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 firearm injury of a 30-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 16, 2025, at 4:35 p.m., the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

Police officers responded to a stabbing call at a residence in the area of Hunter Street East and Spring Street. On arrival, at approximately 3:50 p.m., the police officers encountered the stabbing victim and were told the suspect was inside the apartment. Officers entered the apartment and located a man in a bedroom, armed with a knife. The Subject Official (SO) discharged his firearm at least once. The identity of the man shot by police was unknown at the time of the notification.[2]

At 5:15 p.m., the HPS reported that the stabbing victim (the “Victim”) was deceased.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/03/16 at 4:41 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/03/16 at 5:57 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

30-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on April 25, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on March 16, 2025.

Subject Official

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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on March 20, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired at a residence in the area of Hunter Street East and Spring Street, Hamilton.

On March 16, 2025, while waiting for the HPS to obtain a search warrant, SIU forensic investigators attended the HPS Central Station to examine the SO’s clothing and use of force options.

The SO’s uniform did not show any damage or obvious bloodstains. His duty belt held a conducted energy weapon (CEW), oleoresin capsicum spray, an expandable baton, a Glock pistol, and two spare magazines.

The two spare magazines were examined. They were Glock 9mm magazines with a capacity of 17 cartridges. They were each loaded with 16 cartridges of 9mm ammunition.

There was one 9mm cartridge in the chamber and the magazine contained ten live cartridges. Assuming the pistol had been loaded with a magazine holding 16 cartridges and one cartridge in the chamber, six cartridges were missing.

The pistol, the cartridge from the chamber, and the magazine with ten cartridges were collected by the SIU.

On his uniform vest, the SO carried a mount that was similar to the mount used for body-worn cameras. On May 26, 2025, the HPS informed the SIU the mount was for an in-car camera microphone. The HPS advised the SIU that the SO had not been issued a body-worn camera.

Scene Diagram

Figure 1 - The scene

The residence was an older home that was converted to four individual apartments. At the rear of the building was a set of stairs acting as a fire escape.

The Victim’s apartment, on the main-floor, was accessed via the rear fire escape. Although there was an entrance to the apartment from the front of the building, that entrance was not used, as it led into a room being used as a bedroom in the apartment. Residing in that bedroom were two individuals [CW #2 and CW #3] who were providing care to the Victim while he underwent treatment for cancer. They were not home at the time of the incident.

The rear entrance of the Victim’s apartment had a metal storm door on the exterior. The interior door was found to be open. There was no evidence the interior door had been forced open.

Immediately inside the rear door was the kitchen of the apartment. There was a blood trail on the kitchen floor from the rear door to an area in front of the kitchen sink. There was evidence of foot traffic through the blood. A leather knife sheath, with a brand name of Xcalibur, was on the floor of the kitchen.

Across the kitchen there were three doors. The leftmost door was the entrance to the bathroom. To the right of the bathroom was Bedroom 1. The entrance to that bedroom had no door and was covered by a sheet to provide privacy. Inside Bedroom 1 was a bed and a computer table. The room was tidy.

To the right of Bedroom 1 was Bedroom 2. There was a bullet defect in the doorway of Bedroom 2. It had penetrated the right-side door jamb at a sharp downward angle. The projectile could not be recovered, as it appeared to have fallen behind the wall. The defect hole was probed with a snake camera, but the projectile was not located.

Bedroom 2 was cluttered and cramped. A cellular telephone was found on the bed. Clothes, sheets, and a pillow were on the floor at the foot of the bed. That pillow had a large blood smear on it. A fish fillet knife was found on the pile of clothes on the floor. The knife was smeared with blood on the blade, and the blade was bent. The knife bore the manufacturer name Xcalibur.

The knife and sheath were photographed by the SIU but left for the HPS to collect to advance their homicide investigation.

Six spent 9mm cartridge cases were located inside the apartment. Three were located on the floor in Bedroom 1, just inside the doorway. Two were found in Bedroom 2. The final cartridge case was found in a box of medical supplies on the floor of the kitchen. The number of spent cartridge cases recovered in the apartment was in agreement with the number of cartridges believed to be missing from the SO’s firearm.

A projectile was found in Bedroom 2, in the sheets on the floor at the end of the bed.

Bullet fragments, recovered from the Complainant during surgery, were later obtained by the SIU from Hamilton General Hospital (HGH).

Physical Evidence

On March 17, 2025, SIU forensic investigators collected a projectile and six spent cartridge cases from inside the Victim’s apartment.

On March 19, 2025, while at HGH, a SIU investigator received a bullet fragment immediately following its removal from the Complainant’s left thigh. On March 27, 2025, the SIU received bullet fragments removed from the Complainant during his initial surgery on March 16, 2025. Those fragments were received from the security department at HGH.

Forensic Evidence

Forensic Evidence / Centre of Forensic Sciences Submissions and Results

N/A

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

HPS Communications Recordings

On March 16, 2025, CW #5 called 911 to request an ambulance. She reported a man had been stabbed and was bleeding. CW #5 called out to her partner, CW #6, to answer questions posed by the paramedic service call-taker. CW #6 had gone to offer aid to the injured man [the Victim]. During the telephone call, CW #6 returned to their residence to obtain additional towels and first-aid supplies. With the HPS call-taker also on the line, CW #6 reported the person who assaulted the injured man was inside the apartment of the injured man. The 911 operator ended the call once police arrived.

