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 death of a 17-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 30, 2024, at 9:53 p.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 30, 2024, at 7:43 p.m., police received a call from a male reporting a break and enter in progress at his home on Downey Circle, Aurora. Someone was trying to enter the side door. An officer arrived quickly and reported he had been hit in the face by what was believed to be a pellet. Other officers arrived shortly thereafter. A man, seen exiting the garage, discharged a shotgun at officers. A shotgun blast also struck a cruiser. Four officers discharged their firearms. It was believed that the 911 caller was the same person who had fired at officers. He was identified as the Complainant. The Complainant was pronounced deceased.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/10/30 at 10:00 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/10/30 at 11:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

17-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between October 30, 2024, and November 4, 2024.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #3 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #4 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #1 was interviewed on November 21, 2024.

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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

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

The witness officials were interviewed on November 1, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question began in and around a home – Residence #1 – on Downey Circle, Aurora, and continued west on the roadway.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On October 30, 2024, at 11:30 p.m., SIU investigators arrived at Downey Circle, Aurora. The scene was protected by uniformed YRP officers.

Downey Circle was a residential street. Residence #1 was located to the east of Residence #2. There was approximately 85 metres distance between Residence #1 and Residence #2.

The following images were taken by the SIU forensic investigators.

Figure 1 - The distance between the first and the final area of interaction [the cruiser

to the numbered markers]

Figure 2 - The machete located next to the Complainant

Figure 3 - The shotgun used by the Complainant

Figure 4 – Damage to WO #1’s cruiser from a shotgun round

SIU forensic investigators examined the scene and identified two live shotgun shells, a total of seven discharged shotgun shells, and one pump action shotgun that contained three live shotgun rounds. A total of 45 .223 shell cases[2] and four 9 mm shell cases were located on the street near Residence #2, the driveway of a house across the street from Residence #2, and the grass next to the driveway. SIU forensic investigators examined inside Residence #1 and identified one .22 caliber rifle in an upper front room, and numerous .22 shell casings on the floor, under a damaged front window.

SIU forensic investigators also located two discharged projectiles on the driveway of Residence #2 and a projectile underneath the Complainant. The Complainant was located wearing a tactical-style vest that contained several live shotgun shells.

SIU forensic investigators photographed and collected the firearms, bullets and magazines issued to SO #1, SO #4, SO #3 and SO #2.

Ten projectiles and a fragment were removed from the Complainant during post-mortem examination.

Forensic Evidence

The firearms, bullets and magazines issued to SO #1, SO #4, SO #3 and SO #2 were sent to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) for ballistic examinations. Also submitted to the CFS were the shell cases located during the SIU’s scene examination. The results of the examinations had not been returned to the SIU as of the completion of this report.

SIU forensic investigators examined the following firearms and magazines, with the following results.

SO #4 – C8 Rifle

The primary magazine contained 21 rounds. The secondary magazine had 28 rounds.

If the weapon contained a full magazine before the incident, then it fired seven rounds (and, possibly, eight rounds if it was topped up).

Figure 5 - SO #4’s C8 Rifle

SO #3 – C8 Rifle

The primary magazine was empty. The secondary magazine had 26 rounds.

If the weapon contained a full magazine before the incident, then it fired 30 rounds – all 28 from the primary magazine and two from the secondary magazine (and, possibly, 31 rounds if it was topped up).

Figure 6 - SO #3’s C8 Rifle

SO #1 – C8 Rifle

The primary magazine contained 16 rounds. The secondary magazine had 28 rounds.

If the weapon contained a full magazine before the incident, then it fired 12 rounds (and, possibly, 13 rounds if it was topped up).

Figure 7 - SO #1’s C8 Rifle

If all three weapons contained full magazines before the incident, then they fired a total of 49 rounds (and, possibly, as many as 52 rounds). Forty-five C8 rifle shell cases were located during the scene examination, leaving a deficit of four rounds (and, possibly, as many as seven rounds).

SO #2 - Glock Pistol

The magazine removed from the duty belt contained 13 cartridges. The magazine removed from the weapon contained 17 cartridges (one cartridge was removed from breech). The spare magazine on the duty belt had 17 rounds.

This weapon fired four rounds (and, possibly, five rounds if it was topped up).

Four 9 mm shell cases were located during the scene examination, leaving no deficit (or, possibly, a deficit of one if the weapon was topped up and five rounds were fired).

Figure 8 - SO #2’s Glock Pistol

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

YRP Phone and Radio Communications

On October 30, 2024, at 7:28 p.m., the Complainant called 911 and asked for police to attend his residence because he had heard shouting and banging on the door, and his garage door had opened and closed. He also claimed to have heard noises inside his garage. The Complainant spoke very quickly and repeatedly asked how far away the police were. The call-taker told the Complainant an officer was on a street near the residence and the call was disconnected. The call-taker made several attempts to call the Complainant back; however, he did not answer.

On October 30, 2024, WO #1 responded and arrived at the scene at 7:38:40 p.m. He reported shots fired, possibly from a “pop gun”. He was out of his cruiser and not injured. Someone [the Complainant] was in the window of Residence #1.

At 7:42:22 p.m., SO #2 reported shots fired, and that the Complainant had a long gun. WO #1 reported he had been hit in the mouth, possibly by a pellet.

At 7:44:19 p.m., SO #2 reported the Complainant was in the garage, shots had been fired and, subsequently, that the Complainant was running their way. SO #2 reported shots were fired and the Complainant was hit.

At 7:45:49 p.m., WO #5 reported the Complainant was down. Officers were helping him.

The remainder of the recording was in relation to YRP officers clearing Residence #1 and scene security.

There were multiple calls to 911 with callers reporting the sound of gunshots. They were told police were on scene and to go to their basements for safety.

YRP In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

On October 30, 2024, at 7:39 p.m., SO #4, SO #3, WO #2, WO #4, WO #3 and WO #5 drove to Downey Circle and stopped west of Residence #2. Officers moved around cruisers, civilian vehicles, and trees, all with their firearms drawn.

At 7:42 p.m., WO #1 took cover behind SO #2’s cruiser and appeared to be checking for facial injuries.

At 7:43 p.m., loud gunshots were heard [from the Complainant’s shotgun] and officers moved behind cover.

At 7:44:35 p.m., multiple gunshots sounded [police firearms] and an officer yelled, “Is everyone okay?”

At 7:45:06 p.m., a voice said, “Don’t fucking move!” Six seconds later, another round of [police] gunshots sounded.

At 7:45:35 p.m., an officer said, “He’s down.”

At 7:58:51 p.m., Emergency Medical Services arrived on scene.

Residence Cameras / Cell Phone Video Footage

On October 30, 2024, at 7:42:47 p.m., WO #1 stopped his cruiser on Downey Circle east of Residence #1. He walked to the driveway with his flashlight on and shone it up towards the second floor. Upwards of 20 gunshots sounded and WO #1 ran westbound. Three civilians exited their homes briefly. Other cruisers arrived.

At 7:44:58 p.m., the Complainant walked near the front of Residence #1 and fired his shotgun a number of times in the direction of police officers, into his own garage, and at WO #1’s vacant cruiser.

At 7:48:17 p.m., the Complainant ran westbound, on the front lawns of houses. He carried a shotgun and ran close to the homes and around vehicles in the driveways. He stopped at the bottom of the driveway of Residence #2. Officers yelled at him to drop his gun. The Complainant yelled, “Fuck you,” and fired a shot towards the officers. SO #2 fired her Glock once and struck the Complainant, who yelled and moaned loudly. He fell to the ground, but then stood up holding a long dark object [machete] and moved down the driveway towards the road and officers. Multiple gunshots from police firearms were heard and the Complainant fell to the ground, on the road. The machete lay on the ground, next to his right side. SO #1 slowly walked towards the Complainant and yelled, “Don’t fucking move.” The Complainant rolled towards the right, in the direction of the machete, and numerous gunshots were heard [police firearms]. The Complainant fell back and did not move again. Officers surrounded the Complainant, appeared to check him, and then handcuffed him.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the YRP between October 31, 2024, and December 4, 2024:

• Communications Recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• ICC footage
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #5 and WO #4
• General Occurrence
• Policy – Use of Force
• Use of Force training records – SO #1, SO #4, SO #3 and SO #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU received the following records from other sources:

• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• Residence cameras and cell phone video footage

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with one of the subject officials (SO #1) and civilian eyewitnesses, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, SO #2, SO #3 and SO #4 did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the evening of October 30, 2024, YRP officers responded to a 911 call about a break and enter in progress at Residence #1 on Downey Circle, Aurora. The caller – the Complainant – reported that he heard noises coming from inside the garage, and banging on the door.

WO #1 was the first officer on scene, arriving in his cruiser at about 7:38 p.m. He parked his cruiser slightly east of the address, exited and was walking towards the home when he was met by gunfire coming from the second-floor of the house. WO #1 ran westward to get away from the gunfire. He had not been struck.

The Complainant had fired the shots, discharging upwards of 20 rounds from a rifle. Shortly, he emerged from the home wearing a tactical vest and holding a shotgun. From a position of cover at the west end of the street, WO #1 shone his flashlight at the Complainant and ordered him to drop the weapon. The Complainant told the officer to shut up and said he would kill him, after which he fired several rounds from the shotgun. WO #1 was struck in the face by a pellet from one of the rounds. By this time, other officers were on scene at the west end of the street.

With the shotgun in hand, the Complainant made his way westward towards the officers along the front of the homes situated on the southside of Downey Circle, arriving on the driveway of Residence #2. The officers, positioned in clusters in the vicinity of a vehicle on the street in front of Residence #2 and across the road on and around the driveway of another residence, again ordered the Complainant to drop the shotgun. The Complainant replied, “Fuck you,” and fired a shot in their direction. SO #2 returned fire, discharging a single round from her semi-automatic pistol. The Complainant was felled by the shot, but returned to his feet holding a machete, and moved down the driveway towards the officers. The subject officials fired multiple rounds and the Complainant fell again, this time on the roadway. The Complainant rolled to his right in the direction of the machete he had dropped, and was met and struck by a second volley of shots. The Complainant fell back and did not move again. Officers moved in and secured the Complainant in handcuffs.

Paramedics arrived and began to care for the Complainant. At about 8:07 p.m., the Complainant was 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.

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.

The Complainant passed away from wounds inflicted by gunfire discharged by YRP officers on October 30, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming the officers who fired their weapons subject officials – SO #1, SO #2, SO #3 and SO #4. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials 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.

The subject officials were engaged in the discharge of their lawful duties throughout the series of events surrounding the gunfire. Having been called to the scene of a reported break and enter in progress, the officers were duty-bound to attend to do what they reasonably could to enforce the law and ensure public safety.

Though three of the four officers who fired their weapons did not avail themselves of an interview with the SIU, as was their legal right, I am unable to reasonably conclude that any of the subject officials fired their weapons without believing it was necessary to do so to protect themselves from a reasonably apprehended attack. That was the import of the account provided by the subject official interviewed by the SIU - SO #1. He said he believed the Complainant was reaching for a rifle on the roadway when he fired his C8. The circumstances lend credence to SO #1’s evidence, and strongly suggest that the other three subject officials felt the same way in respect of their gunfire. It was dark, the Complainant had just been seen holding and firing a long gun at the officers, and he carried and was reaching for a long slender object that I am satisfied might credibly have been misconstrued for a firearm.

With respect to the subject officials’ gunfire, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing the use by the officers of their weapons was unwarranted. By the time SO #2 took the first shot at the Complainant, his intentions were clear. For whatever reason, it seems the Complainant had set in motion a plan to lure police to his home where it appeared he intended to shoot and kill officers responding to a fake report of a break and enter in progress. He heavily armed himself with firearms and a machete, and had fired multiple rounds at WO #1 and other officers by the time he made his way onto the driveway of Residence #2. From that position, no more than 15 to 30 metres away from the officers, he fired his shotgun again in their direction. The officers’ lives were in immediate peril and it was imperative that the Complainant be incapacitated as quickly as possible. On this record, SO #2 acted reasonably when she responded with lethal force to protect herself and her colleagues from an imminent risk of death. The officer’s shot did, in fact, neutralize the Complainant, but only for a moment. He was met by a barrage of police gunfire seconds later after he managed to get up and advance on the officers while holding a machete that SO #1, at least, is known to have mistaken for a long gun. That mistake did not divest the officer of the protection of section 34 as it was a reasonable one to have been made in the circumstances given the highly charged atmosphere and the lighting conditions. For the same reasons, I am unable to reasonably discount the possibility that the other subject officials were operating under the same apprehension when they fired their weapons on this occasion. That being the case, this volley of gunfire was commensurate with the exigencies of the situation, namely, the need to prevent the Complainant from firing again at the officers with what they reasonably (albeit mistakenly) believed was a long gun. This line of analysis also applies to the second and final volley of police gunfire in light of the evidence that the Complainant was reaching at that time for the same machete. Lastly, the number of shots fired by the subject officials was high but did not exceed what was reasonable in the circumstances. The gunfire occurred in rapid succession over three distinct phases during which the officers were either being shot at or reasonably believed they were about to be fired on.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against any of the subject officials. The file is closed.

Date: February 25, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit