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 23-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 10, 2025, at 6:06 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 10, 2025, at about 3:50 p.m., an intoxicated Complainant attended a residence at Raglan Street South and Munroe Avenue East, Renfrew, where he was abusive to family members. They had recently revoked his surety. When they advised they would call the police, the Complainant armed himself with a knife and ran off into the wooded area behind the home. Two OPP Emergency Response Team (ERT) officers responded, and the canine unit was also requested. A neighbour called the OPP and said the Complainant was hiding in their yard. The ERT officers located the Complainant and instructed him to drop the knife. When he failed to comply with their demands, an Anti-riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN) was deployed, which struck the Complainant in the arm. The Complainant was taken into custody. There were no injuries from the projectile.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/04/10 at 6:35 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/04/10 at 7:23 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 11, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between April 23, 2025, and June 2, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

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

The subject official was interviewed on May 30, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

WO #6 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between April 17, 2025, and June 21, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired between two homes in the area of Raglan Street South and Munroe Avenue East, Renfrew.

Physical Evidence

The ARWEN assigned to the SO was a 37mm launcher, which fired AR-1 impact baton rounds with a five-round drum magazine. One AR-1 impact baton round and case were collected by the SO, and brought to the detachment.

Figure 1 - ARWEN and Impact Baton Round

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - WO #1 and Officer #1

On April 10, 2025, starting at about 3:53:45 p.m., WO #1 held a C8 rifle off to his right side with the barrel aimed at the grass. The Complainant was on his back on the grass beneath WO #1. WO #1 held the Complainant’s left wrist; his right wrist was uncontrolled. There was an object in the Complainant’s left hand [later determined to be a cell phone] and his right hand was empty.

Starting at about 3:53:47 p.m., the Complainant’s right hand grabbed WO #1’s left hand and quickly let go. His mouth moved as if he was speaking to WO #1.

Starting at about 3:53:48 p.m., the Complainant was struck by a green projectile [ARWEN round fired by the SO] on the right side of his chest. A cloud of smoke [gun smoke] blew across his face. He winced in pain, his body curled, and he rolled onto his left side. WO #1 positioned him onto his stomach. The Complainant’s left hand, which held the phone, was beneath him. The phone screen was activated and engaged in a phone call. WO #1 grabbed the Complainant’s right hand and brought it behind his back.

Starting at about 3:54:06 p.m., boots were seen as two people [WO #2 and WO #3] walked into the camera frame.

Starting at about 3:54:15 p.m., WO #1’s BWC audio track kicked-in. An unidentified OPP officer asked, “Where’s the knife?” WO #2 and WO #3 handcuffed the Complainant with his hands behind the back.

Starting at about 3:54:36 p.m., the Complainant kicked backwards by flexing at the knee, while prone restrained, and struck the SO.

Starting at about 3:54:53 p.m., the Complainant said, “You’re such a fucking pussy bro, take these handcuffs off so I can beat your ass.” The SO said, “The fight’s over, you lost.”

Starting at about 3:55:23 p.m., the SO looked at WO #1 and said, “I wasn’t playing games with that, uh, reaching. It was getting silly.” The Complainant asked why he had been shot with a “bean bag” while he laid on the ground. The SO did not respond.

Starting at about 3:55:38 p.m., WO #1 broadcast on the radio that the Complainant was in custody, that he had been uncooperative with his hands underneath his body, and that an ARWEN was deployed. The SO bent down and picked something up from the ground [ARWEN round and case].

Starting at about 3:56:56 p.m., the SO handed his ARWEN to a female OPP officer, who had just arrived, and placed the ARWEN round and case in his pocket.

Starting at about 3:57:25 p.m., WO #1 said he had activated his BWC after they grounded the Complainant. The SO said his BWC was not activated.

Starting at about 4:00:38 p.m., the Complainant was placed up against a police vehicle [Officer #1’s vehicle]. He repeatedly said, “You should’ve shot me with a gun.” The SO said, “You shouldn’t have threatened to cut your grandma’s head off.”

OPP Communications Recordings – Telephone

On April 10, 2025, starting at about 2:46:39 p.m., CW #2 called 911 to report she had revoked the surety on the Complainant, and that he had broken dishes in her residence. The dispatcher asked if there were any weapons inside the home, and CW #2 said, “Not that I know of.”

Starting at about 2:56:07 p.m., Recovery Science [the company that monitored the Complainant’s GPS ankle monitor] called 911 to report there had been an alert for a strap tamper on the Complainant’s GPS ankle monitor.

OPP Communications Recordings -

Radio & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

On April 10, 2025, at 2:48:40 p.m., the dispatcher advised that CW #2 reported the Complainant had mental health issues and carried no weapons.

At 3:11:53 p.m., WO #4 reported the Complainant might be in possession of a black folding knife, which was about four to five inches long.

At 3:39:29 p.m., ERT officers were on scene.

At 3:52:15 p.m., WO #1 or the SO advised a person had stopped and reported a possible sighting of the Complainant.

At 3:52:40 p.m., WO #1 and the SO were at the location of the possible sighting.

At 3:55:15 p.m., the Complainant was in custody.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between April 14, 2025, and June 21, 2025:

• General Occurrence Report
• Arrest Report
• Prisoner Custody Record
• CAD Report
• Notes – WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #1, and WO #6
• BWC footage
• In-car camera system footage
• Custody footage
• Scene and evidence photographs
• Committal Warrant
• ERT ARWEN Re-Qualification Specifications
• Use of Force Training Records – the SO
• Scene diagram – the SO
• ARWEN User Manual

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre on April 25, 2025.

The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.

In the afternoon of April 10, 2025, the Complainant, who resided with CW #2, cut off his GPS ankle monitor and fled the home located in the area of Raglan Street South and Munroe Avenue East, Renfrew. Concerned that the Complainant was in breach of his bail conditions, CW #2 had been to the courthouse earlier that day to revoke her surety status. That news, and the fact that he would soon be arrested by police, greatly upset the Complainant. He broke plates in the kitchen before leaving the address. CW #2 called police to report what had happened.

OPP ERT officer – the SO – arrived in the area to assist in locating the Complainant. He was joined by another ERT officer – WO #1 – and additional OPP officers. Over time, they were advised that the Complainant might be in possession of a knife. They were also told that the Complainant had threatened to cut a family member’s head off when she called him at the request of the police to urge him to turn himself in.

The Complainant was hiding between two homes, about 400 metres from CW #2’s residence, when he was located by the SO and WO #1. The officers had been alerted to his location by a pedestrian. Armed with a C8 rifle, WO #1 ordered the Complainant to the ground. The Complainant lowered himself but only part way. When WO #1 forced him to the ground in a prone position, the Complainant resisted. He flipped himself onto his backside and began to grapple with the officer. WO #1 took a step back and attempted to control his hands. As this was happening, the SO, with an ARWEN at the ready, fired an ARWEN projectile at close range into the right chest of the Complainant. The Complainant winced in pain and rolled onto his left side. Shortly thereafter, his hands were handcuffed behind the back.

The Complainant did not sustain any serious injury in the incident.

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 projectile in the course of his arrest by OPP officers on April 10, 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 discharge 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.

The Complainant was subject to lawful arrest at the time of the ARWEN discharge. His surety had been revoked, and there was a committal warrant in effect authorizing his arrest.

With respect to the force used by the SO, namely, a single discharge from his ARWEN, I am not persuaded it exceeded the remit of justified force. Where effective, an ARWEN – a less-lethal weapon – avoids the risks associated with physically engaging a potentially armed subject at close range by temporarily incapacitating or disorienting them from a distance without the necessary infliction of serious injury. The weapon’s manual suggests “extremely” close range discharges be avoided because of the risk of injury or death from hot gasses expelled from the muzzle. In the instant case, though it is not known exactly how far the weapon was from the Complainant when the SO fired, the evidence indicates the distance was somewhere between 15 and 90 centimetres. That range would appear to describe a discharge at “close range” although whether it constitutes “extremely” close range is not clear. The SO said that he fired the ARWEN to protect himself and WO #1 believing the Complainant was attempting to retrieve a knife from his waistband. That account finds support in the evidence of the Complainant attempting to fight off WO #1 at the time and the information the officers had been provided of a knife in the Complainant’s possession. It is also noteworthy that the Complainant was wearing a hooded sweater and a coat, mitigating the risk of burn injuries, and that WO #1’s proximity to the Complainant at the time effectively removed as an option an ARWEN shot from a greater distance. On this record, if the force used by the SO was unconventional, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officer acted without legal justification when he fired the ARWEN. In arriving at this conclusion, I am mindful that an officer involved in a dangerous situation in which they reasonably believe their lives to be at risk are not expected to measure their responsive force with precision; what is required by the law is a reasonable response, not an exacting one: R. v. Nasogaluak,[2010] 1 SCR 206; R. v. Baxter(1975), 27 CCC (2d) 96 (Ont. CA).

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

I note what appear to be breaches of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 and OPP policy. In possible contravention of sections 18 and 20 of the Act, the SO picked up the ARWEN projectile and cartridge case and removed them from the scene, despite knowing the incident was a matter for SIU investigation. In apparent violation of OPP policy regarding body-worn camera, the SO, WO #1 and WO #4 did not activate their cameras when they ought to have been activated, thus depriving the SIU of important evidence. Conduct of this nature jeopardizes the integrity of SIU investigations, detracts from the SIU’s independence and credibility, and undermines the public’s confidence in policing and policing oversight. I will be raising this matter in my reporting letter to the OPP Commissioner. In compliance with this office’s legal obligation under section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring the matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: July 31, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit