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 29-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 21, 2025, at 9:12 p.m.,[2] the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

Earlier that day, at 6:56 p.m.,[3] police officers were requested to attend the Fresh Market Foods grocery store located at 79 Queen Street, Sioux Lookout, for a report of a robbery in progress. The suspect [later identified as the Complainant] was allegedly armed with a machete. Police officers arrived at 6:58 p.m., and located the Complainant a short distance away. Attempts to negotiate with the Complainant were unsuccessful. At 7:02 p.m., three less-lethal Anti-Riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN) projectiles were deployed. The third projectile struck the Complainant’s right elbow, causing him to fall to the ground, after which he was arrested. Northwest Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were requested to attend the scene. At 7:13 p.m., paramedics assessed the Complainant, who reportedly only suffered bruising and swelling to the right elbow.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/02/22 at 7:25 a.m.[4]

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/02/22 at 9:05 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Not interviewed (declined)

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on March 1, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

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

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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #7 Not interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on March 1, 2025.

Service Employee Witness (SEW)

SEW Interviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on March 1, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the south sidewalk of Queen Street, between Sixth and Seventh Avenues, Sioux Lookout.

Physical Evidence

On March 1, 2025, at 12:05 p.m., a SIU forensic investigator attended the scene at 95 Queen Street, Sioux Lookout. Queen Street was a residential street, which aligned in an east/west direction. It was covered in packed snow with snowbanks at the sides of the road. The sidewalk on the south side had a high snowbank on both sides. On the sidewalk’s north side or street side, the snowbank was two metres to two-and-a-half metres in width, between the sidewalk and roadway. The sidewalk was poorly cleared and plowed to a width of one-and-a-half metres.

Fresh Market Foods was located on the south side of Queen Street between Fifth and Sixth Avenues. The events in question reportedly occurred to the west of the store. As observed on video footage, the Complainant was initially located on the south side of Queen Street, about 115 metres west of Sixth Avenue, on the south sidewalk in front of 95 Queen Street. The Complainant walked approximately five metres west before an ARWEN was deployed. Due to foot traffic and the amount of snow on the sidewalk, the exact location of the interaction could not be determined or observed.

Photographs were taken of the scene, which started at the store and continued westbound along the sidewalk.

At 12:35 p.m., a SIU forensic investigator attended at the Sioux Lookout OPP Detachment. At 1:00 p.m., an OPP sergeant was on scene, and the involved ARWEN was produced and photographed. Collected were three spent cartridge cases and three ARWEN projectiles. All items were already sealed in an OPP property bag.

Figure 1 - ARWEN

Figure 2 - ARWEN projectiles and cartridge cases

Figure 3 – The Complainant’s machete

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[5]

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – WO #1’s Cruiser

WO #1’s police vehicle was stopped facing west on the south side of Queen Street in front of 95 Queen Street. The view out the front windshield captured WO #1 with his pistol pointed in a southerly direction to the left side of the screen. A second police officer – WO #2 – approached from the passenger side of WO #1’s police vehicle and stood on the right side of WO #1 with his CEW pointed in the same direction. It was dark and there was snow on the ground. WO #1 waved to the left and the camera turned to face the south sidewalk of Queen Street. A person in dark clothing, wearing a jacket with a hood over his head – the Complainant – was captured carrying bags and walking down the sidewalk in a westerly direction. An eastbound police vehicle stopped, facing east on the south side of the street. The Complainant continued to walk west in front of a brown house [now known to be 99 Queen Street]. Police officers surrounded the Complainant. Because of the distance to the camera, the details of the interaction could not be discerned with clarity.

ICC Footage - WO #4’s Cruiser

WO #4’s fully marked police vehicle was stopped facing west on the south side of Queen Street in front of 95 Queen Street. A fully marked police SUV with the driver’s door open [now known to be WO #1’s police vehicle] was stopped about 22 metres ahead. On the sidewalk was a dark figure [the Complainant] bent over. The Complainant picked up shopping bags in front of a white house at 97 Queen Street. WO #4 ran westward towards the back of WO #1’s police vehicle, with his pistol drawn.

Starting at about 6:59 p.m., February 21, 2025, WO #1 stood in front of the front left fender of his police vehicle with his pistol pointed towards the Complainant. WO #4 then ran back to the driver’s side of his police vehicle. Someone said, “ARWEN was deployed. Get on the ground, show your hands.” WO #4 drove forward and parked on a southwest angle in front of WO #1’s vehicle. Four uniformed police officers surrounded the Complainant, who lay on the sidewalk. A tall, uniformed police officer in a grey-coloured tactical outfit – the SO – stood back.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - WO #3

Starting at about 6:59 p.m., February 21, 2025, WO #3 stopped his police vehicle facing east on Queen Street, parallel to the SO’s tactical police vehicle. He exited his cruiser and walked to the front of his vehicle, affording him a view of WO #2. WO #2 approached on the roadway from the east with his CEW pointed in the direction of the south sidewalk. To WO #2’s left side was a second police officer – WO #1 – also approaching in the same direction. WO #3 turned to his right and, on the south sidewalk, was a person in dark clothing – the Complainant. He carried a bag and walked westbound on the sidewalk. To the front passenger side of the tactical vehicle stood the SO. The SO had his back to WO #3. WO #3 walked west on the driver’s side of the tactical vehicle and, when he reached the back of the police vehicle, the SO was also at the back. The SO had an ARWEN pointed at the Complainant. The SO fired his ARWEN at the Complainant, who fell to the snow-covered ground in front of the house at 99 Queen Street. At the same time, a male voice shouted, “Get on the ground.” The Complainant lay on his right side, facing south, with his hood up. His hands could not be seen. A machete was to his left and a police officer shouted, “Don’t touch it.” A police officer said, “Take his hands, take his hands, stop kicking him.” Eventually, the Complainant was handcuffed with his hands behind the back. WO #3 stood back, and WO #2 and WO #1 could be seen over the Complainant. The SO stood back with the ARWEN in his hands. Someone said the machete had been tossed in the snow. The Complainant moaned and cried. WO #2 asked him if he was injured.

Video Footage - Fresh Market Foods

The video, which was 13 seconds long, was recorded inside the entrance to Fresh Market Foods, 79 Queen Street, Sioux Lookout, on February 21, 2025, at 6:53 p.m. A man dressed in dark winter clothing with the hood up and a mask partially obstructing his face – the Complainant – stood inside the entrance way holding shopping bags. The Complainant moved forward with a machete in his right hand. Witness #1 stood in front and to the side of the Complainant, who faced Witness #1 and pointed the machete at him. The Complainant walked off the screen.

Communications Recordings

On February 21, 2025, at 6:56 p.m., the OPP received a call from Witness #1 at Fresh Market Foods on Queen Street in Sioux Lookout. A man [later identified as the Complainant] had reportedly stolen items from the store and threatened the caller with an 18-inch machete. The Complainant wore all black clothing, and he had three back-packs; the machete hung from one of them. The Complainant left the store on foot, and he was headed in the direction of the hospital.

At 6:59 p.m., the SO broadcast that he had the suspect at gunpoint. WO #7 advised that the Complainant was non-compliant to the ARWEN and “Taser”. WO #7 further advised he had the machete out. The Provincial Communications Centre monitored the call.

At 7:00 p.m., WO #7 advised that the Complainant was in custody.

At 7:03 p.m., the SO requested EMS as the Complainant had been hit three times with ARWEN projectiles.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between February 25, 2025, and March 20, 2025:

• ICC footage
• BWC footage
• Video footage – Fresh Market Foods
• Custody footage
• Communications recordings
• Arrest Report
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• General Occurrence Report
• Police History - the Complainant
• List of Police Officers
• Notes – WO #1, WO #5, WO #4, WO #6, the SO, WO #2, WO #3, and the SEW
• ARWEN Training Record - the SO

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained a copy of the Kenora Northwest Ambulance Call Report on March 19, 2025.

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. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of February 21, 2025, OPP officers were dispatched to the area of Queen Street, west of the Fresh Market Foods, Sioux Lookout. Witness #1 had contacted police to report that a man had left the store with unpaid items. When Witness #1 confronted the man, he threatened him with a machete.

The man was the Complainant. He was on the south sidewalk of Queen Street walking west, west of Sixth Avenue, when he was confronted by WO #1 and WO #2, the officers having stopped their cruiser just east of his location. The Complainant pulled out the machete he was carrying and continued to walk west. Within moments, he was confronted by another officer – the SO. The officer had approached the scene from the west, stopping his vehicle west of the Complainant’s location, exiting and approaching him with an ARWEN. When the Complainant refused to stop and drop the machete, the SO fired his ARWEN three times. The first two deployments struck the Complainant but did not immobilize him. The third shot felled the Complainant.

Officers rushed in to take the Complainant into custody. One of them – WO #3 – kicked the Complainant three times in the back before he was secured in handcuffs.

The Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with pain and bruising to the right elbow.

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

25(1) Every one 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 343, Criminal Code - Robbery

343 Every one commits robbery who

(a) steals, and for the purpose of extorting whatever is stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to the stealing, uses violence or threats of violence to a person or property;

(b) steals from any person and, at the time he steals or immediately before or immediately thereafter, wounds, beats, strikes or uses any personal violence to that person;

(c) assaults any person with intent to steal from him; or

(d) steals from any person while armed with an offensive weapon or imitation thereof.

Section 88, Criminal Code - Possession of Weapon for Dangerous Purpose

88 (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was struck several times by ARWEN rounds discharged by an OPP officer in Sioux Lookout on February 21, 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.

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.

Based on the information they had via the 911 call that had been received, and their interactions with him at the scene before the ARWEN was fired, the officers were within their rights in deciding to arrest the Complainant for robbery and a weapons offence contrary to sections 343 and 88 of the Criminal Code, respectively.

With respect to the ARWEN rounds fired by the SO, I am satisfied that they constituted lawful force in aid of an arrest. The Complainant was in possession of a machete – a weapon capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm or death – and was threatening its use against the officers. On this record, having refused an opportunity to drop the weapon, the SO acted reasonably in bringing less-lethal force to bear to counteract a potentially lethal situation. It should be noted that the ARWEN worked as intended, temporarily incapacitating the Complainant and allowing a safe window within which he could be arrested without the infliction of serious injury. It should also be noted that withdrawal or retreat were not realistic options given the threat the Complainant represented, with a machete in his possession, to public safety.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.[6] The file is closed.

Date: June 20, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit