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 51-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 15, 2024, at 7:51 p.m., the Brantford Police Service (BPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 1:48 p.m., a sheriff officer attended an address in the area of Brant Avenue, Brantford, to issue an eviction notice to the Complainant. The Complainant became angry, threatened the sheriff with an axe, and barricaded himself in the kitchen. The sheriff retreated and called BPS. BPS officers arrived and began negotiations. At some point, a BPS officer discharged an Anti-Riot Weapon ENfield (ARWEN).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/10/15 at 8:30 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/10/15 at 9:58 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 11, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between October 23, 2024, and December 12, 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

The witness officials were interviewed between October 25, 2024, and January 23, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a residence in the area of Brant Avenue, Brantford.

Physical Evidence

SIU attended the scene, collected five ARWEN cartridge cases and five ARWEN baton projectiles, took photographs, and completed a sketch of the scene.

The SIU attended the BPS and photographed the ARWEN used by the SO.

Figure 1 – The SO’s ARWEN

The SIU took photographs of the ARWEN impacts on the Complainant’s body: the left hand, right chest, left arm, left shoulder blade and left ear.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

BPS In-car Camera (ICC) Recordings

On October 15, 2024, between 10:24 p.m. and 10:31 p.m., the Complainant was transported from the BGH to the BPS. The travel was uneventful. Upon attendance at BPS, the Complainant’s door was opened, and he exited the police cruiser without assistance.

BPS Communications Recordings

On October 15, 2024, at 1:47 p.m., CW #2 called 911 and reported that the Complainant had threatened to kill CW #1.

At 1:48 p.m., a call was received from the Complainant, who believed unknown persons were attempting to illegally evict him as he had received no legal documents. The Complainant indicated people at his door were “fake” officers.

Officers were dispatched and arrived at 2:32 p.m. Updates were provided about the Complainant’s comments and the fact that he had armed himself. There were repeated updates with attempts made to communicate with the Complainant. Due in part to the mental condition of the Complainant, as communicated by his father, the possibility of disengaging was not considered an option.

At 6:38 p.m., the Emergency Response Team (ERT) entered the unit and apprehended the Complainant. A request for an ambulance was made as an ARWEN had been deployed.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the BPS between October 17, 2024, and January 9, 2025:

• ICC recordings;
• Communications recordings;
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
• General Occurrence;
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3;
• The SO’s use of force training records; and
• Policies – Arrest and Use of Force.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between October 22, 2024, and December 15, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records from BGH;
• Copies of an eviction court order, Residential Tenancies Act and Execution Act legislation – CW #1; and
• Photographs – the Complainant.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, and police and non-police witnesses, 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 afternoon of October 15, 2024, shortly after 2:30 p.m., BPS officers began arriving at a residence in the area of Brant Avenue. The police had been called by a member of the sheriff’s office – CW #1. CW #1 had attempted to evict the Complainant from an apartment at the address and was threatened with death by the Complainant if she entered his residence.

The SO, a member of the ERT, was joined by WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3, outside the apartment. They too were threatened with death by the Complainant from inside the apartment. With the assistance of the property manager, CW #2, the dead bolt was removed, and an opening was cut in the door. The Complainant was seen inside with an axe. He was unreceptive to negotiations, which continued for about four hours.

At about 6:30 p.m., WO #3 reached through the opening in the door and grabbed hold of the Complainant as he walked past. The two tugged at each other as the SO worked to force open the door. The Complainant broke free and retreated into his apartment. From the area of the door’s threshold, the SO, in possession of an ARWEN, fired his weapon five times at the Complainant. The officers approached the Complainant and handcuffed him behind the back.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a laceration to the upper right shoulder and a fracture of the right clavicle.

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 October 15, 2024, the BPS notified the SIU that one of their officers had fired an ARWEN at a male – the Complainant – earlier that day. 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 the other BPS officers were lawfully placed and in the performance of their duties through the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s arrest. A lawful eviction order was in effect and the police were within their rights in seeking to execute it after the Complainant made it clear he would not voluntarily vacate the apartment. The officers also had cause to arrest the Complainant for the death threats he had made to them and CW #1.

I am also satisfied the use of the ARWEN by the SO was legally justified. The Complainant was armed with an axe and in possession of multiple knives. It was apparent, after four hours of negotiations and a struggle at the door, that he was not about to peacefully surrender into custody. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the use of the ARWEN was something other than a proportionate response to the exigencies of the moment. If the weapon worked as designed, the projectile strikes would temporarily distract the Complainant, allowing the officers an opportunity to safely approach and arrest the Complainant, and obviating the need for a hands-on struggle with an armed individual. In effect, this is what occurred.[3]

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

Date: February 12, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit