SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-TFD-136


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 death of a 27-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU

On May 26, 2022, at 2:26 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU that a man had been fatally shot by TPS officers.

According to the TPS, at approximately 1:35 p.m. that afternoon, the TPS had received a telephone call regarding a man walking with a rifle near a public school in Scarborough. Police officers responded to the area and located the man hiding in some bushes near a residence on Maberley Crescent. The police officers ordered the man out of the bushes and the man then leveled the rifle at police. [1] Two police officers discharged their weapons and struck the man, who died at the scene.

The two involved police officers, Subject Official (SO) #1 and SO #2, were separated and transported to the Scarborough Centenary Hospital.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 05/26/2022 at 2:45 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 05/26/2022 at 4:12 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3
SIU investigators were immediately dispatched to the scene.

The scene was photographed, and video recorded, and measurements were recorded using a Total Station device, for forensic mapping purposes.

Houses with a view of the scene were canvassed for witnesses and video recording equipment.

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

27-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Not interviewed; next-of-kin
CW #2 Not interviewed; next-of-kin
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Interviewed
CW #7 Interviewed
CW #8 Interviewed
CW #9 Interviewed
CW #10 Interviewed
CW #11 Interviewed
CW #12 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between May 26, 2022, and June 23, 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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Interviewed
WO #6 Interviewed
WO #7 Interviewed
WO #8 Interviewed
WO #9 Interviewed
WO #10 Not interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between May 27, 2022, and July 2, 2022.

Although the SIU was confident WO #10 was not present at the time of the incident, his vehicle was found within the secured scene. WO #10 was designated a witness official on August 5, 2022, to obtain a copy of his notes. His notes confirmed he arrived at the scene after the incident had taken place. He was not interviewed


The Scene

The scene diagram below depicts the scene as found by the SIU. A scene diagram further below represents an approximation of the vehicle positioning at the time of the incident, based on a review of video recordings of the incident.

East Avenue travels in a north-south orientation. South of the scene, Maberley Crescent intersects the east side of East Avenue in a T-shaped intersection. On the west side of the intersection is William G. Davis Junior Public School. A chain-link fence surrounds the perimeter of the schoolyard.

North of the school, East Avenue has a downward slope towards a wooded area that runs along the banks of Adam’s Creek. North of Adam’s Creek, Baronial Court intersects the east side of East Avenue.

The shooting scene was on the west side of East Avenue, just south of Baronial Court.

Articles of the Complainant’s clothing, medical debris, a set of handcuffs with SO #2’s badge number on them, and a Diana Stormrider .22 calibre pellet gun, equipped with a Tasco Air riflescope, were found near the sidewalk on the west side of East Avenue, in the area of Adam’s Creek.

A pocket of the Complainant’s sweatpants held 28 pellets.

TPS fleet vehicle #1 (SO #1’s vehicle) and vehicle #2 (SO #2’s vehicle) were found within the protected scene. SO #1’s vehicle was found in the position it occupied at the time of the incident. SO #2’s vehicle had been moved to allow egress of an ambulance, when it still appeared paramedics would be transporting the Complainant from the scene. At the time of the shooting, SO #2’s vehicle was stopped northbound in the middle of East Avenue, just north of where the Complainant was found. A third TPS fleet vehicle, vehicle #3, was operated by WO #10. He arrived at the scene following the incident.

Figure 1 – Photo of incident scene

Physical Evidence

Three spent .223 calibre rifle cartridge cases were found on the ground in front of SO #1’s vehicle. Two spent .40 calibre cartridge cases were located further south.

The Complainant’s remains were located inside a Toronto Paramedic Services ambulance that remained at the scene.

On May 26, 2022, SO #1’s duty belt and use of force equipment were examined by a SIU forensic investigator. SO #1’s protective vest held two C8 rifle magazines, each containing 28 .223 calibre rifle cartridges. The Colt C8 rifle carried by SO #1 was found to contain 25 cartridges in total, suggesting he had fired three shots. The C8 rifle operated by SO #1 was equipped with an optical aiming device. SO #1’s pistol contained a magazine with 14 cartridges and his duty belt carried two additional pistol magazines, each loaded with 14 cartridges of ammunition.

SO #2’s duty belt was missing a set of handcuffs. There were two spare magazines on his duty belt, each containing 14 cartridges. His Glock Model 22 pistol (.40 calibre) contained a total of 12 cartridges, suggesting he fired two shots.

On May 29, 2022, a second search of the area was conducted by the SIU, as the Complainant had originally been seen to be wearing a coat, which he was not wearing when shot. A jacket was recovered along the northeast corner of the perimeter fence of William G. Davis Junior Public School. A pellet gun projectile was found in one of the jacket pockets.

Forensic Evidence

On June 6, 2022, the SIU submitted two spent pistol cartridge cases, three spent rifle cartridge cases, the Colt C8 rifle carried by SO #1, and the Glock pistol carried by SO #2 to the Centre for Forensic Science (CFS), with spare magazines for each firearm. The SIU also submitted to the CFS five projectiles or projectile fragments, recovered during the post-mortem examination of the Complainant.

On July 29, 2022, the SIU received the CFS Firearms Report. The three .223 calibre rifle cases recovered from the scene were fired by the C8 rifle carried by SO #1. The two spent pistol cases found at the scene were fired from the pistol carried by SO #2.

Two rifle bullets/fragments were consistent with having been fired by the rifle carried by SO #1, but they lacked sufficient characteristics to positively confirm they were fired from that rifle. Similarly, two pistol bullets/fragments were consistent with having been fired from a firearm with a polygonal barrel (which was consistent with the Glock firearm caried by SO #2).

A .40 calibre bullet core submitted to the CFS was reportedly of no identification value.

Figure 2 – SO #2’s Glock firearm

Figure 3 - SO #1’s C8 rifle

Figure 4 – The Complainant’s weapon

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

The SIU received several video recordings from security cameras mounted on residences in the area where this incident took place.

Home security camera recordings provided by a local resident recorded a taxi van operated by CW #11 passing by his residence westbound on Baronial Court at 1:20 p.m. At 1:23 p.m., three gunshots could be heard on the recordings. At 1:25 p.m., CW #11’s taxicab van travelled eastbound in front of the residence with home security recordings.

CW #4 provided the TPS and the SIU copies of five photographs and three video recordings she recorded from her backyard. The video recordings were made following the shooting of the Complainant. Two of her photographs recorded the Complainant carrying the air rifle. In one of those photographs he had shouldered the air rifle. The other three photographs recorded the police officers on the street at the time of the shooting, including one depicting SO #2 taking cover behind the hood of his police vehicle.

The three video recording/images obtained from residences on Maberley Crescent captured the Complainant walking towards East Avenue with the air rifle being carried along his right side, tucked under his jacket. He was wearing a dark three-quarter length coat and a light-coloured baseball cap.

Summary of Events from Information Derived from Police Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD), In-car Camera System (ICCS) Recordings and Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

  • May 26, 2022, 12:56 p.m. – a resident of Maberley Crescent called 911 to report she had seen a man carrying a rifle and walking towards the William G. Davis Junior Public School.
  • 1:03 p.m. – SO #1 and other officers were patrolling East Avenue, searching for the man with the rifle.
  • 1:06 p.m. – WO #7 pulled to a stop along the east curb of East Avenue, across from what would become the scene, and spoke to a motorist who had reported seeing the man with the gun. The motorist stated he last saw the Complainant, “Right here.” The motorist reported the Complainant had been pacing back and forth. While WO #7 spoke to the motorist, SO #1 parked in the driveway of the William G. Davis Junior Public School, and exited his vehicle with a C8 rifle. SO #1 spoke to a school staff member at the front doors of the school.
  • 1:14 p.m. – WO #11 pulled away and drove up and down East Avenue looking for the Complainant.
  • 1:15 p.m. – WO #5 arrived at a residence on Maberley Crescent to obtain a detailed description of the subject from the original 911 caller. WO #5 then crossed the street to speak to a homeowner about his exterior camera system.
  • 1:19 p.m. – WO #7 again parked along the east curb of East Avenue, across from what would become the scene. The Complainant was not visible at that point.
  • 1:22 p.m. – WO #7 started to pull forward and then radioed, “We have a man there with a rifle.” The Complainant was visible in WO #7’s ICCS recording at that point. WO #7 excitedly reported, “There he is, there he is. We have him here, just getting out of the bushes. Baronial and East Avenue.” WO #5 and SO #1 returned to their vehicles and sped towards WO #7’s location. SO #2 and WO #6, who were at the intersection at Maberley Crescent, re-entered their vehicle and sped northbound on East Avenue. WO #7 pulled to his left towards the west curb of East Avenue, but he then turned to his right and drove onto Baronial Court. A taxi van operated by CW #11 was arriving at the intersection westbound on Baronial Court at that time.
  • 1:23 p.m. – After turning around on Baronial Court, WO #7 arrived back at the intersection at East Avenue. CW #11’s taxi van was still at the intersection. A southbound TPS sedan was stopped on East Avenue. The Complainant could be seen on WO #7’s ICCS recording as he stepped out of the bushes on the west side of East Avenue. The Complainant was carrying the air rifle in the low-ready position (pointed towards the ground). The police officer operating the sedan sped away northbound on East Avenue. SO #1 drove northbound past the Complainant and, as he passed the Complainant, SO #1 said, “Put it down, put it down.” WO #7 called out, “Right here guys, right here. Stop here. In the bush to your left. East side, west side.” SO #1 then pulled up to the west curb of the roadway, north of the Complainant.
  • 1:23:17 p.m. – SO #2 came to a stop northbound on East Avenue. WO #6 exited the vehicle and moved to the rear passenger side of the vehicle, using the vehicle as cover. SO #2 exited the driver’s door of the vehicle and had his pistol in his left hand. He threw his portable radio onto the ground and then placed both hands onto his pistol. The Complainant continued to hold the air rifle in the low-ready position. WO #7 ran from his vehicle to the passenger side of SO #2’s vehicle.
  • 1:23:26 p.m. –SO #2 ran around the front of his vehicle as the Complainant stepped southbound and started to shoulder his air rifle. It appeared the Complainant stepped southbound to improve his aim as he pointed his air rifle at WO #6. SO #1 ran around the front of his vehicle to the passenger side.
  • 1:23:28 p.m. - A police officer yelled, “Drop it!”
  • 1:23:30 p.m. – SO #2, leaning across the hood of his vehicle, fired one shot from his pistol. SO #1, to the north, braced his rifle using his left elbow on the hood of his vehicle. The Complainant doubled-over somewhat but then appeared to start shouldering his rifle again. SO #2 fired a second shot from his pistol and SO #1 fired three shots from the C8 rifle he carried. The Complainant immediately dropped his rifle and fell backward. SO #1 then started to approach the Complainant along the west sidewalk, with his C8 rifle shouldered and yelling, “Show me your hands!”
  • 1:23:33 p.m. – WO #5 reported over the radio, “He’s down, he’s down.” Numerous police officers ran to the Complainant.
  • Medical attention was provided to the Complainant by several police officers, including SO #2, who provided rescue breaths while other officers performed CPR.
  • 1:25:33 p.m. – SO #1 turned towards WO #8 and, while lifting his C8 rifle, said, “Thank God for this.” WO #8 responded, “Yep.”
  • 1:25:46 p.m. – SO #1 was bent over at the waist. WO #8 put his hand on SO #1’s shoulder and asked if he was okay. SO #1 asked to be relieved, and WO #8 asked for an officer to stand over the air rifle. WO #8 escorted SO #1 away from the immediate scene and handed him over to WO #9. WO #9 took over escorting SO #1 away from the scene and took him to SO #1’s vehicle.
  • 1:25:58 p.m. – The Complainant gasped for air. His efforts to breathe appeared to be agonal breathing. He continued to gasp several times while WO #3 urged him to breathe.
  • 1:26:37 p.m. – While WO #9 was walking SO #1 to SO #1’s vehicle, SO #1 stated, “I got him from here,” and pointed to his vehicle. SO #1 again lifted his C8 rifle and again stated, this time to WO #9, “Thank God for this.” WO #9 interrupted SO #1 and cautioned him that their BWCs were operating.
  • 1:27:17 p.m. – WO #9, on his cellular telephone with a staff sergeant, asked SO #1 how many times he fired his weapon. SO #1 responded, “Maybe four, maybe…,” and WO #9 told the staff sergeant, “Four-ish.”
  • 1:27:30 p.m. – After the Complainant made several gasps for breath, WO #8 reported over the radio that the Complainant was still breathing.
  • 1:27:50 p.m. – WO #8 told WO #1, “Someone stick with that gun, do not move from it.” WO #1 kneeled next to the rifle.
  • 1:28:29 p.m.– SO #1 covered his BWC with his left hand while he typed on his cellular telephone using his right hand. He would do this several more times prior to leaving the scene.
  • 1:29:06 p.m. – WO #1 picked up the air rifle and worked the action. He then placed the rifle on the ground again.
  • 1:30:33 p.m. – WO #1 picked up the air rifle again.
  • 1:33:56 hrs – WO #9, still on his cellular telephone, asked SO #1 if he had heard any other shots. SO #1 responded, “I heard one, so I don’t know if it was his or theirs (the other police officers).” He then stated, “I heard the first shot, there was one shot before me, and then I think I was the rest,” and said, “But he was pointing it.”
  • 1:35:44 p.m. – SO #2 approached WO #9 and said, “I’m involved, I shot.” WO #9 cautioned SO #2 to stop talking to people.
  • 1:39:50 p.m. – The Complainant was loaded into an ambulance.
  • 1:43:16 p.m. – WO #8, standing at the scene, asked WO #1 what type of firearm the Complainant had been carrying. WO #1 responded it was a .22 calibre BB gun. WO #1 picked up the air rifle again and inspected it. He then placed it back on the ground.
  • 1:49:22 p.m. – The on-scene paramedic superintendent advised WO #8 they had consulted doctors and the life-saving measures were being terminated.
  • 1:52:44 p.m. – WO #1 picked up the air rifle and examined it again. He then returned the rifle to the ground.
  • 1:54:34 p.m. – WO #2, sitting in his vehicle with WO #6, expressed frustration regarding the ETF requesting a telephone call rather than immediately responding to the situation. WO #6 responded, “Look what happened in Texas.”
  • 1:41:02 p.m. – WO #9 removed the C8 rifle from SO #1’s vehicle. A TPS forensic officer indicated to WO #9 that they needed permission from the SIU to remove the rifle. WO #9 responded he had been told to collect the rifle.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following materials from the TPS between May 27, 2022, and August 5, 2022:
  • ICCS recordings;
  • BWC recordings;
  • A copy of the radio and telephone communications recordings;
  • CAD record;
  • A copy of the TPS scene photographs;
  • General Occurrence report;
  • Civilian Witness List;
  • Involved Officers List;
  • Notebook entries of designated WOs;
  • Use of force training certificate for SO #1; and
  • Use of force training certificate for SO #2.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the following other sources:
  • Home security camera recordings from a local resident;
  • Five photographs and three video recordings from CW #4;
  • A copy of a doorbell video camera recording from a second resident;
  • Doorbell video camera recording from a third residence (a copy of which was also downloaded from a television news source); and
  • A screen shot (recorded by a SIU investigator) of a security video camera recording from a fourth resident.

Incident Narrative

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and civilian eyewitnesses, and video footage that captured the incident. As was their legal right, neither SO #1 nor SO #2 agreed an interview with the SIU or to authorize the release of their notes.

Shortly before 1:00 p.m. of May 26, 2022, TPS was alerted to the presence of a male with a firearm in the area of William G. Davis Jr. Public School on East Avenue. Officers were dispatched to the scene. The school was placed in lockdown.

The male was the Complainant. The Complainant walked nonchalantly with the rifle - a .22-caliber air rifle with a riflescope - sometimes concealed in the jacket he was wearing, sometimes in plain view. The Complainant suffered from mental illness, and had had a particularly difficult time the week prior coping with his mental health.

Officers rushed to the area in search of the Complainant. Among these officers was SO #1, operating a marked police SUV. Travelling north on East Avenue past the school, the officer observed the Complainant on a grassy area west of the roadway. He had emerged holding the rifle from a treed and bushy area along the banks of a creek. As he drove past the Complainant, SO #1 told him to drop the weapon. The officer continued a short distance to the intersection at Baronial Court where he stopped his cruiser in the southbound East Avenue lane facing northwest.

At about the same time, SO #2, operating a marked police Ford Taurus north on East Avenue, had also seen the Complainant by the side of the road. With him in the passenger seat was WO #6. SO #2 brought his cruiser to a stop in the southbound lane, south of the intersection and north of the Complainant’s position, facing northwest.

The officers pointed their firearms at the Complainant from positions of cover behind their respective vehicles. WO #6 yelled at him to drop his weapon. The Complainant maintained possession of his weapon during this brief standoff. Within moments, he raised the rifle, pointed it at the officers, and was met with gunfire.

SO #2 shot first with his semi-automatic pistol. The round struck the Complainant and staggered him momentarily. As the Complainant righted himself, the rifle in his hands again pointed in the direction of the officers, SO #2 fired once more. At about the same time, SO #1 discharged his C8 rifle three times. The time was about 1:23 p.m.

The Complainant fell onto his back following the volley of gunshots, dropping his rifle in the process. He had been struck four times in the torso.

SO #2 and other officers approached the Complainant on the ground and began to administer emergency treatment, including CPR. Firefighters and paramedics arrived on scene and assumed charge of the Complainant’s care. At about 1:49 p.m., their live-saving efforts at resuscitation were discontinued.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to gunshot wounds of the torso. Gunshot wounds were located on the Complainant’s left shoulder, left flank, left hip and abdomen.

Relevant Legislation

Section 34, Criminal Code -- Defence of person - Use or threat of force

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(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.
(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
(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.

Analysis and Director's Decision

The Complainant died on May 26, 2022, the result of gunshot wounds inflicted by two TPS officers. The officers – SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as the subject officials in the ensuing SIU investigation of the incident. 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.

Section 34 provides that conduct that would otherwise constitute an offence is legally justified if it was intended to deter a reasonably apprehended assault, actual or threatened, and was itself reasonable. The reasonableness of the conduct is to be assessed in light of all the relevant circumstances, 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 my view, the use of lethal force by SO #1 and SO #2 fell within the ambit of justification prescribed by section 34.

The officers who responded to the scene, including SO #1 and SO #2, were engaged in the lawful discharge of their duties. Upon receiving word of an individual walking freely in the area of a school with a firearm, the officers dispatched to the scene were obliged to attend to do what they could to protect public safety and take the person into custody.

The evidence establishes that SO #1 and SO #2 fired their weapons at the Complainant in the reasonable belief that doing so was necessary to protect against a lethal threat. Though neither officer, as was their right, provided a statement to the SIU, the circumstances surrounding the shooting compel the conclusion. The Complainant had in his possession a rifle that gave every appearance of being able to inflict grievous bodily harm or death if fired. He had been ordered to drop the weapon but did not do so. Instead, the Complainant raised the weapon in the general direction of the officers, most pointedly at WO #6, as if about to fire. On this record, it is evident that the officers shot the Complainant in the genuine belief that they were about to be fired upon.

It is also apparent the gunfire by SO #1 and SO #2 constituted reasonable defensive force. The weapon in the Complainant’s possession was an air rifle, but the officers would not have known that, nor, had they known, is it clear they could be assured it was non-lethal. For all intents and purposes, the officers would have reasonably apprehended that their lives were on the line when the Complainant very deliberately raised the rifle at them. That is what WO #6, similarly situated to SO #2, told the SIU. He explained that he was about to fire his gun at the Complainant in fear for his life when SO #1 and SO #2 discharged their weapons. Nor was it the case that retreat or withdrawal were options. The Complainant constituted a real and present danger to public safety, particularly given his proximity to a school that was in session, and the officers were not free to vacate the area. Lastly, confronted with a lethal weapon at a distance of approximately 20 (SO #2) to 40 (SO #1) metres, I am unable to fault the officers for not resorting to less lethal weapons. What was required was the Complainant’s immediate incapacitation, something only a firearm could do given the officers’ locations.

In the result, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either of SO #1 and SO #2 comported themselves unlawfully when they confronted and shot the Complainant. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.

Date: September 23, 2022

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Special Investigations Unit


  • 1) The information with respect to where or how the man was located, reported by the TPS, was incorrect. The rifle carried by the man, the Complainant, was later found to be an air rifle. [Back to text]
  • 2) 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.