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 discharge of a firearm by the police at a 24-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On August 29, 2022, at about 8:20 p.m., the Thunder Bay Police Service (TBPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 29, 2022, at 7:50 p.m., the TBPS had information that a wanted party – the Complainant - was in a residence on Ambrose Street, Thunder Bay. The TBPS officers set up containment around the residence and communicated with the occupants. When the Complainant exited the residence, he was confrontational with police. TBPS officers deployed an Anti-riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN) and a police service dog. The Complainant, struck by the ARWEN and bit by the dog, was transported to Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre for treatment.

The Scene

The events in question occurred in the vicinity of a residential complex. The neighbourhood was a mix of detached homes, apartment buildings, commercial properties, vacant lots, abandoned buildings and construction sites.

Three discharged ARWEN cartridges were located on Ambrose Street.

An ARWEN non-flexible projectile was located on Ambrose Street at Court Street South near temporary construction fencing, while a second was found (yellow evidence marker below) in the construction area on Court Street South.




Figure 1 –Photo of construction zone

Physical Evidence

Three discharged ARWEN cartridges and two ARWEN non-flexible projectiles were collected at the scene. Below was one of the non-flexible projectiles recovered.




Figure 2 –Photo of ARWEN projectile #1




Figure 3 –Photo of ARWEN cartridge




Figure 4 –Photo of ARWEN projectile #2

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

The SIU obtained audio and video records of relevance, as set out below:

• Video footage #1;
• Video footage #2;
• Body-worn Camera (BWC) footage – WO #4;
• In-car Camera System (ICCS) footage – WO #4; and
• Communications recordings.

The following is a summary of the materials.

Video Footage #1

A woman standing at the southwest corner of Court Street South and Wilson Street, and two women walking north on Court Street South, reacted abruptly to what was later learned to be the sound of an ARWEN being discharged. They all turned and ran in the opposite direction.

WO #4 was on the east side of Court Street South. The Complainant turned south on the sidewalk and ran towards him. The Complainant jumped onto a construction barrier and then flipped over the top of the fence, landing on his back. He got up and ran west across the street and jumped onto a fence and flipped over it. The Complainant was being pursued by WO #2, the SO, WO #3 and WO #5.

Video Footage #2

The video essentially captured the same imagery as Video Footage #1, from a different perspective.

BWC Footage - WO #4

WO #4 was by an empty lot when the Complainant ran towards him. He was being pursued by WO #2 and WO #3. The Complainant turned south and encountered WO #4, who raised his pistol in his direction and yelled, “Police, don’t move.” The Complainant jumped onto a steel barrier construction fence with WO #2 and WO #3 close behind. The Complainant flipped over the top of the construction barrier as WO #3 and WO #2 attempted to grab hold of him. The police officers yelled, “Stop police,” as the Complainant fell from the top of the fence to the concrete curb below. WO #2 and the SO passed through the fallen construction fence and followed the Complainant as he ran west.

ICCS Footage – WO #4

The audio/video recording was reviewed. It did not contain any footage that would further the investigation.

Communications Recordings

At 6:33:10 p.m., an inspector (Inspector #1) provided the mission statement for the operation: “To effect the safe arrest of the subject, the Complainant, on his outstanding warrants. With care for the safety of the public, the subject and all officers. Our authority is a Canada-wide Criminal Code warrant for Homicide and Attempted Homicide. That warrant had been seen and is endorsed. We are lawfully positioned by our duty to protect the public, preserve life in the danger imposed by the subject. All officers involved are reminded of their Section 25 Criminal Code use of force authorities.”

At 6:34:56 p.m., Inspector #1 confirmed their best information was that the Complainant was alone on the first floor of the residential complex.

At 7:01:18 p.m., information was relayed that the Complainant was believed to be in possession of a knife and a firearm.

At 7:13:30 p.m., a surrender plan was communicated to all officers that involved the Complainant being called out of the building and handcuffed under the cover of lethal and non-lethal options – a conducted energy weapon and an ARWEN.

At 7:15:34 p.m., the SO indicated he had an ARWEN should the Complainant exit out the front of the building onto Ambrose Street.

At 7:32:00 p.m., a negotiator was speaking with the Complainant by cellphone before he hung up.

At 7:47:43 p.m., five attempts were made with a portable loud hailing system to have the Complainant surrender.

At 7:50:54 p.m., WO #2 reported the Complainant was running south on Ambrose Street.

At 7:52:06 p.m., the Complainant was in custody.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TBPS between August 30, 2022, and November 10, 2022:

• Policy - Armed and Barricaded Persons;
• Policy - Arrest Release Detention;
• Policy - Use of Force;
• Policy - BWC;
• WO #2 - notes;
• WO #5 - notes;
• WO #3 - notes;
• WO #1 - notes;
• WO #4 - notes;
• The Complainant - Subject Information;
• Event Information;
• Involved Officer List;
• BWC footage – WO #4;
• ICCS recordings – WO #4;
• Emergency Task Unit Manual;
• Supplementary Report- Arrest of the Complainant;
• Field sketch and measurements; and
• Scene drawing

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the following other sources:

• Video footage from businesses in the area of the scene.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of August 29, 2022, a team of TBPS Emergency Task Unit officers was deployed to an address to assist with the arrest of the Complainant. The Complainant was wanted on arrest warrants for murder and attempted murder. A firearm had been used in the commission of those offences, and police had reason to believe that the Complainant was in possession of a firearm.

The team, which included the SO armed with an ARWEN at the ready, set up containment around the address. Using a loud hailer, the Complainant was asked to surrender. The Complainant was incommunicado. At about 7:50 p.m., he suddenly emerged from the front entrance of the address onto the small porch, jumped the porch railing, and ran westward along Ambrose Street towards Court Street South a short distance away.

The SO, in the company of WO #2, WO #3 and WO #5, chased after the Complainant on foot. As the Complainant turned to run in a southwest direction across an empty lot on the southeast corner of Ambrose Street and Court Street South, the SO fired his ARWEN three times in his direction. The shots appeared to have no effect on the Complainant, whose flight continued.

Encountering a uniformed police officer on Court Street South, the Complainant scaled a construction fence erected just past the east side sidewalk, thereafter travelling north and, eventually, west on Ambrose Street again. The officers followed suit. WO #5 released his police service dog, which jumped on, and bit, the Complainant. The Complainant fell to the ground, after which he was captured and arrested by the pursuing officers.

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

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

On August 29, 2022, the TBPS contacted the SIU to report that one of their officers – the SO – had fired an ARWEN at a male – the Complainant – earlier that day. The SIU initiated an investigation naming the SO 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 discharge of his ARWEN.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.

The Complainant was subject to arrest at the time of the ARWEN discharges. There were arrest warrants in effect authorizing his apprehension.

With respect to the use of the ARWEN, I am satisfied that it constituted legally justified force. The Complainant was wanted on serious offences involving the use of a firearm, and was known to carry a firearm. He had been given an opportunity to surrender peacefully, and instead attempted to escape. At liberty in the community, the Complainant was a significant risk to public safety. In the circumstances, it was imperative that he not be allowed to get away. The use of the ARWEN – a less-lethal weapon – had the potential to thwart the Complainant’s flight and assist in his arrest without the infliction of serious injury. It was, in my view, a proportionate response to the exigencies of the moment.

It is not clear whether any of the ARWEN rounds fired by the SO struck the Complainant. His reported injuries seem more likely to have been inflicted by the police service dog – abrasions and puncture wounds. Be that as it may, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law when he discharged his weapon, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: December 23, 2022


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit