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 43-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 9, 2024, at 5:56 p.m., the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) notified the SIU of the death of a male.

According to the HPS, at 5:00 p.m., at 1964 Main Street West, 5th floor, there was an incident between police and a male [now known to be the Complainant] involving gunfire. The Complainant was taken to the Hamilton General Hospital (HGH). Subject Official (SO) #1 and SO #2 were the involved officers. SO #1 had reportedly suffered a graze wound and was also taken to hospital.

The Complainant was pronounced deceased on November 10, 2024, at 12:47 a.m.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/11/09 at 6:22 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/11/09 at 7:20 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators (FIs) assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

43-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

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between November 9, 2024, and February 24, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

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

SO #2 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on December 20, 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 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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #9 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #10 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #11 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #12 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #13 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between November 14, 2024, and November 27, 2024.

Investigative Delay

The Report of Postmortem Examination was received by the SIU from the Coroner’s Office on May 12, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the corridor that ran the length of the fifth-floor of the building situated at 1964 Main Street West, Hamilton.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

Two SIU FIs arrived at 1964 Main Street West, Hamilton, on November 9, 2024.

At 10:16 p.m., the FIs attended the fifth-floor, which had had been secured by HPS uniformed officers guarding both ends of the hallway.

The hallway ran north/south and was approximately forty-seven metres in length. It was well lit with overhead lights. Additional lights were at the entrance alcoves of each apartment. There were two elevators on the east side of the hallway at the approximate midpoint. The entire length of the hallway was littered with cartridge cases, bullet fragments, police equipment, a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW), a black pistol (later discovered to be a replica), bloody clothing, areas of blood spatter, and a pool of blood.

The hallway was examined from the south-end to the north, and exhibit markers were placed on each piece of evidence. There were several bullet strikes to the wall at the south-end of the hallway.

The Complainant’s apartment was at the extreme south-end of the hallway. Its doorway opened to expose the entire length of the hallway. There were two bullet strikes to the door in the upper left corner that perforated the door. There were several other bullet strikes to the walls around the door and the door frame. It was clear that the bullets travelled from north to south. There were other bullet strikes to the hallway walls and ceiling and, where directionality could be determined, they were travelling in a north to south direction.

The door to the Complainant’s apartment was open. Projectiles were found in the room located directly behind the entrance door. Two projectiles were found on the floor, and a third was embedded in the wall. Another projectile had penetrated an interior door and lodged in a cardboard box.

There were two areas where 9mm cartridge cases were clustered: just north of an apartment north of the south stairwell and south of the elevators, and at the extreme north-end of the hallway.

The CEW was found at the north-end of the hallway. Based on the location of the CEW debris, it appeared that it was deployed once just north of the elevator, and again at the north-end. The CEW appeared to have been deployed in a north to south trajectory.

Two police duty books, two baseball-style police hats, a flashlight, a pen, and an expandable baton (ASP) in a holder were found on the hallway floor south of the elevators.

At the midpoint of the hallway between the elevators and the north stairs was clothing, medical debris, and a blood pool. This appeared to be the area where the Complainant fell to the floor. There was a sweatshirt with heavy pooling of blood around the neck area. The sweatshirt had been cut away from the Complainant. A projectile was found among the clothing.

Just north of the elevators was the replica pistol. It was black and the grips had broken away. The left and right-side grips were found just north of the pistol.

Figure 1 - Replica firearm

The scene was video recorded and scanned by a 3-D scanner. The exhibits were collected.

The scene was released to the HPS on November 10, 2024, at 8:47 a.m.

On November 11, 2024, at 8:40 a.m., a SIU FI attended HPS Central Station where the clothing and use of force options for the involved officers had been secured. A staff sergeant opened several lockers, revealing the following equipment.

SO #1’s Equipment

• A police ballistic vest with SO #1’s last name and badge number embroidered on the right upper chest, and a police badge on the left chest. POLICE in reflective lettering was across the chest. The vest was equipped with a radio and microphone, mic pack, and several pouches holding police equipment. POLICE in reflective lettering was across the back. There was a small smear of apparent blood across the letter O on the back of the vest. The pouches were examined. They held a flashlight, keys, two C-8 rifle magazines, Narcan, handcuffs, and a tourniquet. The C-8 magazines each held twenty-five live .223 cartridges.

• Police pants with red stripes along the side of the legs. There were nitrile gloves, hatch gloves, and belt keepers in the pockets.

• A police shirt with a HPS crest on both sleeves. There was a 2.5 cm by 5 cm tear in the left shoulder near the crest.

• Police boots.

• A gun belt with two spare magazines, a pistol in a holster, oleo-resin capsicum (OC) spray, Leatherman tool, CEW in a holster, and a handcuff key. The CEW was examined. It was a Taser X2 loaded with two live cartridges. The spare magazines were Glock 9mm magazines with a capacity of 17 cartridges. One was loaded with 16 live cartridges, and the other contained nine live cartridges. The pistol was examined. It was a Glock 17 model G5, 9X19. There was one live 9mm cartridge in the breech and nine cartridges in the seated magazine. The pistol, the cartridge in the chamber, and the seated magazine with nine cartridges were collected. The spare magazine with nine cartridges was also collected.

Figure 1 - SO #1’s firearm

SO #2’s Equipment

• Police ballistic vest with SO #2’s last name and badge number embroidered on the right upper chest, and a police badge on the left chest. POLICE in reflective lettering was across the chest. The vest was equipped with a radio and microphone, mic pack, and several pouches holding police equipment. POLICE in reflective lettering was across the back. The pouches were examined and held Narcan, a tourniquet, a pen, a flashlight, and handcuffs.

• Police pants with red stripes along the side of the legs. There were nitrile gloves in the pockets. The pants appeared undamaged.

• A long-sleeve T-shirt.

• A police short-sleeve uniform shirt with a HPS crest on each shoulder.

• A gun belt with two spare magazines in a holder, car keys, a pistol in holster, OC spray in holder, ASP in holder, and an empty CEW holster. The spare magazines were Glock 9mm magazines with a capacity of 17 cartridges. One was loaded with 16 live cartridges, and the other contained 17 live cartridges. The pistol was examined. It was a Glock 17 model G5, 9X19. There was one live 9mm cartridge in the breech and nine cartridges in the seated magazine. The pistol, the cartridge in the chamber, and the seated magazine with nine cartridges were collected.

Figure 2 - SO #2’s firearm

Expert Evidence

Report of Postmortem Examination – Coroner’s Office

The report documented eight gunshot wounds to the Complainant, as follows:

1. Superficial perforating gunshot wound of the posterior neck

2. Perforating gunshot wound of upper back (superior)

3. Superficial perforating gunshot wound of upper back (inferior)

4. Perforating gunshot wound of the right hip

5. Perforating gunshot wound of the anterior right forearm

6. Superficial perforating gunshot wound of the right upper abdomen

7. Penetrating gunshot wound of right mid abdomen

8. Penetrating gunshot wound of left chest

Forensic Evidence

Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) Ballistics Examination

The involved officers’ firearms, bullets and magazines were submitted to the CFS for ballistics examinations. Also submitted to the CFS were the shell cases located during the scene examination. The results of the examinations have not been returned to the SIU as of the completion of this report.

Biology Report from CFS

The report concluded that the Complainant could not be excluded as the donor of the DNA captured from swabs of the replica gun’s removable magazine and pistol grip.

CEW Deployment Data – SO #2’s CEW

On November 9, 2024, at 5:00:06 p.m.,[2] the trigger was pulled, Cartridge 1 was deployed, and electricity was discharged for five seconds.

At 5:00:12 p.m., the trigger was pulled, and electricity was discharged for two seconds.

At 5:00:18 p.m., the trigger was pulled, Cartridge 2 was deployed, and electricity was discharged for one second.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Police Communications Recordings – Phone

On November 9, 2024, at 4:24 p.m., CW #1 called the HPS non-emergency line to report that, 15 minutes prior, a male [the Complainant] had been banging on the caller’s apartment door. He seemed surprised to see CW #1 and said something along the lines of, “I thought you had moved out.” CW #1 reported that the Complainant stood in front of CW #1 with his left shoulder angled towards CW #1. CW #1 was unsure if they had caught a glimpse of what appeared to be a firearm in his right hand - a black pistol. When CW #1 caught this glimpse, they closed and locked the door. CW #1 was unsure where the Complainant went after the door was closed. CW #1 had then called a family member, who told CW #1 to call HPS.

CW #3 subsequently called 911 to report the sound of gunshots in the fifth-floor apartment hallway. CW #3 was told to keep the apartment door closed and locked. CW #3 stated that they heard screaming in the hallway, as well as shooting and kicking of a door. The 911 operator asked if CW #3 knew which of his neighbours it could be, and CW #3 said the residents of the Complainant’s apartment made noise continuously throughout the day. CW #3 stated that there were quite a few people in the hallway. Unintelligible conversation could be heard in the background. CW #3 said the police had someone on the ground and that there were quite a few police officers in the hallway.

Communications Recordings – Radio

On November 9, 2024, at 4:30:23 p.m., units were requested to attend 1964 Main Street West for a ‘suspicious person’, and SO #1 and SO #2 indicated they would attend.

At 4:56:05 p.m., SO #1 reported that the Complainant had entered his (the Complainant’s) apartment.

At 5:00:52 p.m., SO #1 transmitted, “Shots fired,” and shots were heard in the background. Someone could be heard saying, “Drop the gun.” SO #1 called, “Shots fired, I’m hit, we have one male down. I need units here, I need EMS, I need fire.” SO #2 broadcast that she was there, and one male was down. SO #1 stated he (SO #1) was bleeding from the back of the head.

At 5:05:20 p.m., dispatch asked if the Complainant was conscious and breathing. WO #2 responded he was moaning and breathing.

At 5:06:57 p.m., dispatch requested an update. SO #1 broadcast that the Complainant had been shot multiple times. The Complainant had emerged from his apartment. SO #1 stated they believed the Complainant had fired a gun at them.

At 5:07:23 p.m., SO #1 said the gun was on the floor outside of a specified unit. HPS officers arrived and began securing the scene on the fifth-floor.

At 5:22:44 p.m., the Complainant was transported to hospital.

At 5:22:59 p.m., SO #1 was transported to St. Joseph’s Hospital.

The Complainant was declared deceased on November 10, 2024, at 12:47 a.m.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the HPS between November 12, 2024, and December 30, 2024:

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• General Occurrence Report
• Video statements – civilian witnesses
• History of Local Police Interactions - the Complainant
• Notes - WO #12, WO #9, SO #2, WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5, WO #6, WO #7, WO #8, WO #10, WO #11 and WO #13
• Policy – Use of Force
• Training records – SO #1 and SO #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between November 9, 2024, and May 12, 2025:

• Cell phone videos from CW #1
• The Complainant’s medical records from HGH
• Incident Reports from Property Management
• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• Report of Postmortem Examination from the Coroner’s Office
• Biology Report from CFS.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with SO #1 and civilian witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was her legal right, SO #2 chose not to interview with the SIU. She did authorize the release of her notes.

At about 4:30 p.m., November 9, 2024, HPS officers were dispatched to the fifth-floor of the building situated at 1964 Main Street West, Hamilton. A resident of a fifth-floor apartment – CW #1 – had called police to report an incident involving a male at CW #1’s front door. The male, whom CW #1 did not recognize, had been knocking on door. CW #1 opened the door but quickly closed and locked it after noticing what was believed to be a handgun in his right hand.

The male – the Complainant – resided in an apartment at the far southern end of the hallway. He would proceed to enter and exit his apartment several times, approaching the door to CW #1’s apartment when outside his residence to knock on the door, turn the door handle, and ask to be let in. He said he wanted to “hang” with CW#1. CW #1 ignored him for the most part. When CW #1 did speak, it was to tell him to go away.

SO #1 and SO #2 arrived at the address at about 4:50 p.m. They took the elevator to the fifth-floor and exited to see a male – the Complainant – at the south-end of the hallway. The officers called out to the Complainant and watched as he entered his apartment – Apartment 503 – and locked the door behind him.

CW #1 allowed the officers inside CW #1’s apartment and explained what was happening. Asked to describe what CW #1 had seen in the Complainant’s hand, CW #1 pointed to SO #1’s sidearm – a Glock semi-automatic pistol. Within minutes of their arrival, SO #2, who had been holding CW #1’s door ajar to keep an eye on the Complainant’s apartment, observed the Complainant exit his apartment. The officers each stepped into the hallway. The Complainant was holding what appeared to be a handgun in his right hand at waist level, pointed at the floor.

The object in the Complainant’s possession was not an actual firearm, although it did give the appearance of being a genuine semi-automatic pistol. Confronted by the officers, the Complainant raised the replica gun in their direction and walked towards them. He was immediately met with gunfire from the officers.

SO #2 was the first to shoot. She discharged as many as eight rounds while moving backward down the hallway before losing her footing and stumbling to the floor. The Complainant continued to walk forward with the replica gun in hand. A second volley of six to eight shots followed quickly, this time fired by SO #1 as he too was retreating. The Complainant remained unfazed. SO #1 also lost his balance and fell to the floor, but managed to maneuver backward a further distance and replace his magazine with one of his spares. From a position by the right (east) side of the hallway, SO #2, who had lost her firearm when she fell, fired her CEW at the Complainant. The deployments had no effect on the Complainant, who continued to advance on the officers. Moments later, standing across from SO #2 by the left (west) side of the hallway, SO #1 fired seven to eight shots at the Complainant. The Complainant collapsed and landed on his back. The time was about 5:00 p.m.

SO #2 checked on SO #1, who was bleeding from a wound to the back of his head. She then approached the Complainant and began to render first-aid pending the arrival of paramedics.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and pronounced deceased at 12:47 a.m., November 10, 2024.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the view that the cause of 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 on November 10, 2024, the result of gunshot wounds inflicted by police. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming two subject officials – SO #1 and SO #2. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official 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.

SO #1 and SO #2 were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties through the series of events culminating in the shooting. They were at the home of CW #1 to investigate CW #1’s recent encounter with the Complainant in which he persisted in trying to enter CW #1’s apartment while holding what CW #1 believed was a possible firearm.

The evidence further establishes that SO #1 and SO #2 fired their weapons at the Complainant believing it necessary to protect themselves from a reasonably apprehended assault. That is the account that each officer provided the SIU, the former by way of an interview and, the latter, in her notes. And their accounts are buttressed by the circumstantial evidence, namely, the appearance of the Complainant pointing what appeared a gun in their direction at close range.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the officers constituted reasonable force. The officers honestly believed they were looking at an actual gun in the Complainant’s possession. Though mistaken, their misapprehension was a reasonable one. The object looked like a gun, the Complainant brandished it as a gun, and CW #1 had just reported what CW #1 believed was a gun in his possession. In the circumstances, it made sense that SO #1 and SO #2 would resort to gunfire to protect themselves from what they justifiably believed was an imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death; no other weapon at their disposal had the immediate stopping power required of the moment. SO #1 told the SIU that he believed the Complainant had been the first to fire in the officers’ direction. It appears the officer mistook SO #2’s initial gunfire for gunfire coming from the Complainant, an honest but mistaken belief in the highly charged atmosphere that prevailed. Be that as it may, SO #1 was within his rights in shooting at the Complainant the moment he raised his hand in the officers’ direction seemingly holding a gun, as was SO #2. The same justification holds true for SO #1’s second sequence of shots, which occurred shortly after SO #2’s CEW deployments had failed to deter the Complainant. The Complainant, approaching as he was with the “gun” still in his possession, would have appeared a real and present danger to the officers’ lives at the time of the final rounds. A further retreat or withdrawal might have been available to the officers, but neither was a viable option given the speed at which events unfolded and the presence of fifth-floor residents, including CW #1, whose safety would have been imperiled. As for the fact that some of the shots struck the Complainant in the back, I am unable to reasonably conclude that this evidence divests the officers of the protection of section 34 given the volatility of the events as they unfolded and the delay inherent in reaction times. That is to say, it is not surprising the Complainant suffered wounds to the back given the movements of the parties at the time, including the distinct possibility that the Complainant might have been falling and rotating to the floor as some of the gunfire took place.

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

Date: May 28, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit