Director's Report Details

• 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. 

Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 

• 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.

 

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2023/10/23 at 10:39 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/10/24 at 12:53 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

 

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

48-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on October 24, 2023.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on November 14, 2023.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on October 27, 2023.

A further search of the front lawn using metal detection equipment revealed several cartridge cases. The areas where the cartridge cases were found revealed two distinct areas outside the area of debris and closer to the road and driveway. Further cartridge case evidence was located on the roadway near the driveway entrance. Evidence was identified by numbers as follows.

1 – Cartridge case
2 – Cartridge case
3 – Cartridge case
4 – Cartridge case
5 – Cartridge case
6 – Cartridge case
7 – Cartridge case
8 – Knife
9 – Cartridge case
10 – T-shirt
11 – Projectile

The scene was photographed and scanned for a scale diagram.

There was a possible impact site on the residence to the left of the front door. The size of the impact measured at 2.5 cm X 1 cm and was located 37 cm left of the front door frame (as one faces the door) and 35 cm above the porch surface. Entry penetrated the exterior wall of the residence at an undetermined angle. Further exploration of the site revealed negative results. A decision was made not to explore this site further as there would be extensive damage to the exterior of the wall. This site was photographed.

At about 5:45 a.m., October 24, 2023, SIU forensic investigators arrived at NRPS Headquarters, 5700 Valley Parkway, Niagara Falls, to examine police equipment used by the involved officers. The following items were reportedly assigned to the following officers:

SO #2

All items were photographed.

The SIU collected the officer’s Glock 22 and magazine containing seven remaining cartridges.




Figure 2 - SO #2's Glock 22 pistol and magazine

Note: The spare magazines from the duty belt contained 14 cartridges each. Assuming the load for the magazine in the weapon during the incident to be 14 cartridges, plus one cartridge for top-up, it was suggested that the officer possibly discharged up to eight rounds at the scene.

SO #1

All items were photographed.

The SIU collected the officer’s Glock 22 and magazine containing six remaining cartridges.




Figure 3 - SO #1's Glock 22 pistol and magazine

Note: The spare magazines from the duty belt contained 14 cartridges each. Assuming the load for the magazine in the weapon during the incident to be 14 cartridges, plus one cartridge for top-up, it was suggested that the officer possibly discharged up to nine cartridges at the scene.

Because of the discrepancy of cartridge cases collected from the scene prior to examining the firearms of the officers, it was decided to return to the scene for an additional search.

At 7:45 a.m., SIU forensic investigators returned to the scene to resume searching for cartridge cases. Using metal detection equipment, five extra cartridge cases were located in the area where exhibits 5, 6 and 7 were previously located, and two additional cartridge cases were located where exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 were previously located. The following additional evidence was collected from the scene:

12 – Projectile
13 – Projectile
14 – Cartridge case
15 – Cartridge case
16 – Cartridge case
17 – Cartridge case
18 – Cartridge case
19 – Cartridge case
20 – Cartridge case

Forensic Evidence

The Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) ballistic examination submissions were made to the CFS by the SIU and accepted by them on November 2, 2023. These included 15 cartridge cases recovered from the scene, and two NRPS Glock Model 22 semi-automatic pistols.

At the time of this report, the CFS firearms report had not yet been completed.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

Communications Recordings / Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

Starting at about 9:03 p.m., on October 23, 2023, a 911 call was received from CW #4 from a home in the area of Arthur Street and Cindy Drive, St. Catharines. She advised that the Complainant had assaulted her husband and CW #2. Loud voices were heard in the background. CW #4 said, “If they catch me on the phone, he’ll kill me,” and the line went dead.

Starting at about 9:07 p.m., NRPS dispatch issued a broadcast directing units to the home for a family fight. Dispatch broadcast that the involved man was the Complainant. An update by dispatch indicated the Complainant suffered from suicidal ideations and wanted “suicide by police”. Several officers advised they were responding.

Starting at about 9:14 p.m., a dispatcher updated there were no firearms involved, but a knife might be involved. Shortly thereafter, WO #3 asked dispatch to re-establish communications with the caller.

Starting at about 9:17 p.m., SO #2 arrived on scene. CW #4 was outside in the driveway, while other family members were inside the residence. Someone inside the residence, believed to be CW #2, was on a phone.

At 9:19 p.m., SO #2 announced, “Shots fired.”

At 9:20 p.m., WO #2 reported that the Complainant had a pulse but was not doing well.

At 9:21 p.m., CPR was initiated, and an ambulance was asked to hurry.

At 9:33 p.m., EMS and firefighters took over CPR, and WO #2 was sent to accompany the Complainant in the ambulance.

At 9:48 p.m., a senior NRPS officer asked that both involved officers be brought to headquarters.

At 9:53 p.m., the Complainant was pronounced deceased.

Cellular Telephone Video – CW #1

The recording was made by CW #1 on October 23, 2023, from 9:19 p.m. CW #1 was in his bedroom at a home across from the incident location. The lighting was dark with one streetlamp that provided partial illumination. There was a little artificial light from the front door of the residence, but it did not illuminate the front yard.

At the start of the video, two marked NRPS SUVs were captured parked, facing west. One NRPS SUV had its emergency lighting activated and the other did not. The video depicted the front yard of the incident location and the trees in the front yard. SO #1 was seen near a tree on the left. SO #2 was seen at another tree near the driveway of the home. A male voice shouted, “Let me see your hands, let me see your hands, (indecipherable).” Immediately after the commands, the Complainant went onto the front yard from the area of the front door of the residence. He walked quickly towards SO #2. Seventeen gunshots were heard in rapid succession. The Complainant went from an upright position to a forward inclined position near the tree closest to the driveway.

CW #4 was heard screaming. A male voice was heard to state, “Shots fired, shots fired.” Commentary from CW #1 and CW #3 overlay the audio from the incident, but a male voice was heard yelling, “Get down, get down.” After a very brief period, SO #1 and SO #2 advanced towards the Complainant and knelt beside him.

Additional officers arrived and ran into the video frame from the south to the area where the Complainant was on the ground. Officers were then seen near the Complainant administering CPR.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the NRPS between October 24, 2023, and January 31, 2024:

• Notes - WO #1;
• Notes - WO #2;
• Notes - WO #3;
• Notes - SO #1;
• CAD Report;
• General Occurrence Report;
• General Order 095.10 Major Incidents;
• General Order 100.10 Powers of Arrest;
• General Order 053.24 Use of Force; and
• Communications recordings.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources:

• Cellphone video footage from CW #1, received October 25, 2023; and
• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report, received from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Services, received October 25, 2023.

In the evening of October 23, 2023, SO #1 and SO #2 found themselves on the front lawn of a house in the area of Arthur Street and Cindy Drive, St. Catharines. Within moments of their arrival, the officers discharged their firearms multiple times at the Complainant. SO #1 fired nine rounds in rapid succession. SO #2 fired eight rounds in similar fashion. The Complainant was felled during the gunfire. Paramedics would attend and transport the Complainant to hospital where he succumbed to his wounds. He was pronounced deceased at 9:53 p.m.

The events that brought the officers and the Complainant together involved a domestic disturbance at the address. The Complainant had become violent towards his family members and threatened to do them harm. He had picked up a knife and attacked a family member with it. CW #4 called police at about 9:03 p.m. to report what was happening. Fearing for her own safety, she fled outside the house and hid behind a vehicle on their driveway while waiting for police. Meanwhile, the Complainant’s other family members remained inside the house trying to contain the Complainant.

 
SO #2 was the first to arrive on scene. He made his way around the front of the house and spoke to CW #4 in the area of a tree beside the driveway of the home. SO #1 arrived shortly thereafter, taking up a position near the other tree on the front yard located a few metres east of the first tree. In front and between the officers, several metres to the south, was the front door of the home. Seconds after SO #1’s arrival, the Complainant emerged through the front door. He held a knife in his left hand and charged at the officers.

The Complainant was told to show his hands before a barrage of gunshots rang out from the officers. He tumbled face-forward onto the lawn and dropped the knife. SO #1 and SO #2 radioed that shots had been fired before handcuffing the Complainant and rendering first-aid, including CPR.

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.

SO #1 and SO #2 were lawfully present and in the execution of their duties throughout the series of events preceding the gunfire. Their foremost obligation as officers being the protection and preservation of life, the subject officials were duty-bound to attend at the residence to do what they reasonably could to preserve the peace and prevent harm coming to the family.

Though SO #2 did not avail himself of an interview with the SIU, as was his legal right, I am satisfied that he and SO #1, who said so clearly in his SIU interview, discharged their firearms at the Complainant in self-defence and defence of each other from a reasonably apprehended attack. The circumstances compel the conclusion - the officers had only just arrived on scene when they were confronted by an angry Complainant brandishing a knife and advancing on them quickly.

 
I am also satisfied that the force used by SO #1 and SO #2 to defend themselves and each other – multiple gunshots in rapid succession – was reasonable. The officers were confronted with a lethal threat. The Complainant was armed with a knife, a weapon capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm and death, which he had wielded against his family and was now threatening to use against the officers. And they only had fractions of a second to defend themselves from the Complainant. Retreating from the scene was not an option given the speed with which events unfolded and the presence of other family members whose safety would have been jeopardized. Nor was a resort to other weapons, such as a CEW, a realistic tactic in the circumstances given the absolute imperative in the moment to immediately incapacitate the Complainant. A firearm was their best chance at that. The number of shots fired by the officers is subject to legitimate scrutiny, particularly as it appears that about half of them occurred after the Complainant had fallen. That said, it is important to bear in mind that 17 rounds were fired within about two-and-a-half seconds (the second half in the last half of that time interval), the time delay inherent in reaction times, and the tension of the moment generated by the nature of the threat confronting the officers. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that either subject official acted with excess in connection with the totality of their gunfire when they chose to meet a threat of imminent death with a resort to lethal force of their own.

 
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against either subject official. Despite the Complainant’s tragic death, the force they used fell within the remit of authorized force recognized by the criminal law. The file is closed.

Date: February 16, 2024
Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit