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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 2, 2024, at 2:34 a.m., the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) reported an officer-involved shooting of a male. [The male’s identity, unknown at the time of the notification, was subsequently determined to be the Complainant.]

According to the HRPS, on March 2, 2024, at 1:40 a.m., HRPS officers responded to a residence in the area of Third Line and Rebecca Street, Oakville, for a stabbing call. A resident [now known to be Civilian Witness (CW) #1] had called 911 reporting that one of his roommates - the Complainant - was stabbing another roommate [now known to be CW #2]. HRPS Tactical Response Unit (TRU) officers arrived and observed the Complainant stabbing CW #2. Subject Official (SO) #1 and SO #2 discharged their firearms at the Complainant. The Complainant was deceased at the scene.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/03/02 at 2:52 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/03/02 at 3:50 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 6

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 4

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

29-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between March 2 and 5, 2024.

Subject Officials

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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness official was interviewed on March 2, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the ground floor of a residence situated in the area of Third Line and Rebecca Street, Oakville.

Physical Evidence

On March 2, 2024, at 0350 a.m., SIU investigators arrived at the residence in Oakville. The scene was protected by uniformed police officers from HRPS.

The scene was located in a living room on the ground level. The Complainant’s body was observed supine, next to a couch. His hands were handcuffed behind his body. The room was dark, with no operational lighting. SIU forensic investigators identified the main power switch had been switched off at the power box located in the basement.

SIU forensic investigators examined the scene and identified multiple C8 spent cartridges and projectiles, a large kitchen knife and a dented frying pan. In total, 12 spent cartridge cases and six damaged projectiles were collected at the scene.

SIU forensic investigators collected the firearms, bullets and magazines issued to SO #1 and SO #2.

Figure 1 – SO #1’s firearm

Figure 2 – SO #1’s magazine rounds

Figure 3 – SO #2’s firearm

Figure 4 – SO #2’s magazine rounds

Forensic Evidence

The C8 firearms, bullets and magazines issued to SO #1 and SO #2 were sent to the CFS for ballistic examinations. Also submitted to the CFS were the 12 spent cartridge cases located during scene examination.

The results of the examinations had not been returned to the SIU as of the date of this report.

Nine projectiles and fragments were found in the Complainant’s body during the post-mortem examination.

The service issued C8 rifle magazines were capable of holding 30 rounds.

There were 23 rounds identified remaining in the magazine of SO #1’s rifle. His two spare magazines contained 28 rounds each.

There were 21 rounds identified remaining in the magazine of SO #2’s rifle. Each of his two spare magazines contained 28 rounds each.

It is known from previous investigations that police officers do not load the C8 magazines to capacity, as this risks jamming the magazine mechanisms when loaded too tightly. The exact number of rounds loaded into each of SO #1’s and SO #2’s magazines was unknown; however, with both spare magazines loaded to 28 rounds each, it might be assumed the used magazines were each loaded to 28, meaning that 12 rounds were missing. This would match the number of spent cartridge cases located at the scene.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

The SIU received four ICC videos from HRPS. The following is a combined summary of the footage.

Four police vehicles were captured travelling to the residence. WO #1’s ICC was equipped with audio, transmitted through a microphone worn by WO #1. His camera did not capture anything of relevance. His microphone captured the audio in full of the events that took place. WO #1 arrived first and spoke with CW #1, who said his roommate was attacked inside. WO #1 announced, “Halton Police!” SO #1 and SO #2 arrived and carried their C8 rifles. WO #1 again announced themselves. A voice cried, “Help me, help me!” WO #1 yelled back, “Help is on the way. Who’s in there with you?” CW #2 continued to yell for help. One or two police officers yelled, “Get off him now!” The command was repeated twice along with, “Get off him or you will be shot!”

Four minutes and 50 seconds into the recording, someone said, “Shoot, shoot!” Immediately, several gunshots were heard in rapid succession with an even, continuous cadence. The shots lasted approximately one second. WO #1 reported shots were fired. A police officer told the Complainant not to reach for the knife and not to move.

There were discussions between the police about CW #2’s injuries and handcuffs for the Complainant. WO #1 informed dispatch, “We have one male bleeding out and one male deceased.” There were multiple discussions between unknown persons, believed to be other police officers, regarding the care of CW #2. WO #1 reported the Complainant’s wounds were on his back and the back of his head.

At 21 minutes and 35 seconds, WO #1 explained the encounter to an unknown individual. “He was on top of this guy when we came in. He was sitting on top of him… stabbing him, and we shot him, and that’s where he is now. He’s been shot in the back, there’s nothing on his front.” He estimated the Complainant was shot four or five times with one confirmed in the back of the head.

At 30 minutes and 52 seconds, WO #1 told an unknown person, “I walked into the house, and I could hear him screaming for help. Tac was right behind me, so I waited for them. We came in three strong and he’s sitting on top of him actively stabbing him. They shot and I was right behind them. The victim was lying on his back, with the guy riding on top of him with the knife in his hand. He was lying right there where you’re standing. We pulled him off and he’s got four or five shots to his back and a couple to the back of the head.”

HRPS Communications Recordings – 911

On March 2, 2024, at 1:39 a.m., CW #1 called 911 and asked for the police to respond immediately. CW #1 advised the call-taker that a roommate [the Complainant] had a knife and tried to kill another roommate [now known to be CW #2]. The call-taker tried to get information from CW #1. CW #1 yelled at the Complainant to stop a number of times. He also told the Complainant to “leave the knife” and “leave it” 14 times. A metal object was heard to bang numerous times [now known to be CW #1 hitting the Complainant over the head with a metal frying pan]. CW #2 yelled, “Hit him, hit him again.”

WO #1 arrived. CW #1 told WO #1 that the Complainant was inside the house and the Complainant had a knife and was trying to get CW #2. CW #1 told WO #1 that he was unable to stop the Complainant. WO #1 yelled out, “Halton Police,” three times before the call was terminated.

HRPS Communications Recordings - Radio

At 1:39 a.m., March 2, 2024, multiple patrol units were dispatched to the residence. The call-taker heard crashing in the background and, “He’s going to kill me.”

At 1:44:59 a.m., a TRU officer [unknown which officer] advised a male was heard to yell for help inside and they were to go inside the residence.

At 1:45:26 a.m., WO #1 reported shots had been fired.

Shortly after, a police officer requested paramedics attend. They had one man with multiple stab wounds to his face and one man down with multiple gunshot wounds.

At 1:46:49 a.m., WO #1 advised the dispatcher that there was one male bleeding out and one male deceased.

The paramedics arrived at 1:51 a.m.

Video Footage – Residence #1

The recording was of good quality, but not date or time-stamped.

The recording commenced with CW #1 on the driveway of the residence where the incident occurred. WO #1 arrived, and CW #1 told WO #1 they were inside. WO #1 went to the front door and yelled out, “Halton Police!” WO #1 kicked the door open and called out. WO #1 yelled out that help was on the way.

SO #1 and SO #2 arrived and the three officers entered the house. WO #2 arrived and remained outside.

The house was completely dark. SO #1’s, SO #2’s and WO #1’s silhouettes and flashlights were seen through the front window.

Two minutes into the recording, a male voice yelled, “Get off him. Get off him now.” A faint male voice was heard to say, “Get off me.” Fifteen seconds later, a faint male voice again said, “Get off me.” Immediately after, multiple gunshots were heard; it was difficult to tell exactly how many shots were fired.

Ten seconds later, WO #2 ran into the house.

Video Footage – Residence #2

These recordings were reviewed and found to contain little investigative value. The camera only captured the emergency vehicles’ flashing lights.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following materials from HRPS between March 2, 2024, and March 4, 2024:

• Communications recordings;
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
• ICC recordings;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Notes - WO #1;
• Notes - WO #2;
• Notes - WO #3;
• Notes - WO #4;
• Policy - Use of Force;
• SO #1’s Use of Force training qualification; and
• SO #2’s Use of Force training qualification.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between March 2, 2024, and March 11, 2024:

• Video footage – Residence #1;
• Video footage – Residence #2;
• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report - Ontario Forensic Pathology Service; and
• Halton Region Paramedic Services Paramedic Report.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with 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, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the early morning of March 2, 2024, the HRPS received a 911 call from a resident of a house located in the area of Third Line and Rebecca Street, Oakville. CW #1 had heard someone yelling for help. CW #1 made his way to the ground floor living room and observed another resident of the home – CW #2 – on his back. Straddling him was the Complainant. Both were bloodied. The Complainant was holding a knife in his right hand and using it to stab at CW #2. CW #1 grabbed a frying pan from the nearby kitchen and struck the Complainant with it across the head. The Complainant continued his attack on CW #2 and CW #1 left to call 911.

WO #1 was the first to arrive on scene. He met CW #1 outside the front door. Shortly after, they were joined by SO #1 and SO #2, both of the TRU. The officers, armed with C8 rifles, entered through the front door and made their way towards the living room. The TRU officers positioned themselves on either side of the entrance to the living room and ordered the Complainant twice to get off CW #2. His back to the officers, the Complainant was still on top of a supine CW #2 with the knife in his hand. Seconds later, as the Complainant continued to attack CW #2, the TRU officers fired multiple times in quick succession – SO #1 discharged five rounds; SO #2 discharged seven rounds. The Complainant fell forward onto the floor to the left side of CW #2. The knife came to rest on the floor by the right side of CW #2.

The Complainant was handcuffed. He would subsequently be declared deceased at the scene.

CW #2 was transported to hospital with multiple stab wounds and lacerations.

Cause of Death

At autopsy, the pathologist was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to multiple gunshot wounds. The Complainant had sustained gunshot wounds to the back and the back of the head.

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 passed away on March 2, 2024, the result of gunshot wounds inflicted by police officers. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming SO #1 and SO #2 subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s death.

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 placed and in the execution of their duties throughout the series of events leading to the shooting. Having received an urgent call for assistance in what were life and death circumstances, the officers were duty-bound to attend at the scene to do what they reasonably could to prevent harm from materializing and ensure public safety.

When the officers fired their weapons at the Complainant, I am satisfied they did so under the reasonable belief that it was necessary to protect CW #2 from death or grievous bodily harm. Though neither officer provided direct evidence of their mindset at the time of the shooting, each having chosen not to interview with the SIU (as was their legal right), the circumstantial evidence reasonably gives rise to that inference. The officers would have known from the radio communications and their exchange with WO #1 outside the house that the Complainant was armed with a knife and using it to harm CW #2. That information would have been graphically confirmed as soon as they entered the house and observed the Complainant on top of CW #2. On this record, there can be little doubt that SO #1 and SO #2 acted to defend CW #2 when they fired their rifles.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the officers – multiple discharges from their C8 rifles – constituted reasonable force. It was imperative in the moment that they immediately incapacitate the Complainant. They had taken a few seconds to order the Complainant off CW #2 but waiting any longer risked the Complainant striking CW #2 with a fatal blow. A physical engagement with the Complainant would have placed the officers’ lives in peril given the knife in the Complainant’s possession. And a resort to less-lethal force – such as a conducted energy weapon or oleoresin capsicum spray – would not have the same likelihood of stopping power that was required of the moment. With respect to the number of shots fired, their rapidity leads me to believe that there was no material difference in the threat reasonably apprehended by the officers throughout their gunfire. Moreover, there was no additional gunfire after the initial volley had been discharged and it was clear that the Complainant was no longer a threat.

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

Date: July 2, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit