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 serious injury of a 25-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 22, 2024, at 2:09 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) notified the SIU of a firearm discharge at a person.

According to the OPS, at 1:33 p.m., on March 22, 2024, the Subject Official (SO) attempted a traffic stop in the area of Tweedsmuir Avenue and Avondale Avenue. The female occupant,[2] later determined to be the Complainant, exited the vehicle and fled. The SO pursued her on foot. At some point, the Complainant was seen carrying a firearm. The Complainant stopped and engaged the SO, who discharged his service pistol four times in her direction. The Complainant was given medical treatment and taken to the Ottawa Civic Hospital (OCH) in critical condition.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/03/22 at 2:48 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/03/23 at 12:15 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

25-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on March 27, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

CW #8 Interviewed

CW #9 Interviewed

CW #10 Interviewed

CW #11 Interviewed

CW #12 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between March 23 and 27, 2024.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on April 3, 2024.

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 March 26, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on Avondale Avenue, in and around the area of Churchill Avenue and Avondale Avenue, Ottawa.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

Two SIU forensic investigators arrived on scene on March 23, 2024, at 12:15 a.m.[3] Two SIU investigators had been dispatched to attend the OCH and collect the clothing of the Complainant, which was being held by OPS forensic investigators.

At the scene, Avondale Avenue was cordoned off with yellow security tape, OPS vehicles, and OPS officers. Avondale Avenue was a residential neighbourhood with houses along both sides of the street. The street was oriented in an east-west direction. Trees and utility poles lined the street. Vehicles were parked in various driveways. Overhead street lighting illuminated parts of the street.

Two marked OPS cruisers and a black-coloured SUV were within the cordoned area. Small, numbered orange cones were resting on the roadway within the cordoned area. A paramedic supply bag and medical intervention debris were on the roadway. The front door of a nearby home had been struck by a bullet; the glass on the front door was visibly damaged.

The ambient temperature was approximately -15 °C. The roadway was dry. The anticipated snow had not fallen at the time of arrival in Ottawa. The scene was photographed and mapped.

Later that day, SIU forensic investigators attended the premises of the OPS Professional Standards Bureau and photographed the SO’s use of force equipment and duty belt. The police-issued firearm was proven safe, photographed and collected. Items collected by OPS forensic investigators were turned over to SIU forensic investigators, as they had been collected by OPS forensic investigators given the anticipated severe weather. Items belonging to the Complainant had been seized by OPS forensic investigators and SIU forensic investigators photographed these items, which included a firearm. The handgun was a Smith & Wesson. It had a magazine with ten rounds and one bullet in the chamber.

Figure 1 – The Smith & Wesson handgun carried by the Complainant during the foot pursuit

At 5:28 p.m., the lead SIU investigator notified SIU forensic investigators that a news reporter had contacted SIU media and advised that she had located a projectile at the scene. Contact was made with the news reporter, and arrangements made to retrieve the damaged projectile at 6:40 p.m. The projectile was found on the roadway between two homes on Avondale Avenue in the area of the shooting.

SIU forensic investigators collected four 9 mm Luger cartridge cases from the roadway.

One projectile was recovered from the front door of a home on Avondale Avenue.

SIU forensic investigators collected the SO’s Glock 17 pistol, magazine, and ammunition. Twelve live cartridges were removed from the inserted pistol magazine. One additional live cartridge was removed from the pistol’s breech upon proving the firearm safe. As such, there were 13 live cartridges in the pistol at the time of examination, plus four fired cartridge cases found at the scene, which matched the 17-round capacity of the Glock 17. The SO’s two spare magazines were examined and each found to carry 17 cartridges.

Figure 2 – The SO’s Glock 17 pistol and magazine

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[4]

Video Footage

Twenty-two video recordings were obtained in the investigation. The recordings were primarily from the Avondale Avenue area (the scene), but a few relevant recordings were obtained that captured a foot chase starting at Tweedsmuir Avenue. Some recordings were submitted through SIU inquiries, some obtained in person, and some provided by the OPS. None of the recordings depicted the actual shooting itself, but one recording did show the Complainant in the process of running and holding the firearm, and turning back towards the SO.

Video Footage – Camera #1

This four-second recording captured the T-intersection of Avondale Avenue at Tweedsmuir Avenue. In the intersection was a disabled Audi. The vehicle was abandoned and appeared to sit on its rims.

Video Footage – Camera #2

On March 22, 2024, at 1:33:37 p.m., the Complainant was captured running westbound on the recording. As she ran, she threw a satchel or purse to the ground from her left hand. The Complainant was chased on foot by the SO, who was in uniform and had his service pistol out and pointed at the Complainant as he ran after her.

Video Footage – Camera #3

The recording ran for 21 seconds. In the background of the video, four gun shots were heard. A police siren could be heard as well.

Video Footage – Camera #4

The recording showed the Complainant running westbound on Avondale Avenue as she was being chased on foot by the SO. The audio picked up the voices of the SO and the Complainant. The SO yelled, “Drop the gun or I will shoot you.” The Complainant yelled back, “Please leave me alone.” The SO then stated, “Drop the gun, drop the gun, drop the gun, drop the gun, drop the gun, drop the gun. Do it or I’ll shoot you. Do you understand me. Drop it. Drop it. Drop the gun, drop the gun. Do it.”

Video Footage – Camera #5

The recording was in colour and did not have sound. The SO was captured running behind the Complainant westbound on Avondale Avenue. The Complainant had a handgun in her right hand. As the Complainant almost went out of frame, she began to turn towards the SO.

Video Footage – Camera #6

The footage captured events after the SO had discharged his firearm. The SO walked towards the Complainant, picked up her firearm from the ground with his left hand, and carried it towards the north curb. WO #2 watched the Complainant on the ground, at gunpoint. The SO and WO #2 then walked towards the Complainant with their guns drawn. When they neared her, they re-holstered their firearms, and handcuffed the Complainant behind her back. WO #1 stood back and covered the SO and WO #2 as they handcuffed the Complainant. The SO and WO #2 rolled the Complainant over onto her side. The SO pointed and gave verbal direction to WO #1, who was now off camera. These instructions could not be heard. Sirens could be heard in the background, and the video ended.

OPS Communications Recordings

An OPS dispatcher called WO #2 to advise that an Audi was last seen going northbound on Tweedsmuir Avenue at a high rate of speed. WO #2 broadcast that the Audi had taken off on her and she was not in pursuit. The driver was a female and she had exited the Audi and was running down Avondale Avenue.

The SO broadcast that the Complainant had a handgun in her right hand and refused to drop it. The SO ran after the Complainant. The SO then broadcast, “She’s running at me.” This was followed by him issuing commands to drop the gun or he would shoot her. He yelled, “Do you understand me?” The SO then broadcast, “Shots fired.” The Complainant was down but was still holding the handgun.

WO #1 broadcast that he and the SO and WO #2 had effected the arrest in front of a home on Avondale Avenue, and that paramedics were required.

The remainder of the communications recordings dealt with scene control, ambulance and securing the Audi.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPS between March 24, 2024, and May 29, 2024:

• Copies of civilian video recordings supplied to OPS;
• Notes and narrative report of WO #1;
• Notes and narrative report of WO #2;
• Notes and narrative report of WO #3;
• Related OPS policies on Use of Force and Discharge of a Firearm;
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• Charge Summary;
• Investigative Reports;
• Communications recordings; and
• Witness statements (x5).

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between March 24, 2024, and April 4, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records from the OCH; and
• Video recordings submitted by civilians.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO and multiple civilian eyewitnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the afternoon of March 22, 2024, the attention of OPS officers was drawn to an Audi being operated on Lepage Avenue. It had excessive tint on its windows and an out-of province licence plate. The SO caught up with the Audi on Carling Avenue, pulled alongside its passenger side, and activated his cruiser’s emergency lighting. The Audi accelerated westbound and turned north a short distance away onto Saigon Court.

The Complainant was driving the Audi. She continued north on Saigon Court and over some rocks that marked the roadway’s end. That maneuver effectively destroyed her tires but she was able to drive the vehicle northwards on Tweedsmuir Avenue until its intersection with Avondale Avenue. That was where the Complainant abandoned the Audi and took flight on foot westward on Avondale Avenue. In her right hand, she carried a loaded Smith & Wesson handgun.

The SO had followed the Complainant to the Tweedsmuir Avenue and Avondale Avenue intersection where he stopped, exited his cruiser, and ran after her. He saw the gun in the Complainant’s hand and repeatedly yelled at her to drop the weapon. The officer ran with his sidearm in his right hand and told her he would shoot if she did not release the gun. The Complainant told the SO to leave her alone and continued to run westward on the road, several metres ahead of the officer. As she approached a point in the road on Avondale Avenue, about 180 metres west of Tweedsmuir Avenue, she started to turn in the officer’s direction. The SO fired four rounds from his semi-automatic pistol.

The Complainant dropped her gun and was soon handcuffed behind the back by the SO and other officers arriving on scene.

Paramedics attended and transported the Complainant to hospital where she was treated for multiple gunshot wounds to the torso.

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 was shot and wounded by police gunfire in Ottawa on March 22, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and 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 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.

The SO was engaged in the execution of his lawful duties throughout the series of events leading to the shooting. By the time he arrived at Avondale Avenue, he had witnessed the Complainant driving dangerously to travel past a dead-end road and had cause to take her into custody on that basis.

The evidence indicates that the SO fired his weapon to protect himself from a reasonably apprehended attack. The Complainant, while armed with a loaded firearm, was turning, or had turned, in the officer’s direction with it. The officer could only have surmised that his life was in danger at that moment and that defensive force was necessary to preserve himself.

The evidence also establishes that the force used by the officer, namely, gunfire, was reasonable. The Complainant, having repeatedly refused to drop the weapon and now moving to face the SO, gave the officer every reason to fear that she was about to shoot him. In the circumstances, what was required in the moment was the Complainant’s immediate incapacitation. And the only weapon with the necessary stopping power was the SO’s gun. There are differences in the evidence with respect to the Complainant’s precise actions just before the SO fired his weapon. Some of the accounts have her on her feet when she turned and pointed her gun at the officer. Some suggest she was stumbling forward when she rotated in the officer’s direction, whether fully or partially. Others say she had fallen on the road when one or more of the SO’s shots were fired. What is common ground, however, and what is key to the defence, is that the Complainant had either turned or was turning with the gun in the officer’s direction. On this record, I am satisfied the SO was justified in his conduct.

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

Date: July 18, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit