SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OFD-307

Warning:

This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

Mandate of the SIU

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.

Information Restrictions

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.

Mandate Engaged

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 an 18-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 17, 2024, at 12:54 a.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 16, 2024, at 10:54 p.m., LPS police officers responded to a residence on Wellesley Crescent, London, in connection with a domestic violence incident. On arrival, Subject Official (SO) #1 and SO #2 entered the townhouse. They located the Complainant with a knife in his hand. The Complainant had just stabbed Witness #1[2] and Civilian Witness (CW) #1. Also in the residence was CW #2, who was uninjured. The Complainant advanced on SO #1 and SO #2, and both police officers discharged their firearms.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/17 at 1:06 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/17 at 2:44 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

18-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on July 17, 2024.

Subject Officials

SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right; a typed statement was received and reviewed

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

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #7 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #8 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between July 19 and 22, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the second-floor of a home on Wellesley Crescent, London.

Physical Evidence

At 3:50 a.m., July 17, 2024, at the LPS Headquarters, SIU forensic investigators met with the LPS SIU liaison officer to examine and determine collection of police equipment involved in this incident.

The duty belt for SO #1 included two spare pistol magazines, each containing 17 cartridges.

The pistol was a Glock Model 45 9 mm semi-automatic pistol. It had a magazine with 15 cartridges loaded, and a cartridge in the breech.

The duty belt for SO #2 included two spare pistol magazines, each containing 17 cartridges.

The pistol was a Glock Model 45 9 mm semi-automatic pistol. It had a magazine with 13 cartridges loaded, and a cartridge in the breech.

Figure #1 – SO #1’s firearm and magazineFigure #1 – SO #1’s firearm and magazine

Figure #2 – SO #2’s firearm and magazineFigure #2 – SO #2’s firearm and magazine

On July 17, 2024, at 6:20 a.m., two SIU forensic investigators attended a residence on Wellesley Crescent regarding a police shooting. The scene had been properly secured and guarded by police. The front door of the residence showed signs of forced entry. Behind the front door, on the floor, was a cartridge case.

In the kitchen was a large area of suspected transfer, projected and pooled staining, which was suspected to be blood. A nearby bathroom also had a large presence of staining similar to the staining in the kitchen.

At the stairway that led to the second-floor, there was a second cartridge case on the floor. Continuing up the stairs, a third cartridge case was found on the seventh step. The stairwell walls and handrails had transfer staining from top to bottom. At the top of the stairs on the second-floor hallway was a fourth cartridge case. The stair banister had been damaged.

In an upstairs bedroom was a large area of pooled staining suspected to be blood, and the room was in disarray. A second bedroom showed signs of disarray. There was a large kitchen-style knife on the floor near the entrance that was also stained. The knife was similar to knives found in the kitchen. The upstairs bathroom had a large area of staining on the floor and walls.

The following items were identified for collection during the walk-through by the SIU forensic investigators:

1 – cartridge case behind front door

2 – cartridge case at bottom of stairs to second-floor

3 – cartridge case on seventh step of stairs to second-floor

4 – cartridge case at top of stairs on second-floor

5 – kitchen knife, with an overall length of 34 centimetres and a 20-centimetre blade, on floor near entrance to the second bedroom

The interior was documented with photographs. A series of nine scans of the access and interior were taken for the purpose of completing a scene diagram.

At 8:45 a.m., examination of the scene was completed. The residence was released to the LPS.

Forensic Evidence

Exhibits were submitted to the Centre of Forensic Sciences, including biological evidence collected during the autopsy at the request of the pathologist.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Communications Recordings

On July 16, 2024, at 10:54 p.m., the LPS received a 911 call from CW #2, who wanted Emergency Medical Services and police to attend a residence on Wellesley Crescent. CW #2 was frantic and reported that the Complainant had stabbed CW #1 and his girlfriend [now known to be Witness #1] with a kitchen knife. The Complainant was in the kitchen, and had stabbed his girlfriend numerous times. Screaming could be heard in the background. CW #1 had been stabbed in the leg and CW #2 did not know how many times the girlfriend was stabbed. At 10:58 p.m., CW #2 said that he and CW #1 were locked in the bathroom.

At 10:59:09 p.m., SO #1 advised that police officers were in the house and, at 10:59:42 p.m., that the male [now known to be the Complainant] had been shot. It was noted that Witness #1 was having trouble breathing. Three ambulances were en route.

At 11:01:35 p.m., SO #1 advised that the Complainant had a pulse and a tourniquet had been applied to CW #1. WO #6 was with the female and SO #2 was doing CPR on the Complainant. SO #1 advised that Witness #1 was breathing but he could not locate her wounds, after which he reported she had been stabbed in the back.

The Complainant was reported with vital signs absent at 11:29 p.m.

At 11:49 p.m., the Complainant was pronounced deceased at the hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the LPS between July 17, 2024, and September 3, 2024:

  • Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
  • Communications recordings;
  • Use of Force Requalification – SO #1 and SO #2;
  • Fingerprints forms;
  • General Occurrence Report;
  • Involved Police Officers and Roles;
  • Notes – WO #4;
  • Statement – WO #4;
  • Notes – WO #1;
  • Statement – WO #1;
  • Notes – WO #5;
  • Notes –
  • Statement –
  • Notes – WO #2;
  • Notes – WO #8;
  • Notes – WO #6;
  • Notes – WO #3;
  • Statement – WO #3;
  • Notes – WO #7;
  • Statement –
  • Background – the Complainant;
  • Undertaking – the Complainant;
  • Procedure – Arrest;
  • Procedure – Intimate Partner Investigations;
  • Procedure – Use of Force;
  • List of Witness Officers; and
  • Witness Statements.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between July 18, 2024, and September 16, 2024:

  • Middlesex-London Paramedic Service Ambulance Call Report (ACR) – the Complainant;
  • Middlesex-London Paramedic Service ACR – Witness #1;
  • Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service; and
  • The Complainant’s medical records from London Health Sciences Centre.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their written statements.

In the late evening of July 16, 2024, SO #1 and SO #2, operating separate cruisers, rushed to a home situated on Wellesley Crescent. They were not far from the area when a 911 call was received of an incident involving multiple persons stabbed in the residence.

The call had been made by CW #2. About a half-hour earlier, CW #2 and CW #1 were witnesses to a brutal assault in the kitchen of the home, located on the main floor. The Complainant was pummeling his girlfriend – Witness #1. CW #1 and CW #2 attempted to intervene even as the Complainant took possession of a knife and started stabbing Witness #1. While trying to keep the Complainant at bay, CW #1 received a slash to his right calf and started to bleed. CW #2 and CW #1 retreated upstairs where they locked themselves in the bathroom and called police.

Arriving at the front door of the house at about 11:00 p.m., and receiving no response to their knocks, the officers decided to force their way inside. SO #2 kicked open the door. CW #2 came down the stairs, and pointed to the top of the staircase. With SO #2 in the lead, the officers made their way up the stairs, firearms drawn. As the officers ascended, they observed a male – CW #1 – on the floor in the bathroom. He indicated he had been stabbed, and pointed to another room. The officers arrived on the second-floor, where a bloodied female – Witness #1 – lay by the threshold of the open door to a bedroom. In close proximity to Witness #1 was the Complainant. He rose to his feet with a knife in his right hand, its blade covered in blood, stepped past Witness #1, and started to advance on the officers. The officers screamed at the Complainant to drop the knife. The Complainant continued to approach the officers and had raised the knife when he was struck by multiple rounds and felled. SO #1 had fired his semi-automatic pistol once. SO #2, standing to SO #1’s left, had discharged his weapon three times. The Complainant was within three metres of the officers when the gunfire occurred.

SO #1 immediately went to check on Witness #1. She was grievously injured but still breathing. The officer then approached the Complainant, dispossessed him of the knife, and secured him in handcuffs. SO #2 performed CPR on the Complainant and was able to re-establish a pulse as SO #1 provided first-aid to Witness #1.

Paramedics attended at the scene and took the lead in providing care to the Complainant and Witness #1. They were transported to hospital and subsequently pronounced deceased.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to multiple gunshot wounds.

Relevant Legislation

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.

Analysis and Director’s Decision

The Complainant passed away on July 16, 2024, the result of a police shooting in London. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming two LPS officers subject officials – SO #1 and SO #2. 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 through the series of events culminating in the shooting. Apprised of information indicating that two persons had been stabbed and that the perpetrator, the Complainant, was still inside the home, the officers were duty bound to respond to the address to do what they reasonably could to prevent further injury and protect life.

I am also satisfied that SO #1 and SO #2 fired their guns believing it was necessary to do so to protect themselves and others from a reasonably apprehended attack. Though neither officer, as was their legal right, provided that evidence firsthand to the SIU in an interview, that is what they indicated in their written statements to the SIU. And that is what naturally arises as an inference from the circumstances at the time, namely, a confrontation with an individual – the Complainant – advancing on the officers while brandishing a knife in their direction.

Lastly, it is apparent that the officers’ gunfire constituted reasonable defensive force. The officers had every reason to believe that the Complainant had just attacked his girlfriend and CW #1 with a knife. The evidence was on graphic display before them. And here he was rising to his feet with a bloodied knife in his right hand and advancing on the officers. The Complainant’s intention could not have been any clearer, as was the peril of grievous bodily harm or death the officers faced in that moment. What was required in the circumstances was the immediate stopping power of a firearm. Nor was retreat or withdrawal viable options considering the presence of Witness #1, CW #2 and CW #1 in the home. On this record, it is clear that SO #1 and SO #2 acted reasonably when, having provided the Complainant an opportunity to drop the knife and surrender peacefully, they fired as he neared to within three metres of their location.

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

Date: November 13, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

  • 1) Unless otherwise specified, the information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s findings of fact following its investigation. [Back to text]
  • 2) Witness #1 succumbed to her injuries. [Back to text]
  • 3) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]

Note:

The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.