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 serious injury or injuries sustained by a 33-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 16, 2024, at 12:23 a.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On November 15, 2024, at 11:14 p.m., the OPS received a call about a man, the Complainant, brandishing an axe while attempting to break into vehicles and businesses located near St. Joseph Boulevard and Place d’Orléans Drive, Ottawa. The police learned that the Complainant had also been involved in an altercation with an unknown civilian, who had sustained a gash, possibly, from the axe. Officers arriving on scene demanded that the Complainant drop the axe. The Complainant ran at officers causing one [the Subject Official (SO)] to fire five rounds from his firearm, striking the Complainant’s thigh and calf. The Complainant continued to wield the axe and another officer discharged a conducted energy weapon (CEW), which caused the Complainant to drop the axe and surrender. The Complainant was arrested and transported to the Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus where he was treated for leg injuries.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/11/16 at 12:47 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/11/16 at 5:35 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 4

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

33-year-old male; not interviewed; declined

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Not interviewed; declined[2]

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

CW #8 Interviewed

CW #9 Interviewed

CW #10 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between November 16, 2024, and December 6, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

The subject official was interviewed on January 8, 2025.

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

The witness officials were interviewed on November 21, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the drive-thru lane of a restaurant near St. Joseph Boulevard and Place d’Orléans Drive, Ottawa.

Physical Evidence

The restaurant’s drive-thru windows were shattered, leaving glass scattered both outside and inside the building.

Three cruisers were positioned at the north end of the parking lot, showing no visible damage. A significant blood trail was observed, starting east of one cruiser, and arcing around to its north side.

Eight 9 mm shell casings were found at the scene, with three near the front of the restaurant, three behind one of the cruisers, and two further northwest. Several CEW components, including yellow plastic pieces and cartridges, were scattered around the bloodstained scene, indicating multiple deployments.

The following items were documented at the scene:

• A black and grey knife [10” total length / 5” blade] with red staining on the tip,

found in the parking lot near the northeast corner of the building.

• A brown knife sheath located within the large, bloodstained area north of a

cruiser.

• A Woods hatchet [15.75” long with a 5.5” x 3” head], found near the north curb

of the parking lot.

• A pair of black shoes positioned between a cruiser and the large, bloodstained

area.

Figure 1 - Photograph of hatchet at scene

Figure 2 - The SO’s firearm

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – WO #4

At 11:25:56 p.m.,[3] November 15, 2024, the trigger was pulled, the cartridge in Bay 2 was deployed, and energy was discharged for about five seconds.

At 11:26:01 p.m., the trigger was pulled, the cartridge in Bay 1 was deployed, and energy was discharged for about five seconds.

At 11:27:16 p.m., the Arc button was pressed, and energy was discharged for about five seconds.

CEW Deployment Data - WO #3

At 11:27:57 p.m., November 15, 2024, the trigger was pulled, the cartridge in Bay 2 was deployed, and energy was discharged for about five seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[4]

OPS Communications Recordings – 911 Calls

On November 15, 2024, at 11:12:49 p.m., a caller reported that a man [the Complainant] had attempted to break into a vehicle and attack its occupants. He was armed with a hatchet and had shattered two windows at a restaurant. The Complainant was described as a male wearing a white jacket, blue jeans, and a black toque. During the altercation, the Complainant had struck another man [CW #5] in the mouth with the hatchet, causing him to bleed. The call ended at 11:19:19 p.m.

On November 15, 2024, at 11:15:35 p.m., a woman called 911 to report that she and her husband were attacked while in a restaurant’s drive-thru. A male had struck her husband’s hand and inflicted severe injuries on his face and head, resulting in significant blood loss. Unable to confirm their exact location, the woman requested that the dispatcher track her phone. The couple had escaped by driving over a curb and were now parked in the Place d’Orléans Shopping Centre. Another individual near them also reported being attacked. The call ended at 11:19:35 p.m.

On November 15, 2024, at 11:15:49 p.m., a personcalled 911 to report that a male was attacking vehicles with a hatchet across from the shopping centre. The caller saw him chasing a person while wielding the weapon and later entering a restaurant with it still in hand. A physical description of the male was provided. The call ended at 11:17:39 p.m.

On November 15, 2024, at 11:16:32 p.m., CW #10 called 911 requesting police at a restaurant, where a male had smashed his car’s back window and was seen roaming the parking lot with a hatchet and a knife. CW #10 had relocated to the shopping centre’s parking lot, where he encountered the second 911 caller and her husband, both injured. He told the dispatcher that emergency medical services (EMS) was needed. Police officers arrived shortly, and the call ended at 11:18:32 p.m.

OPS Communications Recordings – Radio

On November 15, 2024, at 11:16:00 p.m., dispatch alerted officers of a male wearing jeans, a white jacket, and a black toque, observed running a red light towards Place d’Orléans Shopping Centre. At 11:18:00 p.m., EMS was requested for victims at the shopping centre.

At 11:19:00 p.m., the SO reported being with CW #5, who had facial cuts and a bruised shoulder. The suspect, wearing a white shirt, had been seen near a Tim Hortons.

At 11:20:00 p.m., gunshots were heard over the radio. WO #2 confirmed shots had been fired. Officers reported that the male still had the hatchet in hand, and no officers were injured.

At 11:21:00 p.m., the male was on the ground but still holding the weapon. Officers urgently requested EMS, as a victim had sustained two large head lacerations.

At 11:27:00 p.m., EMS was about to arrive, and WO #4 confirmed that the male remained armed and at gunpoint. A CEW was deployed to subdue him.

By 11:36:00 p.m., EMS arrived, and the male was in custody.

Video Footage from Restaurant

On November 15, 2024, starting at 10:59 p.m., a camera captured a series of events unfolding in and around a restaurant near St. Joseph Boulevard and Place d’Orléans Drive.

At 11:01 p.m., a black Audi sedan pulled into the west parking lot and remained stationary with its headlights and taillights activated. Three minutes later, a black Hyundai sedan, subsequently identified as belonging to the Complainant, arrived, and parked two spots south of the Audi. The Complainant turned off his vehicle, exited, and briefly searched his trunk before closing it at 11:05 p.m. He was wearing a white and grey hooded jacket, blue pants, black shoes, and a black toque.

The Complainant approached the Audi’s driver, engaging in a two-minute conversation during which he used the driver’s mobile phone. At 11:08 p.m., he walked north along the west side of the building. Shortly afterwards, the Audi drove away.

At 11:10 p.m., the Complainant returned to his vehicle. Moments later, a white SUV drove into the lot and stopped behind him. Without warning, the Complainant attacked the front passenger window of the SUV, prompting the vehicle to speed away.

At 11:11 p.m., the Complainant retrieved an item from his trunk, later identified as a hatchet, and quickly left the field of view.

The Complainant moved around the premises outside the restaurant wielding the hatchet.

At 11:13 p.m., the Complainant was seen approaching an unidentified man, who used a vehicle as a shield. The Complainant pursued the man while holding both the hatchet and an edged weapon before momentarily leaving and then returning to the scene.

At 11:14 p.m., the Complainant followed a white minivan, appearing to track its movements around the restaurant’s lot.

At 11:18 p.m., CW #5 was seen pointing out injuries to his mouth and left arm.

At 11:19 p.m., the SO arrived and began speaking with CW #5. Shortly after, a cruiser with subdued markings entered the lot, blocking a dark-colored sedan. As an officer [WO #1] exited the cruiser, he drew his firearm and the sedan accelerated over a curb and fled. Seconds later, the Complainant sprinted towards the SO and a restaurant employee, still armed with the hatchet and a knife. The SO discharged his firearm at the Complainant. The Complainant was captured crawling towards the SO. Additional officers arrived on scene and CEWs were deployed.

At 11:29 p.m., several officers moved in and handcuffed the Complainant. The recording ended shortly after at 11:30 p.m.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPS between November 17, 2024, and November 21, 2024:

• Communications recordings;
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
• Video footage from restaurant;
• OPS written statements;
• CEW deployment data;
• Notes - WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4; and
• Will States - WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the SO and several civilian eyewitnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

Starting at about 11:12 p.m., November 15, 2024, multiple 911 calls were received by the OPS reporting violent attacks being perpetrated by a male armed with a hatchet outside a restaurant near St. Joseph Boulevard and Place d’Orléans Drive. The SO, WO #1 and WO #2, all in separate police cruisers, were the first officers to make their way to the scene.

The male was the Complainant. He had arrived at the restaurant’s parking lot in a Hyundai shortly after 11:00 p.m., and parked and exited the vehicle. Armed with a knife and hatchet, the Complainant almost immediately started to assault motorists and vehicles using the drive-thru lane with the hatchet, causing serious injury and property damage.

The SO arrived at the restaurant’s parking lot at about 11:18 p.m., stopping his vehicle facing southeast at the end of the drive-thru lane along the side of the restaurant.[5] The officer exited the cruiser and spoke to a restaurant employee and CW #5, the latter having been struck in the mouth and left elbow by the Complainant’s hatchet through his open driver’s window as he was stopped waiting for his food at the pickup window. Within moments of the SO’s arrival, the officer drew his firearm and pointed it in a southward direction.

The Complainant, still holding the hatchet in his right hand and a knife in his left, started to run towards the SO in the drive-thru lane. Repeatedly told to drop the hatchet, the Complainant continued towards the officer with the weapon in hand. He had neared to within about five metres of the SO when he was met with a volley of shots from the officer. A second series of shots followed shortly when the Complainant, though slowed by the first series of shots, continued his advance. The Complainant, now on the ground near the northern end of the drive-thru lane, began to crawl towards the SO. He remained in possession of the hatchet.

The SO was soon joined by WO #1 and WO #2, and other officers arriving on scene. The Complainant had stopped his crawl but refused repeated orders that he drop the hatchet. WO #4 and WO #3 discharged their CEWs at the Complainant, after which he dropped the weapon. Officers moved in, kicked the hatchet away and handcuffed the Complainant.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and treated for one or more gunshot wounds. The Complainant did not interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his medical records, and the nature and extent of his injuries remain unclear.

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 was shot and wounded by an OPS officer on November 15, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and 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 incident.

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 lawful exercise of his duties through the series of events culminating in gunfire. Aware of 911 calls reporting a disturbance in the vicinity of the restaurant, the officer was within his rights in responding to the area to enforce the law and ensure public safety.

The SO says that he fired his gun believing it was necessary to protect himself from grievous injury or death at the hands of the Complainant. The circumstances that prevailed at the time lend credence to the officer’s apprehensions. Arriving on scene, the SO had seen a male bleeding from his left arm and face (CW #5) and learned he had been attacked by another male. Moments later, the officer took note of the Complainant - a hatchet in his right hand - advancing on him quickly. There could be little doubt that the Complainant represented an imminent threat, and that immediate action was required in self-defence.

The totality of the gunfire – eight shots – constituted reasonable force. For whatever reason, the Complainant had embarked on a course of conduct threatening the lives of many people with deadly weapons. His intentions in approaching the SO were clear. As he neared to within about five metres of the officer, the Complainant was a clear and present danger to the officer’s life and limb. The SO might have considered retreating, and there is evidence that he took several steps back as the Complainant closed the distance, but he was not at liberty to withdraw from the scene given the presence of other persons in the area whose lives were also at risk. The circumstances cried out for the immediate stopping power that only a firearm could provide. On this record, I am satisfied that the first sequence of shots was reasonably necessary in self-defence. For the same reasons, the second volley of gunfire was made necessary when the Complainant continued to advance on the officer.

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

Date: March 5, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit