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 discharge of a firearm by the police at a 15-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 9, 2025, at 3:21 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 9, 2025, at 1:35 a.m., a male [the Complainant] called to report that he had found a firearm on the road. Uniform officers were dispatched and located the Complainant in a school roundabout located at 56 Oaklea Boulevard, Brampton. He was in possession of a large knife and asked for the police officers to kill him. The Complainant was contained while the tactical unit responded. Two tactical officers deployed a total of six Anti-riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN) rounds while the other three tactical members discharged conducted-energy weapons (CEW). The Complainant was transported to Brampton Civic Hospital (BCH) by police officers because there was an overly long response time for an ambulance.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/02/09 at 3:53 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/02/09 at 5:50 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on February 9, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on February 9, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between February 15, 2025, and February 24, 2025.

The Scene

The scene was located in a roundabout-style parking area at 56 Oaklea Boulevard, Brampton. The property was the Pauline Vanier Catholic Elementary School. The scene was not held for the SIU because at the time of the incident there were blizzard conditions, and the scene was rapidly deteriorating. It was agreed PRP officers at the scene would photograph the scene and collect evidence to be secured for SIU.

Physical Evidence

On February 10, 2025, at 11:40 a.m., a SIU forensic investigator attended the PRP tactical unit in Mississauga to examine the two involved ARWENs, which were in secure storage under seal. Both ARWENs were examined and found to be in proper working condition.

The first ARWEN, used by SO #1, was a 37 millimetre less-lethal firearm with a five-round drum magazine. There was one live round in the firearm with four rounds discharged. The live round within the firearm was a less-lethal AR-1 impact baton. The firearm was marked with an orange identifier on the buttstock to indicate the firearm was a less-lethal firearm.

The second ARWEN, used by SO #2, was the same design and style as the first ARWEN. There were three live rounds in the firearm and two discharged rounds. It used the same ammunition as the first ARWEN.

On February 10, 2025, at 12:30 p.m., a SIU forensic investigator attended PRP 22 Division located at 7750 Hurontario Street, Brampton, and examined the evidence collected from the scene by PRP officers.

PRP officers had collected three ARWEN cartridge cases and five 37mm AR-1 impact baton ARWEN projectiles. Two deployed “flashbang” distraction devices were also collected, as was a kitchen knife. The blade of the knife measured 20.5 centimetres.

Figure 1 - ARWEN

Figure 2 - ARWEN cartridge cases and projectiles

Figure 3 - The Complainant’s knife

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – WO #2, WO #1 and WO #3

On February 9, 2025, at 2:14:51 a.m.,[2] the CEW assigned to WO #1 was armed. At 2:14:52 a.m., the first cartridge was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 1.42 seconds. At 2:14:54 a.m., the second cartridge was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 5.05 seconds. There was an audible auto-shutdown warning. At 2:14:59 a.m., electricity was discharged for 4.20 seconds.

On February 9, 2025, at 2:14:54 a.m., the CEW assigned to WO #2 was armed. At 2:15:55 a.m., the first cartridge was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 1.08 seconds. At 2:14:57 a.m., the second cartridge was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 4.96 seconds. There was an audible auto-shutdown warning. At 2:15:05 a.m., electricity was discharged for 1.36 seconds.

On February 9, 2025, at 2:14:48 a.m., the CEW assigned to WO #3 was armed. At 2:14:51 a.m., the first cartridge was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 0.51 seconds. At 2:14:52 a.m., the second cartridge was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 1.63 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

The SIU received recordings from BWCs assigned to Officer #1, Officer #2, Officer #3, Officer #4, Officer #5, Officer #6, WO #3, SO #2, WO #2, Officer #7, WO #1, Officer #8, and SO #1.

On February 9, 2025, starting at about 1:44:34 a.m., Officer #1 arrived in the front parking lot of Pauline Vanier Catholic Elementary School. There was a male [the Complainant] wearing a winter jacket nearby. Officer #1 asked the Complainant about the location of the firearm. The Complainant pointed towards a flagpole at the front of the school and said it was there. He started to walk towards the location and Officer #1 told him to stop. Officer #1 used his flashlight and searched the ground.

Starting at about 1:45:34 a.m., the Complainant stood motionless with a knife in his right hand. Officer #1 asked him where the firearm was. The Complainant replied, “There is no gun.”

Starting at about 1:45:52 a.m., the Complainant repeated there was no firearm. Officer #1 stepped backwards. He asked the Complainant what was in his hands. The Complainant replied, “It’s a knife.”

Starting at about 1:45:57 a.m., the Complainant was ordered to drop the knife. He did not do so. Officer #1 moved backwards. He advised the dispatcher that the Complainant was armed with a knife, that he would not drop the knife, and that there was no firearm.

Starting at about 1:46:14 a.m., Officer #1 moved to the rear of his police vehicle with his firearm drawn. He again told the Complainant to drop the knife. The Complainant replied, “You have to shoot me.” Officer #1 broadcast on his radio that the Complainant wanted to be shot.

Starting at about 1:46:33 a.m., Officer #3 arrived. He parked his police vehicle at the rear of Officer #1’s vehicle. Officer #1 used Officer #3’s vehicle for cover and spoke to the Complainant.

Starting at about 1:46:35 a.m., Officer #2 arrived. She stood near Officer #1. Officer #1 told the Complainant that he did not want to hurt him and asked the Complainant to drop the knife. The Complainant said “no” and told Officer #1 to “just shoot”.

Starting at about 1:47:03 a.m., Officer #3, who was still inside his vehicle, requested that tactical officers attend. Officer #1 asked the Complainant what his name was. The Complainant replied, “Just shoot the gun.”

Starting at about 1:48:09 a.m., the Complainant took four steps towards Officer #1 and Officer #2, holding the knife in his right hand. Officer #3 drove forward and blocked the Complainant’s path. Officer #1 told the Complainant not to get closer. The Complainant replied, “What happens if I get closer?” The police officers and the Complainant remained in these positions for several minutes as the Complainant made additional utterances about wanting to be shot.

Starting at about 1:56:24 a.m., the Complainant said, “If I charge at you, you have to shoot me.”

Starting at about 1:58:22 a.m., the Complainant reached into his backpack. Officer #1 asked him what he was getting. The Complainant replied, “A pistol,” and produced a water bottle from the backpack.

Starting at about 1:59:30 a.m., Officer #1 and Officer #2 asked the Complainant if he wanted something to eat or drink. The Complainant replied, “How about a gun?”

Starting at about 2:06:37 a.m., tactical officers [WO #1, Officer #7, WO #3, WO #2, Officer #6, and SO #1] arrived. Officer #1 and Officer #2 were relieved from their positions and replaced by Officer #6 and WO #1. Officer #6 spoke with the Complainant. WO #1 was armed with a pepper ball gun and Officer #6 was armed with a rifle. Officer #3 was extracted from his police vehicle by WO #3 and Officer #7.

Starting at about 2:12:53 a.m., SO #1 spoke with Officer #1 and confirmed the grounds to apprehend the Complainant under the Mental Health Act.

Starting at about 2:14:06 a.m., SO #1 spoke to the tactical officers about a plan to deploy two distraction devices followed by the immediate use of ARWEN rounds. They chose to use the ARWEN because the Complainant was wearing a winter coat.

Starting at about 2:14:41 a.m., WO #2 said, “He’s got the knife to his…”. WO #3 began to count down from five. Officer #6 said, “Don’t put your hands in those pockets buddy.”

Starting at about 2:14:50 a.m., WO #1 and Officer #7 threw distraction devices over Officer #3’s vehicle towards the Complainant. SO #2, WO #3, WO #2 and SO #1 advanced towards the Complainant on the driver’s side of Officer #3’s vehicle. As they advanced, they yelled at the Complainant to get on the ground. SO #1 deployed four rounds in quick succession from his ARWEN. SO #2 deployed multiple rounds in quick succession from his ARWEN.

Starting at about 2:15:00 a.m., WO #1 deployed his CEW into the Complainant’s back in drive stun mode.

Starting at about 2:15:04 a.m., the Complainant was handcuffed. As he was searched by WO #3 and WO #2, the Complainant continued to tell the officers to shoot him. SO #1 advised the Complainant was in custody and requested paramedic services.

Police Communications Recordings

On February 9, 2025, the Complainant called 911 to report he had found an unloaded silver firearm on the ground. He was at Pauline Vanier Catholic Elementary School near a flagpole. He identified himself with a false name.

Starting at about 1:45:57 a.m., Officer #1 advised that the Complainant had a knife and there was no firearm found. Officer #1 said the Complainant wanted Officer #1 to shoot him.

Starting at about 1:48:23 a.m., Officer #1 advised the Complainant was not communicating much with police officers. He held a large silver knife in his right hand.

Starting at about 1:59:48 a.m., Officer #1 advised the Complainant still held the knife in his right hand, but the handle was pointed towards the officers and the Complainant gripped the blade.

PRP Scene Photographs

The SIU received ten photographs from PRP. The photographs showed a deep snow-covered area and two marked police vehicles. None of the collected physical evidence was visible in the photographs at the scene.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from PRP between February 10, 2025, and February 13, 2025:

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Incident Response Policy
• Notes – WO #2, WO #1 and WO #3
• CEW deployment data – WO #2, WO #1 and WO #3
• BWC footage
• In-car camera system footage
• Communications recordings
• Scene photographs
• ARWEN training records - SO #2 and SO #1

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between February 9, 2025, and March 4, 2025:

• Photographs from the CW
• The Complainant’s medical records from BCH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the early morning of February 9, 2025, PRP uniformed officers were called-out to the grounds of an elementary school at 56 Oaklea Boulevard, Brampton. A male – the Complainant – had called police to report the discovery of a pistol near a flagpole outside the building. Officer #1 was the first to arrive on scene. He searched for the gun by the flagpole but found nothing. Turning to address the Complainant, the officer observed a knife in his right hand.

The Complainant was suicidal. His report of a gun at the school was a false one. It was apparent from the evidence that he intended to have an officer attend who would shoot him upon his presentation of a knife.

Officer #1 directed the Complainant to drop the knife, but he did not do so. He asked that the officer shoot him. Other uniformed officers arrived on scene. Together, and with the use of police vehicles as cover, they attempted to keep the Complainant at bay while waiting for the arrival of tactical officers.

Tactical officers, including SO #1 and SO #2, arrived on scene at about 2:00 a.m. To no avail, they too attempted to have the Complainant drop the knife. Shortly after their arrival, they devised a plan to deploy distraction devices at the Complainant, followed quickly by the use of less-lethal weapons.

At about 2:14 a.m., members of the tactical team threw distraction devices in the Complainant’s direction, and SO #1 and SO #2 discharged ARWEN rounds. The former fired four times; the latter, twice. The Complainant fell to the ground, dropping the knife in the process, and was tasered. Officers physically engaged the Complainant, making additional use of their CEWs. The Complainant was handcuffed and taken into custody without the infliction of serious injury.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code - Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

25 (1) Everyone who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

Section 17, Mental Health Act - Action by Police Officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

On February 9, 2025, the PRP notified the SIU that two of their officers had fired ARWENs at a male – the Complainant – earlier that day. The SIU initiated an investigation naming SO #1 and SO #2 subject officials. 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 use of their ARWENs.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.

The Complainant was of unsound mind and presented as such to the officers arriving on scene. He was armed with a knife and threatening to use it against himself and the officers, in the latter case to provoke them into shooting him. In the circumstances, the officers were within their rights in seeking to apprehend the Complainant under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

The use by SO #1 and SO #2 of their ARWENs, in my view, constituted reasonable force in aid of the Complainant’s apprehension. The knife in the Complainant’s possession was capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm and death, effectively ruling out a hands-on engagement given the risks involved. The use of the ARWENs, on the other hand, had the potential of temporarily neutralizing the Complainant from a distance allowing for his safe apprehension without the infliction of serious injury – an ideal outcome. That, in essence, is what happened.[4]

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

Date: June 9, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit