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 October 19, 2021 at 9:10 a.m., the Brantford Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU and reported the following.

At approximately 6:00 a.m., on October 19, 2021, BPS were called to a residence near Park Road North and Dunsdon Street, Brantford, for a person in crisis. The person in question – the Complainant – believed that intruders were in his home, so he had armed himself with a large knife and called 911. The dispatcher instructed the Complainant to lock himself in the bathroom and wait for the police. The Complainant wandered around the house with the knife and would not follow the officers’ verbal commands. The Complainant exited the house and charged at officers. Officers discharged an Anti-riot Weapon ENfield (ARWEN), and the Complainant was apprehended under the Mental Health Act and taken to Brantford General Hospital (BGH) for assessment.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 10/19/2021 at 10:17 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 10/19/2021 at 11:38 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

The Scene

The incident took place at a residence near Park Road North and Dunsdon Street, Brantford. A sidewalk led from the driveway to the raised front porch at the front door. An ARWEN cartridge case was positioned on the ground near the porch. There was an ARWEN projectile on the floor of the foyer just inside the front door of the house.


Figure 1 – The SO’s ARWEN



Figure 2 – ARWEN cartridge case located outside near the front porch



Figure 3 – ARWEN projectile located in the foyer of the house

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

BPS Communication Recordings

The following is a summary of telephone calls and radio transmissions made regarding a service call to a residence near Park Road North and Dunsdon Street, Brantford, on October 19, 2021.

Telephone Call from the Complainant – October 19, 2021 at 6:10:35 a.m. (15:07 minutes)

The Complainant called 911. The BPS dispatcher immediately knew it was the Complainant and acknowledged him by first name. The Complainant had his phone on speaker. BPS told him police were being dispatched and asked where the CW was. The BPS dispatcher was very calm and encouraged the Complainant to take a deep breath so she could understand him. She asked about the knife. The Complainant sounded anxious; his voice was clear and he said someone was trying to get through the door. Someone had a big Samurai sword and was trying to swipe at his feet, under the door.
The Complainant confirmed he was in the washroom. He was breathing heavily and reported there were two people trying to get at him. He advised BPS that the knife he had was 12 inches long. The BPS dispatcher coached him to put the knife down when the officers reached his door. The BPS dispatcher asked the Complainant if he had had any drugs or alcohol that day. The Complainant said he had Scotch about three hours prior.

The BPS dispatcher encouraged him to put the knife down. The Complainant reported in a panicked voice that someone was coming through the door; he was out of breath. The BPS dispatcher continued to calmly ask the Complainant where the knife was. She instructed him to go to the front door, and he shouted he could not. The BPS dispatcher told him to put the knife down. She confirmed that he said the knife was now on the floor and said she would tell the officers of its location. She also told him not to pick it up.

The Complainant pled for help; he was out of breath and sounded to be struggling. The BPS dispatcher repeatedly asked which room the knife was in. The Complainant advised that it was in the bathroom, and confirmed he was also in the bathroom.

The BPS dispatcher coached the Complainant to put the knife down and open the door (bathroom). She reassured him that no one was there to kill him.

Police Radio Transmissions – October 19, 2021 from 6:11:05 – 6:29:00 a.m.

A BPS dispatcher relayed information to responding police officers that was gleaned by another BPS dispatcher that was on the telephone with the Complainant. The dispatcher reported that police officers were there twice yesterday, and that the Complainant was coming off cocaine use.

The BPS dispatcher explained that the Complainant was experiencing auditory and visual hallucinations because of cocaine use. She further explained that the Complainant believed that people had broken into his house and were still in his house. The BPS dispatcher explained, “He has been running around with a large butcher knife slashing around to defend himself.” The BPS dispatcher reported that the Complainant was willing to put the knife down when police announced their presence.

A BPS dispatcher reported that the Complainant had no intention of hurting himself, but still had the knife.

A police officer requested that the Complainant be told to go to the front porch. She shared that the Complainant said he could not. A police officer again asked the dispatcher to have the Complainant attend at the front door. The dispatcher reported that the Complainant said he had put the knife down on the floor and that there was a dead cat in the house.

At 6:24 a.m., a police officer reported, “Contact.” At 6:25 a.m., a police officer reported, “Apprehended.” At 6:28 a.m. a police officer reported that an ARWEN had been deployed prior to apprehension. The police officer reported the ARWEN deployment was on the front porch.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials and documents from BPS between October 20, 2021 and November 2, 2021:

• Supplementary Report – WO #5;
• Notes – WO #5;
• Notes – WO #6;
• Supplementary Report – WO #6;
• Communications Recordings;
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Details;
• Notes – WO #1;
• Notes – WO #3;
• Notes – WO #2;
• Police History Report;
• Training Log – Emergency Response Team (ERT);
• Training Record – 2021 Use of Force Qualifications;
• General Report – WO #4; and
• Notes – WO #4.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU received the following records from other sources:

• Photo of Rubber Bullet Strike provided by the Complainant;
• Medical Records of the Complainant from BGH.

The following scenario emerges from the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the Complainant and three officers who were present at the time the Complainant was shot. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the morning of October 19, 2021, the Complainant contacted police to report that there were intruders in his home, armed with knives, seeking to do him harm. He had equipped himself with a knife to defend himself. The 911 call-taker advised the Complainant to seek refuge in the bathroom while waiting for officers to arrive. The Complainant indicated that the intruders were using their knives to stab through the bathroom door and swipe at him through the opening between the bottom of the door and the floor. Police officers were dispatched to the scene – a home near Park Road North and Dunsdon Street, Brantford.

The Complainant was in the throes of a psychotic episode at the time of his call to police, the likely result of illicit drug use. There were no intruders inside his home at the time.

WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3 were the first officers to arrive at the scene at about 6:20 a.m. They were joined shortly by the SO, a tactical officer, carrying a ballistic shield and armed with an ARWEN. The officers made their way to the front door. The officers opened the storm door, positioned the ballistic shield in the threshold of the doorway, and called out to the Complainant to approach the doorway with his hands visible. At the same time, the police 911 call-taker, still on the line with the Complainant, encouraged him to put down the knife and approach the officers at the front door.

The Complainant was reluctant to leave the bathroom, fearing he would be attacked by the ‘intruders’ in his home on his way to the officers outside. The Complainant eventually did muster the courage to open the bathroom door and flee towards the front door, screaming as he did so. As he neared to within two to three metres of the doorway, the SO fired a single shot from his ARWEN. The round struck the Complainant in the abdomen and felled him.

The officers had seen the Complainant running toward them. They yelled at him to stop and show his hands to no avail before he was shot.

Following the ARWEN discharge, the officers entered the home and handcuffed the Complainant behind his back. He was subsequently transported to hospital.

Section 34, Criminal Code -- Defence of person - Use or 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.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

On October 19, 2021, the BPS contacted the SIU to report that one of their officers had earlier that date discharged an ARWEN at a male – the Complainant. The SIU initiated an investigation identifying the SO as a 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 this matter.

Pursuant to section 34 of the Criminal Code, the use of force to defend oneself or another from a reasonably apprehended attack, actual or threatened, is legally justified if the force in question was reasonable. The reasonableness of the force is to be assessed in light of 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 my view, the use by the SO of his ARWEN fell within the ambit of legally justified force prescribed by section 34.

The officers who attended at the Complainant’s home were lawfully placed throughout the events that followed. They had been called to the address by the Complainant himself who believed he was being attacked by armed intruders. Though they had reason to believe that the Complainant’s concerns were not real but the results of a drug-induced paranoia – the police had been at the home on two occasions the day before – they were not at liberty to simply dismiss the Complainant’s complaint out of hand.

I accept that the SO discharged his ARWEN in the reasonable belief that that it was necessary to repel an imminent attack by the Complainant. The Complainant, whom the officers believed was in possession of a knife and of unsound mind, had run towards the officers ignoring their direction that he stop and show his hands.

I also accept that the force used by the SO – a single ARWEN discharge – constituted legally justified force. Given what they knew of the situation – that a highly agitated and likely delusional Complainant had armed himself with a knife – the officer had cause to be concerned that his life and the lives of the officers beside him were at risk as the Complainant ran in their direction. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the SO, in the seconds he had to act, comported himself reasonably when he endeavoured to neutralize a potentially lethal threat with a resort to less-lethal force as the Complainant neared to within a few metres of the officers. The force accomplished its objective – stopping the Complainant in his tracks so that he could be safely taken into custody. No serious injury was inflicted.

For the foregoing reasons, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO conducted himself unlawfully in his engagement with the Complainant. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.


Date: February 16, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit