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 death of a 60-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 13, 2025, at 7:13 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 13, 2025, at 5:39 p.m., Civilian Witness (CW) #1 called the OPP to report her husband – the Complainant – had fled into the bushes behind their property in Minden Hills with a firearm. She was afraid he was suicidal. Uniformed OPP officers responded. There was an exchange of gunfire between the OPP officers and the Complainant. The Complainant was later located deceased. It was unclear if he was struck by OPP bullets or if his injuries were self-inflicted. The scene was being held for the SIU, and the Complainant’s body remained at the scene.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/04/13 at 7:47 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/04/13 at 11:40 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

60-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on April 14, 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 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 28, 2025, and April 29, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the exterior premises of a property located in Minden Hills.

Physical Evidence

The address was located on the south side of a rural road. A horseshoe-shaped driveway extended south towards a house and then curved back towards the street.

Inside the house on the property was a room, which appeared dedicated for a hunting hobbyist. The room contained an open gun safe and equipment to reload ammunition. There was a bullet-sized hole in the ceiling and a spent casing on the floor of the room.

There was a shed approximately 30 metres to the east of the house. There was another small outbuilding adjacent to the shed.

There were two spent .223 casings located near the outbuilding. The shed was approximately 30 metres east of the residence.

There were three police vehicles parked at the scene. The police vehicle operated by WO #1 and WO #3 was stopped at the south end of the horseshoe-shaped driveway and faced east as if it had travelled onto the property from the west driveway entrance. Two police vehicles, occupied by WO #5 and WO #4, and the SO, were stopped at the east entrance of the driveway.

About 55 metres east of the shed, the body of the Complainant was located. He was fully clothed and laid supine with his right arm up, bent at a 90-degree angle, covering the front of his face. His body was oriented with his head to the east and his feet to the west. There was catastrophic injury to the Complainant’s head. The body was rolled onto its lateral side to examine the posterior side. There was blood and a hole in the pants near the left buttock area. Approximately 3.6 metres west of the feet was a Browning lever-action rifle with a spent .358 ammunition case still in the ejection port. There was a live .358 round on the left side of the body and a spent .358 casing on the right side. A live .358 round was also located approximately 1.8 metres west of the feet of the body.

There was a projectile strike located on a tree adjacent to the body of the deceased.

The C8 rifle assigned to the SO was located inside his assigned police vehicle on the driveway. The firearm had been proved safe prior to SIU examination with the magazine located on the front passenger seat. There were 25 rounds of .223 ammunition, which remained in the magazine.

Inside the residence were three letters found on the kitchen table addressed to family members. The letters contained references to marital affairs, family issues, and farewells to their respective recipients.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - WO #2, WO #5 and the SO

On April 13, 2025, WO #5 was captured at an intersection a short distance away from the residence changing into body armour with other OPP officers.

Starting at about 5:50:23 p.m., WO #5 and WO #4 arrived at the scene. A woman [CW #1] screamed hysterically on the driveway. WO #5 walked towards a wooden shed. An OPP officer yelled, “Throw the gun away from you,” to someone unseen [the Complainant]. The Complainant responded, “I don’t think so.” WO #5 walked over to WO #4 and CW #1 on the driveway. WO #4 and WO #5 escorted CW #1 towards the vehicles parked on the driveway.

Starting at about 5:51:49 p.m., WO #5 returned to the shed. An OPP officer yelled, “Drop the gun,” towards a wooded area. An OPP officer kneeled on the ground near a large propane tank.

Starting at about 5:54:41 p.m., WO #1 told the Complainant, “You have to work with me here a little bit brother,” to which the Complainant replied, “Fuck you, shoot me.”

Starting at about 5:54:57 p.m., CW #1 yelled from behind the OPP officers. WO #1 said, “Can you take her away, I can’t hear him.” WO #5 ran towards CW #1 and said, “Okay, we’re taking her in the house so we can hear him.”

Starting at about 5:55:11 p.m., two gunshots were heard. WO #4 and WO #5 brought CW #1 inside the residence.

Starting at about 5:55:50 p.m., there was a 33-second segment of video from the SO’s BWC with no audio until 5:56:20 p.m.[3] The SO appeared to be crouched on the side of the shed. His BWC was pointed downwards towards a wheelbarrow. He stood up and moved north and out of a position of cover.

Starting at about 5:56:57 p.m., WO #5 returned outside. He approached WO #1, who said, “He fucking shot at me.”

Starting at about 5:57:26 p.m., the SO approached the Complainant. He yelled commands at the Complainant to not move and to put his hands up. The motionless body of the Complainant entered camera view. The SO grabbed a rifle, which laid across the body, and moved it away to secure it. He announced on the radio the Complainant was deceased and searched him for additional weapons, finding a bullet beneath him.

Starting at about 6:00:50 p.m., the SO said to another OPP officer, “I shot at him twice or… I shot at him twice.”

Starting at about 6:01:21 p.m., the SO was alone with the body of the deceased and said, “Why did you make me do that [first name of the Complainant]?”

Starting at about 6:04:36 p.m., the SO spoke with unseen OPP officers, who were out of camera frame. The SO asked if anyone else had discharged their firearms and realized he was the only OPP officer who fired. Another OPP officer said, “I got shot at,” to which the SO replied, “Did he shoot at us?” The SO confirmed he shot twice. The SO said the Complainant had his firearm pointed at him, after which the Complainant turned his firearm on himself after the SO fired at him.

Starting at about 6:43:21 p.m., the SO sat in his police vehicle and spoke with a police officer, who was out of camera frame. The police officer said, “I turned around and hauled ass because I thought I was getting shot at,” to which the SO replied, “Yeah, I went small aperture, the first round didn’t seem effective, so I hit him with another one, that got a response and then he turned it on himself.”

OPP In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage – WO #2, WO #4, WO #5, WO #1 and the SO

Starting at about 5:55:09 p.m., a firearm discharge was heard. A similar sounding discharge was heard at about 5:55:11 p.m. A different sounding firearm discharge was heard at about 5:55:19 p.m.

OPP Communications Recordings

On April 13, 2025, at 5:39:27 p.m., CW #1 called 911. She reported her husband, the Complainant, was suicidal. She initially said he was in the bedroom where the guns were stored. Then, she said he had a rifle and was headed towards the woods. He fired the rifle into the air. After some further discussion, the call disconnected. The dispatcher tried to call back but was unsuccessful.

At 5:40:05 p.m.,[4] OPP officers were dispatched to a residence in Minden Hills in response to a report of a man [the Complainant] with a firearm, who wanted to kill himself.

At 5:41:15 p.m., the dispatcher advised that the Complainant had three registered firearms. It was reported the Complainant was alone in the residence with a handgun.

At 5:42:50 p.m., the dispatcher advised that the Complainant had a rifle and was headed for the woods.

At 5:50:02 p.m., a police officer [WO #1] advised he could see the Complainant as he laid down by the east property line near the tree line. He had a firearm pointed at himself. He did not comply with commands and asked the OPP officers to shoot him.

At 5:55:32 p.m., WO #1 reported the Complainant had shot at the OPP officers.

At 5:56:04 p.m., the SO reported, “Shots fired, two at least.” He also advised the Complainant had self-inflicted and no longer moved.

At 5:59:49 p.m., the SO advised the Complainant was deceased.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between April 15, 2025, and May 2, 2025:

• Sudden Death Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• BWC footage – WO #2, WO #5 and the SO
• ICCS footage -
• Notes – WO #1, WO #4, WO #5, WO #2 and WO #3
• Video footage - residence in Minden Hills
• Scene photographs
• Witness statements

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources on June 2, 2025:

• Report of Postmortem Examination from Coroner’s Office

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, 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 late afternoon of April 13, 2025, OPP officers were dispatched to a property in Minden Hills. CW #1 had contacted police to report that her husband – the Complainant – was suicidal and in possession of a firearm.

Earlier that afternoon, CW #1 and the Complainant had consumed alcohol while discussing marital problems. It seems that the Complainant had resolved to take his life following that exchange, as suicide notes he left behind suggest. He went into the gun room of the house, retrieved a rifle, shot a round into the ceiling, and exited the home. The Complainant had travelled about 80 metres or so east of the house and was among some trees when police arrived on scene.

WO #1 and WO #3 were among the first officers to arrive at about 5:49 p.m. They were followed closely by the SO, WO #5 and WO #4. WO #1, WO #3 and the SO, each with C8 rifles at the ready, took up positions of cover beside a shed east of the residence, while WO #5 and WO #4 tended to an upset CW #1. From a distance of approximately 55 metres, WO #1 yelled out to the Complainant, directing him to drop his weapon. The Complainant responded with profanity and refused to drop the rifle. He told the officers to shoot him. WO #1 continued to negotiate with the Complainant until about 5:55 p.m., at which time the Complainant raised the rifle in the officers’ direction. At about the same time, the SO fired his C8 twice, striking the Complainant’s left buttock and upper left leg. Moments later, the Complainant placed his rifle underneath his chin and fired.

The officers made their way to the Complainant’s body and observed that he was deceased. He had suffered a catastrophic injury to the head. A rifle lay across the top of his body.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to a gunshot wound perforating the head. The wounds inflicted to the Complainant’s left buttock and upper left leg did not contribute to his death.

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.

Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Death

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

The Complainant died on April 13, 2025, the result of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. As an OPP officer had fired his rifle twice at the Complainant just before the latter shot himself, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO was identified as 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 Complainant’s death.

Turning first to the gunfire injuries inflicted by the SO, 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. I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officer’s conduct does not attract the protection of the provision.

The SO and his colleagues were in the exercise of their duties through the series of events culminating in the shooting. Aware that the Complainant was suicidal and in possession of a firearm, the officers were duty bound to attend at the scene to do what they reasonably could to prevent harm coming to the Complainant and ensure public safety.

The evidence indicates that the SO fired his weapon to protect himself and the other officers on scene from a reasonably apprehended threat of gunfire from the Complainant. The officer did not provide that evidence firsthand to the SIU in an interview, as was his legal right, but it is a natural inference from circumstances that prevailed at the time. These included that fact that the Complainant was armed with a firearm, refused to drop the rifle, and pointed the weapon (and, possibly, fired it once or twice) at the officers.[5]

I am also satisfied that the SO’s choice of defensive force, namely, two rounds from his C8 rifle, constituted reasonable force. The lives of the SO and the officers around him were in peril the second the Complainant raised his rifle in their direction. At that moment, there was little else that could be done by way of force other than to shoot in order to immediately incapacitate the Complainant. The SO might have chosen to hold his fire behind a position of cover as other officers did, perhaps to see if continued negotiations might succeed. That said, the officer’s failure to do so, in the split seconds in which he had to decide on a course of action, did not divest him of legal justification. The fact remains that his life and the lives of the officers around him were on the line, rendering his resort to lethal force a proportionate response to the threat of death and grievous bodily harm presented by the Complainant.

As the Complainant’s death was not caused by police gunfire but, rather, his own, the issue also arises around the care exercised by the officers at the scene. In this regard, the offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO or other officers, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.

In the few minutes the officers had available before gunfire erupted, it appears they comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and safety. From a distance behind positions of cover beside a shed, the officers attempted to resolve the situation peacefully by exhorting the Complainant to surrender. In the meantime, they prevented CW #1 from approaching her husband despite her pleas that she be allowed to speak to him. Given the speed at which events were unfolding, the officers could not be sure whether CW #1’s intervention would make things better or worse. In the circumstances, their decision to keep her away was a reasonable one. Lastly, while the two rounds fired by the SO might have been the catalyst for the Complainant’s final fateful act, the officer’s gunfire was reasonable for the aforementioned-reasons.

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

Date: August 8, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit