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 serious injuries of a 29-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On October 25, 2023, at 10:27 a.m., the Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 25, 2023, at approximately 9:46 a.m., WRPS officers were called to the area of 211 Veronica Drive in Kitchener for a male sleeping in a car. The officers approached the vehicle and engaged the male. The male was uncooperative. He put the vehicle into drive and drove at an officer. The officer drew his pistol and fired at the vehicle. The vehicle sped off and was involved in a collision a short distance away at Old Chicopee Trail. The male [now known to be the Complainant] was taken by emergency medical services (EMS) to the Grand River Hospital.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2023/10/25 at 11:20 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/10/25 at 11:57 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around one of the parking lots of the housing complex at 211 Veronica Drive, Kitchener.

Physical Evidence

On October 25, 2023, the SIU forensic investigators arrived on scene.

There was a marked police vehicle – a Ford Interceptor – in the approximate middle of the parking lot. It was oriented in a southwest direction in the parking lot with the front wheels turned to the left. The driver’s side of the vehicle had fresh brush marks in the dirt covering the vehicle. There appeared to be berry juice transfer to the driver’s side of the vehicle. The front right tire had visible tan-coloured scuffing to the sidewall. The tire treads of the vehicle were covered with leaves.

A cartridge case – Exhibit #1 - was located on the parking lot northeast of the cruiser.

There were two vehicles parked in the parking lot as follows:

• A gold-coloured vehicle. This vehicle was reversed into a parking spot. The vehicle appeared to have fresh collision damage to the front right bumper area. The front amber side marker was damaged with portions of amber-coloured lens on the parking lot. Tire marks near this vehicle ran towards and along a pedestrian walkway. The tire marks continued in an easterly direction on the grass and walkway and through an opening between the north fence and south side of the brush-covered ditch. The tire marks proceeded in an easterly direction then turned to the left (north) through the brush-covered gully and onto a community trail after which the tire marks ran in a westerly direction. There were numerous other tire marks in the grass and onto the walkway.
• A white vehicle. This vehilce was reversed into a parking spot next to the gold-coloured vehicle.

A Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV was located off the Dominic Cardillo Trail in the north side ditch. The vehicle was oriented in a northwest direction. It had collision damage to the front, with the lower bumper off and below the vehicle. There was a gold-coloured transfer to the left front bumper area of the vehicle. A defect was found to the front right (passenger) window - left of centre looking at the door.


Figure 1 – The resting place of the Jeep in the ditch

The Complainant had reportedly been arrested approximately 300 metres west of the Jeep on the trail. There was an area of blood staining on the trail.

On October 26, 2023, the Jeep was examined. There was blood on the centre console and steering wheel. The heaviest concentration was along the right side of the driver’s seat. A black-handled knife in a sheath was visible between the right side of the driver’s seat and centre console. An open bottle of Forty Creek alcohol was on the floor area of the front passenger compartment.

There was a hole in the front passenger side window. It was a circular hole with cracks radiating out from the centre. It was 24.5 cm right of the door edge and 15.5 cm up from the window frame. The circular hole in the window suggested a projectile entered at or near 90 degrees.


Figure 2 - The hole in the front passenger side window of the Jeep

On October 28, 2023, at 3:30 p.m., at the completion of the Complainant’s surgery, segments of a projectile were collected by SIU forensic investigators.

The Glock semi-automatic pistol assigned to the SO was examined by the SIU. It contained 16 rounds in the magazine and 1 round in the chamber. The magazine had a maximum capacity of 17 rounds. It was also ascertained that the SO had “topped-up” his gun, indicating that it contained 18 live rounds before the shooting in question.



Figure 3 – The SO’s firearm and magazine

Forensic Evidence

On November 8, 2023, a Glock Model 45 was submitted to the CFS for examination.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

Police Communications Recordings – Phone Calls

On October 25, 2023, at 9:15:02 a.m., CW #1 made a non-emergency call to police to report a black Jeep parked in a parking lot at 211 Veronica Drive. The vehicle appeared to be in an accident and the licence plate appeared to be made of paper. An unresponsive occupant in the driver’s seat was described, and a bottle of Forty Creek alcohol was in the passenger seat.

CW #4 called 911 from the area of Bancroft Street in Kitchener. He reported a Jeep Grand Cherokee travelling at a high rate of speed down a walking path and crashing into a ditch. The driver ran from the scene down a path towards Old Chicopee Drive. The WRPS arrived on the scene before the conclusion of the call.
Another caller near Old Chicopee Drive and River Road East reported a vehicle which had crashed into the bush. A man with a bleeding left arm fled along the trail towards Old Chicopee Drive. CW #4 could be heard in the background making his 911 call. The WRPS arrived near the conclusion of the call.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, and other police and non-police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario.

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.

The Complainant suffered a gunshot wound on October 25, 2023. As the wound was inflicted by a WRPS officer, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO was identified as the subject official. 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.
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.