SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OFD-207
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
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.
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 section 14 (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.
- 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 70-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
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 70-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU
On August 15, 2022, at approximately 3:00 p.m., the Windsor Police Service (WPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.At about 2:22 p.m., that day, WPS officers attended the intersection of Wyandotte Street and Ouellette Avenue. There were complaints about a man, now known to be the Complainant, in the intersection wielding a machete and threatening members of the public. One officer deployed a conducted energy weapon (CEW) and another discharged their service firearm. The Complainant was taken to the Windsor Regional Hospital Ouellette Campus (WRHOC) for a gunshot wound to the stomach.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 08/15/2022 at 3:19 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 08/15/2022 at 7:30 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
70-year-old male; deceasedCivilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 InterviewedCW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Not interviewed; next-of-kin
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Interviewed
CW #7 Interviewed
CW #8 Interviewed
CW #9 Interviewed
CW #10 Interviewed
CW #11 Interviewed
CW #12 Interviewed
CW #13 Not interviewed; next-of-kin
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between August 16 and 22, 2022.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal rightWitness Officials (WO)
WO #1 InterviewedWO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on August 17, 2022.
Evidence
The Scene
The scene was the intersection of Ouellette Avenue and Wyandotte Street, a major intersection in Windsor.SIU forensic investigators arrived on scene on August 15, 2022, at 8:20 p.m. The scene was video recorded and photographed. One .40 calibre cartridge case was located along with wires from a CEW. Measurements were taken for a scale scene diagram.
Scene Diagram
Figure 1 – A view west of Wyandotte Street from the southwest corner of the intersectionPhysical Evidence
SIU forensic investigators collected 31 items, including one cartridge case, the SO’s WPS pistol, CEW paraphernalia, a machete, various clothing items, two cellular telephones, and a wallet with identification.Figure 2 – The machete
Figure 3 – The SO’s firearm
Forensic Evidence
CEW Examination
Examination of the SO’s CEW indicated it had not been fired. Examination of WO #1s CEW showed one deployment on August 15, 2022, at 2:33 p.m., for four seconds.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]
Video Footage from Business #1
On August 17, 2022, WPS provided the SIU video footage received from a store. The video captured the Complainant purchasing a machete.
Video Footage from Business #2
On August 26, 2022, the SIU received video footage from Business #2. The following is a summary of the footage.The SO pulled up in the eastbound curb lane and dismounted his WPS bicycle. The SO walked on an angle towards the passenger door of a white truck. WO #1 arrived in the curb lane and began to dismount. The SO had his firearm in his right hand, in a ready position, and his left arm extended forward. As the SO walked out of view, WO #1 walked eastbound. Shortly afterward, WO #1 walked backward as the SO came into view, also walking backward beside the passenger side of a white truck. Two seconds later, the Complainant came into view, wearing an orange vest. He brought his left hand to his waist area and turned his body towards the SO. The elbow of his right arm was parallel with his right shoulder. There were no obstructions between the two men. The Complainant dropped onto his back and rolled onto his right side. The machete was on the roadway. The Complainant rolled onto his back as WO #1 and the SO approached. The SO kicked the machete away from the Complainant. The Complainant was rolled onto his stomach and handcuffed with his hands behind his back.
Video Footage from City of Windsor Cameras
On August 16, 2022, the City of Windsor provided the SIU with a DVD of video footage captured on August 15, 2022, from municipal cameras at the intersection of Wyandotte Street West and Ouellette Avenue. Camera 1
At 2:08 p.m., the Complainant was captured walking from the west side of Ouellette Avenue and crossing to the east side of Ouellette Avenue, entering an unknown business. He used a cane to walk. The Complainant walked around different stores until 2:21 p.m., when he tossed his cane and went to the intersection of Ouellette Avenue and Wyandotte Street where he used a cellular telephone to make a call. [This call was later confirmed to be a 911 call.] The machete was still in a yellow bag.
At 2:22 p.m., the Complainant removed the machete from the bag and moved into the intersection, raising the machete in the air. Vehicles swerved to avoid him. The Complainant made a commotion by challenging vehicles with his machete and pounding his chest with his hand.
This camera angle did not capture the discharge of the SO’s firearm.
Camera 2
The camera captured eastbound and westbound traffic on Wyandotte Street West from just east of the crosswalk located west of the intersection. At 2:25 p.m., the SO and WO #1 approached the intersection on bicycles weaving through vehicle traffic. The SO, ahead of WO #1, dismounted his bicycle at the curb lane at the traffic pole, his attention directed at the intersection. He walked four steps in the curb lane towards the intersection and drew his firearm with his right hand as WO #1 dismounted her bicycle. The SO used his left-hand to motion someone in his direction as WO #1 threw her gloves to the ground.
At 2:26 p.m., the SO began backing up near the passenger side of a white pick-up truck. He pointed with his left hand towards the intersection, his firearm in his right hand. WO #1 appeared to talk on her radio. The SO began to back up at a quicker pace. The Complainant walked deliberately towards the SO and WO #1 with the machete raised above his head, in a striking position. WO #1 drew her CEW and pointed at the Complainant. The SO had his firearm pointed at the Complainant with both hands.
The Complainant continued towards the WPS officers with the machete raised as the SO and WO #1 continued to back up. The Complainant struck the truck with the machete as he walked towards the WPS officers. WO #1 deployed her CEW. The Complainant stopped momentarily but was unaffected by the CEW discharge. The WPS officers continued to back up. The SO discharged his firearm once at the Complainant, who fell to the ground.
The Complainant ended up on his back with the machete near him. The SO kicked the machete away. The officers rolled the Complainant onto his stomach, placed his hands behind his back and handcuffed him.
Other WPS officers arrived, and first aid was rendered. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Windsor Fire arrived.
Video Footage from Windsor Transit
Windsor Transit provided the SIU with video footage from a bus on August 19, 2022. The video did not capture the interaction between the SO and the Complainant. It showed the Complainant in the intersection of Ouellette Avenue and Wyandotte Street with a machete in his hand. One bus passenger got up to look at the commotion and then sat back down.Video Footage from an Unknown Civilian
On August 16, 2022, WPS provided the SIU with cellular telephone video from a civilian. The video was subsequently also shared with the SIU by another person. The civilian who took the video was unknown. A white truck was stopped on Wyandotte Street West at Ouellette Avenue, in the second lane from the south curb. The Complainant, wearing an orange vest, was in the centre of the two lanes, around or past the cab of the truck. The Complainant’s hands were by his waist with a machete in hand. The SO stood behind the truck in the second lane, with his firearm pointed at the Complainant. Traffic was stopped. WO #1 stood in the curb lane behind the SO. Within three seconds, both the SO and WO #1 took steps backward as the Complainant took steps towards the SO. WO #1 came closer to the SO. The Complainant raised the machete over his head and took steps forward. One gun shot was heard, and the Complainant fell to the ground.
WPS Communications Recordings
On August 16, 2022, WPS provided the SIU with a copy of the WPS communications recordings, including 911 calls. The following is a summary of the recordings. 911 Calls
At 2:22 p.m., the Complainant called 911 and reported a man standing in the intersection of Wyandotte Street and Ouellette Avenue, swinging a sword. The 911 operator asked if anybody had been hit, and the Complainant replied, “I don’t know, I haven’t had a chance to swing it yet.” The dispatcher asked if the Complainant had the sword, and he responded, “Yeah, of course. You’re a bright one, aren’t you,” and hung-up.
Between 2:23 p.m. and 2:26 p.m., a total of twelve 911 calls were received about the Complainant’s presence in the intersection. One caller identified the man in the intersection as the Complainant and indicated he had a violent past.
Radio Communications
At 2:24 p.m., on August 15, 2022, a broadcast was made by the WPS dispatcher that the Complainant had a sword at the intersection of Wyandotte Street and Ouellette Avenue. A transit bus had also reported that the Complainant was blocking the bus and swinging a wooden stick or steel bar at vehicles.
The SO and WO #1 were dispatched.
WO #1 reported that the Complainant had a knife, and the SO reported shots fired at 2:26 p.m. When the dispatcher asked if shots had been fired, WO #1 replied ‘yes’.
The SO requested EMS and reported the Complainant had received a gunshot to the stomach.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from WPS between August 16, 2022, and October 11, 2022:- Computer-assisted Dispatch Call Summary;
- Canadian Police Information Centre report - the Complainant;
- Radio Time Stamps;
- Initial Officers Report;
- Initial Report-WO #4;
- Notes-WO #1;
- Notes-WO #4;
- Notes-WO #5;
- Notes-WO #3;
- Notes-WO #2;
- Officer Safety Bulletin;
- News Release;
- Communication recordings;
- Contact Sheet;
- Photographs;
- Civilian witness statements (x4);
- Social media screenshots;
- Media articles;
- Video surveillance canvass sheets;
- Video from Business #1;
- Video from an unknown civilian;
- Directive - Offences Involving Firearms; and
- Directive - Mentally Ill Persons-Persons in Crisis.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources: - Medical records from WRHOC;
- Video from City of Windsor;
- Video from Business #2;
- Video from CW #7; and
- Video from Windsor Transit.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with civilian eyewitnesses and video footage that captured the incident. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.
At about 2:22 p.m. of August 15, 2022, a 911 call was received by the WPS reporting the presence of a male with a sword in the intersection of Wyandotte Street and Ouellette Avenue. Asked by the 911 operator if the male had struck anyone with the sword, the caller responded that he (the caller) had not had a chance to swing the sword as yet.
The caller was the Complainant. The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time and had been contemplating suicide. Only moments before the call to police, he had purchased a machete. The machete in hand, the Complainant entered the intersection and began yelling and swinging the machete at vehicles. Shortly after his call, a dozen passersby also contacted the police to report the Complainant’s erratic behaviour. It seems the Complainant was intent on provoking a confrontation with the police.
The SO and his partner, WO #1, arrived on scene at about 2:25 p.m. The officers dismounted their bicycles at the southwest corner of the intersection, leaving them by the Wyandotte Street curb just west of Ouellette Avenue. The SO immediately drew his firearm, took several steps towards the intersection, and motioned at the Complainant to move towards him. WO #1 was slightly behind and to the SO’s right. Immediately north of their location, stopped in the passing lane of Wyandotte Avenue, was a white pick-up truck.
The Complainant was in the middle of the intersection at the time of the officers’ arrival. He immediately started walking towards the pick-up truck and the officers’ location. The officers began to back-up in tandem along the passenger side of the pick-up truck. WO #1 drew her CEW and pointed it at the Complainant. He was repeatedly ordered to drop the machete. The Complainant did not do so. He continued to walk towards the officers with the machete lifted above his head. As he reached the mid-way point of the pick-up truck, the Complainant struck the vehicle with his machete. At about the same time, WO #1, straddling the eastbound curb and passing lanes slightly behind the pick-up truck, fired her CEW at the Complainant.
Unfazed by the CEW discharge, the Complainant continued his advance towards the officers. The SO was now in the eastbound passing lane between the pick-up truck and another vehicle, and walking backwards towards westbound traffic. He yelled at the Complainant to put down the machete and then fired his weapon once as the Complainant, the machete raised above his head, cleared the rear passenger side of the pick-up.
The Complainant was immediately felled by the gunshot, dropping the machete in the process. He had been struck in the right abdomen. The time was 2:26 p.m. About 20 seconds had elapsed from the time the SO climbed off his bicycle to the shooting.
The SO and WO #1 handcuffed the Complainant behind the back and then attempted to provide first aid for the gunshot wound. The Complainant told them to stop and indicated he had a “Do Not Resuscitate” order in his wallet.
The Complainant was transported to hospital by ambulance and underwent surgery. He was pronounced deceased at 8:17 p.m.
Cause of Death
The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to a gunshot wound to the abdomen.
At about 2:22 p.m. of August 15, 2022, a 911 call was received by the WPS reporting the presence of a male with a sword in the intersection of Wyandotte Street and Ouellette Avenue. Asked by the 911 operator if the male had struck anyone with the sword, the caller responded that he (the caller) had not had a chance to swing the sword as yet.
The caller was the Complainant. The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time and had been contemplating suicide. Only moments before the call to police, he had purchased a machete. The machete in hand, the Complainant entered the intersection and began yelling and swinging the machete at vehicles. Shortly after his call, a dozen passersby also contacted the police to report the Complainant’s erratic behaviour. It seems the Complainant was intent on provoking a confrontation with the police.
The SO and his partner, WO #1, arrived on scene at about 2:25 p.m. The officers dismounted their bicycles at the southwest corner of the intersection, leaving them by the Wyandotte Street curb just west of Ouellette Avenue. The SO immediately drew his firearm, took several steps towards the intersection, and motioned at the Complainant to move towards him. WO #1 was slightly behind and to the SO’s right. Immediately north of their location, stopped in the passing lane of Wyandotte Avenue, was a white pick-up truck.
The Complainant was in the middle of the intersection at the time of the officers’ arrival. He immediately started walking towards the pick-up truck and the officers’ location. The officers began to back-up in tandem along the passenger side of the pick-up truck. WO #1 drew her CEW and pointed it at the Complainant. He was repeatedly ordered to drop the machete. The Complainant did not do so. He continued to walk towards the officers with the machete lifted above his head. As he reached the mid-way point of the pick-up truck, the Complainant struck the vehicle with his machete. At about the same time, WO #1, straddling the eastbound curb and passing lanes slightly behind the pick-up truck, fired her CEW at the Complainant.
Unfazed by the CEW discharge, the Complainant continued his advance towards the officers. The SO was now in the eastbound passing lane between the pick-up truck and another vehicle, and walking backwards towards westbound traffic. He yelled at the Complainant to put down the machete and then fired his weapon once as the Complainant, the machete raised above his head, cleared the rear passenger side of the pick-up.
The Complainant was immediately felled by the gunshot, dropping the machete in the process. He had been struck in the right abdomen. The time was 2:26 p.m. About 20 seconds had elapsed from the time the SO climbed off his bicycle to the shooting.
The SO and WO #1 handcuffed the Complainant behind the back and then attempted to provide first aid for the gunshot wound. The Complainant told them to stop and indicated he had a “Do Not Resuscitate” order in his wallet.
The Complainant was transported to hospital by ambulance and underwent surgery. He was pronounced deceased at 8:17 p.m.
Cause of Death
The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to a gunshot wound to the 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
On August 15, 2022, the Complainant was shot by a WPS officer, later that day succumbing to his injuries in hospital. In the ensuing SIU investigation, the officer who fired his weapon – the SO – was identified 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 Complainant’s death.
Section 34 of the Criminal Code 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. The SO’s conduct fell within the ambit of legal justification prescribed by section 34.
The SO was lawfully placed and in the execution of his duties as he proceeded to the scene and confronted the Complainant. An officer’s foremost obligation is the protection and preservation of life. Aware of the presence of a person wielding a machete in a busy public space, the SO was duty-bound to attend at the intersection to do what he could to prevent harm coming to motorists or pedestrians at the hands of the Complainant.
I am satisfied that the SO fired his gun to protect himself and his partner, WO #1, from a reasonably apprehended attack by the Complainant. The investigation is without direct first-hand evidence to this effect, the officer having exercised his right to remain silent, but the inference may safely be drawn from the circumstances. The Complainant was within two to three metres of the SO at the time, machete raised above his head, having given every indication that he was determined to assault the officers.
I am also satisfied that the SO’s gunfire constituted reasonable defensive force. The machete in the Complainant’s possession – with a blade of some 20 centimetres in length – was ostensibly capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm or death had the Complainant been allowed to advance any closer and swing it at the officers. The Complainant had been given a reasonable opportunity to drop the machete, but refused to do. Lesser force had also been attempted by WO #1 prior to the gunshot. The officer had discharged her CEW at the Complainant with no effect – the Complainant continued to move forward. Nor was retreat or withdrawal available. The incident occurred at a busy intersection with plenty of third-parties who would have been placed at continuing risk from the Complainant had the officers not intervened. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted with excess when he chose to meet an imminent lethal threat with a resort to lethal force of his own.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law throughout his engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case.
Date: December 13, 2022
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Section 34 of the Criminal Code 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. The SO’s conduct fell within the ambit of legal justification prescribed by section 34.
The SO was lawfully placed and in the execution of his duties as he proceeded to the scene and confronted the Complainant. An officer’s foremost obligation is the protection and preservation of life. Aware of the presence of a person wielding a machete in a busy public space, the SO was duty-bound to attend at the intersection to do what he could to prevent harm coming to motorists or pedestrians at the hands of the Complainant.
I am satisfied that the SO fired his gun to protect himself and his partner, WO #1, from a reasonably apprehended attack by the Complainant. The investigation is without direct first-hand evidence to this effect, the officer having exercised his right to remain silent, but the inference may safely be drawn from the circumstances. The Complainant was within two to three metres of the SO at the time, machete raised above his head, having given every indication that he was determined to assault the officers.
I am also satisfied that the SO’s gunfire constituted reasonable defensive force. The machete in the Complainant’s possession – with a blade of some 20 centimetres in length – was ostensibly capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm or death had the Complainant been allowed to advance any closer and swing it at the officers. The Complainant had been given a reasonable opportunity to drop the machete, but refused to do. Lesser force had also been attempted by WO #1 prior to the gunshot. The officer had discharged her CEW at the Complainant with no effect – the Complainant continued to move forward. Nor was retreat or withdrawal available. The incident occurred at a busy intersection with plenty of third-parties who would have been placed at continuing risk from the Complainant had the officers not intervened. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted with excess when he chose to meet an imminent lethal threat with a resort to lethal force of his own.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law throughout his engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case.
Date: December 13, 2022
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 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]
Note:
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.