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 36-year-old man (“Complainant #1”) and a 41-year-old man (“Complainant #2”).

Notification of the SIU

On February 20, 2022, at 2:00 a.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) reported that police officers from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) had discharged an Anti-riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN) at protesters involved in the Ottawa ‘Freedom Truck Protest’. VPD Subject Official (SO) #2 had deployed two ARWEN rounds, and SO #1 had fired four baton rounds and one Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) round from a 40-millimetre Penn Arms launcher (L140-4). At the time of notification, no injured persons had been identified or had come forward.

OPS advised that City of Ottawa employees were clearing snow in the area. The SIU asked that all snow-clearing be suspended until the SIU examined the scene.

The VPD was to provide access to the ARWEN, and the L140-4.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 02/20/2022 at 2:15 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 02/20/2022 at 3:45 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Complainant #1 36-year-old male; interviewed

Complainant #2 41-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainants were interviewed between February 23 and 24, 2022.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on March 4, 2022.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right; written statement received and reviewed.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between March 9 and 29, 2022.

The Scene

On February 20, 2022, at 3:45 a.m., two SIU forensic investigators attended the intersection of Bank Street and Sparks Street.

The scene consisted of a downtown intersection with Bank Street oriented north-south for vehicular traffic and Sparks Street orientated east-west for pedestrian only traffic. The width of Bank Street was approximately 8.5 metres; the distance between the buildings on Bank Street was approximately 23 metres. Bank Street was blocked to all traffic by a double row of high metal fencing approximately halfway between Sparks Street and Queen Street.

There was a four-storey building at the southeast corner of the intersection, a building at the southwest corner, a five-storey building at the northeast corner (Parliamentary Services), and an elevated open-air pavilion at the northwest corner (Bank of Canada).

The road surfaces were snow-covered and the snow was compacted. The area was well lit with streetlights and building lights, and the weather was cold and clear with a temperature of minus 16 degrees Celsius.

The ground area was searched for any evidence of a firearms discharge. Two ARWEN casings were located. One on the roadway on the west side of Bank Street south of Sparks Street, and one next to a building on the east side of Bank Street just south Sparks Street. The casings were collected, and the area was photographed and video recorded.

On February 21, 2022, at 10:30 a.m., a SIU forensic investigator met with WO #1 to photograph the weapons. WO #1 allowed access to the weapons discharged at the scene. The first weapon was an ARWEN rifle, which belonged to SO #2. The second weapon was a L140-4, which belonged to SO #1.




Figure 1 – ARWEN casing on Bank Street


Figure 2 – ARWEN casing next to a building on Bank Street


Figure 3 – SO #2’s ARWEN rifle


Figure 4 – SO #1’s 40mm Launcher L140-4

Physical Evidence

Two ARWEN casings were located.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

OPS Drone Video Footage

On March 3, 2022, the SIU received recorded drone video footage from the OPS in relation to the ‘Freedom Convoy Protest’. The video depicted the events involving a less than lethal firearms discharge in the area of Bank Street and Sparks Street on the evening of February 19, 2022.

The video depicted a police line that stretched from an east side store front [Howards Fine Jewelers] to a west side store front [Brasseurs Restaurant] on Bank Street along the south side of Sparks Street. A large crowd of protestors were located directly in front of the police line on Bank Street, south of Sparks Street. The police line began to move forward, moving the protestors south on Bank Street. The protestors were observed to push the police officers back, attempting to stand their ground.

An unidentified protestor climbed up onto a concrete barrier and held an extremely bright light, which he shone on the front of the police line. The sound of the discharge of a less than lethal firearm was heard; however, it was not captured on video. The protestor who held the light appeared to get down from the barrier. Approximately five seconds later the protestor returned to the top of the barrier and continued to shine the light at the police officers. The discharge of a less than lethal firearm was heard a second time, also not captured on the video. The protestor with the light appeared to be struck with a projectile in the left shoulder area. The protester got down from the barrier, disappeared into the crowd and did not return.

A radio transmission could be heard from a VPD police officer [now known to be WO #1]. WO #1 advised that they had deployed five ARWEN rounds at protestors. Command Centre advised that attempts should be made to identify and arrest the protestors involved. WO #1 further advised Command Centre that the protestors were pushing back and attacking the police officers and, as a result, the ARWEN rounds were deployed. The subject of the deployments had disappeared into the crowd.

The following scenario emerges from the evidence collected by the SIU, which included statements from two civilians struck by a less lethal round, video footage from a variety of sources that captured the incident in parts, and a written statement from SO #2. As was their legal right, neither subject official chose to interview with the SIU.

In the evening of February 19, 2022, SO #2 and SO #1, members of the VPD-Emergency Response Team, were participants in a police operation involving a crowd of protesters that had gathered on Bank Street, south of Sparks Street. Specifically, they were there to support Public Safety Units officers, including from the VPD, who had formed in the intersection to push back the protesters south on Bank Street. The objective was to direct the crowd back a distance so that a safety fence could be erected on the roadway.

The front line of the protesters, which numbered on some estimates in the thousands, were face-to-face with the front line of police officers. The atmosphere was tense as the parties physically engaged and pushed back against each other. A number of arrests were made.

Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were among the crowd of people at the protest. They had climbed atop a concrete barrier beside the McDonald’s restaurant on the east side of Bank Street. Beside them was another male, whose identity remains unknown, with a flashlight in hand. The male shone the flashlight into the eyes of the police officers.

SO #1 was armed with a less lethal firearm – an L140-4. He observed the male shining the flashlight and discharged his weapon in his direction on multiple occasions. One of the rounds struck the face of the male. He was knocked off the concrete barrier and disappeared into the crowd. Another of SO #1’s discharges struck Complainant #2 and Complainant #1, following which they climbed down the barrier and left the area.

SO #2 was armed with an ARWEN. In order to deter protesters moving towards officers, some of whom had fallen in the push forward, the officer fired his ARWEN striking one such protester in the leg. He fired his weapon a second time at another protester who had been fighting with police officers and was moving again towards the front lines.

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,

On February 20, 2022, the OPS contacted the SIU to report that police officers with the VPD, in Ottawa to assist in the policing of the ‘Freedom Truck Protest’, had the day before discharged their less-lethal firearms at protesters. The SIU initiated an investigation naming the officers – SO #2 and SO #1 – as subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either officer committed a criminal offence in connection with the use of their weapons.

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 authorized or required to do by law.

SO #2 and SO #1 were part of a lawful police operation to control the crowd that had gathered on Bank Street. The plan was not to shut down the gathering, but simply to direct the protesters a short distance south so that safety fencing could be erected across the road. Those in the crowd had repeatedly been directed to move south before the officers began their push forward. On this record, I am satisfied that the involved officers were engaged, at minimum, in a reasonable and legitimate exercise of police powers at common law to maintain public order and safety.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the officers – the deployment of their less lethal firearms – was legally justified. SO #1’s round were aimed at a man who was intentionally aiming a flashlight in the faces of the officers, presumably to interfere with their vision. Given the man’s distance from the front lines of the police, it would have been impractical and perhaps even dangerous to wade into the crowd to deal with the man directly. The use of the ARWEN would appear to have been a reasonable tactic in the circumstances. Indeed, following the last of the officer’s discharges, the man was knocked off the concrete barrier and apparently was no longer a factor in the events that followed. [2]

As for the shots fired by SO #2, these too were commensurate with the exigencies of the moment. They were directed at the legs of two protesters who seemed on the verge of physically engaging with the officers, including officers who were on the ground at the time. In both instances, the force succeeded in deterring the protesters, presumably without the infliction of serious injury.

For the foregoing reasons, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official comported themselves unlawfully in the use of their less lethal firearms. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: June 20, 2022



Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit