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 36-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On June 24, 2023, at 8:38 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 24, 2023, at approximately 8:00 p.m., the Complainant was operating a vehicle in the area of Highway 401 and Highway 403 when it left the road and went into the median area. A PRP Criminal Investigations Bureau (CIB) unit was in the area and stopped to render assistance. As police officers approached the vehicle in the median, the Complainant exited with a hammer in his hand and began to swing it at the police officers. One of the police officers drew his pistol and fired. The round missed the Complainant and struck another car on the highway. The Complainant attempted to steal the CIB unmarked police vehicle but was subdued and taken into custody. He was taken to Trillium Health Centre-Mississauga General Hospital (MGH) with undisclosed injuries. The Complainant was impaired and arrested. The passenger in the Complainant’s car was also arrested. There was a quantity of drugs located in the vehicle.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2023/06/24 8:59 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/06/24 9:40 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the northbound lanes of Highway 403 that exited onto Highway 410, Highway 401 Westbound and Highway 401 Eastbound, about 350 metres north of Eglinton Avenue East, Mississauga.

On June 24, 2023, at 10:00 p.m., a SIU forensic investigator (FI) arrived on scene. WO #2 advised that police officers had conducted a line search for a projectile and fired cartridge case while there was daylight. The police officers were not successful in locating the items.

The scene was cordoned off with yellow tape and police vehicles. Lighting was poor; however, adjacent lighting from other parts of the highway illuminated the area. The weather was hot and humid, and the temperature was approximately 25 degrees Celsius.

A Ford Fusion rested near a concrete highway divider, with other involved vehicles approximately 75 to 85 metres north of it.
Information was received that a PRP unmarked vehicle was involved in the incident.

The scene was photographed.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

Involved Vehicles

Vehicle 1 - A 4-door, Black Ford Fusion
The vehicle had sustained extensive front-end damage, and fire damage, and all its doors and the trunk were open. Beer cans were visible in the rear driver’s side and front passenger side floor, and a clear plastic baggie rested on the driver’s seat near the seatbelt lock. Both front airbags were deployed. The Ford rested on Highway 403, perpendicular to a concrete highway divider. The front of the vehicle was oriented in an easterly direction.


Figure 1 - The Black Ford Fusion with front-end damage

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, a police eyewitness and civilians that observed the events in question, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of June 24, 2023, the Complainant was operating a Ford Fusion travelling northbound on Highway 403 in Mississauga. With him in the front passenger seat was a male civilian. The Complainant was intoxicated. As he approached a solid barrier that divided the highway into lanes exiting onto the express lanes of Highway 401 Eastbound and those leading to Highway 410, Highway 401 Westbound and Highway 401 Eastbound, the Complainant drove the Ford into the barrier. The vehicle sustained heavy front-end damage and came to rest by the barrier facing east.

At about this time, WO #1, in plain clothes and operating an unmarked Hyundai Tucson, had entered onto the highway northbound from the Eglinton Avenue East and observed the collision involving the Ford. The SO was with him in the front passenger seat, also in plain clothes. The two were travelling to the site of a surveillance detail. The officers pulled onto a bullnose to their left and brought their Hyundai to a stop a short distance east of the Ford. The officers exited and walked to the rear of their vehicle to retrieve their police vests. It was their intention to render assistance to the Ford’s occupants.

The Complainant exited his vehicle from the driver’s door. He was carrying a yellow-handled hammer. Unstable on his feet, the Complainant tripped and fell in front of the Ford but was able to lift himself, the hammer still in hand. He walked eastward across lanes of traffic towards the officers’ Hyundai, and was initially confronted by the SO.

Noticing the hammer in his hand, the SO drew his firearm and ordered the Complainant to stop and drop the weapon. The Complainant continued to advance, and the officer soon found himself backtracking along the passenger side of the Hyundai. Once by the front of the Hyundai, the Complainant changed course and began to make his way towards the driver’s side of the police vehicle where WO #1 was located. The officer, his gun also drawn, retreated backwards while directing the Complainant to drop the hammer. The Complainant continued to walk forwards and had reached the area of the open driver’s door when the SO fired a single shot.

The SO, from about two to three metres southeast of the rear passenger side corner of the Hyundai, had discharged his sidearm at the Complainant. The bullet travelled through the rear driver side corner of the Hyundai and continued in a northwest trajectory, striking the front passenger side quarter-panel of a stopped BMW. No person was struck by the round.

Just as the shot was fired, the Complainant entered the driver’s seat of the Hyundai, re-started the vehicle, and began to drive north slowly. WO #1 chased after the vehicle and entered it through the open driver’s door window. As the two struggled inside the vehicle, the officer was able to remove the keys and the Hyundai coasted slowly towards the east shoulder of the highway, where it came to a rest. The SO ran to the Hyundai, opened the front passenger door, and joined in the struggle. With the use of several hand and knee strikes, and multiple deployments by the SO of his CEW, the Complainant was removed from the vehicle by the officers, subdued, and handcuffed.

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 June 24, 2023, the SO fired his handgun at the Complainant, missing his target. The officer was identified as the subject official in the ensuing SIU investigation of the shooting. 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 discharge of his firearm.

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 the instant case, I am satisfied that the force used by the SO fell within the legal justification set out in the provision.

The SO was lawfully placed and in the execution of his duties throughout the series of events leading to the shooting. Having observed a serious collision on the roadway, he and WO #1 were right to pull over to assess the situation and render whatever assistance they could.

The SO did not come in for an interview, as was his right, but he did authorize the release of his notes. In them, the officer makes clear that he shot at the Complainant to deter what he interpreted as an imminent assault on his partner, WO #1. I accept that the officer acted in accordance with his stated intentions, and that the assault he apprehended was reasonably construed. In arriving at this conclusion, I note that the Complainant was advancing on WO #1 with a hammer in hand, that he had failed to thwart his advance despite the officers’ orders, and that WO #1 himself believed that the Complainant was about to attack him with a hammer.

I am further satisfied that the nature and extent of the force used by the SO – a single gunshot – was reasonable in the circumstances. The Complainant had armed himself with a hammer - an object capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm or death - and was walking with purpose in the direction of the officers. He had been given a reasonable opportunity to drop the weapon and was within three to four metres of WO #1 when the SO fired his weapon. At that moment, the SO had a difficult decision to make. The scene was a highly congested highway with plenty of other motorists in the vicinity, third-parties who were at risk themselves of serious injury or death from a gunshot. On the other hand, the Complainant was within a step or two of launching a potentially lethal attack on WO #1. In the split-second in which he had to choose, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO was reckless in deciding to fire his weapon. For his part, it is important to note that WO #1 was ad idem with the SO; he feared for his own life and was readying to fire his weapon when he heard the gunshot. As for the prospect of a continued retreat from the Complainant, that option was restricted by the nature of the scene. While some traffic had come to a stop, other vehicles were still travelling in the area.

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


Date: October 20, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit