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 serious injuries sustained by a 22-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On April 23, 2022, at 1:37 p.m., the Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the WRPS, officers responded to a disturbance call on Ironstone Drive in Cambridge. The butt of a firearm was observed on the Complainant and a police officer discharged his firearm striking him in the chest. The Complainant had been transported to the Hamilton General Hospital (HGH).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 04/23/2022 at 2:13 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 04/23/2022 at 3:11 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

22-year-old male; Declined interview

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on April 23, 2022.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The Scene

Ironstone Drive is a residential street. Detached and semi-detached homes line the street.

Upon the arrival of the SIU, WRPS police cruisers, police officers and security tape formed an inner and outer perimeter around the areas of interest. Several WRPS police vehicles and civilian vehicles were parked on the street within the inner perimeter. These vehicles were parked on both sides of the street. Items of interest were strewn on the roadway and a grassy boulevard.

A garage door at one residence was struck by a bullet and a vehicle parked in the driveway of another residence was struck by a bullet.

Security cameras were visible and affixed to several homes in the area.


Figure 1 – scene of crime

Physical Evidence

Items relevant to the SIU investigation were collected and a Field Exhibit List prepared. The ‘handgun’ found on the roadway, associated with the Complainant, was found to be an imitation. The imitation was, in fact, a flask in the shape of a semi-automatic pistol. It was black/grey in colour, and the handgrip and magazine areas were fused. The barrel tip was obstructed with a cork top. The cork top was removed, and a sweet-smelling scent emanated from the flask. A liquid was visible in the flask, but it was not possible to discern if the liquid was alcohol-based.


Figure 2- Photograph of the imitation firearm produced by the Complainant


Figure 3 – bullets fired

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

911 Call Recordings

On April 22, 2022, at 2:13 a.m., the 911 operator made a call-back [known to be to the Complainant] and asked if there was an emergency. The Complainant said that all was good, and that the call had been just a mistake. The 911 operator calmly said she just needed some information to cancel the emergency call. The Complainant whispered in a soft voice, “Holy fuck.” He hesitated with his response and then, in a disjointed manner, provided his name, address and birthdate, as requested. When asked, he advised that he was home with his sister ‘CW #1’.

The 911 operator asked to speak with CW #1, and the Complainant questioned why. The operator said she did not believe that everything was okay, and asked why he was speaking in half-sentences and not finishing his thoughts. The Complainant said that he was okay and that there was no reason to come by. The 911 operator emphasized that he was not in trouble for dialing 911 but that she had to send an officer to check on his well-being. She ended the call by saying they would see him shortly.

On April 23, 2022, at 12:29 p.m., a 911 operator answered a call. A person [known to be the Complainant] provided his address as residence 5 and said he was having a really bad problem. He said, “Something is fucked up, man.” The 911 operator clarified that he did not need an ambulance and probed for more information. The Complainant said, “No, just come right now,” and repeated his address. The 911 operator encouraged him not to hang up and continued to probe for details about the problem. A female voice could briefly be heard but what she said was inaudible. The 911 operator again asked, “What’s going on there?” Crying was audible and then the Complainant said, “Okay, bye, bye.” The 911 operator repeated, “Don’t hang up,” and the phone line disconnected. The 911 operator called back. The call was answered and the Complainant said, “Hi, it’s,” and the call disconnected.

The following scenario emerges from the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with the SO, and several police and civilian eyewitnesses to the events in question. The incident was also captured in parts by video footage from cameras in the vicinity.

At about 12:30 p.m. of April 23, 2022, the Complainant placed a 911 call to police from his residence. He indicated to the call-taker that “something” was “fucked”, but was unwilling or unable to provide further detail. He asked that police attend at his residence right away. Police officers were dispatched to the address.

Arriving together in a cruiser, which they parked along the curb of the road near the Complainant’s residence, WO #1 and WO #2 were the first at the scene. The Complainant was outside his home at the time. WO #1 attended at the residence and spoke with CW #1 – the Complainant’s sister. She explained that the Complainant suffered from mental illness, was on medications and was experiencing a psychotic episode at the time. CW #1 noted her brother was not violent and did not have any weapons with him. Simultaneously, WO #2 was attempting to speak with the Complainant in front of his home. He asked how the police could help him but was largely met with silence. As these conversations were happening, WO #3 arrived on scene, parking his cruiser in front of the Complainant’s residence and nose-to-nose with WO #1 and WO #2’s vehicle. He too tried speaking with the Complainant, but with little success.

The Complainant was in crisis. He would variously cry and stare for periods. All of the officers’ entreaties to have the Complainant go with them to hospital went unanswered. The Complainant eventually walked out onto the roadway and relocated between, and just west of, the cruisers. At this time, the officers decided that the Complainant should be apprehended under the Mental Health Act.

As the officers continued to speak with the Complainant, they noticed an object in the Complainant’s front right pants pocket which they were concerned could be a gun. They repeatedly ordered the Complainant to keep his right hand out of his pocket, but he did not do so. Rather, his agitation grew and he began to threaten the officers’ lives. WO #1 called for the attendance of a supervisor.

The SO answered the call and travelled to the scene. Together with WO #1 and WO #3, he took up a position by the driver’s side of WO #3’s cruiser and began speaking with the Complainant. WO #2 remained by the passenger side of his cruiser. Within moments, WO #2 and WO #1 called out, “Gun,” when they observed what they believed was the butt of a gun. The SO and WO #2 drew their firearms at this time. WO #1 and WO #3 retrieved their CEWs.

The officers repeatedly ordered the Complainant to keep his hands away from his pockets. At about 1:16 p.m., the Complainant retrieved what appeared to be a semi-automatic pistol from his right front pants pocket and pointed it in the direction of the SO, and WO #1 and WO #3. He took a step in their direction and was shot by the SO.

The SO fired his semi-automatic firearm four times, striking the Complainant twice – once in the chest and once in a hand. The two other bullets appear to have missed the Complainant.

The Complainant was felled by the gunfire. He continued to resist as the officers converged on his location, but was dispossessed of the ‘firearm’ and handcuffed behind his back.

The ‘firearm’ in the Complainant’s possession was, in fact, an imitation gun.

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.

The Complainant was shot and seriously injured by a WRPS officer on April 23, 2022. The officer – the SO – was identified as the subject official in the ensuing SIU investigation. 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 shooting.

Pursuant to section 34 of the Criminal Code, force used in the protection of oneself or another from a reasonably apprehended attack, actual or threatened, is legally justified provided the force in question was itself reasonable. The reasonableness of the force is to be determined with reference to the prevailing circumstances at the time, including with respect to 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 the instant case, I am satisfied that the force used by the SO, namely, four gunshots at the Complainant, fell within the limits of justified force prescribed by section 34.

The SO was lawfully placed throughout his engagement with the Complainant. The officer had been called to the scene by officers reporting the Complainant was possibly in possession of a firearm. In the circumstances, he was duty bound to attend to offer whatever assistance he could towards a peaceful resolution of the situation.

I am also satisfied that the SO acted to thwart a reasonably apprehended attack when he shot the Complainant. Though the investigation was without direct evidence of the officer’s mindset as he declined an interview with the SIU, as was his legal right, that would seem the only reasonable inference on the facts. By the time the SO fired his weapon, the Complainant had menacingly pointed what appeared to be a handgun in his direction and stepped forward. The other officers present at the scene, similarly situated to the SO, were of the view that the Complainant was about to fire a handgun in their direction. So too was a civilian eyewitness – CW #5. Indeed, CW #5 believed that the Complainant had fired the first shot at the officers, and that the subsequent three discharges were fired by the police.

Lastly, the record establishes that the SO’s resort to lethal force was reasonable. Arriving at the scene, the officer attempted to communicate with the Complainant but to no avail. Before long, however, the SO’s focus shifted to public safety when it became clear that the object in the Complainant’s front pants pocket appeared to be a gun. From that point, the officer asked WO #1 to retrieve a ballistic shield from his cruiser, and held the Complainant at gunpoint at a distance of between five to ten metres. For the next few minutes, the officers prevailed upon the Complainant to keep his hands away from his pockets. The Complainant remained largely stationary and unresponsive, even to the pleas of his sister sitting on the front step of the patio to her home, until he pointed at a neighbour recording the standoff on his cellphone and visibly angered. Within seconds, he quickly withdrew the ‘gun’ from his pocket, pointed it at the officers, took a step in their direction and was shot. Though the gun in the Complainant’s possession was an imitation gun, a fact CW #1 had attempted to convey to the officers, the SO could not have known that with certainty. As far as he or any reasonable person in his situation would have been concerned, the officer was facing an imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death. In the circumstances, the SO acted with justification when he chose to meet a reasonably apprehended lethal threat with a resort to lethal force of his own.

In arriving at a finding of justification, I would make the following three additional observations. Retreat or withdrawal was not an option for the officers once it became clear that the Complainant had what appeared to be a gun in his pocket. At that point, concerns for public safety demanded that the officers maintain their ground. The WRPS have a mobile crisis response unit which draws on mental health professionals with the Canadian Mental Health Association. As the nature of the call involving the Complainant quickly became one involving a potential weapon, however, it is not clear that their deployment would have been advisable. More to the point, it would appear that there were no crisis units available to attend the call at the time – they were occupied with other calls for service around the time of the events in question. Lastly, with respect to the number of shots fired – four – these occurred in such quick succession that there would have been no appreciable difference in the risk apprehended by the SO throughout his gunfire.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than lawfully in his dealings with the Complainant and the shooting, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.



Date: August 19, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit