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 injuries of a 41-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 17, 2025, at 6:58 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) (East Region) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 17, 2025, at about 6:30 p.m., OPP officers from Lennox & Addington County responded to an address in Odessa. In the course of subsequent events, a male [now known to be the Complainant] was reportedly shot by one or more officers. The male was transported to Kingston General Hospital (KGH) in serious condition.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/01/17 at 7:13 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/01/17 at 9:49 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on March 10, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on January 20, 2025.

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

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #7 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

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

WO #9 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between January 23, 2025, and January 24, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around a home in Camden East.

Physical Evidence

Two 9 mm cartridge cases were recovered by the SIU at the scene. In addition, six Anti-Riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN) cartridge cases were located, dispersed across the driveway and leading up to a house entrance door. The distribution of these less-lethal rounds suggested that officers discharged them while positioned on the driveway. Two knives were identified and marked at the scene - a wood-handled knife located near the entrance door, and a red-handled knife found in close proximity. A damaged Crossman CO2 revolver was outside the entrance door.

The SIU also collected the SO’s Glock 17M pistol for further analysis.

Figure 1 - The Complainant’s knife

Figure 2 – The Complainant’s knife

Figure 3 – The SO’s firearm

Figure 4 - ARWEN

Figure 5 – ARWEN projectile

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP Communications Recordings - 911 Calls

On January 17, 2025, at 5:06 p.m., the OPP received a 911 call from the CW reporting that the Complainant had threatened to harm him with a knife. The CW mentioned the Complainant was "going nuts" and trying to hurt him. The dispatcher kept the CW on the line, but he was concerned about the Complainant hearing the call and ended up putting the phone down, leaving the line open.

At 5:13 p.m., Witness #1 called 911, reporting a strange phone call with the Complainant. The caller mentioned a history of conflict between the Complainant and the CW, and that they had been drinking. Witness #1 also shared a concerning text from the Complainant saying he might harm the CW. The caller was not sure if the threat was serious.

OPP Communications Recordings – Radio

On January 17, 2025, at 5:06 p.m., OPP received a 911 call from the CW, reporting that the Complainant was threatening to harm him with a knife. Dispatch relayed the information to responding units, noting the presence of firearms at the residence and prior incidents, including the Complainant attempting self-harm.

Officers arrived at the scene, where the Complainant was found with two knives and

refusing to comply with commands. A containment strategy was implemented, with officers in communication with the Complainant attempting to de-escalate the situation. Emergency Response Team (ERT) officers arrived with less-lethal options, including ARWENs, and negotiations continued.

At one point, the Complainant emerged from the residence with both knives, prompting officers to fire in response to a perceived threat. The ARWEN was deployed, and the Complainant was subdued. He sustained gunshot wounds to the chest and leg but was responsive and talking. He was transported to KGH, and the scene was secured.

OPP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO, WO #2, WO #8, WO #9, WO #3, WO #1 and WO #6

On January 17, 2025, 5:20 p.m., officers responded to a distress call from the CW, reporting that the Complainant had threatened to harm him with a knife at a residence in the area of Camden East. The SO and WO #2 arrived on scene, and encountered the Complainant inside the house. The Complainant greeted the officers at the door holding two knives, one in each hand, and told them they were not allowed inside. The officers’ tried to de-escalate the situation. The Complainant continued to back them out of the house.

For the next hour, the SO maintained communication with the Complainant, trying to convince him to surrender peacefully. During this time, the Complainant expressed a mix of anger and sadness. He was visibly intoxicated and continued to hold the knives. At one point, the Complainant showed the officers a BB gun, claiming it was harmless, before retreating back into the house.

As the standoff continued, officers attempted to negotiate, with the Complainant repeatedly threatening to confront them with the knives. At 6:22 p.m., ERT officers arrived on the scene. The Complainant became increasingly hostile, making aggressive remarks towards the officers and the ERT members. He openly taunted them and threatened to rush them. Officers established an action line in front of the entrance to the residence, making it clear that force would be used if the Complainant stepped towards them.

At 6:26 p.m., the Complainant opened the door and walked outside with both knives in hand, moving towards the officers. A series of gunshots were fired. The Complainant collapsed. The ERT immediately approached him, providing first-aid after discovering gunshot wounds to his leg and back, with the injury to his back passing through the chest cavity. He was stabilized, placed on a stretcher, and transported by ambulance with a police escort to KGH.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between January 20, 2025, and February 12, 2025:

• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• General Occurrence Report
• Canine Operation Report
• Scene Log Report
• Notes – WO #1, WO #6, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5, WO #7, WO #8 and WO #9
• BWC footage – WO #1, WO #6, the SO, WO #2, WO #3, WO #8 and WO #9
• ERT Operational Report

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from KGH on March 10, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident, 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 late afternoon of January 17, 2025, OPP officers were dispatched to a house in Camden East. The CW had contacted police to report that the Complainant had threatened him with a knife. Witness #1 had also contacted police to similar effect.

The SO arrived on scene with other officers at about 5:20 p.m. He knocked on a door and observed the Complainant inside. The Complainant held a knife in each hand and told the officers they were not allowed inside. The officers retreated.

The Complainant was inebriated at the time. He was also mentally unwell. Over the course of the next hour or so, he steadfastly refused to disarm himself and surrender to police despite their repeated exhortations from outside that he do so.

The SO repeatedly implored the Complainant to drop the knives and come outside. Knowing a little about the Complainant from prior dealings, the officer attempted to develop a rapport and de-escalate the situation.

A team of ERT officers was deployed to the scene, taking up positions around the entrance to the home at about 6:20 p.m. Two of them were armed with ARWENS – WO #4 and WO #7. At about 6:26 p.m., the Complainant exited the house and walked forward in the direction of the officers. He was still in possession of the knives. The Complainant had travelled a short distance and was continuing further when he was met by a series of firearm discharges. From distances ranging no more than about five to seven metres, WO #4 and WO #7 each fired their ARWENS three times, as the SO fired his semi-automatic pistol twice. The Complainant was felled.

The officers approached the Complainant on the ground, removed the knives from the vicinity, took him into custody and rendered first-aid.

At hospital, the Complainant was treated for bullet wounds to his left torso and left leg.

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 OPP officer in Camden East on January 17, 2025. 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 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 and the other officers who responded to the scene were engaged in the lawful execution of their duties through the series of events culminating in the shooting. Aware of the 911 calls indicating that the Complainant had threatened the CW with a knife, and confronted with an unstable individual in possession of two knives, the officers were within their rights in attending to do what they reasonably could to prevent harm coming to the parties and ensure public safety.

Though the SO did not avail himself of an interview with the SIU to provide firsthand evidence of his state of mind when he fired his weapon, as was his legal right, I am satisfied that he did so to defend himself and officers beside him from a reasonably apprehended knife attack by the Complainant. The BWC footage is compelling in this regard. It captured the Complainant exiting the house and walking forward with purpose, holding knives, in the direction of the officers. Any reasonable person in the SO’s position would have believed their safety to be in jeopardy and felt the need to take protective action.

I am also satisfied that the defensive force used by the SO was reasonable in the circumstances. Having tried in vain over about an hour to de-escalate the situation, the SO would have been rightly concerned that the Complainant would not be appeased and that a confrontation was a distinct possibility. That confrontation, when and if it occurred, might well involve the use of a knife or knives by the Complainant, putting the lives of the officers around him directly at risk. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO resorted to unnecessary force when he fired twice on the Complainant. The Complainant was advancing on the officers quickly and was within striking distance of the officers when the SO fired his weapon. It is true that two ERT members discharged their ARWENS, a less-lethal option, that might or might not have been sufficient to neutralize the threat. However, given the speed with which events unfolded, the SO did not have the luxury of time to assess whether that force would prove sufficient. In the final analysis, the evidence establishes that the SO acted in a fashion commensurate with the exigencies of the moment when he chose to meet a real and present danger of grievous bodily harm or 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: May 5, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit