistol.

The following scenario emerges from the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant, SO #1 and two civilians who witnessed 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.

In the evening of September 30, 2021, SO #1 and SO #2 were dispatched to a rural address on Highway 17, Dryden. A caller from the address had contacted 911 to report a disturbance involving her parents – the Complainant and CW #2. In the course of the call, CW #2 took the phone, spoke about a fight with her husband, and attempted to assure the call-taker that everything was okay. The call-taker told her that officers would be sent anyway to confirm things were in order.

With SO #2 driving, the officers arrived at the property at about 9:35 p.m. in their marked police SUV. They turned into the long driveway leading to the home and had advanced 30 to 40 metres when SO #1 noticed a pickup truck parked 60 to 70 metres away facing them on the driveway. The officers stopped and exited their vehicle, and observed the Complainant running into the driver’s seat of the pickup truck.

The Complainant accelerated the pickup truck in the direction of the SUV. As he neared the vehicle on a course to travel past its driver side, the Complainant suddenly turned to the left and struck the SUV’s front driver side. The impact sent the SUV rearward and rotating, striking SO #1, and possibly SO #2, in the process, the officers having sought cover by the passenger side of the cruiser as the pickup truck was approaching. Shortly after the collision, SO #2 discharged a round from his semi-automatic pistol in the direction of the pickup truck.

The Complainant continued a distance past the police SUV, after which he travelled in a sweeping leftward arc back toward the cruiser. By this time, the officers, who had been sent sprawling by the initial impact, were both on their feet and seeking cover behind trees immediately south of their cruiser’s position. As the truck neared to within 15 metres of their location, SO #1 and SO #2 each discharged their firearms multiple times at the Complainant. They continued to fire until the truck came to a stop north of their position, wedged between the trees they had been using as cover and their SUV.

SO #1 approached the driver side of the pickup truck as the Complainant opened the door, exited and lay on the ground. The officer handcuffed him and accused the Complainant of trying to kill him and his partner. The Complainant threatened to kill SO #1, indicating that he knew where the officer lived.

Paramedics transported the Complainant to hospital. He was diagnosed with fractured ribs. He had not sustained any gunshot wounds.

SO #1 also attended hospital where he was treated for sprained ankles – the result of the cruiser striking him as it was impacted by the Complainant’s pickup truck.

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 September 30, 2021, the Complainant was seriously injured in the course of an interaction with DPS officers in which the officers had discharged their firearms. Though the Complainant’s injuries were not the result of the gunfire, the SIU was notified and initiated an investigation because the incident involved a police firearm discharge at a person. The officers who fired their weapons – SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with this matter.

Pursuant to section 34 of the Criminal Code, the use of force that would otherwise amount to an offence is legally justified if it was intended to deter a reasonably apprehended assault, actual or threatened, and was itself reasonable. The reasonableness of the force is to be assessed against all the relevant circumstances surrounding the incident, 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 my view, the force used by each of the subject officials fell within the remit of authorized force prescribed by section 34.

SO #1 and SO #2 were lawfully placed throughout the sequence of events culminating in their firearm discharges. The 911 call to police from the residence at Highway 17 clearly suggested something was amiss and the officers, having been dispatched, were duty bound to attend at the property to check on the welfare of its residents.

I accept that each of the officers fired their weapons to protect themselves from a reasonably apprehended attack. SO #1 believed that the Complainant was attempting to strike them down with his pickup truck. The preponderance of the evidence lends credence to his belief. It also compels the conclusion that SO #2 would have felt the same way. The officers had only just arrived on the property when the Complainant entered his pickup truck and accelerated in their direction, adjusting course at the last moment to ensure he struck the officers’ cruiser. That act came close to killing the officers, who were fortunate to have escaped serious injury standing by the passenger side of their cruiser as it was violently forced in their direction by the pickup truck. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that SO #2 fired his weapon at this time believing his life was in imminent peril. I am also satisfied that the same is true of the multiple rounds discharged by SO #1 and SO #2 at the Complainant as the pickup truck then completed a 360-degree turn so that it was again bearing down on the officers, who had by that time sought cover behind some trees by their wrecked SUV.

With respect to the force used by the officers - 16 shots fired by SO #1 and 17 by SO #2 [1] – I am persuaded that it was legally justified in the highly-charged circumstances of the moment. The officers had every reason to believe that the Complainant was driving at them with malice aforethought. He had driven at them once, prompting a single discharge by SO #2, and had doubled-back to drive in their direction again, resulting in both officers firing multiple times. The pickup truck had essentially become a weapon in the hands of the Complainant, clearly capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm or death. And there was nowhere to go to seek effective cover or protection in the seconds in which events transpired. Though the officers had sought refuge behind some trees, the Complainant had already shown an inclination to drive his pickup truck into objects, and appeared to be doing so again as he circled back towards the officers. On this record, I am unable to fault the officers for attempting to incapacitate the operating mind of the pickup truck – the Complainant – by firing in his direction. That decision, I am satisfied, was a reasonable response to the exigencies at hand as it was the only option available to deter what was a potentially lethal attack on their persons by the Complainant. It should be noted that each officer stopped shooting after the pickup truck had come a stop, mere metres from their location.

For the foregoing reasons, I am persuaded that SO #1 and SO #2 comported themselves lawfully throughout their engagement with the Complainant. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the officers, and the file is closed.


Date: January 27, 2022


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit