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 17-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 27, 2024, at 2:31 p.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 27, 2024, at approximately 1:30 p.m., LPS officers responded to a residence in the area of Riverside Drive in London for a family trouble call. Reportedly, a 17-year-old [now known to be the Complainant] had stabbed a family member in the face with a weapon. Police officers confronted the Complainant on the street. The Complainant did not comply with police commands and a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) was used. Emergency Response Unit (ERU) officers subsequently deployed a Blunt Impact Projectile (BIP) launcher, striking the Complainant and allowing them to take him into custody.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/03/27 at 3:10 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/03/27 at 6:17 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 27, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on April 2, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO 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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on April 10, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on a roadway near a residence in the area of Riverside Drive, London.

Physical Evidence

On March 27, 2024, at 6:17 p.m., SIU forensic investigators arrived at the scene. A uniformed LPS officer was parked guarding the scene. There were two pylons next to BIP projectiles that had been fired. The two projectiles were constructed of a rigid plastic with a rounded foam head. One projectile was in the driveway, and another was located outside in the rear of the Complainant’s residence.

The overall scene was photographed, as was the location of the BIP projectiles.

The BIP launcher was examined. It was a large bore weapon (40mm), with a barrel magazine below that held a maximum of six cartridges. The magazine had been fully loaded and two of the cartridges had been deployed.

The cartridges and launcher were photographed, and the two deployed cartridge cases and the two deployed projectiles were collected as evidence.

Figure 1 – BIP launcher

Figure 2 – BIP projectiles

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – WO #3

The CEW was armed at 1:35:58 p.m.,[2] March 27, 2024. At 1:38:24 p.m., the trigger was pulled and the cartridge in Bay One was deployed with an electrical discharge from the weapon of 4.937 seconds. Immediately following this discharge, the trigger was pulled a second time and the cartridge in Bay Two was deployed with an electrical discharge from the weapon of 4.936 seconds. The CEW was disarmed at 1:40:21 p.m.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Cell Phone Video

On March 27, 2024, a video was received from a civilian.

The video was recorded from behind the Complainant, who was in the roadway. To the north of the Complainant was a marked LPS cruiser parked in the middle of the road with four ERU members standing in front. One ERU member - WO #1 - held a shield and a second - WO #4 - had his pistol drawn and was in the ready position.

The Complainant had a knife in his right hand and swayed as he took two steps forward and then two back. He then took two steps backward as he put his right hand in a satchel that was hanging on his right side and brought it up chest level. WO #4 pointed his firearm at the Complainant and ERU members took cover by a marked LPS cruiser. An ERU member - the SO - came up the driver’s side of the LPS cruiser with a BIP launcher. The Complainant continued to walk forward towards ERU members and the discharge of the BIP launcher was heard. The Complainant took a step to his right and two steps backward but remained on his feet. A second discharge of the BIP launcher was heard approximately five seconds later. After a few steps backward, the Complainant put his hands up and went down to his knees.

Commands to get on the ground were heard as ERU members approached and a LPS Canine Unit appeared from the east side of the street. WO #1 was the first to reach the Complainant, the officer pinned him on his stomach with the shield. Four more ERU members approached as the Canine Officer and his dog remained off to the side. The interaction between ERU members and the Complainant while on the ground was difficult to see due to the number of bodies in close proximity. The Complainant was handcuffed and taken into custody. There were no strikes observed during the arrest.

Police Communications Recordings - Radio

On March 27, 2024, at approximately 1:31 p.m., a LPS dispatcher broadcast a family dispute call at a residence in the area of Riverside Drive. The Complainant had reportedly stabbed his family member in the eye.

At approximately 1:33 p.m., WO #1 stated, “Responding,” as sirens could be heard in the background. WO #1 then advised dispatch, “We have three attending.”

At approximately 1:35 p.m., dispatch advised, “[First name of the Complainant] has left residence, out back door, unknown direction, has knife with him.”

At approximately 1:36 p.m., WO #1 advised the SO, “We need a BIP when you guys get here ASAP.” The SO, replied, “10-4,” in acknowledgement.

At approximately 1:39 p.m., dispatch advised, “In custody 1:39.” An unknown LPS officer advised dispatch, “We’re good here.”

At approximately 2:03 p.m., an unknown LPS officer advised dispatch that the Complainant was being transported to the hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the LPS on April 4, 2024:

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• General Occurrence and Supplementary Reports;
• Communications recordings;
• Notes of all witness officials;
• CEW deployment data - WO #3; and
• Use of Force training records - the SO.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between March 27, 2024, and June 6, 2024:

• Cell phone video from a civilian;
• Cell phone video from CW #1; and
• The Complainant’s medical records from London Health Sciences Centre – Victoria Campus.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and officers present at the time of the events in question, 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 or the release of his notes.

In the early afternoon of March 27, 2024, LPS officers, including members of the ERU, were dispatched to a call for service involving a domestic disturbance at a residence in the area of Riverside Drive. The Complainant had reportedly attacked a member of his family before leaving the residence with a knife.

The SO was among the ERU officers who responded to the scene, arriving at about 1:38 p.m. The officers – about five in total - confronted the Complainant on the road. Armed with a BIP launcher, the SO watched as the Complainant walked southward towards the officers. He was holding a knife in his right hand. WO #3 took the lead in speaking to the Complainant. He asked the Complainant to drop the knife. The Complainant refused.

As the Complainant stood facing the officers from about 15 to 20 metres away, he placed the knife in his left hand and inserted his right hand into a satchel he had wrapped around his chest. He then manipulated the satchel as if it contained a gun that he was pointing at the officers. The officers clearly understood what the Complainant had intended. They promptly took a few steps backwards, some of them behind the cover of a police cruiser. As the officers retreated, the Complainant moved forward. He had advanced several metres when he was struck by a projectile fired from the SO’s BIP launcher. A second after the first discharge, the SO fired his weapon a second time, again striking the Complainant.

Immediately after the second impact, the Complainant lowered himself to the roadway in a prone position, dropping the knife in the process, and placed his arms behind the back. The group of ERU officers rushed towards him, pinned him to the ground and, following two CEW deployments by WO #3 to the Complainant’s hip and back, secured him in handcuffs. No firearm was located in the satchel.

The Complainant was transported to hospital following his arrest. He had not suffered any serious injuries.

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.

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.

On March 27, 2024, the LPS contacted the SIU to report that one of their officers had earlier that day fired his BIP launcher at a male – the Complainant. 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 his weapon.

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 and the ERU were lawfully placed throughout the series of events that culminated in the Complainant’s arrest. Given what they knew of the reported domestic disturbance, and what they immediately gathered upon confronting an armed Complainant, they were within their rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant for assault and weapons offences.

Though he did not avail himself of an opportunity to provide direct evidence of his mindset when he fired his weapon, as was his legal right, I am satisfied that the SO deployed the BIP launcher to defend himself and his colleagues from a reasonably apprehended attack. The proposition is a reasonable inference from the circumstances that preceded the shooting – an individual armed with a knife and feigning possession of a firearm while advancing on police.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO, namely, two discharges of his BIP launcher, constituted reasonable force. The officers were faced with a significant threat at the time from an individual whom they had reason to believe had just committed an assault against a family member. The Complainant was brandishing a knife at the officers and acting as if he were pointing a gun at them as well. While, in fact, there was no gun in the Complainant’s possession, he gave that impression and the officers had cause to comport themselves as if he did. On this record, faced with a knife capable of causing grievous bodily harm and death, and what he reasonably feared was a gun, the SO’s discharge of two blunt impact projectiles was a measured and proportionate response to the exigencies of the moment. If the weapon worked as designed, it would temporarily incapacitate the Complainant and allow for his safe arrest without the infliction of serious injury. In large measure, that is what occurred.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.[4] The file is closed.

Date: July 25, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit