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 serious injuries of a 27-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On May 29, 2023, at 5:28 p.m., the Brantford Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

Officers from the Tactical and Intelligence Generated and Enforcement Response (TIGER) Unit were involved in a project, in the course of which they had developed grounds to arrest the Complainant. At 4:13 p.m., May 29, 2023, a vehicle takedown was attempted at an address in Paris. The Complainant drove towards officers, shots were fired, and the Complainant got away. Officers did not pursue the Complainant. Officers later located the Complainant at St. George Street and Belaire Road, Brantford. He was taken to the Hamilton General Hospital (HGH.)

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 05/29/2023 at 6:15 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 05/29/2023 at 7:35 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the front driveway of a residence in Brant.

On May 29, 2023, at 8:10 p.m., SIU forensic investigators attended the residence. The scene had been properly secured and guarded by several BPS officers. The area was residential.

There were two vehicles present on or near the driveway of the residence. Both vehicles were identified as unmarked BPS surveillance vehicles.

A secondary scene was located at Tollgate Road and St. George Street. On May 29, 2023, at 10:17 p.m., SIU forensic investigators attended the location where the Complainant’s vehicle was located. The Tesla was in a construction area on St. George Street close to the intersection. It had been involved in a collision with construction signage close by.

Physical Evidence

Evidence Collected by the SIU in the Driveway of the Residence

Located and collected from the driveway area were four 9mm cartridge cases and automotive plastic.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with the Complainant and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of May 29, 2023, a joint forces operation involving BPS and Durham Regional Police Service officers had the Complainant under surveillance. The Complainant had become the target of a drug-trafficking investigation and officers had secured warrants to search his premises. The Complainant was returning to his home in Brant from a trip to Toronto where, the officers suspected, he had made a purchase of a significant quantity of an illicit substance. BPS officers in plain clothes and unmarked vehicles waited for him in the vicinity of his residence. The SO was on the Complainant’s tail as he entered his neighbourhood and approached his home.

The Complainant was unaware he was being followed by police. As he neared his home, the Complainant reversed his Tesla onto the northern half of his driveway when two unmarked police vehicles suddenly appeared. One of them came from the north and travelled south onto the driveway, coming to a stop facing southeast in front of the Tesla. The other came from the south. It entered partially on the southern half of the driveway, coming to a stop facing northeast.

The police plan had been to have a marked police vehicle in the area pull the Tesla over and effect the Complainant’s arrest. However, when the marked cruiser was not in position in time, the surveillance team decided to move ahead with the arrest. When the team leader gave the signal for the Complainant’s takedown, the two unmarked vehicles were the first to the scene.

WO #5 was the operator of the vehicle that stopped in front of the Tesla. He quickly exited his vehicle, took up a position by the Tesla’s front passenger’s side, and yelled at the Complainant indicating that they were the police and directing that he show his hands. The Complainant reversed his vehicle, turned his wheels to the right, and accelerated forward in a northwest direction towards WO #5. The officer was in the process of drawing his firearm to shoot, but was able to move eastward and skirt the Tesla as it travelled past him. At about the same time, WO #5 heard the sound of gunfire.

The shots had been discharged by the SO. By the time WO #5 was by the passenger side of the Tesla, the SO was also out of his vehicle and yelling at the Complainant to show his hands from the driver’s side of the Tesla. The Complainant reversed the vehicle and then accelerated forward in a northwest direction of travel. Fearing that WO #5 was about to be struck by the Tesla, the SO pointed his firearm at the Complainant and fired four times.

Two of the bullets struck the Complainant – one in the left bicep, the other in the left forearm beside the elbow.

Despite being wounded, the Complainant continued northwest across the front lawn of the neighbouring home to the north, stopped momentarily, then continued northward on the roadway. He was ultimately arrested a distance from the scene of the shooting and transported to hospital.

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 and injured in Brant on May 29, 2023, by a BPS officer. The officer – the SO – was identified as a subject official in the ensuing SIU investigation. 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 was lawfully placed and engaged in the execution of his duties in the series of events culminating in the shooting. The officers had secured warrants to search the Complainant’s home for drugs and had grounds to take him into custody for drug-trafficking.