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 death of a 38-year-old female (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On August 5, 2021, at 10:36 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Provincial Communications Centre contacted the SIU regarding a police officer-involved shooting in Burk’s Falls. An inspector was contacted by the SIU and he provided the following information.

On August 5, 2021, at approximately 8:19 p.m., the OPP were called to an address in Burk’s Falls for an unwanted person. Police officers arrived at 8:28 p.m. and were confronted by a woman wielding a knife. The woman attacked the police officers with the knife. Both police officers fired their pistols and the woman was hit. A third police officer arrived and started cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but the resuscitation attempts were unsuccessful.

The deceased woman was the Complainant.

The involved police officials were Subject Official (SO) #1 and SO #2. The Witness Official (WO) was WO #1.

All use of force equipment had been secured and the scene was held.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 08/06/2021 at 12:12 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 08/06/2021 at 3:45 a.m.

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

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

38-year-old female; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Not interviewed (next-of-kin)
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between August 6, 2021, and September 20, 2021.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
SO #2 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right.

The subject official was interviewed on August 19, 2021.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on August 6, 2021, and September 15, 2021.

The Scene

On August 6, 2021, at 3:45 a.m., SIU Forensic Investigators (FIs) arrived at the scene in Burk’s Falls. The driveway of the scene was on the east side of the road. The lighting in the lot was poor.

There were two vehicles within the confines of the scene.

Vehicle 1 was an OPP police vehicle, which was a fully marked 2017 Chevrolet Tahoe. The emergency lighting on the vehicle was not activated. Vehicle 1 was orientated east, in front of a building. The vehicle was running at idle in park and the right turn signal was activated. On the rear driver’s side seat was an unsealed OPP evidence bag, which contained a knife.

Vehicle 2 was a civilian, Ford F-150, black pickup truck. The vehicle was oriented in a southerly direction, south of Vehicle 1. Near the left (driver’s side) rear tire area, the deceased, the Complainant, lay on the ground with a cover over her. The deceased lay on her back, face up with her head oriented in a south/southwest direction. The deceased was clad in a white tank top, grey shorts, bra and running shoes.

The body and scene were photographed, and the hands of the deceased were covered with paper bags to protect evidence.

Seven cartridge cases were identified at the scene.

Vehicle 3 was a fully marked OPP police vehicle. It was oriented north on the east shoulder of the road, north of the driveway. The emergency lighting was not activated. Vehicle 3 had been present at the initial point of the incident but had been removed and then returned to the scene prior to the SIU’s arrival.

Evidence collected at the scene included seven cartridge cases, a knife, jewelry, and a blood swab.

After the body was removed, the scene was examined using metal detection equipment.

Physical Evidence

Evidence Photographed

SIU FIs attended the OPP Almaguin Highlands Detachment in Burk’s Falls where police equipment and uniforms were examined and photographed.

SO #2’s conducted energy weapon (CEW) was examined and found to be unfired. SO #2’s Glock Model 17M was examined. One cartridge was removed from the breech. The magazine was removed from the weapon and contained 13 cartridges.


Figure 1 - SO #2's Glock 17M, magazine and cartridges

The following scenario emerges from the weight of the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with one of the two subject officials – SO #2 – and two civilian eyewitnesses. As was his legal right, SO #1 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of August 5, 2021, the OPP received a call from CW #3 reporting a disturbance involving the Complainant in Burk’s Falls, where the two were sharing a cottage. According to CW #3, the Complainant, who had warrants outstanding for her arrest, had kicked his cat and swung a rake at him multiple times. She was inebriated, suffered from mental illness, and might have access to a hunting knife. CW #3 wanted her removed from the property. Police officers were dispatched to the address.

SO #2 and SO #1 arrived at the scene in separate vehicles shortly before 8:30 p.m. SO #2 stopped his police SUV facing east south of the entrance to the business office. SO #1 parked behind him. A few metres south of the passenger side of SO #2’s vehicle, facing south, was a pickup truck. CW #3 approached SO #2 and spoke to him through the open driver’s door window. Within moments, they were approached by the Complainant.

From a position east of the cruisers, the Complainant quickly approached SO #2’s SUV. She was yelling. In her left hand was a knife. As she reached the driver’s door, the Complainant started swinging at the officer through the open window with the knife. SO #2 repeatedly yelled at her to drop the knife as he tried to defend himself. His vest, upper body and legs were struck several times. At one point, in an effort to create distance with the Complainant, he pushed himself towards the passenger side of his vehicle. By the time the officer managed to draw his firearm, the Complainant had left the window, making her way towards the rear of SO #2’s cruiser.

The Complainant went around the rear of the SUV and travelled alongside the passenger side of the vehicle towards the driver’s side of the pickup truck. She was confronted in that location at gunpoint by the officers. Positioned beside the passenger side of his SUV, SO #2 was closest to the Complainant, about seven metres away. SO #1 was three to four metres to SO #2’s right. About a metre or two to the Complainant’s right, as she stood facing the officers, was CW #3. The officers yelled at the Complainant to drop the knife, but she continued to wave it in their direction. The Complainant advanced on the officers with the knife raised in her hand, and was shot as she neared to within five metres of SO #2’s location.

SO #2 fired his 9 mm Glock semi-automatic pistol four times at the Complainant. At the same time, SO #1 discharged his weapon – also a Glock 9 mm semi-automatic pistol – three times.

The Complainant was felled by the gunfire. She had been struck four times.

SO #2 and SO #1 rendered emergency care, including CPR and pressure to the wound sites, while waiting for paramedics to attend.

Paramedics arrived at the scene at about 8:40 p.m. and took over the Complainant’s care. She could not be resuscitated, and was subsequently pronounced deceased at the scene.

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 August 5, 2021, the Complainant suffered gunshot wounds resulting in her death. As she had been shot by two OPP officers, the SIU was notified and initiated an investigation. The officers who discharged their firearms – SO #2 and SO #1 – 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 the Complainant’s death.

Pursuant to section 34 of the Criminal Code, the use of force that would otherwise constitute an offence is legally justified if it was intended in the defence of oneself or another from a reasonably apprehended attack, actual or threatened, and was itself reasonable in the circumstances. The reasonableness of the force is to be assessed against all 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. There are no reasonable grounds, in my view, to believe that either of the subject officials acted without the legal justification of section 34 when they fired their weapons.

At the outset, it bears noting that SO #1 and SO #2 were lawfully placed throughout their engagement with the Complainant. The officers had been called to the scene of a disturbance which had involved a level of violence. They were duty bound to attend at the address to do what they could to assist in safely resolving the situation.

I accept that both subject officials acted to thwart a reasonably apprehended knife attack at the hands of the Complainant when they discharged their guns. SO #2 provided a statement to the SIU in which he said he used force fearing for his life and the life of SO #1. There is nothing in the evidence to refute his assertion. On the contrary, the circumstances support the officer’s claim and the reasonableness of his belief. Moments prior, SO #2 had been fending off an assault by the Complainant as she swung at him with a knife through the open driver’s door window of his cruiser. Now confronted again by the Complainant waving a knife in his direction and advancing on his position, I am satisfied that SO #2 and SO #1 were at imminent risk of grievous bodily harm or death.

Though SO #1 did not provide a statement to the SIU, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officer was not of the same mindset given the presence of the knife in the Complainant’s possession and her approach to within a few metres of the officers’ location with the weapon in hand.

The situation in which the officers found themselves also persuades me that their resort to gunfire was not unreasonable. The Complainant had in her possession a knife with a blade of some ten centimetres in length, clearly capable of causing death as she neared to within five metres of the officers. She had also shown a propensity to use it, seconds earlier having attacked SO #2 with the knife. Retreat or withdrawal were not realistic options in the circumstances. In particular, CW #3, who had called police to report the Complainant, was standing in the vicinity of the Complainant throughout the final standoff before the shots and was clearly at risk in the event the Complainant decided to turn on him. Finally, while warranting careful scrutiny, the number of shots fired – seven altogether – and the location of a wound in the Complainant’s back – are not enough to reasonably establish that either officer acted with excess. In particular, the rapidity of the shots fired, the simultaneity of the gunfire, the angle of the officers vis-à-vis the Complainant, and the inherent dynamism of the moment, do not suggest that the risk reasonably apprehended by the officers changed materially at any point from shots one through seven. On this record, I am satisfied that the officers acted reasonably when they sought to protect themselves from a potentially lethal attack with a resort to lethal force of their own.

Some witnesses offered a version of events which, if true, could ground criminal liability, but it would be unwise and unsafe to rest charges on the strength of their evidence. In particular, there was evidence the Complainant was simply standing in place when she was shot. That evidence, however, is fundamentally undercut by the location of the Complainant’s body after the shooting, namely, by the rear driver’s side of the pickup truck. The account, which had the Complainant by the front driver’s side of the truck at the time of the shooting, simply does not accord with where she ended up. Conversely, and consistent with SO #2’s story, the evidence suggests that the Complainant had advanced on the officers’ position when she was shot.
For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds that SO #2 and SO #1 comported themselves lawfully throughout their tragic encounter with the Complainant. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.


Date: August 23, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit