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 police at a 38-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 28, 2024, at 3:54 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 28, 2024, at 1:49 a.m., PRP officers were dispatched to the area of Elmwood Avenue and Lakeshore Road East in Mississauga regarding a report of a man wielding a knife in the intersection. Uniform police officers attended the area at 1:58 a.m. and established containment of the intersection. The PRP tactical unit was soon also dispatched to the location. They arrived at about 2:06 a.m. and negotiations were initiated. At 2:57 a.m., two conducted energy weapons (CEWs) and one Anti-riot Weapon ENfield (ARWEN) were deployed. The man, the Complainant, was apprehended under the Mental Health Act (MHA) and transported to the Trillium Mississauga Hospital for assessment. It was determined the Complainant had not sustained any injuries as a result of the incident.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/28 at 4:46 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/06/28 at 5:53 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

38-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on June 28, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on June 28, 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on August 8, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of Elmwood Avenue and Lakeshore Road East, Mississauga.

Physical Evidence

In the area of the incident, Lakeshore Road East was oriented in a northeast and southwest manner, and there were generally commercial properties along the street. For the purposes of this report, Lakeshore Road is deemed to run in an east-west orientation.

Elmwood Avenue was a residential street oriented in a northwest and southeast manner. For the purposes of this report, it is described running in a north and south direction.

A knife was found on the west sidewalk of Elmwood Avenue. Approximately five metres north of the knife was a burnt area on the sidewalk, consistent with the deployment of a distraction device. A spent distraction device was found in the grass at the side of the sidewalk. A spent ARWEN cartridge and an ARWEN projectile were found in the area, as well as numerous CEW cartridge wires.

At the scene, the SIU collected:

• CEW probes and wires
• An ARWEN cartridge and an ARWEN projectile
• A spent distraction device

Figure 1 – The knife

Figure 2 – ARWEN projectile

Figure 3 – The SO’s ARWEN

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data

The deployment data for WO #1’s CEW revealed he deployed the device at 2:55:24 a.m. and electricity was discharged four seconds. At 2:55:29 a.m., the trigger was pulled again, and electricity discharged for five seconds.

The deployment data from Officer #1’s CEW revealed he deployed the device at 2:55:08 a.m., for 0.5 seconds. At 2:55:09 a.m., he deployed the second cartridge, for 4.9 seconds. At 2:55:14 a.m., Officer #1 again pulled the trigger, deploying energy for another 4.9 seconds.

The deployment data from WO #2’s CEW revealed he deployed the device at 2:55:14 a.m., for 0.3 seconds. At 2:55:15 a.m., the trigger was pulled again, and the second CEW cartridge was deployed, for 4.9 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

At 1:54 a.m., June 28, 2024, Officer #2 and Officer #3 arrived at the intersection of Lakeshore Road and Elmwood Avenue. They were the first police officers on scene. Additional police officers arrived immediately afterward. The Complainant was sitting on a curb at the corner of the intersection, and a police officer positioned a vehicle such that the bright rooftop takedown lights of the vehicle were illuminating him.

The Complainant looked behind him towards the CW. Officer #2 and Officer #3 walked towards and spoke to the CW. She told the officers her boyfriend’s name, and she asked the officers to leave her alone, as she suffered PTSD.

Officer #2 returned to the intersection and addressed the Complainant by his first name. Numerous police officers positioned themselves on either side of the police vehicle being used to illuminate the Complainant. The police officers were armed with CEWs and pistols.

Officer #2 and Officer #3 returned to again speak to the CW, asking her what was happening with the Complainant and why he was holding a knife. She reported the Complainant was not acting normally. She denied that either she or the Complainant had consumed drugs or alcohol. The CW accompanied Officer #2 back to where the Complainant was standing.

The CW pleaded with the Complainant to drop the knife. Officer #2 also continued to implore him to drop the knife. Other police officers repeatedly called out to the Complainant, pleading with him to drop the knife. Those efforts continued while the police officers awaited the arrival of the tactical team. The aiming lasers of CEWs were visible on the Complainant throughout the negotiations.

Twice the Complainant was provided a cigarette in exchange for placing the knife on the ground. On both occasions, he placed the knife nearby on the sidewalk while crouched and then moved over to retrieve the cigarette. While crouched, he presented a compact and poor target for any of the police officers hoping to deploy a CEW. Immediately upon picking up the cigarette, the Complainant again picked up the knife.

At 2:44 a.m., the PRP tactical team arrived on scene.

WO #2 spoke to one of the on-scene patrol sergeants, Officer #4, to confirm the grounds for an apprehension under the MHA. The CW was moved away from the scene and tactical officers also asked the patrol officers to move away from the intersection while the tactical team took over communications with the Complainant.

At 2:49 a.m., WO #2 and WO #1 discussed the situation, and the use of a distraction device was proposed to distract the Complainant, after which less-lethal options could be deployed to bring him under control. WO #2 suggested the use of the ARWEN.

At 2:54 a.m., the Complainant started to move southbound on Elmwood Avenue, and the tactical officers started to move towards him.

At 2:55 a.m., WO #1 called out he was deploying the distraction device, and the distraction device exploded, resulting in a bright flash of light and a cloud of smoke. Immediately after the distraction device deployed, the sounds of four CEW discharges were heard. WO #2 then called out for the ARWEN to be deployed, and the SO discharged the ARWEN.

The Complainant dropped his knife prior to the ARWEN being discharged. When he dropped the knife there was smoke in the area from the distraction device.

Following the deployment of the ARWEN, the sound of another CEW discharge could be heard, and the Complainant fell over to his side.

The Complainant was secured and transferred to the care of a tactical paramedic.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the PRP between June 28, 2024, and August 26, 2024:

• Notes - WO #1;
• Notes - WO #2;
• Notes - WO #3;
• Occurrence Details Report;
• Person Details Report;
• Incident Detail Report;
• Incident History Report;
• BWC footage - ;
• BWC footage - the SO;
• BWC footage - O;
• BWC footage - WO #3;
• BWC footage - WO #1;
• BWC footage - WO #2;
• BWC footage - ;
• BWC footage - ;
• BWC footage - ;
• BWC footage - ;
• BWC footage - ;
• BWC footage - ;
• BWC footage - ;
• BWC footage - ;
• BWC footage - ; and
• CEW deployment data for three CEWs.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses to the events in question, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the early morning of June 28, 2024, a team of PRP Tactical Rescue Unit (TRU) officers, including the SO, was dispatched to the intersection of Elmwood Avenue and Lakeshore Road East. Calls had been received by the service about a male – the Complainant – holding a knife in the area, and uniformed officers were currently on scene containing the situation.

The Complainant had possession of a knife, and stood with it as vehicles drove by, some honking their horns at him. Uniformed officers had arrived and asked him to drop the knife. He did not.

Under the command of WO #1, the TRU team arrived on scene at about 2:45 a.m. and assumed charge of police operations. Armed with lethal and non-lethal weapons, the officers took up positions around the Complainant, who was standing at a corner of the intersection. One of them attempted to communicate with the Complainant to have him drop the weapon, but he was largely unresponsive.

At about 2:55 a.m., after the Complainant had started to travel southwards down Elmwood Avenue, the TRU officers acted. WO #1, from a position north of the Complainant, deployed a distraction device. Shortly thereafter, WO #2 and Officer #1 discharged their CEWs. The Complainant dropped the knife but remained standing. Moments later, the SO fired his ARWEN once, striking the Complainant. The Complainant winced on impact of the ARWEN round before he was struck by the probes of a CEW cartridge fired by WO #1. Unlike the previous CEW deployments, this one resulted in the Complainant locking up and falling to the ground. WO #1 deployed the CEW one more time, after which officers moved in and took the Complainant into custody.

The Complainant was taken to hospital after his arrest. He had not sustained any 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 June 28, 2024, the PRP contacted the SIU to report that a male – the Complainant – had been arrested earlier that day following the discharge by a PRP officer of an ARWEN. 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 PRP TRU teammates were within their rights in attempting to apprehend the Complainant under section 17 of the Mental Health Act. He was clearly of unsound mind and, armed with a knife, a danger to himself and others.

I am further satisfied that the TRU team, including the SO, comported themselves with due care and regard for public safety, and used only lawful force against the Complainant in aid of his arrest. The team had agreed to continue negotiations with the Complainant but would intervene proactively if he moved onto the roadway or southwards on Elmwood Avenue into a residential area. In the event of either contingency, less-lethal weaponry would be brought to bear to deter and arrest the Complainant. The plan made sense. The Complainant was armed with a knife – a weapon capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm or death – and the police had cause to want to restrict the Complainant’s movements very tightly to safeguard public safety. When the Complainant did start to travel southwards, the plan was put into effect as designed. A distraction device was deployed to momentarily overwhelm the Complainant, after which CEWs were used. When those deployments did not result in the Complainant’s incapacitation, turning to the use of an ARWEN seemed a reasonable alternative. In fact, the ARWEN discharge by the SO did appear to momentarily incapacitate the Complainant. It was immediately followed by a discharge from WO #1’s CEW, which fully neutralized the Complainant, permitting the officers to safely move in and effect the arrest. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that either the SO or any other TRU member acted other than reasonably as the situation unfolded. It is true that the Complainant dropped the knife during the first volley of CEW fire, but the situation was a highly dynamic one and there was smoke in the air from the distraction device. In the circumstances, it is entirely conceivable that the SO was unaware of that fact. Moreover, even if he was, the Complainant was still a danger. The knife had not been dropped far from the Complainant, and was readily accessible at the time the SO fired his weapon.

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

Date: October 17, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit