SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-OFD-319
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Mandate of the SIU
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, 2019Pursuant 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 ActPursuant 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, 2004Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.
Other proceedings, processes, and investigationsInformation 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.
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 73-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
Notification of the SIU On December 18, 2022, at 9:07 p.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) notified the SIU of the shooting death of the Complainant.
The YRP advised that a male [now known to be the Complainant] had shot and killed five or six persons at 9235 Jane Street, Vaughan. YRP officers responded to the scene and engaged the Complainant in a hallway. A police officer fired his pistol, resulting in the Complainant’s death.
The TeamDate and time team dispatched: 12/18/2022 at 09:42 p.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 12/18/2022 at 10:56 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):73-year-old male; deceased
Civilian Witnesses (CW)CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Interviewed
CW #7 Not interviewed; declined
CW #8 Interviewed
CW #9 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between December 19 and 21, 2022.
Subject Official (SO)SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
The subject official was interviewed on January 12, 2023.
Witness Officials (WO)WO #1 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #2 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #4 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #5 Interviewed
WO #6 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The witness official was interviewed on December 22, 2022.
The Scene The incident occurred in a high-rise residential condominium complex at 9235 Jane Street, Vaughan. The interaction that formed the subject of the SIU investigation occurred in a hallway of the building.
Figure 1 - Front entrance to the condominium building
Forensic Evidence The SIU collected the following items for examination:
- Glock Model 22 .40 Calibre pistol. The pistol, assigned to the SO, was collected at YRP, 4 Division.
Figure 2 – The SO’s firearm
- Beretta Model 92A1 9mm pistol with one round in the chamber and nine rounds in the seated magazine. The pistol used by the Complainant was located on the carpeted hallway floor.
Figure 3 – The Complainant’s firearm
- Four discharged .40 calibre casings located on the carpeted hallway floor. The casings were from the SO’s Glock 22.
- Deformed projectile (the SO’s Glock 22) removed from behind the exterior door frame/wall of a unit.
- A bullet entry hole in a door frame on the west side of the elevators. Further west of the doorframe, a deformed projectile was located on the carpeted hallway floor (the SO’s Glock 22).
- A bullet core fragment recovered from the Complainant’s left posterior torso at autopsy.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence 
Video Recordings – 9235 Jane Street BuildingThe SIU obtained video footage (no audio) from 9235 Jane Street that captured the lobby and exterior front canopy. The times noted in the time-stamped video, and referenced in the summaries below, were inaccurate.
Starting at about 6:58:21 p.m., wall/ceiling mounted flashing lights from the fire alarm were activated.
Starting at about 7:07:02 p.m., two police officers (believed to be the first on scene) entered the lobby through the front doors and walked towards the elevators.
Starting at about 7:08:28 p.m., the SO entered the lobby through the front doors and ran towards the elevators.
Starting at about 7:22:19 p.m., three police officers carried a man [now known to be the Complainant, after he was shot] into the lobby. The Complainant was face up with one police officer holding an arm each while the third police officer held both of his legs. The SO followed as the Complainant was carried out the front doors.
Exterior Front Canopy
Starting at about 7:22:41 p.m., the Complainant was carried outside by three police officers and laid on the ground. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was performed by a police officer before she was relieved by a Vaughan Fire and Rescue Service firefighter.
YRP Communications Recordings The YRP communications recordings were requested on December 18, 2022, and received by the SIU on January 5, 2023.
Starting at about 7:21:05 p.m., police officers were dispatched to an active shooter call at 9235 Jane Street. Information provided by the caller was that he was in a condo unit and had been shot. The suspect [now known to be the Complainant] was gone.
Starting at about 7:22:48 p.m., dispatch advised that a female had been shot approximately five minutes prior.
Starting at about 7:22:55 p.m., dispatch advised that the Complainant had a revolver. The Complainant was a 74-year-old and was somewhere in the building.
A police officer advised that the fire alarm was going off and the elevators were not working.
Starting at about 7:29:33 p.m., the SO made an inaudible transmission. A police officer acknowledged the SO’s transmission and asked for the room number. The SO replied with the floor level.
A police officer said “(Inaudible) reported shots fired. We need a location.”
Dispatch acknowledged shots fired and asked the SO for the location.
The SO said, “Shots fired. [Apartment number provided]. We need an ambulance up here. Shots fired.”
A police officer provided the floor number multiple times, stating “Shots fired.”
Starting at about 7:29:37 p.m., the SO said, “One down, I’m okay.”
Dispatch asked if any police officers were injured and the SO replied, “I’m okay.”
Starting at about 7:30:22 p.m., dispatch asked again if any police officers were injured.
The SO replied, “Just me. I’m okay. Shots fired.”
Dispatch asked if there were any injuries.
The SO replied, “We’ve got one down, one down.”
Dispatch acknowledged a male party was down.
The SO confirmed the location of the apartment unit.
Starting at about 7:31:35 p.m., dispatch asked what injuries the Complainant had and the SO replied, “(Inaudible) I shot him three times.”
Starting at about 7:33:21 p.m., the SO told dispatch that CPR had started and he needed paramedics up there “ASAP”.
The remainder of the police radio transmissions either did not further the investigation or were unrelated to the SIU investigation.
Police Telephone Recordings
YRP Communications Centre received multiple 911 telephone calls reporting that people had been shot. The following is a summary of some of those calls.
911 Call #1
Starting at about 7:20:37 p.m., a caller reported that a shooter [now known to be the Complainant] was in the building and had shot a woman. Approximately five minutes earlier, the Complainant had knocked on the apartment door and, when they opened it, the Complainant shot her. After the Complainant left, the 911 caller heard another gunshot.
911 Call #2
Starting at about 7:21:21 p.m., a caller reported he was in a specified apartment in the building and had been shot.
YRP Communications Centre called the York Region Paramedics Services Communications Centre and advised them of the male caller, asking them to give the man direction on what to do.
911 Call #3
Starting at about 7:22:31 p.m., a man requested an ambulance for his wife who had been shot. The shooter was identified by name as the Complainant. The Complainant had a revolver.
911 Call #4
Starting at about 7:25:56 p.m., a caller asked for police because someone [now known to be the Complainant] was shooting. The caller provided a description of the Complainant and said the Complainant had mental health challenges. The Complainant had gone to another specified apartment after she closed her door. The caller heard gunshots.
In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage ICCS footage of upwards of 25 police officers was reviewed and deemed to be of no evidentiary value in furthering the investigation. The ICCS of the SO is summarized below.
Starting at about 7:24:51 p.m., the SO arrived at the scene, parked his police vehicle and walked towards the building.
Starting at about 7:28:44 p.m., the SO’s remote ICCS microphone captured him say, “(inaudible) drop the (inaudible). [Floor number]. Drop the gun, drop it.” There was a pause of several seconds followed by the SO saying, “Sir, drop the gun” and “(inaudible), get on the floor, drop the gun, drop it.”
At 7:29:06 p.m., a police officer said, “(inaudible), reported shots fired, we need a location.”
At 7:29:28 p.m., the SO reported, “[floor number], shots fired, [floor number].”
At 7:29:37 p.m., the SO reported, “One down, I’m okay.”
At 7:29:43 p.m., the SO reported, “I’m okay.”
At 7:29:51 p.m., the SO reported, “10-4 (inaudible) it’s me, I’m okay, shots fired” and, “One down.” The dispatcher requested the location and the SO reported a unit number.
At 7:31:08 p.m., the dispatcher asked what injuries the man [now known as the Complainant] had and the SO reported, “Male shot three times.”
At 7:31:46 p.m., the dispatcher asked if the Complainant was awake and breathing, and the SO reported, “(inaudible) cardiopulmonary resuscitation started.”
Materials Obtained from Police Service Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the YRP between December 21, 2022, and January 5, 2023:
- General Occurrence Report;
- WO #5-statement of his involvement;
- Notes-WO #3;
- Notes-WO #2;
- Notes-WO #6;
- Notes-WO #4;
- Notes-WO #5;
- Notes-WO #1;
- Call History;
- Video footage capturing the Complainant in common areas;
- Forensic photographs;
- Cellular telephone screenshots of the Complainant’s text logs;
- Witness audio and video statements;
- ICCS footage;
- Radio and telephone communications recordings;
- Photo of the Complainant;
- List of Involved Officers;
- Practical Skills Requalification-the SO; and
- Use of Force Command Directive.
Materials Obtained from Other SourcesThe SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:
- Video footage from 9235 Jane Street;
- Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service; and
- Video and photos provided by CW #1.
Starting at about 7:20 p.m. of December 18, 2022, YRP began receiving 911 calls from residents of the condominium building at 9235 Jane Street, Vaughan, calling to report an active shooter in the complex. In at least one of those cases, the call came from an individual who had been shot and would later succumb to his injuries. Another call was made by the spouse of a woman, the latter having opened the door to their unit and been shot by the shooter. Officers were dispatched to the scene.
The shooter was the Complainant. Armed with a Beretta semi-automatic pistol that he had legally purchased in 2019, the Complainant had gone on a shooting rampage in the building. 
The SO was among the first officers to arrive at the building. Finding the elevator inoperable, the officer accessed a stairwell with the intention of searching each floor one-by-one for the shooter. He found him – the Complainant – in the hallway on one of the floors.
The Complainant was attempting to gain access to a unit when he was alerted to the SO’s presence behind him, the officer having called out, “Hey.” His back faced to the officer, the Complainant took several steps away from the SO before turning in a counter-clockwise direction to face the officer. In his right hand was a pistol.
The SO had initially thought that the Complainant was simply a resident attempting to enter his unit. However, at the sight of the gun, the officer levelled his firearm at the Complainant, ordering him to drop the weapon and remain still. The Complainant made it clear he was not going to do that, telling the officer to shoot him. The SO replied that he did not want to shoot him, and again directed the Complainant to drop his gun. When the Complainant failed to do so, and instead raised his right hand with the pistol as if readying to point it at the officer, the SO discharged his weapon four times.
The Complainant was struck twice in the torso by bullets. He stumbled to his right, dropping the gun in the process, and came to lean momentarily against the hallway wall before collapsing onto his left side.
Other officers began arriving in the hallway after the shooting. Emergency first-aid was administered, including CPR. The Complainant could not be resuscitated and was pronounced deceased at the scene.
Cause of DeathAt autopsy, the pathologist was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to ‘gunshot wounds to chest’.
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.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.
Analysis and Director's Decision
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. In my view, the discharge of his firearm by the SO fell squarely within the ambit of the justification prescribed by section 34.
The SO was lawfully placed throughout his engagement with the Complainant. The officer was acting in pursuit of his duty to protect and preserve life when he responded to the condominium building, following 911 reports of an active shooter, to do what he could to prevent further harm coming to citizens at the hands of the Complainant.
The evidence establishes that the SO acted to defend himself from a reasonably apprehended attack when he fired his gun at the Complainant. That was the officer’s evidence to the SIU, and it is amply supported by the circumstances that prevailed at the time. Knowing what he did of the 911 calls that had come in, describing multiple shootings inside the building, and encountering a male with a gun, refusing to drop it and, instead, raising it in the direction of the officer, a reasonable person would apprehend an immediate need to act in defence of oneself from an imminent assault.
The evidence further establishes that the manner in which the SO chose to defend himself, namely, by shooting the Complainant, amounted to reasonable force. Confronted by a male at a distance of several metres, armed with a gun having just used it to shoot at multiple persons, it is hard to imagine what else the SO could have done in self-defence once the Complainant raised his gun in the officer’s direction. The situation called for the immediate stopping power of a weapon from a distance, that is, the situation called for the use of a firearm. Events unfolded so quickly – a matter of seconds from the moment the officer first called out to the Complainant until the shooting – that retreat or withdrawal by the SO was not possible. Nor was it a viable option given the continuing threat that the Complainant represented. A conducted energy weapon might have been an alternative, but it was far from ideal given the possibility of the probes missing or something less than complete neuromuscular incapacitation coming to pass, which would have rendered the SO vulnerable to return fire by the Complainant. In the final analysis, it is apparent that the officer was entitled to protect himself from a real and present danger of grievous bodily harm or death by a resort to lethal force of his own.
For the foregoing reasons, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law when he fired his weapon at the Complainant. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: April 17, 2023
Electronically approved by
Special Investigations Unit
- 1) The information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [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]
- 3) In total, five persons were shot and killed by the Complainant on the day in question. Another person was shot and seriously wounded. Their deaths were the subject of a YRP investigation. [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.