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 53-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 2, 2025, at 1:14 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) West Region contacted the SIU with the following information.

At about 11:40 a.m., Lambton County OPP officers responded to Walpole Island to assist Walpole Island First Nations Police (WIFNP). WIFNP officers were investigating a man and woman driving on the island and shooting at random persons from the vehicle. The OPP set up a roadblock at Pump House Road and Shawnee Road. The driver of the suspect vehicle fired at the police officers, who returned fire, before going around the roadblock and fleeing. The police officers did not pursue. Other police officers were brought in to conduct a search for the vehicle. The bridge to the island was closed.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/03/02 at 1:23 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/03/02 at 1:48 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

53-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on March 2, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed by OPP

CW #2 Interviewed by WIFNP

CW #3 Interviewed by WIFNP

CW #4 Interviewed by OPP

CW #5 Not interviewed (declined)

The civilian witnesses were interviewed by the OPP and WIFNP on March 2, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

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

The subject official was interviewed on April 4, 2025.

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed

The witness official was interviewed on March 10, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question reportedly occurred on and around Pump House Road, Walpole Island.

SIU investigators were not permitted to enter Walpole Island to conduct an investigation. The scene examination was conducted by the OPP.

Figure 1 - The scene of the shooting (Source: OPP)

Physical Evidence

The SO’s service pistol was collected by the SIU. It was a Glock model 17M 9x19. Also collected was an attached Surefire model X300 Ultra light and three Glock magazines.

The OPP forensic unit collected five 9mm cartridge cases and one fragment at the scene. These exhibits were subsequently turned over to the SIU forensic investigators.

OPP - Vehicle and Exhibit Examination

The involved vehicle – a Lincoln SUV – was seized by the OPP on March 2, 2025. Examination of the SUV showed three defects to the vehicle: lower right front bumper, left “A” pillar with damage to the front windshield, and the left rear door. Of note was that the second two defects had been covered over by what was suspected to be poly filler.

Forensic Evidence

SIU Review of OPP Scene Photographs

A SIU forensic investigator reviewed the OPP scene photographs. The images did not appear to depict any tire impressions or marks on the roadway or shoulder that suggested rapid acceleration, deceleration, or skidding in the area.

On March 10, 2025, the ballistic evidence was photographed and submitted to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) for examination and comparison to the SO’s pistol. The CFS received the request on April 1, 2025, and accepted the request.

At the time of this report, the results of the CFS examination had not yet been received by the SIU.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP In-car Camera (ICC) Footage - The SO’s Cruiser

The SO’s ICC was engaged on March 2, 2025, at 9:00:09 a.m., when he drove on Dan Shab Road behind another OPP cruiser [driven by the WO]. About a minute later, they stopped on a dirt road and the SO exited. He had a C8 rifle with him. The OPP officers met with WIFNP constables. Out of camera range, the dispatcher indicated that officers were out with the 911 caller. A few minutes later, all officers returned to their police cruisers.

Starting at about 9:27 a.m., the ICC captured the SO on Chiefs Road following other police cruisers. There was a broadcast that the suspect vehicle was eastbound on Old Ferry Road. As the officers searched for the Lincoln, there was a broadcast that the Lincoln was probably doing 120 km/h. The OPP communications centre could be heard asking the WO the reason for following the vehicle, and he advised that there had been multiple reports of the Complainant threatening people with a firearm in that vehicle and that he was involved in a ‘fail to stop for police’ occurrence earlier that morning. The WO indicated that officers were not in pursuit.

Starting at about 9:28 a.m., the SO entered the cruiser of a WIFNP officer - CW #5.

None of the ICC footage captured police officers discharging their firearms.

OPP Communications Recordings & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

On March 2, 2025, at 8:45 a.m., a 911 call was made reporting the Complainant driving a Lincoln with a handgun on the front seat. The Complainant was reportedly threatening people with the handgun.[3] The Complainant was at a home which was occupied by CW #1. The Complainant had argued with a man and he fired the handgun. The caller said this happened five minutes prior.

Starting at about 8:49 a.m., the communications centre dispatched CW #5 to the intersection of Dan Shab Road and Chiefs Road on Walpole Island. Another caller reported the Complainant having a handgun on the dashboard of his Lincoln. The Lincoln was at a home owned by CW #1. The Complainant had reportedly threatened the caller and multiple people with the handgun. The WO acknowledged the call. The dispatcher gave a lengthy history for the Complainant.

Starting at about 9:01 a.m., a Chatham-Kent Police Service (CKPS) dispatcher called the OPP in response to a “Be on the Lookout” they had received. She reported that one of their officers believed the Lincoln was in a pursuit with CKPS the evening prior. The licence plate information was passed on to CW #5.

Starting at about 9:04 a.m., a CKPS dispatcher called again. A CKPS sergeant wished to speak with a supervisor on Walpole Island. A phone number was supplied for the WO.

Starting at about 9:15 a.m., the 911 caller called back and reported that the Lincoln was behind her at Chiefs Road and Tecumseh Road. The cellular connection then dropped.

Starting at about 9:19 a.m., the 911 caller called back and reported that the Lincoln had followed her on Chiefs Road and that it had continued down Chiefs Road when she made a turn. This information was supplied to all involved police officers.

Starting at about 9:26 a.m., an WIFNP officer advised that the Lincoln had left an address and travelled south on Chiefs Road, increasing its speed. The communications centre sergeant advised he was monitoring the situation. The WO gave the speed of the Lincoln as 120 km/h and advised there was no pursuit.

Starting at about 9:28 a.m., the WO advised units had pulled over and let the Complainant go. Units confirmed that spike belts were deployed at the bridge.[4]

Starting at about 9:36 a.m., the WO broadcast that a named female was possibly with the Complainant, and further attempts to locate the Lincoln were ongoing. The SO advised he was with CW #5.

Starting at about 9:38 a.m., the SO advised that a Lincoln approached them on Pump House Road.

Starting at about 9:39 a.m., CW #5 reported that the vehicle swerved at them, and shots had been fired. The Complainant continued north on Pump House Road. The SO reported they were both okay, but he was unsure if the Lincoln was struck or if it contained a passenger. The WO instructed everybody to disengage, put their body armour on, and meet at the bridge.

The Tactics and Rescue Unit was notified.

The communications centre requested information as to who had discharged their weapons, and at what. The SO advised a green milk crate was placed at the location of the shooting.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between March 4, 2025, and March 5, 2025:

• General & Arrest Reports
• CAD Report
• Communications recordings
• Involved Person Report
• Notes - the WO
• Interview of CW #2 by WIFNP
• Interview of CW #3 by WIFNP
• Interview of CW #4 by OPP
• Interview of CW #1 by OPP
• ICC recordings

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and the SO, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the morning of March 2, 2025, police received a call about a male – the Complainant – threatening persons with a gun at a residence in the area of Dan Shab Road and Chiefs Road North, Walpole Island. Lambton OPP officers, including the SO, responded to the call for service, joining WIFNP officers. By the time police arrived at the residence in question, the Complainant had left driving a Lincoln SUV with a female passenger.

Over the course of the next half-hour or so, WIFNS and OPP officers searched the island looking for the Lincoln SUV and the Complainant. The Complainant was alive to the fact that police were after him. At different points during the search, he accelerated to upwards of 100 km/h away and used dirt road to escape from police cruisers he came across.

At about 9:30 a.m., the SO left his police vehicle and joined CW #5 in his four-wheel drive Tahoe cruiser to continue the search. They were southbound on Pump House Road when they observed the Lincoln SUV travelling north in their direction. CW #5 stopped his cruiser at a 45-degree angle across the narrow roadway, and both officers exited the vehicle. The Lincoln SUV came to a stop a distance south of their location for a brief period before it began to accelerate towards them.

The Complainant travelled northward at speed attempting to bypass the roadblock ahead of him. As he neared to within metres of the cruiser and turned to the east to swerve past the driver’s side, he was met by gunfire from the SO’s Glock semi-automatic handgun. CW #5 also fired his gun at the Lincoln as it continued to round the cruiser and accelerate away north on the roadway. No one was struck by the gunfire. The Complainant made good his escape but was eventually apprehended without incident later in the day.

Five cartridge cases were recovered at the scene of the shooting. An examination of the Lincoln SUV revealed defects to the lower right front bumper, the left (driver’s side) “A” pillar with damage to the front windshield, and the left rear door.

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.

On March 2, 2025, the OPP notified the SIU that one of their officers had that morning fired his gun at a vehicle being operated by the Complainant. The SIU 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.

Section 34 of the Criminal Code provides that conduct that would otherwise constitute an offence is legally justified if it was intended to deter a reasonably apprehended assault, actual or threatened, and was itself reasonable. The reasonableness of the conduct is to be assessed in light of all the relevant circumstances, including with respect to such considerations as the nature of the force or threat;the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon; and, the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force.

The SO was in the execution of his lawful duties through the events culminating in the discharge of his firearm. Though Walpole Island is policed by the WIFNP, OPP regularly enter on the territory to assist with the authorization of the community. The call for service was a serious one - involving a male threatening people with a gun - and warranted police responding in numbers to apprehend the Complainant and ensure public safety.

I am satisfied that the SO, at the time he fired his weapon, did so believing it was necessary to protect CW #5 from a reasonably apprehended attack at the hands of the Complainant. That is the evidence of the SO, evidence that is buttressed by the circumstances that prevailed at the time of the gunfire. These included a SUV accelerating in the officers’ direction (its driver seemingly intent on escape) and the narrow roadway the officers were on at the time.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the SO, namely, two gunshots, constituted reasonable force in defence of CW #5. At the time he fired his weapon, the officer was confronted with a real and present danger of grievous bodily harm or death coming to CW #5. Had the SUV struck the officer or even the cruiser next to the officer – both very real possibilities given the dimensions of the road with brush and snow-covered ditches on either side and next to no room to escape - there was every reason to expect he would be seriously injured or killed. It is true that the SO’s gunfire was not likely to stop the Lincoln SUV in its tracks and eliminate the threat outright. Rather, as in fact was the case, the vehicle was always likely to retain some forward momentum. Nevertheless, with the SUV bearing down on CW #5 and with only seconds to decide on a course of action, it is not apparent that the SO acted precipitously when he fired his weapon at the oncoming vehicle. Had he hit the driver or somehow managed to damage the vehicle’s mechanics, there was some prospect of the SUV veering sufficiently off the roadway so as to avoid impact with CW #5 and the cruiser. The odds of that happening were perhaps low, but I am unable to reasonably conclude they were not worth taking in the circumstances given the exigencies of the moment and the potential consequences of non-action.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.[5] The file is closed.

Date: June 27, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit