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 57-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 25, 2024, at 2:02 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time - EST], the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 25, 2024, at 12:41 p.m. [Central Standard Time – CST],[2] OPP officers were at the Anicinabe Park in the City of Kenora when a man [subsequently identified as the Complainant] doused himself with gasoline. He then picked up two large knives and set fire to a food concession. The man was standing close to the fire when officers asked him to move away so that it could be extinguished. Subject Official (SO) #1 asked on-scene firefighters to have a hose ready to douse the man should the fire affect him. When the man stepped towards the firefighters, while brandishing knives, SO #2 discharged his C8 rifle, striking the man. The man was transported to Lake of the Woods Hospital where he underwent surgery for bullet wounds to his chest and abdomen. The firearm was secured in an OPP cruiser and remained at the scene. Firefighters were still extinguishing the fire and it was believed that evidence remained at the scene.

At 3:54 p.m. [EST], the OPP advised the SIU that the man was deceased.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/25 at 2:42 p.m. [EST]

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/06/26 at 10:40 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 7

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

57-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

CW #7 Interviewed

CW #8 Interviewed

CW #9 Interviewed

CW #10 Interviewed

CW #11 Interviewed

CW #1 2 Interviewed

CW #1 3 Interviewed

CW #1 4 Interviewed

CW #1 5 Interviewed

CW #1 6 Interviewed

CW #1 7 Interviewed

CW #1 8 Interviewed

CW #1 9 Interviewed

CW #20 Interviewed

CW #21 Interviewed

CW #22 Interviewed

CW #23 Interviewed

CW #24 Interviewed

CW #25 Interviewed

CW #26 Not interviewed; declined[3]

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 26, 2024, and July 15, 2024.

Subject Officials

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

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

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

Investigative Delay

Delay was incurred in the investigation because of an internal administrative error in which the Chemistry Report, duly received by the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) on November 26, 2024, was not forwarded to appropriate staff within the SIU on a timely basis.

Delay was also incurred because of workload pressures affecting the investigation team and the Director’s Office.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the administration office building of the Anicinabe Park, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Golf Course Road and Miikana Way, Kenora.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On June 26, 2024, at 10:40 a.m., SIU forensic investigators arrived at Anicinabe Park located just south of the Miikana Way and Golf Course Road intersection. They met with the OPP and were briefed on the occurrence.

Anicinabe Park was a waterfront park recreational campground. The driveway entrance travelled south from Golf Course Road, and led to a large, paved area around the office building. The office building was attached to a covered picnic area and had a wooden deck on its south and west sides.

The office, covered picnic area, and wooden deck were destroyed by fire. The OPP had secured the entire paved area and building. A temporary fence had been placed around a portion of the paved area, to control vehicle and pedestrian traffic.

There were the remains of a pool of oily substance on the road, about 125 metres north of the park entrance. There was a trail of drops from this pool to the park office. The fire damage was inspected, and it appeared that a flammable liquid had been poured on the deck surface and lit on fire.

On the west side of the building was a wooden deck that could be used as a wheelchair access ramp. The ramp led from the northwest corner of the building to the office door. The ramp had been damaged by fire, but not consumed by the fire. There were three pylons, approximately ten metres from the northwest corner of the building, covering three rifle cartridge cases. There was an apparent bullet strike to the west side of the building near the north corner. Two meat cleavers were located in the fire debris near the northwest corner of the office building.

Figure 1 – Fire-damaged Anicinabe Park Office

There was one OPP cruiser contained within the scene. It was fully marked as an OPP vehicle. It was parked approximately 21 metres northwest of the office. Inside the vehicle was a Colt C8 rifle.

The scene was video-recorded, and a complete 3D scan of the area was completed.

The exhibits were collected, secured in sealed containers, and transported to the OPP detachment where they were secured overnight.

The following items were collected at the park:

• Three Remington .223 caliber cartridge cases
• Colt C8 rifle (Exhibit #8)
• Single Remington .223 caliber cartridge removed from breach of the Colt C8 rifle (Exhibit #9)
• Magazine containing 24 Remington .223 caliber cartridges[4]
• Black-handled Farberware meat cleaver
• Black-handled Masterchef meat cleaver

Figure 2 - Colt C8 rifle

Figure 3 -Magazine containing 24 Remington .223 caliber cartridges

Figure 4 -Black-handled Farberware meat cleaver

Figure 5 -Black-handled Masterchef meat cleaver

At 5:05 p.m., the scene was released to the OPP.

On June 27, 2024, SIU forensic investigators attended the OPP Forensic Office to retrieve items previously left there for safe keeping, and to examine exhibits that the OPP had recovered. SIU forensic investigators collected the following items:

• A SD card containing video files from a motion-sensor camera mounted at the park entrance
• Five electronic components that potentially contained video files from the fire-damaged office
• Handwritten notes reportedly belonging to the Complainant

At 11:30 a.m., SIU forensic investigators were provided the use of force items and the ballistic vest of SO #2.

Forensic Evidence

CFS – Chemistry Report

On August 14, 2024, the SIU submitted the Complainant’s clothing to the CFS to determine the substance that the Complainant poured over himself.

The CFS Chemistry Report indicated that medium oxygenated solvents were identified on the Complainant’s pants, boxer shorts, T-shirt and socks. The report further indicated that medium oxygenated solvents are ignitable liquids that can be found in commercial products such as special solvents and cleaning solvents.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[5]

As part of this investigation numerous videos were obtained from civilians and security cameras at Anicinabe Park. All recordings were reviewed by SIU investigators. The Complainant was captured on video as he entered the park pushing a shopping cart, poured a liquid substance on the wood box outside of the office building, and lit the shopping cart on fire.

The video that best captured the events in question was that of CW #21.

Video Footage – CW #21’s Cell Phone

On June 25, 2024, from a vantage point south of the Anicinabe Park’s Administration Office, multiple, multiple OPP cruisers and officers were captured in the parking lot, along with a fire truck.

At the rear of an OPP SUV stood WO #1 and WO #4. The passenger side door was open, where SO #1 and WO #7, with his dog, stood. Two or three fire extinguishers were observed on the ground on the driver’s side of the OPP SUV.

At 00:28 minutes into the recording, SO #2 approached from the west end of the parking lot with his C8 rifle in a low-ready position.

At 00:46 minutes into the recording, the fire truck moved forward and parked next to the passenger side of the OPP SUV. SO #2 stood squarely at the rear of the OPP SUV and used it as cover, with his C8 rifle in a sighted position in the direction of the Complainant. He was about six metres from the porch. WO #4 stood behind him with his firearm in a low-ready position. WO #1 stood to the left and behind the OPP SUV with his firearm drawn in a low-ready position. The Complainant remained on the deck of the office. He was holding meat cleavers in each hand with the blades pointed towards the OPP officers.

At 01:36 minutes into the recording, WO #6 stood behind WO #1 with his C8 rifle in a low-ready position as a firefighter walked between them and dragged a hose towards the office building. The Complainant continued to pace on the deck waving the meat cleavers in the firefighters’ direction.

At 01:40 minutes into the recording, WO #6 stood behind WO #4, and firefighters uncoiled a hose and walked through the line of sight of the OPP officers.

At 01:51 minutes into the recording, the Complainant moved to put the cleavers down on the porch railing, then opted to retain possession of the cleavers in his hands while removing his shirt.

At 01:58 minutes into the recording, SO #1 had a brief discussion with a firefighter as they uncoiled firehoses at the northern edge of the parking lot near the administration office building.

At 02:40 minutes into the recording, a grey pick-up truck blocked the view of the OPP officers; however, the Complainant was still partially visible on the deck.

At 02:52 minutes into the recording, the Complainant adopted a stance with both arms bent at 90-degree angles beside his body on the deck as he was sprayed indirectly with water from the firehose.

At 02:59 minutes into the recording, the Complainant raised both cleavers above his head before dropping his arms to the sides of his body still holding the cleavers with the blades pointed forward. He walked north off the porch against the indirect spray of water towards the location of the firefighters and OPP officers. Three gunshots were heard, and the Complainant’s body collapsed onto the parking lot. A visual of the OPP officers was obstructed by the grey pick-up truck. The visual was restored as the pick-up truck departed, and WO #6, WO #2, WO #7 and WO #4 advanced on the Complainant, and pulled him from the area.

At 03:28 minutes into the recording, SO #2’s C8 rifle was received by WO #3. She escorted SO #2 out of camera view behind the fire truck accompanied by CW #26.

At 03:30 minutes, the video concluded.

OPP In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – SO #2[6]

On June 25, 2024, starting at about 1:08:16 p.m., SO #2 arrived at Anicinabe Park. WO #1 was present. The Complainant stood near the north entrance of the deck adjacent to the administration office building, holding a meat cleaver in each hand. A shopping cart in the vicinity was ablaze, and smoke covered the north side of the office.

Starting at about 1:08:48 p.m., SO #2 stood on the driver’s side of his OPP cruiser with his C8 rifle in a low-ready position as he faced the Complainant. WO #1 told the Complainant, “Stay where you are,” as SO #2 transitioned to a ready-up position towards the Complainant with his C8 rifle. An unidentified OPP officer could be heard on the radio requesting an Anti-Riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN).

Starting at about 1:09:23 p.m., WO #1 instructed the Complainant to drop the knives, as SO #2 remained in a ready-up position near the front of his cruiser.

Starting at about 1:10:11 p.m., SO #2 chambered a round in his C8 rifle and encountered a jam. He adopted a low-ready position and informed WO #6, who was out of camera view. SO #2 stepped out of view momentarily, then resumed a ready-up position towards the Complainant, who remained on the deck of the building. The Complainant gestured with his knives and shouted at OPP officers, but his words were unintelligible.

Starting at about 1:13:46 p.m., SO #1 approached the deck as SO #2 remained near his cruiser and alternated between a low-ready and ready-up position with his C8 rifle.

Starting at about 1:14:42 p.m., SO #1 walked next to the deck opening that faced west and spoke to the Complainant from about three metres away. SO #2 adopted a predominantly low-ready position with his C8 rifle.

Starting at about 1:19:24 p.m., SO #1 instructed the firefighters to approach.

Starting at about 1:20:03 p.m., SO #2 advanced to what is known to be WO #7’s OPP Suburban, out of camera view.

Starting at about 1:22:34 p.m., water spray from a firehose contacted the Complainant but was not directed at him until he walked towards the north end of the deck, where the water seemed to possibly impact him directly. As the Complainant continued to walk north off the deck, three gunshots were heard, and the Complainant dropped to the ground out of camera view.

Starting at about 1:23:30 p.m., SO #2 returned to the driver’s seat of his OPP vehicle and took deep breaths. WO #3 opened the passenger door, and SO #2 stated, “I don’t know if that was the right call.”

At 1:23:51 p.m., the video concluded.

OPP Radio Communications

On June 25, 2024, the audio began with a “Priority One” call to Anicinabe Park. A 911 caller reported that the Complainant had poured gas or oil on himself and pushed a shopping cart full of wood to the office building.

At 00:59 minutes into the recording, WO #1 responded from Main Street.

At 01:09 minutes into the recording, the 911 caller lost sight of the Complainant and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were notified.

At 01:11 minutes into the recording, WO #3 departed for the scene from the Kenora Detachment.

At 01:19 minutes into the recording, the Complainant reportedly started a fire at the Anicinabe Park Office.

At 01:36 minutes into the recording, WO #4 was en route to the scene.

The Complainant reportedly held two meat cleavers and acted “very threatening”. There was gas in his hair and his cart of wood was on fire.

At 02:11 minutes into the recording, WO #1 requested additional officers as soon as possible.

At 02:49 minutes into the recording, WO #1 reported that the Complainant wanted to talk with a case worker. He was doused with gasoline and the fire department was required as the office building was on fire.

At 03:20 minutes into the recording, WO #7 arrived on scene.

At 03:32 minutes into the recording, the OPP Emergency Response Team (ERT) and an ARWEN were requested.

At 03:49 minutes into the recording, WO #7 reported that the Complainant was not complying with commands to put down the knives. There was another request for an ARWEN. The officer confirmed that a Canine Unit, a conducted energy weapon (CEW), and three OPP officers were on scene. Officer #1 had an ARWEN and was dispatched to attend, but his arrival time had yet to be determined.

At 04:41 minutes into the recording, SO #1 was informed that a crisis negotiator, Officer #2, would attend.

At 05:10 minutes into the recording, the Fire Services and EMS were en route to the scene.

At 05:21 minutes into the recording, WO #7 reiterated the blaze was contained to the office, and the Complainant would not comply with orders to drop the meat cleavers.

At 05:50 minutes into the recording, CW #23 was identified as the Complainant’s case worker.

At 06:10 minutes into the recording, WO #5 reported Fire Services and EMS were staged nearby.

At 06:48 minutes into the recording, SO #1 announced, “Shots fired, shots fired. Send an ambulance.”

At 07:20 minutes into the recording, it was confirmed that CW #1, an employee at the park office, had vacated the building.

At 08:01 minutes into the recording, a request was made for traffic control in the area.

At 09:07 minutes into the recording, SO #1 reported EMS were en route to the hospital, and that SO #2 was sent to the OPP detachment with WO #1.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between June 25, 2024, and July 23, 2024:

• List of all involved officers and their roles
• List of all civilian witnesses, fire department personnel and EMS personnel, and any statements obtained
• Next-of-kin contact information
• Occurrence & Supplementary Reports
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Police communications recordings
• ICC and other footage
• Photographs
• Previous police contacts / records – the Complainant
• Scene log
• Fingerprinting Form – the Complainant
• All clothing of the Complainant
• Swab of substance collected from roadway
• Use of Force and Firearms Training Records – SO #2
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5, WO #6 and WO #7

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between August 27, 2024, and November 26, 2024:

• Postmortem Report from the Coroner’s Office
• Toxicology Report from the CFS
• Firearms Report from the CFS
• Chemistry Report from the CFS
• Recovered Anicinabe Park Office video from Ministry of Finance
• Cell phone video from CW #21
• Cell phone video from CW #5
• Cell phone video from CW #13

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-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.

Shortly after 12:00 p.m., June 25, 2024, OPP officers were dispatched to Anicinabe Park. An employee of the park’s office - CW #1- had contacted police to report that a male had poured gas or oil on himself and was outside the building pushing a cart of wood.

The male was the Complainant. He was in a highly agitated state when he showed up at the park office with his cart and containers of flammable liquid. The Complainant would proceed to splash the fluid around the exterior of the building and in his cart of wood before setting the cart on fire beside an exterior wall of the office next to a wooden box containing firewood. CW #1 fled the building via a rear door as the office caught fire.

WO #1 was the first officer on scene, arriving at about 12:05 p.m. The officer brought his vehicle to a stop in the parking lot approximately ten metres northwest of the northwest corner of the office building. The Complainant was walking in the area of that corner. He carried a machete in each hand, which he had retrieved from his shopping cart just after setting it on fire. WO #1 exited his cruiser and attempted to speak to the Complainant. He asked him to calm down and drop the knives. The Complainant was extremely upset and waved the machetes in front of him. He said that no one helped him.

The next officers on scene, arriving in separate vehicles at about 12:08 p.m., were SO #2, and WO #6 and WO #7 (a dog handler). WO #7 stopped his vehicle ahead and to the east of WO #1’s cruiser, closer to the Complainant. SO #2 and WO #6 stopped a distance behind WO #1. The officers exited – SO #2 armed with a C8 rifle and WO #7 with his dog – and took up positions around the northwest corner of the building. WO #1 continued to talk to the Complainant, attempting to have him drop the knives. The Complainant refused and challenged the officers to shoot him. He walked back and forth beside the northwest side of the building, the north side of which was ablaze.

SO #1 arrived on scene at about 12:13 p.m., and assumed command of the police operation. At one point, he approached the southwest corner of the building, beside a deck that ran the length of the west wall, and spoke to the Complainant from a distance of not more than five to seven metres. The Complainant continued to brandish the machetes at the officers, occasionally banging them off the deck balcony’s railing.

As the standoff continued, SO #1 devised a plan involving firefighters, who had arrived on scene. The details of the plan remain unclear on the evidence, but involved firefighters hosing down the north side of the building with water. It was hoped that the water would, directly or indirectly, whether by distracting the Complainant or causing him to lose balance, permit the officers an opportunity to safely take the Complainant into custody. As the firefighters prepared to move in with their hose, SO #2 moved to a position beside the driver side of WO #7’s vehicle, which had been moved even closer to the northwest corner of the building and the Complainant.

The Complainant was on the west side of the building on the deck when the water from the firefighters’ hose struck him indirectly and began to create mist or steam in his area. Within moments of this happening, the Complainant, who had removed his shirt, walked off the deck down a ramp onto the parking lot. He took three steps in the parking lot in the direction of the firefighters and group of officers, including SO #2, when the officer fired three times. The Complainant collapsed to the ground. The time was 12:22 p.m.

Officers approached the Complainant, dragged him away from the building and handcuffed him. Paramedics staging in the area arrived on scene and administered emergency medical aid.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and pronounced deceased later that afternoon.

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.

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 passed away in Kenora on June 25, 2024, the result of gunshot wounds inflicted by an OPP officer. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming two OPP officers – 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 officer 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 #2 and his fellow officers were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties through the events that culminated in the shooting. Knowing what they did of the fire that the Complainant had started, they were duty-bound to respond to the scene to do what they reasonably could to ensure public safety. There were also grounds to arrest the Complainant in relation to the arson and the knives in his possession.

When SO #2 fired his rifle three times at the Complainant, he did so, I am satisfied, in defence of his person and others around him from a reasonably apprehended attack. Though SO #2 did not provide that evidence firsthand to the SIU, as was his legal right, his mindset can safely be inferred from the circumstantial evidence. That evidence includes the knives in the Complainant’s hands, his movement in the direction of the officers and firefighters, his proximity to the police and firefighters when the gunfire occurred, his volatile behaviour to that point, utterances by SO #2 in the aftermath of the shooting expressing second-thoughts about what had happened but indicating he fired his weapon because the Complainant was moving towards him and others, and the statements of witness officers, similarly situated to SO #2, indicating that they were on the brink of firing their weapons as well when SO #2 discharged the C8 rifle.

I am also satisfied that SO #2’s use of gunfire constituted reasonable force. The Complainant was armed with two knives – one in each hand – as he stepped forward with purpose off the deck ramp onto the parking lot and in the direction of officers and firefighters. There was no reason to believe that the Complainant was not then on the precipice of a knife attack on the first responders. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that SO #2, from a distance no greater than six to eight metres, acted without warrant when he chose to meet a risk of grievous bodily harm or death with a resort to lethal force of his own. Indeed, nothing short of gunfire had the immediate stopping power required of the moment.

But what of the decision to have firefighters spray water on the fire in the Complainant’s location, which seems to have been the catalyst for his movement off the porch? This leads to an assessment of the police operation during the standoff, and SO #1’s role in the incident, in light of the offence of 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 SO #1, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.

The officers on scene, including SO #1, conducted themselves with due care and regard for public safety, including the Complainant’s health and well-being. They were confronted by an emergency situation, the fire having already been started by the time the first officers arrived on scene. From the get-go, officers spoke to the Complainant to have him drop the knives and distance himself from a burning building. Wisely, arrangements were also made to have firefighters and paramedics attend at the park. SO #1 took over the lead role in negotiations with the Complainant, but could not prevail on him to drop the knives and surrender peacefully. Consideration was given to using less-lethal weapons. However, none of the officers were equipped with an ARWEN and the nearest one was some distance away with ERT officers at a training exercise. The use of a CEW was also ruled out because it appeared that the Complainant had doused himself with a flammable liquid. A police dog was on scene but the handler – WO #7 – decided against the use of the dog. With the fire continuing to grow, the dog handler was concerned that a dog deployment would place the Complainant at greater risk from the blaze. It was against this backdrop that SO #1 decided on the plan involving the firefighters. Regrettably, rather than leading to his safe apprehension by distracting him or causing him to lose balance, the Complainant reacted by decisively walking off the porch, knives in hand, to a position where SO #2 reasonably believed he had no choice but to shoot him.

Notwithstanding this tragic turn of events, SO #1’s decision did not amount to a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care in the circumstances. The officer had a difficult decision to make and not much time in which to make it. The fire was growing, and the Complainant was standing perilously close to it. SO #1 would have been concerned for the Complainant’s safety and the safety of the officers in the vicinity. As all other tactics had failed to that point, and there was some prospect of SO #1’s plan succeeding, the officer’s decision is owed defence in the circumstances.

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

Date: June 26, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit