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 40-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 11, 2025, at 11:57 p.m., Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 11, 2025, at 10:56 p.m., TPS officers responded to a family dispute in the area of Neilson Road and Military Trail, Scarborough. Inside the apartment police encountered a male [now known to be the Complainant]. He was in crisis and holding a knife to his neck. Officers told the Complainant to drop the knife but he cut himself in the neck. Police discharged a sock round at him, striking him in the left hand. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responded and transported the Complainant to Scarborough Centenary Hospital (SCH) via emergency run.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/04/12 at 12:46 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/04/12 at 2:40 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

40-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on April 12, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on April 12, 2025.

Service Employee Witness (SEW)

SEW Interviewed

The service employee witness was interviewed on April 25, 2025.

Subject Officials (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

The witness officials were interviewed between April 25, 2025, and April 28, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the living room of a unit in a building in the area of Neilson Road and Military Trail, Scarborough, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic investigators attended the scene on April 12, 2025, at 2:40 a.m. The interior lobby door had its glass fully broken, allowing unrestricted entry. The scene was located in a unit on the east side of a building in the area of Neilson Road and Military Trail.

Inside, the north half of the unit contained a small kitchen and cluttered living room. The living room had a sectional sofa, coffee table, wall unit with a TV, and patio doors leading to a balcony. Multiple plants were present in the northeast and southeast corners.

Three bloodstained areas were located, one large pool near the coffee table and two smaller ones near the patio doors. A red-handled kitchen knife with suspected blood was on the floor in front of the doors. Four spent 12-gauge less-lethal shotshells were located near the TV and blood pool. Three green bean bag projectiles and numerous shotshell components were scattered across the east side of the room.

SIU forensic investigators collected nine exhibits from the scene, including four spent shotshell cases, three bean bag projectiles, various shotshell components, and a red-handled kitchen knife.

At 4:35 a.m., SIU forensic investigators attended TPS 43 Division and received a 12-gauge shotgun, reportedly used by the SO, for examination. The shotgun contained one unfired shotshell in the breech and five additional unfired shotshells in the side saddle, all marked as “Drag Stabilized Marking” less-lethal rounds.

Figure 1: Red-handled kitchen knife

Figure 2: A green bean bag projectile

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Communications Recordings

On April 11, 2025, at 10:55 p.m., the CW called the TPS via 911, and reported that the Complainant had tried to kill himself and was injured. The CW, who was calling from his bedroom, advised that the Complainant was alone in the living room with a knife to his neck. He reported the Complainant was violent only to himself and had previously exhibited this behaviour.

At 10:57 p.m., the SO and WO #1 informed the dispatcher they would respond, and had at their disposal a less-lethal option available. The Mobile Crisis Intervention Team (MCIT) [WO #2 and SEW] acknowledged the call for service and volunteered to attend. The dispatcher informed the units attending to exercise caution since it was reported the Complainant had a knife at his neck. An ambulance was on its way.

At 11:06 p.m., the CW confirmed with dispatch that TPS officers were on scene. A voice [SO] yelled, “[The Complainant’s name], drop it.”

At 11:07 p.m., the SO informed dispatch that a sock round had been deployed, and requested EMS. The SO advised that the Complainant had sustained an injury to his hand and possibly a broken finger. The Complainant was subsequently transported to SCH via ambulance.

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #2, SO and WO #1

On April 11, 2025, the SO and WO #1 responded to a residence in the area of Nelson Road and Military Trail in Toronto following a report from the CW that the Complainant was threatening self-harm. They were joined at the scene by WO #2 and a SEW.

At 11:01 p.m., officers arrived. Unable to access the locked lobby, the SO broke the glass front door at 11:04 p.m., and the group proceeded to the residence via elevator. During the ride, WO #2 shared a prior experience with the Complainant involving self-inflicted injuries. The SO added that the Complainant had previously exhibited violent behavior.

At 11:06 p.m., the CW opened the door to the residence. The SO entered first with her less-lethal shotgun. The Complainant was seen moving towards the balcony and partially concealing himself behind an artificial tree. The SO gave repeated commands for him to drop a knife.

Between 11:06:22 p.m., and 11:06:42 p.m., the SO discharged four sock rounds, each preceded by verbal warnings and demands to drop the knife. The Complainant was heard pleading, "Stop hurting me," and he was visibly injured, including a bleeding right hand and a displaced finger on the left. At one point, a male officer was heard saying, "Give him another shot."

At 11:07:08 p.m., the Complainant was handcuffed, and officers requested an ambulance. A paring knife was located near the balcony and briefly handled before being left on the ground. First-aid was administered.

The footage concluded at 11:37 p.m.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from TPS on April 14, 2025:

• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• General Occurrence Report
• Supplementary Reports
• TPS history of interactions with the Complainant
• BWC footage - SO, WO #1 and WO #2
• Notes – WO #1 and WO #2
• Photographs

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 her legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of her notes.

In the evening of April 11, 2025, the SO and her partner, WO #1, responded to a residence in the area of Nelson Road and Military Trail. They were joined by a MCIT consisting of WO #2 and a mental health professional, the SEW. The CW had called 911 to report that the Complainant, who lived with him, was threatening self-harm with a knife. As the four of them took the elevator to the residence, there was talk about past occurrences involving the Complainant in which it was noted he could be violent and had previously cut himself with a knife.

The CW let the officers and SEW into the apartment, the SO leading the way. She was armed with a less-lethal shotgun that discharged bean bag projectiles. Aware that officers had entered the unit, the Complainant walked towards the balcony and stepped behind an artificial tree just in front of the balcony door. He was holding a knife. From a distance of a few metres, the SO directed the Complainant to drop the knife and then fired a round from her shotgun. She fired two more rounds in short order, each preceded by similar direction that the Complainant drop the knife. A fourth round was fired following a brief pause, again after the Complainant was told to drop the knife.

Officers moved in to handcuff the Complainant following the fourth shot when it was apparent he had dropped the knife. It appeared the Complainant had been struck at least twice by bean bag projectiles. He was bleeding from the hands and was transported to hospital.

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

25 (1) Everyone 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.

Section 17, Mental Health Act - Action by Police Officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

The Complainant was struck by multiple less-lethal rounds fired by a TPS officer in the course of his arrest on April 11, 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.

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 in mental health crisis and threatening to harm himself with a knife. In the circumstances, I am satisfied the SO and her colleagues were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

With respect to the four rounds fired by the SO, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the force used by the officer was more than was necessary. The Complainant had possession of a knife, effectively precluding the possibility of a manual engagement. At the same time, it was necessary that prompt action be taken before the Complainant used the knife to harm himself. The officer would have also been concerned to prevent the Complainant access onto the balcony, from which he might have jumped in light of his mindset at the time. On this record, it appears the officer comported herself reasonably when she attempted to temporarily disorient or incapacitate the Complainant from a distance, particularly as she gave the Complainant an opportunity to drop the knife ahead of each discharge. In essence, the tactic worked as designed; the Complainant dropped the knife and was safely taken into custody. It should be noted that the Complainant appears to have dropped the knife after the third round. However, given the volatility of the situation, the dim lighting at the scene, and the artificial plant behind which the Complainant was positioned through the incident, I cannot reasonably discount the possibility that the SO believed the Complainant was still armed when she fired her final shot. Indeed, the other officers present on scene were either unsure or wrong about when the knife was dropped.

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

Date: August 6, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit