SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-PFP-402

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 discharge of a firearm by the police at a 36-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 20, 2024, at 10:59 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 8:35 p.m., CW #1 contacted police to report that she was involved in a domestic dispute with the Complainant. Prior to police arrival at the scene, the Complainant fled the residence in a vehicle heading westbound on Highway 11. The Complainant had sustained self-inflicted injuries and was armed with the knife. OPP officers were dispatched. One officer situated his marked police cruiser on Highway 11 in effort to block the Complainant’s vehicle as it approached. A second officer located the Complainant driving westbound on Highway 11 and positioned himself behind his vehicle waiting for an appropriate location to initiate a traffic stop. As the Complainant approached a construction zone monitored by a temporary traffic signal, he came to a stop with the two officers in their cruisers in front of, and behind, him. At 9:11 p.m., the rear police cruiser activated its emergency lights, and the Complainant maneuvered his vehicle forward, ramming the cruiser in front as the officer was attempting to exit. The officer discharged three rounds of his service pistol at the Complainant’s vehicle. The Complainant exited his vehicle and fled the area on foot. It was unclear as to whether he had sustained any injuries as a result of the gunfire. The Complainant was still at large, and officers were coordinating a search.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/09/20 at 11:34 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/09/21 at 9:08 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on September 21, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between September 21, 2024, and September 30, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on October 28, 2024.

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on September 25, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired on Highway 11 in the area of 179 Highway 11, Moonbeam.

Scene Diagram

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

Highway 11 in Moonbeam aligned in a general east / west direction. The highway was reduced to one lane in a construction area. There were concrete barriers on the north side of the lane and temporary traffic signals to control traffic flowing in the single lane.

Figure 1 – OPP photograph of the SO’s cruiser and shell casings located on the ground

Figure 1 – OPP photograph of the SO’s cruiser and shell casings located on the ground

next to the driver’s door.

Figure 2 – OPP photograph of the WO’s vehicle behind the Complainant’s vehicle.

Figure 2 – OPP photograph of the WO’s vehicle behind the Complainant’s vehicle.

An examination of the scene yielded six firearm cartridge cases on the windshield and in the driver’s footwell of the SO’s cruiser, and on the roadway next to the driver’s door, shown by red arrows in the below images.

A SIU forensic investigator examined and photographed the Complainant’s Jeep and located projectile fragments inside. The images below reveal where the discharged rounds hit the Complainant’s vehicle on the front windscreen and radiator.

SIU FI photographed and collected the firearm, bullets and magazines issued to the SO.

Forensic Evidence

The SO’s Glock

The SO’s service-issued Glock with magazine was capable of holding 18 rounds (17 rounds in the magazine and one round in the breech). There were 12 rounds remaining in the magazine of the SO’s firearm, suggesting six rounds were fired from the weapon. His two spare magazines contained 17 rounds each. Six spent cartridge cases were located on the roadway and cruiser.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

On September 20, 2024, at 9:24:28 p.m., the WO was captured driving westbound on Highway 11. The red taillights of the Complainant’s vehicle were seen in the distance.

Starting at about 9:27:30 p.m., the WO pulled behind the Complainant’s Jeep, stopped at a red traffic signal at the start of a bridge. The SO was stopped in front of the Complainant. About 20 seconds later, the traffic signal turned green and the three vehicles travelled onto the bridge. The Complainant braked suddenly and the SO’s emergency roof lights activated ahead of him. The Complainant immediately put his vehicle in reverse and collided with the front of the WO’s cruiser. The Complainant then drove his vehicle forward aggressively and at an angle to the left, directed between the guard rail and the driver’s side of the SO’s cruiser. The Complainant’s vehicle collided heavily with the driver’s side of the SO’s cruiser. As the Complainant’s vehicle drove forward, six gun shots were heard. The Complainant’s vehicle became wedged between the cruiser and the guard rail.

The force of the impact from the Complainant’s Jeep into the WO’s cruiser caused the Jeep’s rear end to lift off the ground as it collided with the front of the cruiser. The force of the impact when the Complainant collided with the side of the SO’s cruiser again caused the rear tires of the Jeep to momentarily lift off the ground.

Starting at about 9:28:12 p.m., the Complainant fled from the vehicle down an embankment and into darkness. The WO and the SO both yelled commands for him to get on the ground and not to move.

Starting at about 9:28:49 p.m., the SO announced over the radio “shots fired, he tried to ram my cruiser”. At 9:29:20 p.m., the SO said, “Holy fuck, he tried to ram me.”

Starting at about 9:29:38 p.m., the SO announced, “Just to get it on record he did ram my cruiser and he was coming right for me, as I was exiting my driver’s side door.”

OPP Communications Recordings

On September 20, 2024, at 8:31 p.m., a family member of the Complainant called 911. The caller reported CW #1 had called her because she was scared of the Complainant, who had exhibited psychotic behaviours. OPP phoned CW #1 to confirm a domestic assault had occurred. The Complainant was heard in the background. The call disconnected. The family member phoned 911 back and informed them that CW #1 was hiding in a bathroom and the Complainant had a cut on his hand and threated self-harm if police arrived. He had driven off in CW #1’s Jeep.

At 8:36 p.m., OPP units were dispatched to the location.

At 9:13 p.m., the WO advised the Jeep was seen westbound on Highway 11. A plan was made to attempt a rolling block of the Jeep. The plan was made to stop the Jeep at a construction area where the road was reduced to one lane. The SO and the WO reported being stopped at the red light.

At 9:26:21 p.m., the SO reported the light was green and he would try to block the Jeep in the one lane.

Starting at about 9:28:54 p.m., the SO reported that shots had been fired when the Complainant tried to ram his cruiser. The Complainant had fled into the bush towards a train bridge. The SO again stated the Complainant rammed his cruiser as he was exiting and he fired at the Complainant.

At 9:34 p.m., the SO reported blood on the Complainant’s right arm as he fled. It was unknown if the Complainant had been shot.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between September 23, 2024, and October 24, 2024:

  • ICC recordings;
  • Communications recordings;
  • Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
  • General Occurrence;
  • Scene photographs;
  • Audio statement – Civilian #1;
  • Notes – the SO and the WO; and
  • Use of force training records – the SO.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

On September 26, 2024, the SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from SH.

Incident Narrative

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

In the evening of September 20, 2024, the OPP received a 911 call reporting a domestic disturbance involving the Complainant and CW #1. The Complainant had fled the scene in CW #1’s Jeep heading west on Highway 11. He had reportedly cut himself with a knife and threatened self-harm.

The WO was en route to the scene eastbound on Highway 11 when he observed the Jeep travel past him. He turned around and started to follow the Jeep at a distance. Shortly, a plan came together whereby the WO and the SO – operating a cruiser on Highway 11 a distance west of the Jeep – would attempt to stop the vehicle using a rolling block.

As the Complainant and the WO arrived in the area of Fauquier, the SO positioned his cruiser ahead of the Jeep travelling west. The convoy approached a construction zone in which the roadway was reduced to one lane. Concrete barriers and a guard rail lined the north and south sides of the lane, respectively. The SO came to a stop at a red light at a set of traffic signals controlling the flow of traffic onto the lane. When the light turned green, the SO travelled westbound. The Complainant and the WO followed behind.

The SO had gone a short distance before he angled his vehicle towards the guard rail and came to a stop. The Jeep stopped abruptly behind him. The WO came to a stop behind the Jeep. Very quickly, the Complainant reversed the Jeep and struck the front end of the WO’s cruiser. He then accelerated forward and turned left attempting to drive through the opening between the guard rail and the driver’s side of the SO’s cruiser. The SO had exited his vehicle and was standing by his open door. He fired six shots in rapid succession as the Jeep travelled towards him, struck the rear driver’s side of his cruiser, and came to a stop. None of the six shots struck the Complainant. After the gunfire, he exited the Jeep and fled the scene. He was arrested the following day without incident.

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

On September 20, 2024, the OPP contacted the SIU to report that one of their officers had fired his gun 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 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 performance of his lawful duties through the events culminating in the discharge of his weapon. Given what he knew of the call to police, the officer was within his rights in attempting to stop the Complainant in connection with the domestic disturbance that had been reported.

I am satisfied that the SO fired his weapon believing it was necessary to defend himself from a reasonably apprehended attack. That is what he said in his SIU interview, and the circumstances that prevailed at the time lend credence to his assertion. The Complainant was accelerating the Jeep vehicle at close range in the direction of the officer. There can be little doubt that the officer would have felt it necessary to act to protect himself from an imminent risk of grievous bodily harm and death.

I am also satisfied that the SO’s gunfire constituted reasonable force in self-defence. The Complainant was very intentionally accelerating in the SO’s direction and was within split seconds of striking the officer had the Jeep he was operating not collided with the rear driver’s side of the cruiser. In those fleeting moments, the SO was left with very few options if he was going to avoid being struck. One of those options was to use his firearm to immediately incapacitate the Jeep’s operating mind at the time – the Complainant. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted without justification when he chose to meet a very real threat of death with a resort to lethal force of his own.

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

Date: January 17, 2025

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) 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.