SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OFP-078


This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

Mandate of the SIU

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.

Information Restrictions

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: 
  • The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person. 
  • Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault. 
  • Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person. 
  • Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.  
  • Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.  
  • Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published. 

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

Pursuant to section14 (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 
  • Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and 
  • Information that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding. 
Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 
  • The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials; 
  • Location information; 
  • Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence; and 
  • Other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation. 

Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004

Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may also have been excluded from this report because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.

Mandate Engaged

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 29-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU

On March 13, 2022, at 1:14 a.m., the London Police Service (LPS) notified the SIU that an officer had discharged a firearm at the Complainant. According to the LPS, on March 13, 2022, just after midnight, LPS officers were dispatched to an apartment building in the area of Clarke Road and Trafalgar Street, London, for a fight in the hallway. The Complainant was beating up two people. As police arrived at the scene, it was determined that there were two people with stab wounds. Police officers were confronted by the Complainant carrying two butcher knives in the hallway, shouting, “Just shoot me!” The Complainant ran back to an apartment and was followed by police. The Complainant would not drop the knives and a conducted energy weapon (CEW) was unsuccessfully deployed. The Complainant closed the gap between himself and police, and an Anti-riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN) was deployed by a police officer approximately six times. The ARWEN was also ineffective. The Complainant continued to move closer and would not drop the knives. A CEW was deployed again as the Complainant approached the police officers and a shield was used to secure him as he was handcuffed.

The involved police officers were reported to be Witness Official (WO) #1, who had deployed a CEW; WO #4, who had also deployed a CEW; WO #3, who had used his shield; and the Subject Official (SO), who had deployed a CEW and a Blunt Impact Projectile (BIP) firearm.

Both victims of the stabbing were transported to the hospital with stab wounds to their abdomens. The Complainant was being seen by Emergency Medical Service (EMS) personnel at the scene and was to be transported to the hospital.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 03/13/2022 at 1:36 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 03/13/2022 at 5:04 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

SIU investigators interviewed civilian and police witnesses, canvassed for additional witnesses, and searched for video footage in the area where the incident occurred.

The Complainant’s mother, Civilian Witness (CW) #1, was not interviewed. CW #1 was not present when the SO and other members of the LPS interacted with the Complainant. CW #1 had sustained significant stab wounds of her abdomen prior to police arriving and was sequestered in a neighbour’s apartment when the SO and the other members of the LPS were dealing with the Complainant.

CW #3 was not interviewed. In late April, the SIU learned that CW #3 was the Complainant’s surety and that a condition of the Complainant’s judicial release from custody was to reside with CW #3. CW #3, a resident of Ottawa, was not present at the time of incident.

WO #5 to #11 were not interviewed; however, their notes were reviewed. These police officers did not have any information to advance the investigation that was not already known from interviews of the Complainant and civilian and police witnesses, the subject official’s notes, photographs, and LPS records, statements and data obtained during the investigation.

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

29-year-old male interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on May 11, 2022.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Not interviewed (Next-of-kin)
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Not interviewed (Not present)

CW #2 was interviewed on March 13, 2022.

Subject Officials

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #6 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #7 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #8 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #9 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #10 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed
WO #11 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on March 17, 2022, and March 18, 2022.


The Scene

The incident occurred at an apartment building in the area of Clarke Road and Trafalgar Street, London. The interaction between the Complainant and members of the LPS occurred in the hallway and inside the unit where the Complainant resided with his mother, CW #1.

In the hallway to the left of the entrance were three deployed CEW cartridges. Wires from the cartridges were bundled in the group and led into the apartment through the doorway. To the right of the doorway was evidence of a BIP.

The door to the apartment appeared intact and not damaged.

Lighting conditions inside the apartment were poor. The only illumination in the living room/dining area was from a dining room hutch.

There was a hallway between the living room/dining area, kitchen and the two bedrooms. Near the entrance to this hallway were remnants of BIPs. Wires from the exterior hallway continued in a northeast direction across a chair near the entrance and were tangled in the contents of the chair that included remnants of another BIP. CEW probes were attached to the wires.

At the northeast corner of the living room near the adjoining dining area was more evidence of CEW deployment, including wire and projectiles. There was an overturned handmade stool that had a broken leg and two large kitchen knives lying on the floor. There were also further remnants of BIPs scattered along the floor across the living room to the dining area.

In the dining area near the entrance to the kitchen was an overturned chair with a coat.

 Figure 1 - Remnants of BIPs

Figure 1 - Remnants of BIPs

The entire apartment was cluttered and in disarray. Accessibility and mobility throughout the apartment were difficult due to insufficient illumination and obstructive furnishings.

Scene Diagram

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

Figure 2 - The SO's BIP firearm

Figure 2 - The SO's BIP firearm

Figure 3 - One of the CEWs used in the incident

Figure 3 - One of the CEWs used in the incident

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

LPS Communications Audio Recordings

The 911 call made by CW #2 from inside his apartment was six minutes and thirty-eight seconds in duration. Near the beginning of the call, indiscernible voices were heard shouting in the background which, by their echo, sounded like voices in the hallway near his apartment. CW #2 was relaying information to the communications operator when, at about two minutes into the audio recording, a man’s voice was heard telling CW #2, “You better get the police here.” A few seconds later, the man was heard speaking with the communications operator relaying that the Complainant was in and out of the apartment charging at him with scissors.

At about four minutes into the audio recording, a man’s voice [believed to be the Complainant] was heard yelling indiscernibly over the voice of a woman [believed to be CW #1] pleading, then shouting, “Noooo!” About 30 seconds later, a man’s voice was heard again on the telephone with the communications operator, shouting, “Hello! He just stabbed me with a fucking knife!” and, “God damn it! Will somebody get here!” Then, at about five minutes into the audio recording, when the communications operator asked the man if he [meaning the Complainant] still had the knife, the man, frantically and with difficulty breathing, replied, “Yes, two of them!” About 45 seconds later, after indiscernible shouting was heard, the man exclaimed that he [meaning the Complainant] was inside his [meaning the man’s] apartment unit.

As the 911 call audio recording ended, indiscernible and unidentifiable male voices were heard shouting, but for one male voice that was heard shouting, “Don’t tell me the fuckin’ what to do!”

The police dispatch communications recording was 16 minutes and 33 seconds in duration, and essentially captured the dispatching of police and EMS resources to the apartment, background information for the responding police officers, information regarding the stabbing victims, and the location of the Complainant.

At about nine minutes into the audio recording, one responding officer [believed to be WO #4] was heard asking for an officer [now known to be WO #2] to be positioned at the outside of the building to monitor the window associated with the apartment.

At about 13 minutes and 40 seconds into the audio recording, a police officer was heard reporting, “Taser deployed.”

At about 14 minutes and nine seconds, a police officer was heard asking, “Can we get another officer up here?” while other police officers were trying to get the Complainant handcuffed. About 21 seconds later, an officer reported that the Complainant was in handcuffs.

At about 16 minutes and 25 seconds into the audio recording, WO #4 radioed that the BIP firearm had been used, adding, “And for notification,” meaning SIU notification.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the LPS:
  • 2021 Emergency Response Unit (ERU) Annual Weapons Qualifications – the SO;
  • Call Hardcopy;
  • Communications recordings;
  • CEW Download and Graph for the SO, WO #1 and WO #4;
  • Civilian Witness List and Statements;
  • General Occurrence;
  • History of the Complainant with LPS;
  • Less Lethal Deployment Techniques;
  • Less Lethal Kinetic Impact Weapons;
  • LPS Identification Photographs;
  • Narrative and Notes for the SO and WOs;
  • Procedure regarding Use of Force; and
  • Use of Force Report;

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU endeavoured to obtain a copy of the medical records from London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) relevant to the Complainant’s injury; however, the records could not be obtained from LHSC, in this instance, without an authorization for the release of medical information signed by the Complainant. When the Complainant was interviewed on May 12, 2022, the Complainant agreed to provide the SIU with his signed authorization for the release of medical information. At the time of this report, however, the Complainant had not yet provided his signed authorization and had ceased communications with the SIU.

Incident Narrative

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

At about 12:30 a.m. of March 13, 2022, members of the LPS ERU gathered in the hallway outside an apartment at a building near Clarke Road and Trafalgar Street, London. They were there following calls to police about a disturbance on the premises in which the Complainant had stabbed a person. The SO was among the officers. He had a BIP firearm at the ready. Crouched in front of him with a shield was WO #3. Behind WO #3 and to the SO’s left was WO #1. WO #4 took a position behind WO #3.

The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time. He had earlier stabbed his mother, with whom he resided, and a neighbour. From behind his locked door, the Complainant told the officers to “shoot him”. After repeated police commands that he surrender and open the door, the Complainant did so before retreating a distance into his apartment. He had a knife in each hand.
The officers ordered the Complainant to drop the knives and then deployed their weapons as he advanced in their direction. Specifically, WO #1 discharged his weapon and the SO fired his BIP firearm once at the Complainant. He continued to near the officers’ location and was met by WO #3 using his shield to push the Complainant backwards. With the knives still in the Complainant’s hands, the SO fired his BIP firearm five more times. The rounds were not successful in dispossessing the Complainant of the knives. WO #4 discharged his CEW overtop of WO #3. The probes found their mark and resulted in the Complainant’s body locking up and he falling on his backside.

With the Complainant on the floor, the officers rushed into the apartment. WO #3 was the first to reach the Complainant. He used his shield to pin the Complainant as other officers attempted to wrestle control of his arms. The SO discharged his CEW twice into the Complainant, after which he was rolled onto his front and handcuffed behind the back.

Following his arrest, the Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left arm. The injury had been inflicted, prior to the arrival of the police, by another tenant of the building using a bat to ward off a combative Complainant.

Relevant Legislation

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

25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
(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,
is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

Analysis and Director's Decision

On March 13, 2022, the LPS contacted the SIU to report that one of their officers had earlier that day discharged a BIP firearm at a male – the Complainant. The SIU initiated an investigation naming the officer – the SO – as the 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 the use of the BIP firearm.

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.
By the time the officers physically engaged the Complainant, they had grounds to seek his arrest. They were aware of the reports indicating that the Complainant was armed with knives and had stabbed someone. They had also seen a person exiting the apartment across from the apartment where the Complainant lived with a wound. The person told them that she had been stabbed by the Complainant.

The force used to take the Complainant into custody, I am satisfied, was no more than was reasonably necessary. The Complainant had refused to drop the knife he held in each hand, and had advanced towards the officers in threatening fashion. He clearly constituted a risk of grievous bodily harm or death. In the circumstances, the use of the BIP firearm and CEWS were legitimate options given the reasonable prospect of their temporarily immobilizing the Complainant from a distance, allowing the officers an opportunity to move in and safely complete the arrest. The use of the shield by WO #3 and subsequent use by the SO of his CEW were justified for similar reasons given the evidence indicating the Complainant was still in possession of at least one of the knives as he fell and then continued to struggle with the officers. On this record, it is apparent that the officers did not act with excess when they confronted a lethal risk with less-lethal weapons at their disposal.

For the foregoing reasons, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than lawfully when he fired his BIP firearm at the Complainant. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: July 4, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Special Investigations Unit


  • 1) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]


The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.