A police officer was dispatched to the stabbing incident. Two other police officers volunteered to assist on the call. The officers were advised there was a man in his 60s with a neck injury, calling out for help. They were also advised the culprit was inside the man’s apartment. Police officers reported being on scene and there was then a report of shots fired. The transmissions did not have time-stamps.

Records – Miscellaneous

According to the Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report, CW #5 called 911 on March 16, 2025, at 3:43 p.m., to report a man was bleeding and calling for help. At 3:46 p.m., the first police officer reported being on scene and, at 3:48 p.m., it was reported shots had been fired. At 4:40 p.m., a police officer at HGH reported the Victim was pronounced deceased.

The Subject Profile report for the Complainant indicated he had numerous interactions with the HPS. He was often found to be in possession of a glass bowl pipe. He also admitted to hearing voices and believed people were after him.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the HPS between March 18, 2025, and April 8, 2025:

• Witness interview of CW #4
• Scribe notes of CW #4’s interview
• Witness interview of CW #5
• Witness interview of CW #3
• Witness interview of CW #2
• Witness interviews of CW #6
• Synopsis report summarizing CW #6’s interview of March 16, 2025
• Scribe notes of CW #6’s interview of March 19, 2025
• Communications recordings
• CAD Report
• Scene photographs
• Complainant’s fingerprint impressions
• General Occurrence Report
• A Subject Profile Report
• Notebook entries of four witness officials
• Use of Force training record for SO
• CEW training record for SO

Records Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained copies of the Complainant’s voting card and passport from the General Consulate of Mexico on March 20, 2025. The Complainant’s medical records were received from the HGH on June 16, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police eyewitnesses to the events in question, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes. He did provide a written statement.

In the afternoon of March 16, 2025, HPS received an emergency call for service at a residence in the area of Hunter Street East and Spring Street. A male – the Victim – had reportedly been stabbed in the neck in his apartment by a male intruder. Paramedics and police officers were dispatched to the scene. Officers, including the SO, arrived within minutes to find the Victim sitting on a stairwell at the back of the residence, bleeding from the neck. Officers provided first-aid and ascertained from the Victim that the intruder was still in the apartment, located on the main-floor of the address.

The SO, his gun drawn and followed by WO #4, WO #2, WO #1 and WO #3, entered the apartment from the rear door. They immediately found themselves in an empty kitchen with a lot of blood on the floor. From the kitchen, there were three doors that opened into a bathroom and two bedrooms. Looking for the Complainant, but also concerned there could be another victim involved given the amount of blood on the kitchen floor, the officers checked the bathroom and one bedroom, finding them vacant.

The Complainant was in the other bedroom, with the door closed. The officers called-out to him to come out with his hands up but he remained inside. The Complainant worked to keep the door closed as the officers attempted to push it open. When the officers finally forced the door open, the Complainant jabbed at them with a knife through the doorway. He was immediately met by gunfire. The SO, positioned closest to the bedroom door by its hinges, had discharged his gun six times.

The Complainant was struck multiple times suffering wounds to his right abdomen and left thigh. Officers entered the bedroom, removed a knife in proximity to the Complainant’s left hand and secured him in handcuffs. First-aid was administered pending the arrival of paramedics.

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.

The Complainant was shot by a HPS officer, sustaining serious gunshot wounds, on March 16, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming the officer – 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.

At the outset, it should be noted that the SO, and the other involved officers, had good reason to believe that the Complainant had just stabbed the Victim in the neck and was still inside the apartment. The Victim had told them as much. On this record, they were within their rights in entering the apartment to arrest the Complainant and ensure public safety.

I am satisfied that the SO shot the Complainant believing it necessary to protect himself from a reasonably apprehended attack. Though he did not provide that evidence firsthand in an interview with the SIU, as was his legal right, that was the import of his written statement. There is little reason to doubt the officer given the knife attack he was confronting at the time he fired his weapon.

I am also satisfied that the shots fired by the SO constituted reasonable force in self-defence. The SO had cause to believe that his life, and the lives of the other officers with him, were in peril when the Complainant thrust the knife he was holding in their direction. The Complainant had just stabbed the Victim while an intruder in his apartment, and was now actively attacking the officers with the knife at close range. Given the speed of events, retreat or withdrawal were not realistic options. Immediate action was required in the circumstances, and gunfire was the only recourse available with the stopping power demanded of the moment. The officers might have considered holding the scene to await the arrival of a tactical team, specially trained for situations involving barricaded persons with weapons, without first forcing the confrontation at the bedroom door. However, their decision to move forward as they did given the large amount of blood on the kitchen floor, and a corresponding concern of another victim at the scene, was a reasonable one and entitled to a measure of deference. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted without warrant when he chose to meet a real and present danger of death or grievous bodily harm with a resort to lethal force of his own.

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

Date: July 15, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit