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 60-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 4, 2025, at 10:20 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 4, 2025, a resident of an address in Severn Township (Residence #1) contacted the OPP to report the Complainant threatening residents in the area with a knife. The Complainant was intoxicated and had set fire to various homes and structures. He had been temporarily residing at Residence #2, before being requested by the owner to leave. In response, the Complainant set fire to Residence #2, Residence #3 and, possibly, Residence #4. When OPP officers arrived, the Complainant was located in the yard of Residence #2, where attempts to negotiate his surrender were made. A Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) was deployed followed by an Anti-riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN) discharge, allowing officers to gain control of the Complainant. Although believed uninjured, he had been taken to Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital (OSMH) for examination.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/04/04 at 11:08 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/04/04 at 11:36 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

60-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on April 5, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between April 5, 2025, and April 7, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on April 11, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the area of a shed in the backyard of a property [Residence #2] situated in Gravenhurst.

The area was a residential street with both seasonal and full-time residences. The interaction between the Complainant and OPP officers occurred beside a shed at Residence #2. SIU attended and processed the scene.

Physical Evidence

The following evidentiary items were processed by the SIU:

• The SO’s ARWEN 37
• Baton projectile

Figure 1 - ARWEN

Figure 2 - Baton projectile

Forensic Evidence

Deployment Data - WO #2’s CEW

At 8:52:33 p.m.,[2] April 4, 2025, the safety was disengaged.

At 8:52:37 p.m., the trigger was pulled, and Bay 1 probes deployed.

At 8:52:38 p.m., the trigger was pulled, and Bay 2 probes deployed.

At 8:52:44 p.m., the right arc button was pressed.

At 8:52:51 p.m., the right arc button was pressed.

At 8:53:04 p.m., the right arc button was pressed.

At 8:53:11 p.m., the right arc button was pressed.

At 8:55:00 p.m., the CEW safety was engaged.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

OPP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On April 4, 2025, at 8:52:25 p.m., police officers located the Complainant standing behind a shed at Residence #2. They shouted at him to not move, show his hands, and get on the ground. The Complainant responded, “No. No, I’m not.” He bent over, placed both hands on the ground, and then returned to a standing position and took several steps towards them.

At 8:52:39 p.m., the SO discharged an ARWEN striking the Complainant in the abdomen. Simultaneously, WO #2 deployed a CEW, which did not appear to be effective. A second CEW deployment by WO #2 resulted in neuromuscular incapacitation, and the Complainant fell chest first into a snowbank. The Complainant’s hands were under his chest, and he was directed repeatedly to show them. He rolled onto his right side when WO #2 discharged his CEW a third time. Officers were positioned at the Complainant’s back and struggled to get his arms from under his body to behind his back.[4]

At 8:53:53 p.m., the Complainant was handcuffed behind his back.

OPP Communications Recordings – Telephone

On April 4, 2025, at 8:30 p.m., Homeowner #1 of Residence #1 called the Provincial Communications Centre and reported his neighbour, the Complainant, trying to burn his house down with five-gallon gasoline containers. It exploded on his front step, and everything was on fire. He had caught the Complainant pouring gasoline on his step but would not confront him. Multiple homes were on fire. The Complainant was a disgruntled tenant of Homeowner #2, and the neighbours were having trouble with him. Homeowner #2’s house was one of three houses on fire.

At 8:31 p.m., Homeowner #3 of Residence #3 called the OPP advising that the Complainant had set her and her neighbour’s homes on fire. The Complainant lived in the garage at Residence #4. They had filed a complaint, and that was why he was throwing gasoline on their house. CW #1 in the same phone call indicated they did not know where the Complainant was, but he was dangerous and had a knife. He had fought with the Complainant.

OPP Communications Recordings - Radio

On April 4, 2025, at 8:32 p.m., OPP officers were dispatched to Residence #1, where a neighbour [the Complainant] was attempting to burn down a house. There were multiple houses on fire and the Complainant had emptied five-gallon gasoline containers around the property. The Complainant had fought with one of the homeowners and fled. A physical description was provided, and he was said to be on foot and carrying a knife.

At 8:39 p.m., the Complainant was said to be attempting suicide by laying on top of a knife in front of Residence #3.

At 8:40 p.m., the Complainant was reportedly walking to Residence #4.

At 8:45 p.m., police officers arrived.

At 8:49 p.m., another building was being lit on fire.

At 8:51 p.m., Officer #1 was on the opposite side of the Severn River, and the Complainant was said to be near a shed with a lighter behind a fully engulfed building.

At 8:53 p.m., the Complainant was reported to be in custody.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between April 5, 2025, and May 6, 2025:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Civilian Witness List
• General Occurrence Report
• Arrest Report
• Crown Brief Synopsis
• Use of Force / ARWEN requalification records for the SO
• Duty book notes - WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3
• Communications recordings
• Event Details Report
• BWC footage
• CEW deployment data
• Policy - Use of Force and Less Lethal Launcher

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from OSMH on April 23, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of April 4, 2025, OPP officers were dispatched to a residential area in Gravenhurst following calls to police from several homeowners. It was reported that a disgruntled Complainant had set fire to a number of residences. One of the homeowners, CW #1, had discovered the Complainant in the act, and the two had exchanged blows before the Complainant produced a long knife and CW #1 retreated to safety.

The Complainant had in recent months been living unlawfully in the area, first in a trailer on the property of Residence #2, then in the garage of Residence #4. Informed by by-law enforcement officers that his living accommodations were unlawful, and directed to vacate, an angry Complainant had resolved to destroy the homes of those he blamed for his predicament. He poured gasoline on several properties and set fire to Residence #2 and Residence #4 before he was confronted by OPP officers in the backyard of Residence #2, which backed onto a body of water.

OPP officers, including the SO, armed with an ARWEN, and WO #2, with a CEW at the ready, directed the Complainant to the ground in the area of a shed in the backyard. The Complainant refused and, instead, began to advance towards the officers. He was simultaneously tasered by WO #2 and struck by an ARWEN round fired by the SO. When neither discharge seemed to deter the Complainant, he was tasered a second time by WO #2. On this occasion, the Complainant locked-up and fell to the ground. Following a physical engagement on the ground between the Complainant and several officers, and several more CEW discharges by WO #2, the Complainant was handcuffed behind the back. He had not suffered any serious injuries.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code - Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

The Complainant was struck by an ARWEN round fired by an OPP officer on April 4, 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 use of the ARWEN.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.

Based on the information received via the 911 calls of the arsons being committed by the Complainant, and what they gathered directly of the fires once on scene, I am satisfied that the involved officers, including the SO, were within their rights in seeking to take him into custody.

I am further satisfied that the SO used only reasonable force in aid of the Complainant’s arrest. At the time, the officer had reason to believe that the Complainant was still in possession of a knife. That information effectively ruled out a hand-to-hand engagement until such time as the officers could be assured he was no longer armed with a weapon. On this record, an ARWEN discharge made sense when the Complainant refused to peacefully surrender and began to close the distance with the officers. If it worked as designed, the use of the weapon would temporarily and sufficiently incapacitate the Complainant, allowing the officers a window of time within which they could safely approach and arrest the Complainant without the infliction of serious injury.

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

Date: July 22, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit