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 serious injuries sustained by a 40-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On November 1, 2023, at 10:20 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On November 1, 2023, at 12:01 a.m., police officers from the Six Nations Police (SNP) [Ohsweken] were called to an address regarding the Complainant. Reportedly, the Complainant had confronted a security officer with a rifle and knife. There was no firearm discharge or altercation at that time, and the Complainant fled to a residence on Chiefswood Road Ohsweken. SNP police officers attended, contained the residence and contacted the OPP, which dispatched a tactical unit based out of the OPP London Detachment. The OPP made efforts to resolve the situation; however, the Complainant refused to exit the home and surrender. At 8:00 a.m., the Complainant discharged his firearm from the residence and bullets struck a tactical vehicle situated nearby, causing concern for public safety. At 10:00 a.m., OPP Tactics and Rescue Unit (TRU) police officers broke down the front door to the residence with their armoured rescue vehicle (ARV). The Complainant shot at the police officers from within the residence. An aerosol irritant was discharged into the residence and, a short time later, the Complainant exited. Once outside, the Complainant discharged a firearm and a bullet struck an OPP tactical officer in the head. In response, the Complainant was shot multiple times with bullets and Anti-riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN) rounds. The Complainant survived the interaction and was taken via ground ambulance to the Hamilton General Hospital (HGH).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2023/11/01 at 10:30 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/11/01 at 12:15 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 6

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

40-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on November 8, 2023.

Civilian Witness

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Interviewed
CW #7 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between November 5 and 17, 2023.

Subject Official

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
SO #3 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Official

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Interviewed
WO #6 Interviewed
WO #7 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary
WO #8 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary
WO #9 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary
WO #10 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary

The witness officials were interviewed on November 5 and 6, 2023.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the exterior grounds of a property located at Chiefswood Road, Ohsweken.

Physical Evidence

November 1, 2023

On November 1, 2023, at 1:25 p.m., two SIU Forensic Investigators (FIs) arrived at a staging location at Chiefswood Road. The OPP provided background information about the incident, after which the SIU FIs met with OPP officers who were assigned to conduct forensic examinations related to the OPP’s parallel criminal investigation. It was ascertained that a member of the OPP TRU had custody of police equipment that had been used in the incident under investigation.

At 2:15 p.m., a SIU FI took photographs of an ARWEN 37 mm, less-lethal firearm. The weapon had reportedly been used by SO #2, and one round had been discharged from the five-round rotary drum magazine. Photographs were taken of a second ARWEN 37 mm. The second ARWEN had reportedly been used by SO #1, and one round had been discharged from the five-round rotary drum magazine.


Figure 1 - SO #2's ARWEN

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police eyewitnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, none of the subject officials agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

Shortly before midnight of November 1, 2023, SNP officers were dispatched following a call to police about a male – the Complainant – who had displayed a machete and firearm at security personnel at an establishment on Chiefswood Road while saying that it was “open season” on police officers. As officers approached the Complainant’s residence on Chiefswood Road in separate cruisers, they came under fire from the Complainant. The officers set up a perimeter around the area and called for the assistance of the OPP.

An OPP TRU team under the command of WO #1 was deployed. They were briefed on the events involving the SNP officers and convened at the command post that had been established in Chiefswood Road and Highway 54 at about 3:10 a.m. By this time, it was determined that the Complainant was at his trailer located south of the driveway of an address on Chiefswood Road, just west of the roadway. A mission statement was pronounced, namely, to isolate and contain the area around the Complainant and to arrest him with paramount importance placed on his safety and that of the police and the public.

The TRU team arrived on scene at about 0405 hours inside an ARV. The vehicle was reversed into the driveway beside the front of the trailer. Inside the vehicle were SO #2, SO #3 and SO #1, as well as WO #1, WO #2 (the driver), WO #3 and WO #6. WO #6 was a dog handler and was with his dog. WO #4 and WO #5 took up sniper positions east of Chiefswood Road. With the use of a loudhailer, WO #1 repeatedly called-out to the Complainant directing him to exit the trailer with his hands up and empty. The officer explained that the police wanted to resolve the situation peacefully. The Complainant did not always respond. When he did, he made it clear he had no intention of exiting.

The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time. He believed himself to be an investigator and OPP officers murderers. In his possession was a rifle.

At about 4:30 a.m., after TRU officers had broken the east facing window on the trailer, the Complainant appeared at the window with his rifle. At about 5:50 a.m., and again at about 6:00 a.m., the Complainant fired multiple rounds out of the trailer window.

In light of the growing threat to public safety presented by the Complainant’s use of the rifle, the police decided to adopt a more proactive posture with the introduction of tear gas into the trailer. It was hoped the tactic would force the Complainant out of the trailer. It did not. Rather, gas canisters thrown into the trailer prompted the Complainant to discharge additional rounds out the window.

At about 7:30 a.m., the TRU embarked on a further tactical escalation. They decided to use the ARV’s extended arm to ram through the front door of the trailer at its western end. As the ARV approached and then breached the door, the Complainant fired at the vehicle striking it and damaging the windshield. Additional gas was deployed into the trailer through the doorway via ARWEN discharges, again, to no avail. The Complainant remained inside the trailer. At about 8:15 a.m., on seeing an OPP drone flying by the trailer door, the Complainant shot it down and then directed multiple rounds at the ARV.

The situation came to a head at about 9:30 a.m. From up in the ARV’s turret, SO #1 threw two smoke canisters into the trailer through the door. As smoke bellowed from the trailer, the Complainant emerged onto the trailer deck outside the door with his rifle in hand, closest to the passenger side of the ARV. It appears he was struck by an ARWEN impact round at this time fired by SO #1 from the turret. The Complainant would re-position himself by the driver’s side of the ARV, still on the deck, before returning to the passenger side and firing his rifle. SO #2, from a position behind the ARV, fired his ARWEN at the Complainant at about the same time as his protective helmet appears to have been struck by a round discharged by the Complainant. Seconds later, SO #1, from the turret, and SO #3, from a position at the rear of the ARV, returned fire with their C8 rifles, the former discharging seven rounds, the latter, ten. The Complainant was felled. SO #3, WO #3 and WO #6 came from behind the ARV and handcuffed the Complainant.

The Complainant was transported to hospital in Hamilton and treated for multiple gunshot wounds.

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.

The Complainant was shot several times by OPP officers in Ohsweken on November 1, 2023. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3 subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s injuries.