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:

• 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 Personal 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.

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 39-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 30, 2024, at 6:29 p.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 30, 2024, at about 2:32 p.m., the PRP were notified of a person in crisis in the area of Port Street East, Mississauga. PRP officers, including members of the Tactical and Rescue Unit (TRU), responded and observed a male cutting his throat with a piece of glass. A conducted energy weapon (CEW) was discharged, to stop the male from harming himself, with no results. An Anti-riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN) was also discharged, after which the male dropped to the floor and was arrested. Once in custody, the male was found to have cuts to his neck and knees. He was transported to the Mississauga General Hospital and placed under a Mental Health Act apprehension.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/01/31 at 8:44 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/01/31 at 8:47 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on February 2, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on February 2, 2024.

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

WO #4 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between February 7 and 16, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the balcony of a residential unit in a building in the area of Port Street East, Mississauga.

Physical Evidence

The SIU collected the following evidence from the PRP on January 31, 2024:

• Combined Tactical Systems Flash Bang grenade, mini bang model 7290M (2);
• ARWEN cartridge case (fired), Model AR-1; and
• ARWEN cartridge case (fired), Model AR-1.[2]

Figure 1 – The ARWEN

Figure 2 – The ARWEN cartridge cases

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – The SO[3]

The SO’s CEW was a Taser 7.

The CEW was armed at 4:45:34 p.m.,[4] January 30, 2024.

At 4:45:36 p.m., the trigger was pulled. Cartridge one was deployed, and electricity was discharged for 3.793 seconds.

CEW Deployment Data – WO #1

WO #1’s CEW was a Taser 7.

The CEW was armed at 4:45:56 p.m.

At 4:45:59 p.m., the trigger was pulled. Cartridge one was deployed, and electricity was discharged for 5.058 seconds.

CEW Deployment Data – WO #4

WO #4’s CEW was a Taser 7.

The CEW was armed at 4:45:42 p.m. and the trigger was pulled. Cartridge one was deployed, and electricity was discharged for 1.815 seconds.

At 4:45:47 p.m., cartridge two was deployed and electricity was discharged for 5.073 seconds.

At 4:45:54 p.m., the right arc button was pressed, and electricity was discharged for 6.867 seconds.

At 4:46:01 p.m., the right arc button was pressed, and electricity was discharged for 16.436 seconds.

At 4:46:18 p.m. and, again, at 4:46:30 p.m., the right arc button was pressed, and electricity was discharged for 9.492 seconds and 6.082 seconds, respectively.

The right arc button was pressed at 4:46:31 p.m. and, again, at 4:46:37 p.m., and electricity was discharged once for 4.975 seconds. At 4:46:47 p.m., the right arc button was pressed and, again, at 4:47:01 p.m., and electricity was discharged for 4.963 seconds and 4.965 seconds, respectively.

CEW Deployment Data – WO #3

WO #3’s CEW was a Taser 7.

The CEW was armed at 4:46:22 p.m., and the trigger was pulled. Cartridge one was deployed, and electricity was discharged for 3.819 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[5]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO

Starting at about 3:20 p.m., January 30, 2024, WO #4 and WO #2 were captured attempting to communicate with the Complainant through the door of his apartment. A master key was unsuccessful in opening the door.

At 3:28 p.m., the BWC audio was turned off and Aerial Support Unit (ASU) drone video was monitored on a cellular telephone.

At 4:39 p.m., the audio was turned on.

At 4:45 p.m., WO #4 breached the door to the apartment. WO #2 entered and the SO followed carrying an ARWEN. The Complainant was on the balcony. The SO discharged three ARWEN rounds at the Complainant in quick succession. Four TRU officers went to the Complainant on the balcony and the SO remained at the threshold of the patio door. The TRU officers said, “Release your hand!” and “Open your hand!” Multiple CEWs were discharged. The Complainant screamed for help and moaned in pain.

At 4:47 p.m., the Complainant was handcuffed behind his back and a paramedic sedated him. The SO told the paramedic that the ARWEN struck the Complainant in the mid-area of his body.

At 4:54 p.m., the Complainant was secured in a stretcher chair. The SO found two ARWEN cartridges and returned to his police vehicle.

BWC Footage – WO #3

On January 30, 2024, starting at about 3:32 p.m., WO #3 was captured walking down the hallway towards the Complainant’s apartment. He watched ASU drone video on a cellular telephone and observed the Complainant cutting and stabbing his neck with a piece glass.

BWC Footage – WO #2

At 3:20 p.m., WO #2 was at the door of the apartment.

Following his entry into the apartment, WO #2 slid the patio door open and the SO then discharged the ARWEN. The sound of deployed distraction devices was heard. WO #2 stepped onto the balcony. The Complainant was against the railing and three CEWs were deployed multiple times in probe and drive stun modes. The Complainant fell on the floor in pain as the CEW discharges continued, and the SO stepped on his head, face and shoulder. WO #2 tried to control the Complainant’s left arm and attempted to unclench his fist. TRU officers struggled to control the Complainant’s right arm.

At 4:47 p.m., the Complainant’s hands were handcuffed behind his back.

BWC Footage – Officer #1

On January 30, 2024, at 3:43 p.m., Officer #1 walked down the hallway, passed the Complainant’s apartment and walked up a stairwell.

At 4:44 p.m., Officer #1 stood on a balcony railing, ready to rappel down to the balcony of the Complainant’s apartment. Officer #2 and Officer #3 were also on the railing with Officer #1.

At 4:45 p.m., there were two loud bangs and a distraction device was tossed onto the Complainant’s balcony. There were several voices ordering the Complainant to get on the ground.

At 4:46 p.m., Officer #1 rappelled to the Complainant’s balcony. On the balcony, there was a chair on fire. He put out the fire and tossed the chair off the balcony. Officer #1 stood back as the TRU officers arrested the Complainant, a view of whom was blocked by TRU officers.

At 4:47 p.m., the Complainant was in custody.

BWC Footage – Officer #3

Officer #3 was captured on the balcony above the Complainant’s apartment with rappel gear and a distraction device in his right hand. He was between Officer #2 and Officer #1. At 4:45 p.m., Officer #3 deployed a distraction device to the Complainant’s balcony, after which Officer #1 did the same, and bangs were heard.

At 4:46 p.m., a struggle was heard, and Officer #3 rappelled to the Complainant’s balcony. CEWs were discharged continually for about sixty seconds and the Complainant screamed in pain.

At 4:48 p.m., Officer #3 stepped on the Complainant’s balcony. A paramedic examined the Complainant.

BWC Footage – Officer #2

Officer #2 remained on the railing of the balcony above the Complainant’s apartment. He did not rappel to the Complainant’s balcony.

BWC Footage – Officer #4

Officer #4’s BWC started on January 30, 2024, at 3:12:34 p.m.

Officer #4 was present when a crisis worker attempted to speak to the Complainant. He went to another floor when TRU officers entered the Complainant’s apartment.

BWC Footage – WO #1

At 4:39 p.m., the SO was captured discussing the operations plan. WO #2 was designated to provide ‘lethal coverage’, the SO would carry the ARWEN, WO #4 would breach the door and WO #1 would be ready with lethal coverage or his CEW.

On the balcony, WO #1 deployed his CEW on the Complainant. He passed his CEW to the SO and then struggled to gain control of the Complainant’s right arm, which was under his body.

Cell Phone Footage

At 2:49 p.m., January 30, 2024, the Complainant was captured walking back and forth on the outside of the balcony railing holding on with both hands.

At 4:43 p.m., TRU officers rappelled from the balcony above. The Complainant seemed to flinch as a distraction device was deployed on the balcony. A TRU officer appeared on the balcony and a second distraction device was deployed. Several TRU officers physically engaged the Complainant and two TRU officers rappelled to the Complainant’s balcony.

PRP Drone Footage

The first recording started at 3:42:03 p.m., January 30, 2024. The Complainant was moving around on the balcony with debris in his hand, and opening and closing the sliding door.

At 3:47 p.m., the Complainant had a piece of broken glass in his hand. He subsequently brought a chair onto the balcony.

The second recording started at 3:58:13 p.m. The Complainant opened and closed the balcony door and, at 4:02 p.m., yelled for help.

The third recording started at 4:15:20 p.m. The Complainant sat on the balcony and began to cut his neck with glass. TRU officers were on a balcony above.

The fourth recording started at 4:31:29 p.m. The Complainant cut and jabbed at his neck with different pieces of glass. His neck became bloody.

The fifth recording, which started at 4:38:40 p.m., consisted of the ‘Operator’ view. The Complainant sat on a chair and repeatedly cut and stabbed his neck with a piece of glass. Three TRU officers – Officer #3, Officer #2 and Officer #1 – rappelled from a balcony above the Complainant’s apartment.

At 4:45 p.m., the Complainant approached the sliding door and a TRU officer opened the door from inside the apartment. The sliding door glass shattered and the Complainant moved to the left side of the balcony. Two distraction devices were deployed and a chair was ignited. WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4 approached and took the Complainant to the ground on the balcony. Several TRU officers tried to gain control of the Complainant and two TRU officers rappelled to the Complainant’s balcony. The burning chair was thrown to the ground.

At 4:56 p.m., the Complainant was taken inside the apartment.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following materials from the PRP between January 31, 2024, and May 7, 2024:

• Notes – Officer #3, Officer #1, the SO, WO #1, Officer #2, WO #2, WO #3, and WO #4;
• BWC footage – WO #4, WO #3, Officer #1, WO #2, Officer #2, Officer #3, Officer #4 and the SO;
• Incident Details Report;
• Local Interaction History – the Complainant;
• Involved Officers List;
• Person Details Report – the Complainant;
• Occurrence Report;
• Policy - Crisis Negotiations;
• Policy - Mental Health;
• CEW deployment data - WO #4, WO #1 and the SO;
• Communications recordings; and
• ASU (drone) footage.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between February 2, 2024, and February 16, 2024.

• The Complainant’s medical records from Trillium Health Partners Mississauga Hospital; and
• Cellular telephone video recordings.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of January 30, 2024, PRP officers were dispatched to an apartment in the area of Port Street East, Mississauga. The police had received a call reporting a disturbance involving the resident of the unit - the Complainant. The Complainant was screaming and in a highly agitated state. He yelled that police were in his home with dogs, and occasionally hung from the outside of the balcony railing as if he were about to jump.

Uniform officers were the first to the scene. They were followed by TRU officers, arriving between 3:00 and 3:30 p.m. From outside the Complainant’s apartment door, and from ground-level, officers attempted to communicate with the Complainant to no effect. It was apparent that the Complainant was of unsound mind and had lost touch with reality.

The Complainant was in a state of drug-induced psychosis, having ingested cocaine and other drugs. He was fearful that police officers meant to do him harm, and had barricaded the front door to prevent their entry. At one point, he grabbed a piece of glass and used it to start cutting his neck. It was then that police decided to force entry into the apartment to apprehend the Complainant under the Mental Health Act.

The plan was to have TRU officers breach the front door and enter the apartment as three other TRU officers rappelled onto the Complainant’s balcony. With the officers in place, the signal was given at about 4:45 p.m. WO #4 breached the front door and officers, led by WO #2, advanced into the apartment. The SO was behind WO #2. The Complainant was on the balcony at the time facing in towards his apartment. The SO fired his ARWEN three times in quick succession striking the Complainant’s torso. At about the same time, distraction devices were dropped onto the balcony by officers rappelling from above, followed closely by the discharge of multiple CEWS. Officers physically engaged the Complainant and were able to wrestle his hands behind the back where they were secured after a brief struggle.

The Complainant was taken to hospital where he was found to be without serious injury.

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.

Section 17, Mental Health Act - Action by Police Officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

On January 30, 2024, the PRP notified the SIU that one of their officers had earlier that day discharged an ARWEN at a male – the Complainant – in the course of the male’s arrest. The SIU initiated an investigation naming the SO 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 use of the ARWEN.

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 SO and his TRU teammates were within their rights when they entered the Complainant’s apartment and sought to apprehend him under section 17 of the Mental Health Act. The Complainant was mentally disordered and a clear and imminent threat to himself given his conduct on the balcony and his episode of self-harm with the glass.

I am also satisfied that the SO used no more force than was reasonably necessary in aid of the Complainant’s arrest. The Complainant was on the balcony and within arm’s reach of the railing. He needed to be temporarily incapacitated as soon as possible lest he have an opportunity to go over the railing. The use of the ARWEN, which struck the Complainant, was intended to do just that. Indeed, together with the other force brought to bear,[6] the SO and his colleagues were able to safely take the Complainant into custody without the infliction of serious injury.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: May 29, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit