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 44-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On March 8, 2023, at 3:36 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) notified the SIU of a firearm discharge at the Complainant.

According to the OPS, on March 8, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., the OPS received a 911 ‘disturbance’ call from a woman [later known to be the Civilian Witness (CW)]. She reported that the Complainant was at an address on Walkley Road breaking things in the basement. OPS officers attended the residence, and initiated contact with the Complainant. He came outside of the residence with either an axe or a sword. OPS officers discharged a conducted energy weapon (CEW) and a firearm. The CEW caused muscle incapacitation and the Complainant fell and struck his face on the ground.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 03/08/2023 at 5:20 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 03/08/2023 at 6:10 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the entrance to a residence on Walkley Road, Ottawa.

Upon the SIU’s arrival on scene, there were three spent rifle cases, two spent CEW cartridges, and a pair of black boots and trousers on the driveway near the doorway. There was a small amount of blood observed on the ground in the same area. Two possible bullet strikes were detected on the doorframe and door.

Physical Evidence

On March 9, 2023, starting at 12:30 a.m., the SIU collected cases and cartridges related to the incident: three Remington .223 cases (same calibre as a .556mm) and two CEW cartridges, one with four probes and wires, and the other with two probes and two wires.

SIU photographed a Colt .556 carbine used by the SO. Its full capacity was a 30-round magazine, with 27 rounds located in it.

SIU photographed a sword as well.


Figure 1 – The Colt .556 carbine


Figure 2 – Three Remington .223 cases


Figure 3 – The sword

Forensic Evidence

CEW Data

The CEW deployed by WO #4 and had two cartridges. The data from the CEW were analyzed. No irregularities were observed. It had been deployed once around the time of the incident for a charge duration of about five seconds.

The CEW deployed by WO #1 and had two cartridges. The data from the CEW were analyzed. No irregularities were observed. It was discharged three times: at 3:14:48 p.m. (for a charge duration of 0.231 seconds), at 3:14:48 p.m. (for a charge duration of about five seconds), and at 3:19:02 p.m. (for a charge duration of about four seconds). [2]

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [3]

Communications Recordings

On March 8, 2023, at 2:07 p.m., a 911 call was received by OPS from the CW. She reported she was hiding on the upstairs level of her residence on Walkley Road. Her roommate, the Complainant, was in the basement breaking things with an axe.

Starting at about 2:09 p.m., police officers were dispatched.

Starting at about 2:18 p.m., WO #2 arrived and was speaking to the CW.

Starting at about 2:27 p.m., a police officer reported that the Complainant had come up the basement stairs with a knife in his hands and briefly spoken with police officers outside the side door, after which he ran back down to the basement with the knife.

Starting at about 2:40 p.m., a police officer reported that the Complainant had indicated he was upset about a recent break-up and just wanted to be by himself. He had turned up the volume on his music in the basement.

Starting at about 2:59 p.m., WO #4 advised that the Complainant was coming and going from a room in the basement with a beer in his hand, and that he had left the sword in a room in the basement.

Starting at about 3:03 p.m., the Complainant’s behaviour escalated; he was at the bottom of the basement stairs with a sword. Police officers were talking to him. OPS officers had carbines rifles on scene. The Complainant was still agitated, breaking things and cursing at police.

Starting at about 3:15 p.m., WO #4 advised of CEW and carbine deployment. He requested the attendance of paramedics. WO #4 said, “The Complainant approached us with a large sword, was Tasered and there are three casings on the ground. There were no signs of wounds and the Complainant is breathing, bleeding and conscious. There was bleeding from two Taser hooks and a cut on his forehead from falling to the ground. There were no injuries from the carbines so far.”

Starting at about 3:21 p.m., an ambulance was on scene.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPS between March 15, 2023, and June 21, 2023:

• Involved Officers List;
• Record of computer-assisted dispatch;
• Communications recordings;
• Notes - WO #3;
• Notes – WO #4;
• Notes – WO #2;
• Notes - WO #1;
• Data downloaded from CEWs;
• Procedures - CEW;
• Use of Force Policy; and
• Equipment Usage Policy.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

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

• The Complainant’s medical records from Ottawa General Hospital, received on March 20, 2023.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and officers present at the time of the events in question, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

Shortly after 2:00 p.m. of March 8, 2023, OPS officers were dispatched to a residence on Walkley Road, Ottawa, following a report of a disturbance in a unit of the building. The CW had called police to report that her roommate – the Complainant – was breaking things with an axe in their basement apartment.

Arriving at the address, officers approached the side door and were met by a frightened CW. She confirmed that the Complainant was in the apartment, throwing knives and an axe around, and damaging property. He had been drinking, had access to firearms, and was very angry. The CW was removed from the home by the officers for her safety.

From the side door, the officers called down a flight of stairs to the Complainant. Communication was made difficult by the loud music the Complainant was playing and his disinterest in speaking with the officers. The officers asked him to come upstairs, and he repeatedly told them to go away. Asked whether he had knives, the Complainant replied that he had lots of them.

At about 2:30 p.m., the Complainant came up the stairs and spoke to the officers from the open side door. He had on him a black holster with a knife in it, and an alcoholic beverage in his left hand. Told to drop the knife, the Complainant initially refused but soon threw it down the stairs. The Complainant again told the officers to leave and returned to the basement.

At about 3:15 p.m., the Complainant again appeared at the side door. He had in his right hand a sword, which he had used to strike the stairs as he made his way up from the basement. The officers ordered him to drop the sword. The SO, among the officers by the side door throughout the standoff, fired his rifle three times. Each round missed the Complainant. Immediately thereafter, WO #1 and WO #4 discharged their CEWs, striking the Complainant with the weapons’ probes. The Complainant locked-up and fell backwards on the landing at the top of the stairs, his sword dropping from his grasp in the process.

Officers moved in, removed the sword from the Complainant’s reach, and arrested him without further incident.

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.

On March 8, 2023, the Complainant was involved in a confrontation with police during which an officer discharged his rifle at him. 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.

The SO and the other OPS officers were lawfully placed and in the exercise of their duties when they took up positions outside the residence on Walkley Road, Ottawa. They had information to believe that a male – the Complainant – was in possession of weapons and using them to cause property damage and threaten his roommate. The officers were obliged, in the circumstances, to do what they could to ensure public safety.

Though the SO did not speak with the SIU, as was his legal right, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officer did not act to deter a reasonably apprehended assault when he fired his weapon. The Complainant had made it clear that he wanted the officers to leave. He was angry, intoxicated and in a violent mood. When he climbed the stairs to the side door with the sword in hand, the Complainant gave every appearance of being willing and able to use it against the officers gathered outside, some of whom were right by the door. That was the impression of WO #1 and WO #4, who discharged their CEWs and were similarly situated to the SO. I am confident that the SO would have shared that apprehension.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO, namely, the discharge of rifle, constituted reasonable force. The weapon wielded by the Complainant, which he described as a Samurai sword about a metre in length, was capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm or death. When he appeared at the threshold of the door with the weapon in hand and refused to immediately drop it as ordered by the officers, the Complainant constituted a clear and present danger to the lives of the officers around him, including one or more of them standing right by the doorway. On this record, I am satisfied that the SO was entitled to meet a threat of potentially lethal force with a resort to lethal force of his own.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO comported herself other than within the limits of the criminal law in his engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: July 6, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit