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 53-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 1, 2025, at 7:11 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On February 28, 2025, at approximately 11:32 p.m., police officers responded to a residence (Residence #1) in the area of Ellesmere Road and Bellamy Road North, Scarborough. A female reportedly living there [now known to live at another residence on the same street (Residence #2)] had called police to indicate that her father (the Complainant) had threatened her mother with a gun. The TPS Emergency Task Force (ETF) responded and sealed off the area. Police officers attempted to set up communications with the Complainant; however, they were unable to make contact. Police brought in a doctor to attempt negotiations with the Complainant, but there was still no response. At 6:03 a.m., the ETF deployed a drone into the residence, and it located a deceased - the Complainant. No other occupants were found inside the residence.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/03/01 at 8:17 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/03/01 at 10:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

53-year-old male; deceased

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Official / 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

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

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

The witness officials were interviewed between March 3, 2025, and March 10, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a home in the area of Ellesmere Road and Bellamy Road North, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

On March 1, 2025, at 10:25 a.m., SIU forensic investigators arrived at Residence #2. A SIU forensic investigator was detailed to photograph the scene and a second SIU forensic investigator scanned the scene to produce a scaled drawing. The scene was properly secured and was guarded by TPS police officers. There were three cameras on the front (west) side of the residence.

The front door showed signs of forced entry. The door frame was damaged, and the extended deadbolt was bent. The side window to the right of the door entrance was smashed out.

On the stairway leading to the upper bedroom area was a copy of a TPS Search Warrant obtained by Officer #1. The Complainant was found in one of the bedrooms. The door to this room showed no signs of forced entry. The deceased lay face up on the floor at the foot of the bed. A pooling of suspected blood near the wall suggested that the deceased had been moved from this area to the middle of the bedroom for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) intervention, as several articles and EMS packaging were located near the body.

Nearby, along the wall of the bedroom, was a dresser. On top of the dresser was a small revolver that was loaded. Beside the weapon was a bag of .38 calibre ammunition and another box of “Blazer” .38 calibre ammunition. On a dresser in the corner of the room was a monitor connected to the exterior cameras. On top of the dresser were two handwritten notes. A similar note was found on the floor near the dresser. Near the notes on the dresser were two pill vials.

At 12:56 p.m., the firearm found on the dresser in the bedroom was proved safe. The firearm was a Colt, Detective Special .38 calibre revolver.

Starting at about 1:15 p.m., evidence was identified and collected.

Expert Evidence

On March 2, 2025, at 8:30 a.m., two SIU forensic investigators and the SIU lead investigator attended the provincial forensic pathology unit for the post-mortem examination of the deceased, the Complainant.

At 10:04 a.m., the pathologist concluded the post-mortem examination, and advised that the preliminary cause of death was a gunshot wound to the head.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On February 28, 2025, starting at about 11:46 p.m., uniform patrol police officer - WO #8 - approached the side door of a residence [now known to be Residence #1]. A young female - Civilian #1 - told WO #8 that the Complainant was mentally ill. They entered the residence and Civilian #1 advised that she did not know if the Complainant had been diagnosed with a mental illness. She stated that the Complainant had not been drinking but had smoked a lot of marijuana. Inside the residence was an older female - Civilian #2 - who identified herself as the wife of the Complainant. The daughter advised that the Complainant was inside the residence alone and that her father had a pistol. Civilian #2 described the gun as a silver revolver. WO #8 exited the residence and broadcast that the Complainant was armed with a revolver, he had threatened to shoot police officers, he suffered from an unknown mental health illness, and he had smoked marijuana.

WO #8 re-entered the residence and asked Civilian #2 what happened. Civilian #2 had gone to serve papers and her husband followed her. The Complainant called her and asked for a tire pump. She returned home, and he slammed the door and called her a “fucking bitch”. He then put a gun to her head and punched her to the right side of the face. She did not lose consciousness and did not wish an ambulance. WO #8 broadcast that the Complainant was in the residence by himself, and that he was armed and could be arrested for assault, threatening, and assault with a weapon. He described the Complainant.

On March 1, 2025, starting at about 6:16 a.m., WO #3 approached the front door of a residence [now known to be Residence #2] and stood to the left side of the door with his pistol, in his right hand, pointed in the direction of the door. An ETF officer - WO #4 - stood behind WO #3 with his C8 rifle at the ready. At the same time, another member of the entry team smashed out the door window, to the right side of the door, with what appeared to be a metal bar. The police officers retreated to the cover of an ETF vehicle parked in front of the residence.

Starting at about 6:21 a.m., WO #3 approached the front door with a shield and pistol drawn. At 6:22:18 a.m., the front door was forced open by an ETF officer. WO #3 was the first police officer to enter the residence followed by WO #4 to his left. WO #3 ascended four steps to the right side, which led to a bedroom area. WO #3 entered the first bedroom to the right, which had an open door, followed by WO #4. WO #3 bent over to the left of the entrance and the Complainant was captured laying on his back with his head against the wall, between the wall and a bed. WO #3 said, “Firearm,” and picked up something [now known to be a handgun] near the Complainant’s right hand. WO #3 placed the gun to the side. WO #3 moved closer, and a wound was observed to the Complainant’s right temple. There was a pool of blood on the floor next to the right side of the Complainant’s head. WO #3 checked the Complainant’s pulse and said, “He’s dead.” WO #4 requested paramedics, and a Tactical Emergency Medical Services paramedic entered. At 6:23:26 a.m., WO #3 said he had moved it (the firearm) so that it would not be kicked aside. He picked up the handgun and placed it on a dresser.

The Complainant was pulled away from the wall and, at 6:25 a.m., a paramedic requested that WO #3 start cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). One paramedic applied a breathing apparatus to the Complainant and another applied electrodes to his front torso. At 6:34:20 a.m., WO #3 was relieved by someone else to perform chest compressions. At 6:34:30 a.m., someone asked that CPR be stopped so they could do a pulse check. The Complainant was then declared deceased.

Video Footage – Residence #2

There were cameras located at the front of the residence.

On February 28, 2025, starting at about 10:59 p.m., a female - Civilian #2 - entered the front door of the residence. Starting at about 11:01 p.m., a male - the Complainant - opened the front door and stepped outside. He threw something out onto the snow-covered front lawn.

Starting at about 11:04 p.m., the front screen door opened, and Civilian #2 stepped out backwards and bent over. She ran out the front door of the residence with her coat on and entered a car parked at the top of the driveway, driving off in a northwest direction.

Starting at about 4:00 a.m., an ETF armoured rescue vehicle (ARV) stopped in front of the residence in a southeast direction. A spotlight from the ARV was directed to the front of the residence.

Starting at about 6:16 a.m., a second ARV approached the rear of the first ARV. A team of six ETF police officers approached the front door, and a team member smashed out the door window on the east side of the door.

Starting at about 6:17 a.m., the ETF team retreated from the residence to the cover of the ARV on the street.

Starting at about 6:22 a.m., a team of six ETF police officers approached the front door. The door was forced open with a battering ram and the ETF members entered.

Police Communications Recordings

On February 28, 2025, starting at about 11:26 p.m., Civilian #1 called 911 and requested that an ambulance attend Residence #1 to care for her mother, Civilian #2.

Starting at about 11:30 p.m., Civilian #3 called 911 to request that police attend Residence #2. She explained that Civilian #1 had called and told her that Civilian #1’s father - the Complainant - had beat her mother - Civilian #2. The Complainant had broken the mother’s tooth, choked her, and held a firearm to her head. The Complainant threatened to harm himself and any police officers who attended his residence. The Complainant had reportedly struggled with pain medication use and had prior interactions with the police. The dispatcher informed Civilian #3 that police would attend. Civilian #3 warned the dispatcher that the Complainant had said he would harm police officers because he was not going to jail.

Starting at about 11:32 p.m., Civilian #1 called 911 to request that police attend Residence #2. She reported that her father -the Complainant – had punched her mother in the face and dragged her up the stairs. He had a firearm and a bag of bullets. The Complainant was alone at the residence, and Civilian #2 and Civilian #1 were down the street at another residence [now known to be Residence #1]. Civilian #1 informed the dispatcher where her father was located in the house, and provided a physical description.

Starting at about 11:38 p.m., the dispatcher alerted WO #7 of an intimate partner assault at Residence #2. The dispatcher conveyed information that had been received in the calls to police. It was noted that the Complainant had stated he would shoot police officers because he did not want to go to jail. A sergeant asked to be added to the call.

Starting at about 11:40 p.m., the dispatcher asked the ETF to monitor the call.

Starting at about 11:47 p.m., WO #7 reported that the Complainant was armed with a small silver revolver, and he had threatened to shoot police officers if they attended. The Complainant was alone in the residence, and he was arrestable for assault, assault with a weapon and threatening death.

Starting at about 11:50 p.m., the sergeant directed police officers to watch the front and back of Residence #2, and WO #7 was to stay with Civilian #2

Starting at about 11:51 p.m., ETF WO #1 informed the dispatcher the ETF was en route. Civilian #2 told WO #7 that the Complainant had the firearm taped to his hand.

Starting at about 11:53 p.m., an officer informed the dispatcher the residence was in darkness and a truck was in the driveway.

On March 1, 2025, starting at about 12:01 a.m., the sergeant informed the dispatcher they had contained the residence. The Complainant had reportedly tried to call “our victim” and, when police officers tried to speak with him, he had hung up.

Starting at about 12:03 a.m., WO #6 indicated an ETF police officer would be assigned as a sniper near the front of the residence. The sergeant informed the dispatcher she had spoken with the ETF, and it was decided they would hold the residence until the ETF arrived.

Starting at about 2:05 a.m., WO #1 reported that, after ongoing negotiations with the Complainant, the Complainant had said he was not in the residence but at a friend’s house. The officer requested an emergency ping of the Complainant’s cell phone. The Complainant was said to be suicidal, armed with a firearm (which he had already pointed at someone), and a danger to himself and the public.

Starting at about 2:15 a.m., the dispatcher informed WO #1 the ping was within 300 metres of the residence.

Starting at about 4:48 a.m., WO #9 arrived on scene.

Starting at about 5:48 a.m., the ETF daytime shift was en route to the scene.

Starting at about 6:02 a.m., the dispatcher reported a unit from 53 Division would transport a doctor. The ETF had requested a mental health professional attend the call.

Starting at about 6:22 a.m., the doctor arrived.

Starting at about 6:33 a.m., an ambulance arrived.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between March 1, 2025, and March 25, 2025:

• BWC footage
• Video footage from Residence #2
• Police communications recordings
• TPS History - Complainant
• Central notes - WO #6
• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Notes – WO #2, WO #4, WO #5, WO #8, WO #7, the SO, WO #3, WO #1, and WO #9
• Officer Witness List
• Service Policies – ETF; Use of Force; Persons in Crisis; and, Arrest

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between March 2, 2025, and March 4, 2025:

• Video footage from Residence #2
• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• Ambulance Call Report from the Toronto Paramedic Service

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police witnesses, and audio and video recordings that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

Shortly after 11:30 p.m., February 28, 2025, TPS uniformed officers were dispatched to Residence #2 in the area of Ellesmere Road and Bellamy Road North. 911 calls had been received reporting a domestic disturbance at the home in which the Complainant had assaulted his wife - Civilian #2 - and pointed a firearm at her, threatening to kill the both of them. Civilian #2 had managed to flee the residence, and she and her daughter - Civilian #1 - were together at another address on the street. The Complainant was said to be alone at the residence. He had told Civilian #2 that he was not going back to jail and was prepared to shoot responding officers. The uniformed officers contained the residence pending the arrival of ETF officers.

A team of ETF officers arrived on scene, established a command centre not far from the residence, and took over containment of the home. Under the supervision of WO #1, the SO – a trained negotiator – was tasked with contacting the Complainant. After a number of failed attempts, the officer was able to connect with the Complainant by phone at about 1:07 a.m. Over the course of several hours, the SO attempted to persuade the Complainant to surrender peacefully to police. The Complainant indicated he had no intention of hurting anyone, but was adamant that he did not want to go to jail. He talked about his difficult upbringing, grievances with previous dealings with the police, and troubles at home with his wife and child. He told the SO that he would prefer to turn himself in at a later time, but the officer indicated that would not be possible. As the negotiations continued to unfold, the ETF consulted and received advice from a forensic psychiatrist. He suggested an audio-recorded message be taken from Civilian #1 and played to the Complainant over the phone. In the recording, Civilian #1 encouraged her father to surrender peacefully and said that no one wanted to see him hurt. The Complainant seemed moved by the message, but stayed put.

At about 5:20 a.m., the ETF decided that a more proactive posture might prove more effective in bringing the standoff to a safe resolution, namely, the use of gas in the residence to force the Complainant to surrender and exit the residence. The SO advised the Complainant that gas might be inserted into the residence, but still the Complainant refused to give up. At about 5:43 a.m., the Complainant’s breathing could still be heard over the phone, but he was no longer speaking. As the breath became slower and fainter, the ETF decided to break a window in order to deploy a drone. The drone entered the home at about 6:20 a.m. and located the Complainant on the floor of a bedroom. He was surrounded by blood. ETF officers entered the home and found the Complainant vital signs absent. There was a revolver in his right hand, and a bullet wound to the right side of his head.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and pronounced deceased at about 6:34 a.m.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to a gunshot wound to the head.

Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Death

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

The Complainant died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in the morning of March 1, 2025. As he was in his home with TPS officers surrounding the residence at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO was identified as 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.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.

The officers who responded to the scene of the standoff were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties through the events culminating in the Complainant’s death. The Complainant was subject to arrest for the assault on Civilian #2. In light of the information about a gun in the Complainant’s possession, it was also imperative in the interests of public safety that he be taken into custody as soon as circumstances would allow.

I am also satisfied that the ETF operation outside the home, including the SO’s place in it as the chief negotiator, was conducted with due care and regard for public safety, including the Complainant’s health and wellbeing. Negotiations were given a fair chance to work and there were points, given the rapport the SO had built with the Complainant, where it might have seemed that a peaceful resolution was within reach. The plan to introduce gas into the home represented an escalation in police tactics, but one which was proportionate to the exigencies of the situation. Though the Complainant could not be persuaded to surrender via negotiations alone, he was otherwise coherent in his communications with the SO and there was some prospect that a threat of gas would convince him to exit. Lastly, as soon as it appeared that the Complainant’s condition had taken a turn for the worse, the ETF acted quickly to enter the home and render whatever assistance they could. On this record, it would be unreasonable to conclude that the SO or any involved officer transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in relation to the Complainant’s death.

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

Date: June 23, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit