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 22-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On October 11, 2022, at 10:11 p.m., the South Simcoe Police Service (SSPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 11, 2022, at approximately 8:00 p.m., SSPS officers responded to a residence in the area of 25th Sideroad and 9 Line in Innisfil for a domestic incident call. Upon their arrival, they came under fire from the residence. During an exchange of gunfire, two officers were struck. Also struck was a male [now known to be the Complainant]. The Complainant died at the scene. The officers [now known to be Officer #1 and Officer #2] were taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie where one officer [now known to be Officer #1] had succumbed to his injuries.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 10/11/2022 at 11:08 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 10/12/2022 at 12:23 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 7

The Scene

The incident occurred inside a house in the area of 25th Sideroad and 9 Line, Innisfil.

Upon SIU arrival, the scene was protected by police officers from several police services, and surrounded by yellow police tape.

There were various items related to Emergency Medical Service (EMS) personnel being on the scene. These items were in the porch area. Also on the porch was a ballistic vest with Officer #2’s name on it.

The front screen door was ajar. There were a couple of holes in the screen. The main door was open - its glass had been smashed with a large portion of the glass on the floor behind the door in the small vestibule. On the door threshold was an ‘Emergency Response Unit’ (ERU) ball cap.

On the hardwood floor of the upper level of the residence, at the top of the stairs, was a small table against the wall. A single, empty brass .40 calibre cartridge [exhibit 1] was located underneath the table. Nothing was found upon the SIU’s first inspection of the remainder of the upper level.

Along the wall of the vestibule was an empty brass .40 calibre cartridge [exhibit 2]. On the lower shelf of the small table in the vestibule was a deformed copper-jacketed lead core bullet [exhibit 3]. A back panel of a ballistic vest was in the corner of the vestibule just to the left of the open door. In front of the open door was another empty brass .40 calibre cartridge [exhibit 004]. Two more empty brass .40 calibre cartridges [exhibits 5 & 6] were found behind the open main door on top of the broken glass and in front of the closet doors.

The stairs leading down to the lower level were littered with various items. On the first step was an empty silver-coloured .40 calibre cartridge [exhibit 7]. A ballistic panel was lying on the first and second stair against the wall. On the fifth stair was an empty brass .40 calibre cartridge [exhibit 8]. On the sixth stair were two, empty brass .40 calibre cartridges [exhibits 9 & 10]. On the side of the stair was an empty brass 7.62mm cartridge [exhibit 11]. On the bottom landing was an empty brass 7.62mm cartridge [exhibit 12] along with two, empty brass .40 calibre cartridges [exhibit 13 & 14].

There was a small hole in the wallpaper and drywall along the wall adjacent to the sixth stair. There was a second defect in the wall adjacent to the seventh stair.

Through the basement doorway, there was a large room with a hardwood floor. An empty brass 7.62mm calibre cartridge [exhibit 15] was noted on the floor, just past the doorway. An empty brass .40 calibre cartridge [exhibit 16] was on the floor by the door frame. An empty brass 7.62mm cartridge [exhibit 17] was against the wall. Another empty brass 7.62mm cartridge [exhibit 18] was on the floor near the doorway.

A baseball cap [exhibit 19] was located on the floor. It had a large hole in the top area of the cap and was stained with a red, blood-like substance.

The deceased, the Complainant, was located on the floor of the room. He had a pair of gloves on his hands that were in handcuffs behind his back. Over his sweater, he wore a ballistic vest. The vest covered the area of his vital organs, and the front and rear panels contained steel plates. His face was covered with a red, blood-like substance and he had a similar substance near his left ankle. A large area of the floor around the deceased was stained with the red, blood-like substance.

Beyond the Complainant’s head, on the floor, was a Sergi Gravrilovich Simonov (SKS) semi-automatic rifle with a wooden fore-end and stock. It had a hinge magazine that was empty. An empty brass 7.62mm cartridge [exhibit 20] was located between the ball cap and the deceased. There was another 7.62mm cartridge [exhibit 21] on the floor by the Complainant’s left knee as well as another near his head [exhibit 22]. Nearby was yet another empty brass 7.62mm cartridge [exhibit 23].

An open gun safe was located in the basement bedroom. A .22 calibre semi-automatic rifle was in the safe with two viable 7.62mm cartridges near the rifle. An empty brass 7.62mm cartridge was located on the floor along the wall of the room [exhibit 24] and a viable 7.62mm cartridge was located on the bed [exhibit 25].

Several defects were noted on the floor just past the doorway into the room. Several deformed bullet fragments were later recovered from this area [exhibits 26 – 31]. Above these defects an area on the ceiling was examined. There was a hole and some red, blood-like high velocity spatter on the ceiling tiles. A deformed bullet [exhibit 32] was later recovered by SIU forensic investigators.

The primary responding officers’ vehicles had been moved from their original positions in front of the involved residence to allow for the attendance of EMS personnel and equipment. As a result, no photographs of the police vehicles were made; however, they were visually inspected by SIU forensic investigators and found to have no ballistic defects.

When SIU forensic investigators returned to the residence, a copper jacket bullet fragment [exhibit 33] was located on the floor inside the closet behind the open main front door. A swab [exhibit 34] was taken of the basement ceiling. SIU forensic investigators located another projectile [exhibit 35] and removed it from the door frame at the bottom of the stairs.

On October 14, 2022, SIU forensic investigators and the SIU lead investigator attended the post-mortem examination of the Complainant.

Following the post-mortem examination, the SIU forensic investigators returned to the involved dwelling and located a bullet fragment underneath the kitchen cupboard.

SIU forensic investigators photographed and made measurements of the scene, and created scene drawings.

Scene Diagrams

Basement

Stairs

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic investigators collected, photographed, and indexed 85 relevant exhibits, including: police uniform components/clothing and equipment worn by the SO, Officer #1 and Officer #2; police firearms, ammunition, and projectiles and fragments thereof; biological specimens; one broken knife of indeterminate ownership; 11 empty 7.62x39mm rifle cartridges; a high velocity bullet fragment; and, clothing worn by the Complainant at the time of the incident.
The firearm discharged by the SO was a .40 calibre semi-automatic Glock pistol. It was recovered with one round in the chamber and a magazine containing 14 rounds of ammunition. A magazine found in the SO’s uniform pants pocket contained one round. A third magazine belonging to the SO held 14 rounds of ammunition. The maximum capacity for each magazine was 15 rounds.


Figure 1 – The SO’s Glock

Forensic Evidence

The SIU submitted 36 exhibits, including ammunition and ammunition components, and the SO’s police-issue pistol and spare magazine, to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) for examination. The results of the CFS examinations of these exhibits have yet to be received.

Biological specimens collected from the Complainant during the post-mortem examination were submitted directly by the Ontario Forensic Pathology Services to the CFS for examination and analyses. The results of the CFS examinations of the specimens, including toxicological analyses, have yet to be received by the SIU.

The SKS semi-automatic rifle was, in consultation with the SIU, seized by the York Regional Police (YRP) and submitted by the YRP to the CFS for examination. It was further agreed that the results of the examination would be shared with the SIU. Those results have yet to be received.


Figure 2 – The Complainant’s SKS semi-automatic rifle

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

The SIU collected video footage of relevance to the incident from Residence #1 and from CW #1’s cellular telephone. Video footage obtained by the YRP secondary to its parallel homicide investigation was reviewed by the SIU; however, none of the footage advanced the SIU’s investigation of the interaction between the Complainant and the SO, Officer #1 and Officer #2.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with civilian witnesses present at the time of the shooting, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of October 11, 2022, SSPS officers were dispatched to a residence in the area of 25th Sideroad and 9 Line, Innisfil, following a call to police from the homeowner. The woman – CW #3 – had called to request that police attend the house to remove the Complainant. CW #3 reported that the Complainant had grabbed her eyeglasses from her face and broken them, and punched a hole in the wall. Asked whether the Complainant had been drinking and whether weapons were involved, CW #3 replied in the negative.

The Complainant lived in the home with family members – CW #3 and CW #4. Contrary to CW #3’s assertions in her call to police, the Complainant had, in fact, consumed alcohol. He also had access to firearms inside the home, including a SKS 7.62x39mm semi-automatic rifle, located in a gun safe in his basement bedroom.

The SO, and Officer #2 and Officer #1, each in separate cruisers, arrived at the address at about 8:45 p.m. The SO rang the doorbell and was invited inside by someone from within the home. The officer opened the storm door and main door, and stepped inside followed by Officer #1 and Officer #2. To the officers’ right as they entered the home was a flight of stairs to the basement, which was dark. To the left was a set of five stairs leading to the upstairs level.

The SO had just reached the upper step and met with a man – CW #4 – when he heard gunshots ring out. Looking back, the SO saw that Officer #1 and Officer #2 were each down with apparent gunshot wounds. He immediately drew his sidearm with his right hand, reached over the railing with it, and began shooting down the stairs. The officer fired 12 to 14 rounds [5] before pausing, removing the magazine from his gun and reloading a full one, and calling out, “Police.” Not hearing a response, the SO would eventually look down the stairs and see the Complainant. He was on his back in a pool of blood, a rifle in his hands. The time was about 8:47 p.m.

Armed with the SKS rifle, the Complainant had fired up the stairs 11 times on Officer #1 and Officer #2. Neither of the officers had their weapons drawn at the time. Shortly thereafter, still in the basement within a few metres of the foot of the stairs, the Complainant placed the muzzle of the rifle under his chin and fired the weapon. The round travelled through his head and upwards to the kitchen on the next floor, coming to rest in the cupboard underneath the sink.

Despite the lifesaving efforts by the SO and other first responders who would arrive at the residence, Officer #1 and Officer #2 succumbed to their injuries.

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.

On October 11, 2022, the Complainant passed away having suffered a self-inflicted gunshot wound in Innisfil, Ontario. As his death occurred in the context of an exchange of gunfire involving a SSPS officer, the SIU was notified of the matter and initiated an investigation. The officer – 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.

There is nothing in the evidence to indicate that the SO committed a criminal offence throughout the sequence of events culminating in the Complainant’s death. With respect to the shots he fired in the direction of the Complainant, these, I am satisfied, were legally justified pursuant to section 34 of the Criminal Code. The section provides that force used in self-defence or in defence of others from a reasonably apprehended attack is authorized if it is reasonable in the circumstances. While wearing a ballistic vest, the Complainant had waited in ambush for the police officers to arrive at his residence and then fired at the officers multiple times, mortally wounding Officer #1 and Officer #2. In the circumstances, the officers were clearly under attack at the time that the SO drew his weapon and returned fire down the stairs into the basement. His decision to do so was commensurate with the exigencies at hand. It was imperative in the moment that the SO do what he could to immediately deter the Complainant from continuing to fire his weapon, and the officer’s gun was the only weapon at his disposal capable of doing that. And though the officer was firing blind to an extent, he did have reason to believe that his rounds were being directed at the Complainant; after he was shot and on the floor, and before he lapsed into unconsciousness, Officer #1 managed to point in the direction from which the Complainant’s shots had been fired – down the stairs to the basement. Regrettably, given the speed with which events unfolded, the damage had been done to Officer #1 and Officer #2 before the SO could react. That said, the force used by the officer – which did not kill the Complainant but appears to have caused a graze wound to his lower left leg - might well have saved his own life, as well as those of the Complainant’s family members, who were nearby at the time.

In the result, as I am satisfied that the SO comported himself lawfully throughout his engagement with the Complainant that ended in the Complainant’s self-inflicted gunshot wound and death, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: February 8, 2023


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit