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 56-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On June 25, 2023, at 3:16 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) notified the SIU of the death of a male, later identified as the Complainant.

According to the OPS, at 2:08 p.m., June 25, 2023, OPS police officers were called to the area of St. Patrick Street and Parent Avenue, Ottawa, following reports of a man waving a knife around and lunging at cars. Uniformed police officers responded and engaged the man. Tactical communications failed, and the man refused to drop the knife. A conducted energy weapon (CEW) was deployed, after which an officer discharged his pistol, striking the man. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responded, and paramedics advised the man was deceased.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2023/06/25 at 3:45 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/06/25 at 8:35 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

56-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Not interviewed (next-of-kin)
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Interviewed
CW #7 Interviewed
CW #8 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 25, 2023, and July 10, 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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on June 26, 2023.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the area of St. Patrick Street and Sussex Drive, Ottawa.

On June 25, 2023, at 11:15 p.m., two SIU forensic investigators arrived at the scene. St. Patrick Street was a tree-lined, east-west road. It was a one-way road with two westbound lanes and one dedicated bicycle lane. There were sidewalks on both sides of the street. There were residences on the south side of the street and the Notre Dame Cathedral on the north side. The shooting scene was in the roadway.

Parent Avenue was to the east, and Sussex Drive was to the west.

There was a blood pool (Exhibit 16) in the middle of the street. It was surrounded with medical equipment and debris.

Cartridge cases were located north and west of the pool of blood. Five .40 calibre cartridge cases (Exhibits 1 to 5) were recovered at the scene, which bore the headstamp ‘WIN .40 S&W’. They were located north of the pool of blood, on the north curb of St. Patrick Street. Three 9 mm cartridge cases (Exhibits 6 to 8) were also recovered, which bore the headstamp ‘Luger 9 mm WIN’. They were in the north curb lane of St. Patrick Street, west of the grouping of the .40 calibre cartridge casings. [It was reported that the OPS were transitioning from .40 calibre pistols to 9 mm pistols, and that some police officers were still using the .40 calibre pistols.]

A CEW Taser 7 (Exhibit 15) was on the pavement west of the pool of blood. The Taser 7 had two different cartridges in the weapon. The SIU could not download the Taser 7 to obtain its activity log. The deployed cartridge was collected as an exhibit (Exhibit 12). A CEW anti-felon identification tag (AFID) (Exhibit 9) was north of the blood and a CEW AFID (Exhibit 10) was at the pool of blood. A CEW blast door (Exhibit 11) was on the west side of the blood pool and a CEW X2 cartridge (Exhibit 12) was south of the pool of blood.

A large kitchen knife (Exhibit 13) was on the south sidewalk.

A residence on the south side of the street had suspected bullet damage to the front door. The bullet perforated the door and was found on the floor inside the residence. The bullet holes to the door, inside and out, were photographed, and the bullet (Exhibit 14) was collected as an exhibit.

There were three police vehicles and an EMS ambulance within the scene. The ambulance was orientated west, in the north lane, east of the medical debris. It had been left at the scene because the body of the Complainant had been held there prior to being transported to the morgue. No evidence was found in the ambulance, which was photographed and its position marked.

The OPS vehicle operated by WO #1 was a fully marked, blue and white Ford Explorer, which was oriented west, in the south lane, east of the medical debris, and behind the vehicle occupied by SO #1 and WO #2.

The OPS vehicle occupied by SO #1 and WO #2 was a fully marked, blue and white Ford Explorer, which was oriented west in the south lane, east of the medical debris. The emergency lights were on, and the rear hatch was open.

The OPS vehicle operated by SO #2 was a fully marked, blue and white Ford Explorer. It was stopped in the south lane facing west. The engine was running, and headlights were on, but the emergency lights were off. It was oriented west in the south curb lane a considerable distance west of the medical debris.

All evidence was marked with number markers and collected, and the scene was photographed to show the overall location and position of the evidence.

A SIU forensic investigator subsequently attended the second scene, which was further west on St. Patrick Street, near Murray Street. Information was received that the Complainant had confronted the driver of a vehicle, and that the involved vehicle was still at the location. At St. Patrick Street and Murray Street, CW #8’s vehicle was parked. This vehicle was undamaged and was photographed.

At 1:54 a.m., June 26, 2023, the OPS protected the first scene overnight.

At 8:55 a.m., two SIU forensic investigators returned to the scene to continue the search for further exhibits and exhibit collection. The area was searched with a metal detector to look for further cartridge cases and projectiles. A Leica 360 scanner was used to record the scene.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

Officers’ Equipment

SO #2

The duty belt of SO #2 contained:

• A Glock 17, Gen 5, 9X19 pistol, with 14 – 9 mm cartridges in the magazine, and 1 – 9 mm cartridge in the chamber.
• Two magazines, each with 17 cartridges of 9 mm ammunition.
• A Taser 7 with two non-deployed cartridges.
• A collapsible baton.
• A container of oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray.
• One pair of handcuffs.

The pistol, magazine, and the ammunition in it were collected by the SIU.

SO #2’s uniform, which included his police vest with name and police markings, was photographed. There were no obvious transfers of blood or noticeable damage to the uniform.


Figure 1 – SO #2’s firearm

SO #1

The duty belt of SO #1 contained:

• Two magazines, each with 15 cartridges of .40 calibre ammunition.
• A Glock 22, Gen 4 .40 calibre pistol, with 9 - .40 calibre cartridges in the magazine, and 1 -.40 calibre cartridge in the chamber. The pistol was also equipped with a Surefire light fixed beneath the barrel.
• A Taser 7, with two non-deployed cartridges.

The pistol, magazine, and ammunition inside it were collected.

SO #1’s uniform, which included his police vest with name and police markings, was photographed. There were no obvious transfers of blood or noticeable damage to the uniform.


Figure 2 – SO #1’s firearm

WO #1

The OPS provided WO #1’s black Taser X2 CEW. The CEW had one non-deployed cartridge in it and the other cartridge was missing.


Figure 3 – Deployed CEW cartridge

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and civilian eyewitness to the events in question, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither SO #1 nor SO #2 agreed an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes.

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.

Section 88(1), Criminal Code -- Possession of weapon for Dangerous Purpose

88 (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.

The Complainant passed away on June 25, 2023, the result of a police shooting in Ottawa. In the ensuing SIU investigation of the incident, the two OPS officers who had discharged their firearms at the Complainant – SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with the shooting and death of the Complainant.