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 73-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

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 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

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with the subject official, gives rise to the following scenario.

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. [3]

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.

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.

The Complainant was shot by a YRP officer on December 18, 2022, dying from his wounds shortly thereafter. In the ensuing SIU 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 shooting.

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

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit