SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OFP-303
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
Mandate of the SIU
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.
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.
Information Restrictions
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:- The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
- Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
- Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
- Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
- Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
- Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Pursuant to section 14 (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:- Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
- Information that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.
- The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
- Location information;
- Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence; and
- Other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation.
Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004
Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.Other proceedings, processes, and investigations
Information may also have been excluded from this report because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.Mandate Engaged
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 24-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
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 24-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On August 1, 2023, at 2:03 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.On August 1, 2023, members of the OPS Tactical Unit were assisting the Gatineau Police (Quebec) track a wanted party – the Complainant - in Ottawa. They located the Complainant in the area of Lisgar Street and attempted to arrest him. He fled on foot into a parking lot, discarding a loaded firearm. One of the tactical officers discharged an Anti-riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN), striking the Complainant and putting him down. He was apprehended and taken to Hôpital Montfort to determine the extent of injuries.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2023/08/01 at 2:50 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/08/01 at 5:15 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
24-year-old male; interviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on August 2, 2023.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on August 2, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired at the west end of Lisgar Street between Kent Street and Lyon Street, Ottawa, and the parking lot located on the south side of Lisgar Street across from 455 Lisgar Sreet. On August 1, 2023, a SIU forensic investigator arrived on scene at 10:32 pm. The scene was secured by two OPS police vehicles and yellow police tape. The SIU forensic investigator received information that a firearm had been secured by the OPS for safety reasons. There was no other evidence or items of interest visible within that location. The SIU forensic investigator took overall photographs of the area of interest.
There was another OPS police vehicle in a parking lot directly to the south which protected another area of interest, also cordoned off by yellow police tape. The SIU forensic investigator took overall photographs of that area.
Physical Evidence
On August 2, 2023, the SIU forensic investigator arrived at the tactical unit of the OPS. He photographed and received one 40 mm "less-lethal" projectile under seal, and one cartridge not under seal, from an OPS staff sergeant. 
Figure 1 – The SO’s launcher
Figure 2 – Launcher projectiles
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
OPS Photographs
On August 1, 2023, the OPS collected a Glock 19 handgun, which reportedly had ten bullets (9 mm WIN Luger) in a seated magazine and one bullet in the chamber (9 mm WIN Luger). The Glock 19 was discovered on the street in front of 459 Lisgar Street, Ottawa. At 2:20 p.m., the OPS took digital images of the evidence. On August 3, 2023, the SIU received the Identification Photo-book from the OPS, which contained scene and exhibit photographs.
OPS Tactical Radio Communications
On August 4, 2023, SIU Investigators were provided the tactical radio communications in connection with the incident under investigation. OPS police officers observed the Complainant headed eastbound on Lisgar Street from Kent Street, and began to move into a position to intercept him. The Complainant then reversed direction and was seen running westbound on Lisgar Street from Kent Street. An unknown police officer was heard saying that the Complainant was running, and then called out, "Gun," before saying that the Complainant would be in custody shortly. An unknown police officer was heard saying, "You’re under arrest for attempted murder," as another police officer advised that they were securing the Complainant in custody in a parking lot across the road from 455 Lisgar Street.
Information was provided by a police officer [believed to be WO #1] that the Complainant had dropped a firearm that had been located and secured on the street where it fell.
Information was provided that a 40 mm projectile launcher had been deployed and the Complainant was being examined by tactical paramedics.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
The SIU obtained the following records from the OPS between August 1 and 8, 2023: - List of witnesses;
- WO #1 – report;
- WO #1– notes;
- WO #2 – report;
- WO #2 – notes;
- WO #3 – report;
- WO #3 – notes;
- The SO - notes
- Information from computer-assisted dispatch;
- Identification Report and Photo-book;
- The SO’s requalification training – 40 mm launcher;
- Contacts and interactions with the Complainant;
- Arrest Report;
- Use of Force Policy;
- Photographs;
- Tactical radio communications;
- General Occurrence Reports; and
- Joint OPS and Gatineau police operation briefing materials and plan.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between August 8 and 16, 2023:- The Complainant’s medical records from Montfort Hôpital; and
- Paramedic reports from Ottawa EMS.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and officers who observed the events in question, 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.
On August 1, 2023, a team of OPS tactical officers was mobilized to assist in the arrest of the Complainant. The Complainant was wanted by the City of Gatineau Police Service for ‘attempt murder’ and ‘assault with a weapon’ involving a firearm. The officers, including the SO, were briefed by the Gatineau police. A description of the Complainant was provided and officers were advised that the Complainant might still be in possession of the firearm.
The SO, armed with a less-lethal 40 mm launcher, and two other tactical officers, WO #2 and WO #3, set about trying to locate the Complainant in an unmarked vehicle. The vehicle was being operated by WO #1 of the OPS Guns and Gangs Unit. Shortly after 1:00 p.m., they received reports that the Complainant was on Lisgar Street. WO #1 drove west on Lisgar Street towards Lyon Street and saw the Complainant making his way west on the north sidewalk. He accelerated and caught up to the Complainant just before Lyon Street, bringing the vehicle up onto the sidewalk to block his path. WO #2 was the first officer out of the vehicle through the passenger-side rear door. He confronted the Complainant and told him he was under arrest.
At the sight of WO #2, the Complainant ran east and then south into a parking lot on the other side of the road, dropping a firearm onto Lisgar Street as he did so. WO #3 and the SO chased after him and WO #2 stopped to secure the firearm. The Complainant unsuccessfully attempted to scale a fence at the southwest corner of the lot. He had been struck by a round fired by the SO and fallen to the ground. The round – a foam-tipped projectile – had struck him in the inside of the right thigh.
WO #3 and the SO engaged the Complainant on the ground, joined shortly by WO #2. The Complainant refused to release his arms and was punched in the head by WO #3. The officers gained control of his arms and handcuffed him behind the back.
The Complainant was transported to hospital. He had not suffered any serious injuries.
On August 1, 2023, a team of OPS tactical officers was mobilized to assist in the arrest of the Complainant. The Complainant was wanted by the City of Gatineau Police Service for ‘attempt murder’ and ‘assault with a weapon’ involving a firearm. The officers, including the SO, were briefed by the Gatineau police. A description of the Complainant was provided and officers were advised that the Complainant might still be in possession of the firearm.
The SO, armed with a less-lethal 40 mm launcher, and two other tactical officers, WO #2 and WO #3, set about trying to locate the Complainant in an unmarked vehicle. The vehicle was being operated by WO #1 of the OPS Guns and Gangs Unit. Shortly after 1:00 p.m., they received reports that the Complainant was on Lisgar Street. WO #1 drove west on Lisgar Street towards Lyon Street and saw the Complainant making his way west on the north sidewalk. He accelerated and caught up to the Complainant just before Lyon Street, bringing the vehicle up onto the sidewalk to block his path. WO #2 was the first officer out of the vehicle through the passenger-side rear door. He confronted the Complainant and told him he was under arrest.
At the sight of WO #2, the Complainant ran east and then south into a parking lot on the other side of the road, dropping a firearm onto Lisgar Street as he did so. WO #3 and the SO chased after him and WO #2 stopped to secure the firearm. The Complainant unsuccessfully attempted to scale a fence at the southwest corner of the lot. He had been struck by a round fired by the SO and fallen to the ground. The round – a foam-tipped projectile – had struck him in the inside of the right thigh.
WO #3 and the SO engaged the Complainant on the ground, joined shortly by WO #2. The Complainant refused to release his arms and was punched in the head by WO #3. The officers gained control of his arms and handcuffed him behind the back.
The Complainant was transported to hospital. He had not suffered any serious injuries.
Relevant Legislation
Section 25(1), Criminal Code -- Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority
25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
(a) as a private person,(b) as a peace officer or public officer,(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or(d) by virtue of his office,
is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.
Analysis and Director's Decision
On August 1, 2023, the OPS contacted the SIU to report that one of their officers had fired a less-lethal firearm at a male – the Complainant – in the course of effecting his arrest. 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 shooting.
Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.
The Complainant was subject to arrest when he was struck by the less-lethal round. Based on the information the SO had received from the Gatineau police, and his observations of a firearm dropping from the Complainant’s person as he fled across Lisgar Street, the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the Complainant had committed various offences, including ‘attempt murder’.
I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO in aid of the arrest, namely, a single less-lethal round fired by his launcher, was legally justified. Had the Complainant managed to climb over the parking lot perimeter fence, there was every prospect that he would make good his escape. That contingency would have placed public safety at significant risk in light of his reported firearm use in very serious and recent violent crimes. It was imperative, therefore, that the officers put an end to his flight. On this record, it would seem the use of the less-lethal firearm was in order. If it worked as intended, the officers would be able to temporarily immobilize the Complainant from a distance, making possible his safe apprehension without the infliction of serious injury. That is precisely what occurred.
For the foregoing reason, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the SO. [3]
Date: November 29, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.
The Complainant was subject to arrest when he was struck by the less-lethal round. Based on the information the SO had received from the Gatineau police, and his observations of a firearm dropping from the Complainant’s person as he fled across Lisgar Street, the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the Complainant had committed various offences, including ‘attempt murder’.
I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO in aid of the arrest, namely, a single less-lethal round fired by his launcher, was legally justified. Had the Complainant managed to climb over the parking lot perimeter fence, there was every prospect that he would make good his escape. That contingency would have placed public safety at significant risk in light of his reported firearm use in very serious and recent violent crimes. It was imperative, therefore, that the officers put an end to his flight. On this record, it would seem the use of the less-lethal firearm was in order. If it worked as intended, the officers would be able to temporarily immobilize the Complainant from a distance, making possible his safe apprehension without the infliction of serious injury. That is precisely what occurred.
For the foregoing reason, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the SO. [3]
Date: November 29, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) The information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [Back to text]
- 2) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
- 3) Though not the focus of the SIU investigation, it appears that the punch to the head delivered by WO #3 was also legally justified. The weight of the evidence indicates that the Complainant offered a measure of resistance when engaged on the ground, refusing to promptly release his hands to be handcuffed. Given the exigencies of the moment, including the Complainant’s recent possession of a gun and the possibility he was still armed, WO #3 was entitled to subdue the Complainant as quickly as possible. It seems he acted commensurate with that purpose when he struck the Complainant. [Back to text]
Note:
The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.