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 serious injury of a 17-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 23, 2025, at 3:35 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of a serious injury to the Complainant.

According to the TPS, on March 23, 2025, at 3:01 p.m., TPS officers assigned to the Guns and Gangs Task Force conducted a takedown of a vehicle with four occupants at 2995 Islington Avenue. An officer discharged his firearm, striking the Complainant in the knee. The Complainant was transported by Emergency Medical Services to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC). Four guns were recovered.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/03/23 at 3:43 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/03/23 at 6:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

17-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on March 23, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on March 23, 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 23, 2025.

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

The witness officials were interviewed between April 3, 2025, and April 4, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a Nissan parked in the parking lot of the plaza at 2879 – 3001 Islington Avenue, Toronto.

The plaza was on the east side of Islington Avenue and consisted of multiple commercial store front businesses. In addition to the Nissan, there were six covert TPS vehicles parked to the north, south and west.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

The following items of evidentiary significance were identified:

• The
• Discharged cartridge case from
• Firearm on the back seat (passenger side) of the Nissan; and
• Firearm in the possession of the Complainant.

The SO’s firearm was a Glock .40 calibre, Model 27 semi-automatic pistol. There was one cartridge in the breech and 12 in the 15-capacity magazine.

Figure 1 – The SO’s firearm

The firearm in the back seat of the Nissan was a Glock 9 mm, Model 43X. There was one cartridge in the breech, and ten in the seated magazine.

Figure 2 – Firearm located in the back seat of the Nissan

The Complainant’s firearm was a Glock Model 19 semi-automatic pistol.

Figure 3 – The Complainant’s firearm

Forensic Evidence

On April 1, 2025, the SIU submitted the following to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) for examination:

• Fired cartridge case (the SO);
• Glock Model 27, 40 calibre pistol (the SO);
• Cartridges (the SO); and
• Pants worn by the Complainant.

CFS Firearms Report – Conclusions

The cartridge case was identified, within the limits of practical certainty, as having been fired by the SO’s pistol.

No firearms discharge residues were observed on the Complainant’s pants.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - 2993 Islington Avenue

The video that captured the parking lot of 2993 Islington Avenue had no evidentiary value as it only captured police officers approaching the Complainant’s vehicle and not the interaction or firearm discharge.

TPS Communications Recordings – Radio

On March 23, 2025, starting at 3:01 p.m., a police officer advised the TPS communications centre dispatch that Guns and Gangs had four arrests at a store at Islington Avenue and Satterly Road. There had been a firearm discharge, and an ambulance was required.

The injured was a young person [the Complainant], whose identity they were trying to confirm. The Complainant had sustained a firearm wound to his leg.

Starting at 3:04 p.m., it was noted that four people were in custody, four firearms were recovered, and the Complainant had been shot in the right leg.

Starting at 3:07 p.m., the Complainant’s injury was said to be self-inflicted and not the result of a police officer’s firearm discharge [now known to be inaccurate information].

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between March 23, 2025, and March 29, 2025:

• Names and roles of involved police officers;
• Crown Brief Synopsis;
• Communication recordings;
• Event Details Report;
• Scene photographs;
• Annual Use of Force qualifications for the SO;
• Duty Book Notes - WO #2, WO #1, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #5; and
• Policies – Arrest; Persons in Custody; and, Incident Response.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between March 24, 2025, and June 27, 2025:

• Video footage - 2993 Islington Avenue;
• The Complainant’s medical records from SHSC; and
• CFS Firearms Report.

In the afternoon of March 23, 2025, members of the TPS Guns and Gangs Task Force, including the SO, began to covertly track a Nissan. They had reason to believe that the driver – the Complainant – was in possession of illegal firearms, and the team had obtained a search warrant to that effect. Their plan was to arrest the Complainant ahead of the execution of the warrant.

Seemingly unaware that he was being followed, the Complainant turned into the plaza at 2879 – 3001 Islington Avenue, exited, and entered a store. Remaining in the Nissan were three males – CW #3 in the front passenger seat, CW #1 in the rear driver-side seat, and CW #2 in the rear passenger-side seat. The Complainant returned to the vehicle and had just re-entered the driver seat when the vehicle was surrounded by police officers.

On seeing the Nissan enter the plaza parking lot, the task force decided to execute a takedown. They maneuvered their unmarked cruisers around the Nissan to prevent its egress, exited, and surrounded the Complainant and the others with their guns drawn. The SO positioned himself by the rear passenger-side door. The officers yelled at the Nissan’s occupants to not move. CW #2 attempted to escape via the rear passenger-side door. He was prevented from doing so by the SO. The Complainant climbed over the centre console into the back of the Nissan intending to escape via the same door. He was stretched across the front and rear, chest facing up, when he was shot in the right leg.

The SO had fired his weapon once at the Complainant through the open rear passenger-side door.

The occupants of the Nissan were removed from the vehicle and arrested. Multiple firearms were located on their persons and in the Nissan, including a semi-automatic pistol on the Complainant.

The Complainant was taken to hospital following his arrest and diagnosed with a gunshot wound to the lateral aspect of the right knee joint.

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 and seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on March 23, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming the SO the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the shooting.

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 and his fellow officers on the task force were within their rights in seeking to arrest the Complainant. The Complainant had been named in a search warrant alleging the unlawful possession of a restricted firearm.

While the evidence confirms that the Complainant was in possession of a gun, there is a body of evidence indicating he was not reaching for it when he was shot. This evidence, however, is contested by the account of the SO. According to the SO, the Complainant had grasped the handle of the gun, located in his waistband, when the officer discharged his firearm fearing for his life. That evidence finds support in the accounts of two other officers – both part of the takedown – who observed the Complainant’s hands in the area of his waistband in and around the time of the gunshot. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO did not harbour an honest belief that it was necessary to shoot the Complainant to protect himself and others from a reasonably apprehended attack.

It follows that the force used by the SO constituted reasonable force in the circumstances. If the SO genuinely believed the Complainant had taken hold of a gun while attempting to escape police apprehension, as the evidence reasonably suggests he did, then the use of the firearm would appear commensurate with the exigencies of the situation. At that moment, faced with the very real risk that the Complainant would use his gun against the officers, nothing short of a firearm had the immediate stopping power required to preserve the SO and others from grievous bodily harm or death.

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

Date: July 18, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit