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 57-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On May 28, 2023, at 12:29 a.m., the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 27, 2023, at 5:39 p.m., HPS received a call that a woman had been shot at an address on Jones Road, Stoney Creek. HPS officers attended and negotiated with the Complainant. He had shot his tenants, Tenant #1 and Tenant #2, both of whom were deceased. At 10:08 p.m., the Complainant shot at HPS Emergency Response Unit (ERU) officers. An ERU officer returned fire. At 11:52 p.m., the Complainant was pronounced deceased.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 05/28/2023 at 12:29 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 05/28/2023 at 1:35 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 6

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a residence located on Jones Road, Hamilton.

The residence consisted of a dwelling-house with attached garage. The front door of the residence was damaged and was resting on the ground. The door glass and metal insert were resting next to it. The door had been removed from its frame. The garage door was damaged, partially folded, and resting on the ground.

A HPS armoured vehicle (Tactical Vehicle) was in the driveway. The vehicle’s ramrod was extended. Two additional vehicles, a Chevrolet SUV and a pick-up truck, were in the driveway.

A fired cartridge case was resting on the ground near the driveway entrance, behind the Chevrolet. Two high-powered, small rifles were resting on the driveway. These items were resting near the front of the Chevrolet SUV.

Glass, blood, and spent cartridge cases were visible on the floor inside the residence in front door foyer area. The Complainant was resting on his front, in a pool of blood, and facing downwards.

A Glock pistol was resting near the arm rest of chair by a desk in a corner of the garage. A rifle was resting against another chair in the garage. Another rifle was resting on the floor and two rifle magazines on a table.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

The scene, a residential property on Jones Road, was complex and involved the entire property.

The homicides HPS were investigating had taken place in a defined area of the property.

The HPS interaction with the Complainant occurred at the front of the property.

SIU and HPS investigators determined that physical evidence relating to each agency’s investigations would be handled separately.

During the SIU scene examination, numerous fired cartridge cases, unfired cartridges, magazines, and firearms were identified as possibly being associated to the double homicide and the volley of shots directed towards the police. Two damaged bullets were located across the street. Firearms, ammunition, and cartridges, found in the area of the Complainant’s body, were collected.

The rifle that was in the SO’s possession and a single cartridge located outside the armoured vehicle were seized.

SIU collected cartridges, projectile fragments, and the involved firearms from the scene examination. A total of 50 exhibits were collected for examination, including:

• Scorpion Model: EVO 3S1 (x2);
• DPMS Panther Arms Model: LR-308; and
• Heckler and Koch Model: HK 416 Calibre: 5.56mm x 45 – the SO.

Figure 1 - Scorpion carbine pistols on the driveway


Figure 2 – The SO’s Heckler and Koch rifle


Figure 3 - DPMS Panther Arms rifle

Forensic Evidence

On June 15, 2023, SIU forensic investigators submitted 44 exhibits to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) for expert examination. The items submitted were cartridges, projectile fragments, and the involved firearms from the scene examination.

On August 4, 2023, CFS provided a Firearms Report to SIU. The report concluded:

• The Scorpion carbine pistols and the DPMS Panther Arms rifle were prohibited firearms as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada.
• The modified detachable magazines suitable for use with the Scorpion carbine pistols were prohibited devices as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada.
• The Scorpion carbine pistols and the DPMS Panther Arms rifle were determined, within the limits of practical certainty, to have fired the cartridges located at the scene and submitted by SIU to CFS for examination.
• The Heckler and Koch, Model HK 416 rifle, was determined, within the limits of practical certainty, to have fired the cartridge located at the scene and submitted by SIU to CFS for examination.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [1]

Cellular Telephone Video Footage from Witness #1

The SIU received the cell phone video footage from a civilian witness, Witness #1, on May 28, 2023, in connection to the incident under investigation.

On May 27, 2023, the video captured two uniformed HPS officers crouched on the passenger side of a fully marked police sedan vehicle with their firearms drawn and held at the ready.

The camera angle shifted and a person with a light blue shirt and black vest that read, “Cadet,” knelt beside a truck.

The video footage did not capture any HPS interaction with the Complainant.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the SO and other eyewitnesses to the events in question, as well as video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario.

At about 5:38 p.m. of May 27, 2023, the Complainant shot and killed his two tenants – Tenant #1 and Tenant #2 – outside his home on Jones Road, Hamilton. There had been a falling out among them regarding a reported issue in the area of the house where the tenants resided, and who was going to pay for damage done to some property in and around the home. The parties argued beside the house. When it was clear that Tenant #1 and Tenant #2 had no intention of paying, the Complainant entered his home and returned with a gun. He first shot Tenant #2 and then turned his weapon at Tenant #1, discharging it multiple times in her direction as she ran away. She collapsed on the road. The Complainant stood over her, fired several more times, and then re-entered his home.

Starting at about 5:40 p.m., multiple people who witnessed the shooting called police.

Uniformed officers, the first to arrive on scene, set up a perimeter around the house. A command post was established in a parking lot in the area. WO #9 took charge as the incident commander. Under his command, crisis negotiators and a team of ERU officers were deployed to the scene.

There ensued an hours-long standoff in the course of which negotiators attempted, with limited success, to reach the Complainant inside the home. On one occasion, the Complainant asked over the phone whether the persons he had shot were deceased. Advised that they were, he said he was sorry and asked that police convey his apology to the families, after which he hung up. On another occasion, speaking through his family member with whom he was talking on the phone, the Complainant demanded that the ERU’s armoured vehicle, which had taken a position on the front driveway of the home, leave. The police refused to remove the vehicle, but did reverse it a distance on the driveway further away from the home.

The Complainant was more receptive to family members, with whom he talked during the standoff. He repeatedly apologized for what he had done, indicated he would not emerge from his predicament alive, and suggested he would fight the police. Much of this information was fed to the police negotiators and officers on scene. The fact that the Complainant was the registered owner of multiple handguns and rifles, and might possess unregistered firearms as well, was also conveyed to police.
The SO was among a crew of ERU officers who eventually took up inside the armoured vehicle. The vehicle allowed for a close-up look of the home while providing protection against gunfire and a rapid reaction capability in the event the Complainant exited the home with firearms. It was also intended to prevent the Complainant from fleeing the home in one or the other of the vehicles parked on the driveway.

At about 10:10 p.m., the Complainant fired multiple rounds from inside the house in the direction of the armoured vehicle. At about 10:32 p.m., he discharged another barrage of shots through the front door at the armoured carrier. On this occasion, the SO, positioned behind the turret hatch of the armoured vehicle, took aim at the hole in the front door through which it appeared gunfire was coming and fired a single round from his HK416 rifle. The shooting from the home stopped instantly.

The Complainant had been mortally wounded. From his position behind the front door in the foyer of the home, the Complainant was able to make it into his garage through an interior door. That is where he was ultimately located by ERU officers, lying face down on the floor.

Following the shooting, the ERU officers used the armoured vehicle’s front ram to break through the front door. A robot was sent inside to search for the Complainant. The robot found two firearms in the foyer – Scorpion rifles – and returned them outside. It then re-entered the home and located an unresponsive Complainant in the garage. The ram of the armoured vehicle was again used, this time to breach the exterior garage door. ERU officers entered the garage and found a lifeless Complainant. Beside the Complainant were additional firearms, magazines, and ammunition. The Complainant was pronounced deceased on scene at 11:52 p.m.

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 passed away on May 27, 2023, the result of a gunshot wound inflicted by a HPS officer. The officer – the SO – was identified as the subject official in the ensuing SIU investigation of the incident. 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.

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’s use of lethal force fell within the ambit of legally justified force prescribed by the provision.

The SO was lawfully placed and in the execution of his duties throughout the police operation outside the residence on Jones Road, Hamilton, that culminated in the shooting of the Complainant. The foremost obligation of the police is the protection and preservation of life. When the Complainant shot and killed his two tenants and then holed up in his house, the police, including the SO among their ranks, were duty bound to respond to the scene to protect the public and take the Complainant into custody.

There is no doubt that the SO acted to defend himself, his colleagues, and the general public from a reasonably apprehended attack when he shot the Complainant. The Complainant was firing through his front door at the armoured vehicle on his driveway at the time, and there were people – officers and civilians – present within his arc of fire. In the circumstances, the officer had every reason to believe that his life, and the life of third-parties, was in imminent peril and that responsive force was required to defend against loss of life or grievous bodily harm.

It is also clear that the SO’s use of his firearm was reasonable in the circumstances. He and the other officers inside the armoured carrier were under heavy fire at the time from the Complainant. Attempts at negotiations had not proven fruitful and this was now the second volley of sustained gunfire within minutes by the Complainant. There was no reason to believe that continued negotiations might turn a corner or that retreat was possible without endangering the other residents in the neighbourhood or police officers maintaining a perimeter. Rather, what was necessary was the Complainant’s immediate incapacitation from a distance in order to stop the gunfire. The only weapon with a reasonable chance of doing just that was a firearm. In fact, the SO’s single shot struck the Complainant and put an end to the shooting. On this record, I am satisfied that the SO’s decision to match lethal force with lethal force of his own was a commensurate and proportionate response to the exigencies of the moment.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO’s comported himself other than within the limits of the criminal law when he shot the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: September 25, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit