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 37-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 11, 2024, at 11:59 p.m., the Sault Ste. Marie Police Service (SSMPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 11, 2024, at 10:37 p.m., SSMPS officers were called to a store located on Second Line West for a reported disturbance. There, they encountered the Complainant on a scooter. The officers agreed to transport the Complainant to a community warming centre to get him away from the store where he was being a nuisance. They placed his scooter in the trunk of a cruiser and proceeded to search the Complainant prior to placing him in the vehicle. The search yielded a handgun. There followed an interaction of some sort and shots were fired. The Complainant was transported to the Sault Ste. Marie Hospital where he was pronounced deceased.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/05/12 at 12:23 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/05/12 at 11:15 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 5

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

37-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between May 13, 2024, and May 15, 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

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on May 13, 2024.

Investigative Delay

The Report of Postmortem Examination was received by the SIU from the Coroner’s Office on April 3, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the parking lot of 24 Second Line West, situated at the northwest corner of the intersection of Second Line West and Peoples Road, Sault Ste. Marie.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On May 12, 2024, SIU forensic investigators attended and processed the scene.

The scene was the parking lot of a strip plaza at 24 Second Line West. Three businesses occupied the plaza: (from west to east) the Surplus Furniture and Mattress, the Up and Down Lounge, and United Floors. The businesses were at the north end of the parking lot.

The scene was properly contained and secured by SSMPS. The parking lot was illuminated by artificial lighting.

SIU forensic investigators took scene photographs and utilized a Leica 360 scanner to take measurements to construct a plan drawing of the area.

Several exhibits belonging to the Complainant and SSMPS, along with several biological exhibits, were collected for further examination. A small replica handgun was located and collected.

Figure 1 - Replica handgun

At the SSMPS station, SIU forensic investigators examined the subject official’s equipment and clothing.

The subject official’s firearm, a Smith & Wesson M&P40, was collected. The officer’s two spare magazines contained fifteen live rounds, while the seated magazine contained nine rounds with one additional round chambered, for a total of ten rounds. These too were collected.

Figure 2 - The SO’s firearm

Forensic Evidence

SIU submitted five fired cartridge cases, three projectile fragments, and the subject official’s pistol and magazine to the Firearms Section of the CFS.

As set out in the CFS Firearms Report, dated December 24, 2024, the five cartridge cases and three projectiles were identified as having been fired from the SO’s Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistol.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - Second Line West – Store

At 9:45:28 p.m., May 11, 2024, the Complainant was captured entering the store. The Complainant approached the cash counter and flinched towards a female customer. The female raised her hand and appeared scared as she took hold of a couple of items and backed away from the counter.

At 9:45:41 p.m., the Complainant appeared agitated while speaking with an employee and other customers in the store.

At 9:45:46 p.m., the Complainant walked away from the counter and paced nearby for several minutes. A male put himself between the Complainant and customers attending to make their purchases.

At 9:46:46 p.m., the Complainant walked up to the male and punched his fists together at chest level before he walked away and continued to pace. The male attempted to engage with the Complainant and offered him a drink. The Complainant continued to pace back and forth staring at the male. He approached the man a few times aggressively but stopped short and turned back to continue pacing.

At 9:48 p.m., the Complainant left the store.

Video Footage - Second Line West – Parking Lot

The camera faced south into the parking lot towards Second Line West. The footage did not capture audio.

At 10:16:01 p.m., May 11, 2024, three persons were captured walking into the parking lot.

At 10:19:36 p.m., two SSMPS police vehicles arrived in the parking lot. One police vehicle was a SUV and the other a pick-up truck; both were fully marked.

At 10:20:07 p.m., the Complainant arrived in the parking lot coming from the same direction as the three persons then talking with the police. The headlight on his e-scooter was on.

At 10:20:20 p.m., the Complainant approached the police car. Both the driver and passenger of the police vehicle exited and approached the Complainant, who was then in front of the vehicle.

At 10:23:41 p.m., a third police vehicle arrived on scene and stopped beside the pick-up truck.

The footage subsequently captured officers and the Complainant at the back of the police pick-up truck, after which the Complainant was walked to the police SUV by the SO and WO #1.

At 10:36:14 p.m., WO #1 and the SO stepped back from the Complainant. The Complainant proceeded to bend down, as if picking something from the ground, before straightening out. He was then seen falling on the ground. Two other police officers – WO #3 and WO #2 – exited the pick-up truck and went to the area where the Complainant was on the ground. The Complainant was thrashing about.

Police Communications Recordings

In the evening of May 11, 2024, a woman called 911 and requested that police attend at a store at Second Line. She reported an irate man inside the store yelling at customers. He had pulled up on a scooter or e-bike. The caller subsequently indicated that the man had left the store.

Police were dispatched to attend at the store.

Police arrived on scene, identified the Complainant, and requested a records check. The results of the check indicated that the Complainant had a record for violence and weapons offences.

At 10:18 p.m., May 11, 2024, officers indicated they were present at a scene on Second Line West with the Complainant. They inquired whether there was a shelter space available for the Complainant, and were advised in the negative. They were informed by dispatch that the Complainant had an address on file.

A subsequent broadcast noted that shots had been fired and the Complainant was down. An ambulance was requested.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the SSMPS between May 13, 2024, and May 14, 2024:

• General and Supplementary Reports
• Police communications recordings
• Names, contact information and statements of all civilian witnesses
• Fingerprint form of the Complainant
• Record of previous police involvements with the Complainant
• The SO – training records - Use of Force and Firearms
• Notes - WO #1
• Notes - WO #2
• Notes - WO #3
• Notes - WO #4
• Officer Safety Memo
• Scene photographs

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between May 13, 2024, and April 3, 2025:

• Video footage – Second Line West
• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• Report of Postmortem Examination from the Coroner’s Office
• Firearms Report from the Centre of Forensic Sciences

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, 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.

The Complainant was of unsound mind in the evening of May 11, 2024. He had ridden his scooter to a store on Second Line West where he created a disturbance. Police were called to the store and located the Complainant on the southeast corner of Second Line West and Goulais Avenue. The Complainant said he was trying to make his way home and was lost. Officers at the scene determined the Complainant was not a danger to himself or others, and allowed him to leave. Asked if he wanted a ride home, the Complainant declined. He rode his scooter east on the south side of Second Line West a short distance to Peoples Road. There, he crossed the street and reversed course travelling west on the north sidewalk of Second Line West. He encountered three females walking eastbound and began speaking nonsensically to them. Police were called again.

The same officers who had dealt with the Complainant moments prior – the SO and his partner, WO #1, and WO #3 and WO #2, also partners, arrived on scene. The SO brought his marked SUV to a stop facing southwest in the parking lot on the northwest corner of the intersection of Second Line West and Peoples Road, about 40 metres south of a plaza. WO #2 brought his cruiser – a pick-up truck – to a stop about 10 to 15 metres northwest of the SUV. WO #1 and the SO spoke with the females before approaching the Complainant, who was with his scooter south of their location. After some conversation, the Complainant accepted the officers’ offer of assistance. They would load his scooter in the police pick-up truck, and the truck would accompany them (including the Complainant) in their marked SUV to his residence.

The trio walked with the Complainant and his scooter to the back of the pick-up truck. WO #4 had arrived by this time and stopped his cruiser along the southside of the truck. The scooter loaded, the SO and WO #1 escorted the Complainant to the rear passenger side of their cruiser, where he was advised he would be searched prior to entering the vehicle. The Complainant was agreeable to the search.

The SO took a position the right of the Complainant, and WO #1 stood to his left. As the Complainant was patted-down, WO #1 noticed a bulge in the right front pants pocket. The Complainant said it was a gun and proceeded to pull out what appeared to be a small semi-automatic pistol with his right hand. Both officers pulled back and drew their firearms. The Complainant pointed the object at the SO and was met with a volley of gunfire. The SO had fired his weapon five times in rapid succession. The time was 10:36 p.m.

The Complainant fell to the ground, dropping the weapon to his side. The officers directed him to remove his arms from underneath him, but he was either unable or unwilling to do so. In time, the officers moved in and handcuffed his arms behind the back. Emergency first-aid was provided before paramedics attended and took charge of the Complainant’s care.

The Complainant was transported to hospital. He was pronounced deceased at 11:15 p.m.

The object in the Complainant’s hand was a cigarette lighter designed in the fashion of a small semi-automatic pistol.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the 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 died from gunshot wounds on May 11, 2024, suffered in a police shooting in Sault Ste. Marie. 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 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 SO was lawfully placed and in the execution of his duties through the series of events culminating in the shooting. The Complainant’s behaviour had caused third-parties to be concerned for their safety that night. A short time before the incident in the parking lot of the plaza, the officer and his colleagues had investigated another matter involving the Complainant at a store on Second Line West. On this record, the officers were within their rights in speaking to the Complainant and taking reasonable action to preserve the peace and ensure public safety. This included transporting the Complainant home, and subjecting him to a pat-down search of his person, with respect to which he consented, prior to his placement in a cruiser.

With respect to the force at issue, namely, five rounds from his police-issued semi-automatic pistol, I am satisfied that the SO fired his weapon to protect himself from a reasonably apprehended assault. Though the officer did not avail himself of an opportunity to provide that evidence firsthand in an interview with the SIU, as was his legal right, the proposition is a reasonable inference from the circumstances that prevailed at the time. The Complainant had just retrieved what appeared to be a gun from his person, said it was a gun, and pointed it in the SO’s direction.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO was reasonable. If the SO believed that he was staring at a firearm pointed in his direction at close range, and I accept that he did, then he had no other recourse than to fire his weapon. Retreat or withdrawal were not available given the immediacy of the threat. And no other option, including less-lethal weapons at the officer’s disposal, would have sufficed to deter the prospect of imminent gunfire. As for the number of shots fired – five – the evidence indicates that they were fired in rapid succession while the threat of death or grievous bodily harm would have been front and centre in the mind of any reasonable person in that situation. The same holds true notwithstanding the fact that some of the gunshots struck the Complainant in the back given the speed with which events unfolded, allowance for the delay inherent in reaction times, and what was a dynamic situation.

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

Date: May 8, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit