SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OFI-071
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 serious injuries of a 28-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 serious injuries of a 28-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On March 5, 2023, at 12:19 a.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.On March 4, 2023, at 9:41 p.m., the OPS received a call from a person reporting that their co-worker, the Complainant, was manic and owned multiple guns. Tactical Unit (TU) police officers attended a residence in a townhouse complex on Garden Glen Private, Nepean. Police officers made a telephone call to the Complainant and knocked on the door, but there was no answer.
At 10:47 p.m., the Complainant stuck his hand out of the door and fired a gun. The TU police officers returned fire, and the door closed. The OPS received a telephone call from the Complainant’s mother, who reported that her son was injured and needed medical help. A police negotiator then called the Complainant and he surrendered.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 03/05/2023 at 1:10 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 03/05/2023 at 6:48 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
28-year-old male; declined an interview; medical records received and reviewedCivilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed on March 7, 2023.
Subject Officials (SO)
SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed SO #2 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed
SO #3 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Interviewed
WO #6 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed between March 6, 2023, and March 8, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in and around the premises of a residential unit on Garden Glen Private, Nepean, which was a townhouse complex with an adjacent parking lot. Upon the SIU’s arrival on scene, the weather was cold, visibility was clear and there was a significant amount of snow in the area. Several police vehicles were parked in the parking lot. These vehicles were not directly involved in the investigation, and information was received that some of these vehicles had been used as cover by police officers.
A .223 calibre casing was found beside a blue Honda CRV. A metal detector was used around the driver’s side of the CRV and eleven spent .223 casings in total were found. Several cartridges were located on the ground. Some of these cartridges were readily visible and others were covered in snow and discovered later after a search through the snow was conducted.
A projectile was found near the rear tire of a grey Nissan Qashqai.
The vehicles were photographed in situ before being moved in the search for evidence.
In front of the unit, on the roadway and up the walkway to the door, were numerous footprints, red staining, a cell phone, and a plastic buckle. At the front entrance were signs of damage to the front door and the brick wall. There was a hole in the mailbox that could be traced to the neighbour’s mailbox which also had a hole in it. No projectiles were found in either mailbox. The damage was photographed.
Blood-like staining was evident throughout the interior of the townhouse. On the floor near the front entrance was a handgun [later found to be a .45 calibre automatic Colt pistol (CP)]. To the side of the front entrance was the hallway closet and bathroom. There was damage evident in these areas.
Figure 1 - The Colt pistol
A long gun of unknown calibre was found inside a bedroom on the second floor.
Numerous exhibits were identified, photographed, and collected as deemed necessary. The exhibits list included exhibits 1 to 9 (cartridge cases) and exhibits 10 to 13 (bullet fragments). Exhibit 14 was a .45 calibre CP found just inside the front door. Exhibits 15 to 17 were listed as damage to the bricks near the front door, presumably from .223 calibre projectiles. Exhibits 18 and 19 were holes in the front door frame at the unit. Exhibit 20 was a hole in the neighbour’s mailbox. Exhibit 21 was a hole in the front door of the unit. Exhibits 24 and 25 were cartridge cases found in the snow, near the blue Honda CRV. Exhibit 26 was a bullet fragment from a vanity in the unit. Exhibit 27 was a cut-out of damage to the exterior door frame (suspected bullet fragment) and exhibit 28 was a cut-out of damage to a vanity (suspected bullet fragment). Exhibit 29 was a projectile fragment from the door frame in the ground-floor bathroom. These items were later processed at SIU headquarters for submission to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) and/or local storage at SIU headquarters.
During the examination of the bathroom area near the front entrance, two holes were present which were consistent with being caused by a projectile piercing the drywall near the hand towel rack. The drywall was removed and there was a damaged block wall. The projectile did not pass through the block wall and fell to the ground. It was determined that too much damage would be caused in an attempt to retrieve the projectile.
A 360 Leica 3D imaging of the scene was conducted on March 5, 2023.
On March 6, 2023, at 3:00 p.m., SIU Forensic Investigators (FIs) returned to the scene to examine the snowbanks in the area in front of the unit on Garden Glen Private for additional ammunition. At 5:15 p.m., SIU FIs commenced a search of the area in front of the unit. The snowbanks did not appear to be disturbed. OPS utilized their ‘K9’ to cover the area prior to snow removal. Nothing was noted during the canine search. In an area close to the unit on Garden Glen Private, a cartridge was recovered in the snow. The exhibit was photographed and collected at 5:40 p.m. The search continued with negative results.
Physical Evidence
On Monday, March 6, 2023, at 10:30 a.m., SIU FIs attended OPS headquarters to gather the use of force equipment from the subject officials. The items collected included:Exhibit 30, which consisted of a Colt 223 rifle that belonged to SO #2, and three .223 ammunition magazines. One magazine had 24 rounds, another had 29 rounds, and the third magazine had 28 rounds.
Exhibit 31, which consisted of a Colt 223 rifle that belonged to SO #3, and three .223 ammunition magazines. One magazine had 25 rounds, another had 28 rounds, and the third magazine had 26 rounds.
Exhibit 32 consisted of a Colt 223 rifle that belonged to SO #1, and three .223 ammunition magazines. One magazine had 24 rounds, another had 28 rounds, and the third magazine had 28 rounds.
Figure 2 – Colt 223 rifle
Forensic Evidence
CFS Submissions and Results
The following items were submitted to the CFS for examination:• Eleven .223 cartridge cases;
• One .45 calibre cartridge case;
• SO #2’s C8 Model along with magazine and cartridges;
• SO #3’s C8 Model along with magazine and cartridges; and
• SO #1’s C8 Model along with magazine and cartridges.
Arrangements were made by a SIU FI to have the CFS attempt to compare the .45 calibre shell casing to the 45 calibre CP used by the Complainant.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
The SIU obtained a copy of the OPS communications recordings, which included a negotiator recording. Also obtained was a civilian video which was recorded after the shooting and showed the Complainant exit his residence.
Communications Recordings
911 CallsOn March 4, 2023, a 911 call was received from CW #1. CW #1 advised that he and CW #2 were a safe distance outside the residence. CW #1 provided information about the Complainant’s mental health issues and indicated that the Complainant was a registered gun owner and that there were firearms in the residence. CW #1 knew that the Complainant had a 1911 9mm handgun. CW #3 had visited the Complainant earlier that day and, at that time, the Complainant had a handgun in the waistband of his pants. CW #1 knew that the Complainant also had an AR-15 assault rifle. CW #2 had visited the Complainant about 5:30 p.m., and she had seen the AR-15 on a couch. She had taken the AR-15 and hid it in a bedroom on the second floor of the Complainant’s residence. CW #1 advised the call-taker that it was unknown if the firearms were loaded. CW #1 explained that he had received some texts earlier that day from the Complainant in which the Complainant said that he was sorry and really tired, and just could not do it anymore. CW #1 gave the call-taker the Complainant’s cellular telephone number. CW #1 advised that in February of 2023, the Complainant said he was thinking of dying by suicide and had been seeing a psychiatrist. CW #1 believed that the Complainant was not taking medication related to his mental health.
Radio Transmissions
The dispatcher advised units to attend the unit on Garden Glen Private regarding the Complainant, who was in possession of a gun. The callers were two co-workers, CW #1 and CW #2, who were nearby. They had reported that the Complainant was having a mental health crisis and off his medication. He had texted a co-worker and said he could not do it anymore. The Complainant owned multiple guns, which had been confirmed by the Canadian Firearms Registry Online (CFRO). CW #2 had seen a 9mm handgun in the Complainant’s waistband at 5:30 p.m. and an AR-15 on a couch, which she had hid from the Complainant upstairs in a bedroom. It was unknown if the AR-15 was loaded.
The incident commander advised all TU and patrol units of the circumstances of the call and the CFRO information that the Complainant had two firearms in his residence. The incident commander noted that the mission was to apprehend the Complainant for a mental health assessment.
Negotiator WO #1 advised on the radio that he was going to make a phone call to the Complainant. WO #1 subsequently reported that there was no answer, and the call had gone to voice mail.
SO #1 was authorized by the incident commander to do a door knock on the residence, which was done with no answer. SO #1 then advised that shots had been fired at police by a man who opened the front door and stuck out his hand holding a pistol. SO #1 requested that the on-call TU and armoured vehicle be also called in to attend. The incident commander approved these requests. SO #1 advised the man was now in a room on the second-floor.
A police unit advised that the mother of the Complainant had shown up on scene. She said that her son had called her at 10:50 p.m. and told her that he was injured. The Complainant told his mother there were people roaming around outside his residence and that he was hurt and bleeding. The mother advised that her son had been drinking.
Negotiator Recordings
On March 4, 2023, at 11:10 p.m., WO #1 was authorized by the incident commander to make a telephone call to the Complainant. The telephone rang with no answer. Ten seconds later, WO #1 made a second call to the same number. The Complainant answered, and WO #1 identified himself. The Complainant replied, “Help, please.” WO #1 advised the Complainant that they had an ambulance nearby and that they could get him medical attention if he was prepared to come out. The Complainant replied, “My door is unlocked, I’m bleeding, I need help.” WO #1 instructed the Complainant to come out of the residence with nothing in his hands, and his hands held up. The Complainant agreed to do so and would remain on the telephone while coming out of the residence. The Complainant said he wore only underwear, and his gun was on the floor inside the front door. A squeaking door could be heard opening and voices in the background shouted, “Hands up, hands up, don’t move, do not move.”
Video Footage from Civilian
The video was recorded out of a second-floor bedroom window. The Complainant was captured on video coming out of the front door with his hands in the air. He only wore a pair of boxer shorts. A man’s voice shouted, “Hands up, hands up, don’t move, don’t move.” Several police officers then moved in with their guns drawn and took the Complainant into custody.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPS between March 6, 2023, and May 1, 2023:• Record of computer-assisted dispatch;
• SO #3 - Training Log;
• SO #2 - Training Log;
• SO #1 - Training Log;
• CW #1 - Statement;
• CW #2 - Statement;
• List of Witnesses and Involvement;
• Notes and Report - SO #3;
• Notes and Report - SO #2;
• Notes and Report - SO #1;
• Notes and Report - WO #5;
• Notes and Report - WO #4;
• Communications recordings;
• Policy - Arrest;
• Policy - Mental Health Incidents;
• Policy - Hostage and Barricaded Persons;
• Policy - Use of Force Policy;
• Report - WO #6;
• Report - WO #3;
• WO #2 – Investigative Action (IA) Report;
• WO #1 - IA Report;
• WO #2 – Notes;
• WO #1 - Notes;
• Photos of firearm; and
• Medical records - the Complainant.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources between March 7, 2023, and March 14, 2023:• Ottawa Paramedic Service Incident Report;
• Ottawa Paramedic Service Ambulance Call Reports (ACRs); and
• Video from citizen.
Incident Narrative
In the evening of March 4, 2023, OPS officers were dispatched to a residence on Garden Glen Private, Nepean. They were there following a call to police from CW #1. CW #1 was concerned about the wellbeing of the Complainant. He had explained that the Complainant was suffering mentally, thinking of dying by suicide and in possession of firearms.
Uniformed officers were first to the scene, followed by TU officers, the first of the latter arriving at about 10:00 p.m., about half-hour after the 911 call had been received. Under the command of SO #1, the tactical officers took control of the scene and decided on a plan of action. At about 10:41 p.m., their efforts began with a phone call by SO #1 to the Complainant that went straight to voice mail. Thereafter, a three-person team of officers –WO #6, WO #4 and WO #3 – approached the front door of the residence while another three-person team – SO #1 and SO #2 and SO #3 – followed behind to provide cover. WO #3 was equipped with a protective shield. The cover team had their Colt 223 rifles at the ready.
Once at the unit entrance, and having called-out to the Complainant with no response, the approach team knocked on the door. Still, there was no response. Using a Halligan bar, WO #6 reached around his partner’s protective shield and banged on the door again; WO #3 rang the doorbell. Receiving no response, WO #6 drew his sidearm and flashed its light through the window to the east of the door. He and WO #3 immediately observed a hand holding a handgun and yelled out, “Gun,” multiple times.
The Complainant was behind the door holding the gun. As the officers retreated, the Complainant opened the door and fired in their direction. [3] He was immediately met with return fire which struck and wounded his right forearm and right leg. The Complainant returned inside and closed the door. The time was about 10:47 p.m.
At the sight of the Complainant pointing a handgun in their direction, the members of the cover team each fired their weapons multiple times. [4] Following the volley of gunfire, the TU officers quickly withdrew from the door, regrouped and re-positioned near a dumpster a distance away from the residence in the parking lot of the townhouse complex.
Once inside, the Complainant called his mother to tell her he had been drinking and was now bleeding and injured. She travelled to his address, was stopped from approaching the scene by police, and conveyed to officers what her son had said. Apprised of this information, SO #1 asked that the crisis negotiator try to call the Complainant.
At about 11:10 a.m., the negotiator called the Complainant and got through. The Complainant asked for help and was told to exit the home with his hands empty and in the air. The Complainant, wearing only his underwear, did exactly that. Directed to the ground by the TU officers, the Complainant was arrested without further incident.
TU officers subsequently entered the home and located a pistol on the floor near the front door. A rifle was also located in one of the bedrooms. Both weapons appear to have been lawfully owned.
Uniformed officers were first to the scene, followed by TU officers, the first of the latter arriving at about 10:00 p.m., about half-hour after the 911 call had been received. Under the command of SO #1, the tactical officers took control of the scene and decided on a plan of action. At about 10:41 p.m., their efforts began with a phone call by SO #1 to the Complainant that went straight to voice mail. Thereafter, a three-person team of officers –WO #6, WO #4 and WO #3 – approached the front door of the residence while another three-person team – SO #1 and SO #2 and SO #3 – followed behind to provide cover. WO #3 was equipped with a protective shield. The cover team had their Colt 223 rifles at the ready.
Once at the unit entrance, and having called-out to the Complainant with no response, the approach team knocked on the door. Still, there was no response. Using a Halligan bar, WO #6 reached around his partner’s protective shield and banged on the door again; WO #3 rang the doorbell. Receiving no response, WO #6 drew his sidearm and flashed its light through the window to the east of the door. He and WO #3 immediately observed a hand holding a handgun and yelled out, “Gun,” multiple times.
The Complainant was behind the door holding the gun. As the officers retreated, the Complainant opened the door and fired in their direction. [3] He was immediately met with return fire which struck and wounded his right forearm and right leg. The Complainant returned inside and closed the door. The time was about 10:47 p.m.
At the sight of the Complainant pointing a handgun in their direction, the members of the cover team each fired their weapons multiple times. [4] Following the volley of gunfire, the TU officers quickly withdrew from the door, regrouped and re-positioned near a dumpster a distance away from the residence in the parking lot of the townhouse complex.
Once inside, the Complainant called his mother to tell her he had been drinking and was now bleeding and injured. She travelled to his address, was stopped from approaching the scene by police, and conveyed to officers what her son had said. Apprised of this information, SO #1 asked that the crisis negotiator try to call the Complainant.
At about 11:10 a.m., the negotiator called the Complainant and got through. The Complainant asked for help and was told to exit the home with his hands empty and in the air. The Complainant, wearing only his underwear, did exactly that. Directed to the ground by the TU officers, the Complainant was arrested without further incident.
TU officers subsequently entered the home and located a pistol on the floor near the front door. A rifle was also located in one of the bedrooms. Both weapons appear to have been lawfully owned.
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.
(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
The Complainant was shot and wounded in the course of an exchange of gunfire with OPS officers on March 4, 2023. The OPS officers who discharged their firearms –SO #1, and SO #2 and SO #3 – were identified as the subject officials in the ensuing SIU investigation. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident.
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police officers present at the time of the shooting, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, none of the subject officials agreed an interview with the SIU. They did provide a copy of their notes and reports.
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 TU officers, including the subject officials, were lawfully placed and in the exercise of their duties at the time of the gunfire. Aware of an individual in possession of firearms and suffering from mental afflictions, the police had a responsibility to attend at the residence to do what they could to prevent harm from materializing to the Complainant and, potentially, others.
Though none of the subject officials spoke with the SIU, I am satisfied that they each acted to protect themselves and others from a reasonably apprehended assault when they fired their weapons. Their notes and reports certainly suggest as much, as do the circumstances that prevailed at the time. Put simply, faced with a handgun being pointed in their direction at close range, it is difficult to imagine that the TU officers could have felt otherwise.
It is also apparent that the shots fired by the subject officials constituted reasonable defensive force. Confronted by an imminent and lethal threat, the subject officials were left with little option but to resort to the only weapon with the immediacy and stopping power required of the moment – their firearms. Indeed, but for the use of their weapons, it might well be that the Complainant would have grievously injured or killed an officer or officers had he had more of an opportunity to fire than he did.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials comported themselves other than within the limits of the criminal law, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: June 30, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police officers present at the time of the shooting, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, none of the subject officials agreed an interview with the SIU. They did provide a copy of their notes and reports.
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 TU officers, including the subject officials, were lawfully placed and in the exercise of their duties at the time of the gunfire. Aware of an individual in possession of firearms and suffering from mental afflictions, the police had a responsibility to attend at the residence to do what they could to prevent harm from materializing to the Complainant and, potentially, others.
Though none of the subject officials spoke with the SIU, I am satisfied that they each acted to protect themselves and others from a reasonably apprehended assault when they fired their weapons. Their notes and reports certainly suggest as much, as do the circumstances that prevailed at the time. Put simply, faced with a handgun being pointed in their direction at close range, it is difficult to imagine that the TU officers could have felt otherwise.
It is also apparent that the shots fired by the subject officials constituted reasonable defensive force. Confronted by an imminent and lethal threat, the subject officials were left with little option but to resort to the only weapon with the immediacy and stopping power required of the moment – their firearms. Indeed, but for the use of their weapons, it might well be that the Complainant would have grievously injured or killed an officer or officers had he had more of an opportunity to fire than he did.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials comported themselves other than within the limits of the criminal law, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: June 30, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 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) One .45 calibre spent cartridge case was located at the scene, suggesting the Complainant fired at least once. The possibility that he fired additional times cannot be excluded on the evidence collected by the SIU. [Back to text]
- 4) Given that 11 spent .223 cases were located on the scene, and each officer indicated in their notes that they fired more than once, all that can be said with confidence is that the officers each fired multiple times and that, in total, they discharged a minimum of 11 rounds. [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.