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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 20, 2025, at 11:26 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 20, 2025, at about 11:00 p.m., the TPS stopped a vehicle in the area of 569 Sheppard Avenue West, Toronto. One of the occupants in the vehicle was armed with a firearm, which was fired at a police officer. The police officer returned fire and an individual inside the vehicle [later identified as the Complainant] was struck. The Complainant was taken to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC).[2]

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/04/20 at 11:40 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/04/21 at 1:35 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

16-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between April 21, 2025, and April 25, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 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 21, 2025, and June 6, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a red Infiniti vehicle stopped facing eastbound on the eastbound curb lane of Sheppard Avenue West, in front of the apartment complex located at 569 Sheppard Avenue West, Toronto.

Scene Diagram

Figure 1: Scene

Physical Evidence

On April 21, 2025, at 1:35 a.m., two SIU forensic investigators arrived at 569 Sheppard Avenue West. The scene was cordoned-off and protected by TPS uniformed police officers. The address was an apartment building on the south side of Sheppard Avenue West. Sheppard Avenue West ran in an east/west direction. A side street, Canyon Avenue, ran north from Sheppard Avenue, at the scene. Sheppard Avenue West had two eastbound and two westbound through-lanes, as well as one eastbound left turn lane for Canyon Avenue. Sheppard Avenue West was illuminated by streetlights. The scene was in the eastbound lanes of Sheppard Avenue West, south and east of Canyon Avenue, as well as on the south side boulevard.

A TPS sergeant briefed the SIU forensic investigators. Two marked police vehicles, as well as a red Infiniti, were identified as involved in the incident.

Vehicle 1 was a red Infiniti two-door coupe. It was parked in the eastbound curb lane, approximately six metres in front of SO #1’s police vehicle. The engine was off and there were no keys in the ignition. The driver door window and passenger door window were both approximately two-thirds rolled down in the open position. The side windows and rear window were heavily tinted. There were numerous apparent bullet defects to the hood, windshield, rear window, and rear windshield. A trajectory analysis of the defects indicated that they appeared to be directed to the right rear passenger position. There were numerous cartridge cases around the vehicle. The cartridge cases were concentrated around the rear and right side of the vehicle and the left front corner. Visible, looking in from outside of the vehicle, was a large pool of blood on the rear passenger side floor. Three brass-coloured cartridge cases, a baseball hat and two cellphones were in the blood pool. There was blood spatter on the back of the passenger seat and the rear interior pillar. A semi-automatic pistol was visible on the rear passenger seat.

Vehicle 2 was SO #1’s police vehicle. It was parked in the eastbound curb lane, directly south of Canyon Avenue, behind the Infiniti. The engine was running, and the emergency lights were activated.

Vehicle 3 was SO #2’s police vehicle. It was parked in the eastbound curb lane, facing west and approximately three metres in front of the Infiniti. The engine was running, and the emergency lights were activated.

Exhibits 1 through 5 were silver .40 calibre cartridge cases located in the area at the rear of the Infiniti. Exhibit 6 was a silver .40 calibre cartridge case located on the trunk of the Infiniti. Exhibits 7 through 19 were silver .40 calibre cartridge cases located in the area near the front of the Infiniti. Exhibits 20 through 24 were silver .40 calibre cartridge cases located on the south boulevard, near the front of the Infiniti. Exhibits 25 and 26 were clothing belonging to the Complainant. Exhibit 27 was a black Apple cellular phone with a CIBC debit card in the case, located on the south side of the Infiniti. Exhibits 28 and 29 were bullet/projectile fragments located under the front of the Infiniti. Exhibit 30 was an empty Glock magazine located on the south boulevard, east of Vehicle 3. Exhibit 32 was a bullet/projectile located, with the help of a metal detector, in a raised bank on the boulevard, south of the Infiniti.

The scene was photographed and measured with a 3D scanner. All identified exhibits were collected.

The doors and hood to the Infiniti were sealed and the Infiniti was towed by the TPS to their Forensic Identification Services building pending the execution of a search warrant. The exhibits were stored at SIU Headquarters.

At 5:15 a.m., a SIU forensic investigator was at TPS Division 32 to examine and photograph SO #2’s police equipment. The equipment included two spare pistol magazines, each containing 15 cartridges. SO #2’s service pistol was a Glock Model 22 .40 calibre, semi-automatic pistol. The firearm was unloaded by the TPS Liaison Officer. One cartridge was removed from the breech and four cartridges were removed from the magazine.

At 5:35 a.m., a SIU forensic investigator examined and photographed SO #1’s police equipment. The equipment included one spare magazine containing 14 cartridges. SO #1’s service pistol was a Glock Model 22 .40 calibre, semi-automatic pistol. The firearm was unloaded by the TPS Liaison Officer. One cartridge was removed from the breech and 14 cartridges were removed from the magazine.

At 6:00 a.m., the SIU forensic investigator took possession of both service pistols with magazines and cartridges.

At 8:05 a.m., SIU forensic investigators arrived at SHSC and proceeded to the Critical Care Unit. The Complainant’s clothing was collected from TPS Officer #2. The clothing was stored at SIU Headquarters.

At 7:50 p.m., SIU forensic investigators attended the TPS Forensic Identification Services building, where the TPS were to execute a search warrant and seize the pistol, fired cartridge cases and cellphones from the rear passenger seating area of the Infiniti. The firearm was identified as a Glock 19 Gen 5, 9X19. There was blood spatter on the weapon. A 15-capacity magazine was in the weapon; it contained 11 live cartridges. Six of the cartridges were brass with full metal jacket projectiles. One cartridge was brass with a lead round nose projectile. Four cartridges were silver. There was one fired cartridge case – brass-coloured - in the pistol chamber. Originally, three fired cartridge cases were visible in the blood on the floor. An additional fired cartridge case was found when a hat was moved. In total, five fired cartridge cases were located. After the search was completed, the Infiniti was towed to a storage facility - TFX.

Figure 1: Firearm located in Infiniti

On April 23, 2025, at8:35 a.m., a SIU forensic investigator attended the TFX towing complex forthe purposes of examining the red Infiniti for trajectory analysis. There were five apparent bullet defects observed in the front hood, labelled defects 1 through 5. There were at least eight apparent bulletdefects in the windshield,one of which mighthave been the resultoftwo bullet impacts close together. These defects were labelled as defects6 through 13. Defect12 might have been two separate bullet impacts. There were four apparent bullet defects in the right rear passenger window, labelled defects 14 through 17. There was one apparent bullet defect in the right “C” pillar, close to the rear window, which was labelled defect 18.

Figure 2: Infiniti and projectile trajectories image from the passenger side

Figure 3: Infiniti and projectile trajectories image from above

Figure 4: Infiniti and projectile trajectories image from the driver side

The rightside of the rear window had at leastfour apparent bullet impacts, one of which was a larger hole that might have been the result of twoseparate bullet impacts. These defects were labelled defects19 through 22. The side windows and rear window of the vehicle were tinted with an interior plastic film, which kept the shattered glass together. All defects were photographed and measured.

On April 23, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., a SIU forensic investigator attended the Ontario Forensic Pathology Unit for the postmortem examination on the body of the Complainant. The pathologist was briefed on the circumstances of the incident, and shown a body-worn camera (BWC) video recording. The postmortem was completed at 2:30 p.m. The pathologist reported the cause of death as “gunshot wounds of head”. There were four wounds to the back of the head and the four projectiles were recovered. There were five additional bullet wounds to the front extremities, below the waist. These wounds all entered from the front. Additional projectiles were recovered from the left ankle and right thigh. The pathologist advised that death was caused by the bullet wounds to the rear of the head.

On April 30, 2025, at 1:20 p.m., a SIU forensic investigator attended the strip plaza on the northwest corner of Sheppard Avenue West and Canyon Avenue. A surveillance video camera on the east side of the building overlooked the shooting scene. The owner of the plaza accessed the video recording system and isolated a one-hour section of the video that captured the incident. The recording system was time-stamped 12 hours ahead of actual time. The recording was copied to a USB flash drive supplied by SIU.

Forensic Evidence

By way of a Firearms Report dated July 30, 2025, the CFS concluded that ten of the 23 cartridge cases located outside the Infiniti were fired from SO #2’s firearm. The remaining 13 cartridge cases were fired from SO #1‘s firearm.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

TPS BWC Footage

On April 20, 2025, starting at about 10:48 p.m., SO #1 exited his police vehicle and approached a red, two-door Infiniti stopped at a curb. The officer walked to the driver side of the Infiniti, and spoke to the driver [Female #1], explaining why the vehicle was stopped. Female #1 advised that it was not her vehicle, and produced her driver’s licence. SO #1 asked for the keys to the vehicle, and the front passenger, CW #1, handed the keys to SO #1. SO #1 went back to his police vehicle and requested assistance. He advised dispatch that there were numerous occupants in the Infiniti, Female #1 had a G1 licence, and there was an odour of marijuana in the vehicle.

Starting at about 10:52, p.m., SO #1 exited his police vehicle. SO #2 and WO #1 stopped in front of the red Infiniti. SO #1 approached the driver side of the Infiniti, and SO #2 and WO #1 stood at the front of the Infiniti, on the passenger side. SO #1 announced that they were going to search the occupants of the Infiniti because of the smell of cannabis. Female #1 advised the vehicle belonged to her friend “[identified by first name]”. SO #1 told Female #1 that she was a G1 driver and should not be driving. There was a smell of marijuana, and they were going to have everyone step out for search and identification purposes. SO #1 broadcast that there were four people in the back seat and a total of six people in the vehicle. SO #2 was at the passenger door of the Infiniti. SO #1 asked for an additional unit to assist. SO #1 told Female #1 to get out of the Infiniti and directed her to the passenger side of the Infiniti. SO #1 told the people in the back seat to stay where they were.

Starting at about 10:54:22 p.m., SO #2 asked CW #1 to exit. SO #1 asked if anyone had weapons in the car. Female #1 said, “Not that I know.” SO #2 spoke to a back passenger.

Starting at about 10:54:35 p.m., Female #1 exited the driver side of the Infiniti. CW #1 exited the passenger side of the Infiniti. WO #1 grabbed CW #1’s left arm and escorted her west of the Infiniti. Female #1 walked in front of the Infiniti to the passenger side of the Infiniti. A man in the back seat [the Complainant] was captured wearing a light-coloured hoodie.

Starting at about 10:55:12 p.m., as the Complainant moved forward, he pulled a handgun from his left side with his right hand, and fired in the direction of SO #2. The officer jumped back and shouted, “Gun!” SO #2 moved backwards, west of the open passenger door, and drew his firearm. SO #1 moved from the driver side door to the front of the Infiniti. SO #1 got down on the roadway, drew his firearm, and fired multiple times from the front of the Infiniti. SO #2 fired multiple rounds into the passenger side of the Infiniti. SO #2 moved back behind the Infiniti and fired multiple rounds into the back window of the Infiniti.

Starting at about 10:55:25 p.m., a male voice yelled, “Shots fired, shots fired, shots fired!”

Starting at about 10:55:34 p.m., SO #1 ran towards the back of SO #2’s police vehicle, where he replaced the magazine on his pistol. Another police officer [WO #3] stood at the back passenger side of the police vehicle parked in front of the Infiniti.

Starting at about 10:55:46 p.m., the dispatcher advised that shots had been fired and requested that all available units attend 569 Sheppard Avenue West. SO #2 took cover behind a telephone pole on the side of the roadway.

Starting at about 10:55:50 p.m., a male voice yelled, “Get out of the fucking car, get out of the car now!” A woman [Female #2] exited from the back seat of the Infiniti on the passenger side and got down on the ground. A male voice yelled, “Get out of the car now!” A man [Male #1] exited the back seat of the Infiniti and got down on the ground, on the passenger side. SO #2 moved to the front of the Infiniti, looked into the back seat, and said, “Male shot.” SO #2 holstered his weapon and moved to the passenger door of the Infiniti, where he held onto the Complainant by the right arm. SO #2 asked for help to remove the Complainant. SO #2 checked the Complainant for a pulse, and tried to pull the Complainant from the back seat.

Starting at about 10:57 p.m., SO #2 announced, “Everybody in custody, everybody in custody.” SO #2, assisted by another police officer, pulled the Complainant from the Infiniti onto the grass, and began cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). A visual of the back seat area of the Infiniti showed there was a large quantity of blood on the back passenger side floor. SO #2 said there was a gun in the car. The Complainant had blood on his left leg, and a gunshot wound to his right thigh. SO #2 applied a tourniquet on the right leg. SO #1 asked WO #5 to check him for gunshots. SO #1 walked with WO #5 to her police vehicle. WO #5 asked, “Are you the one that shot?” SO #1 said, “I shot a lot; I don’t know how many.” SO #1 told WO #5 that one of his magazines was there. SO #1 said, “I saw him, he pulled it, he pulled it, I saw it, I saw it, I saw it, I saw it, he pulled, I saw it, he pulled it from under the seat, started firing at me, I had to go down.” SO #1 said, “Why man, why did you do it, you didn’t have to, why, why did you do it, why, why did you do it, why did you do it bro, why, why bro, you didn’t have to, you didn’t have to, you didn’t have to bro, you didn’t have to, you didn’t have to.” SO #1 exited WO #5’s police vehicle and said, “You didn’t have to shoot bro, you didn’t have to shoot bro, I saw it, he pulled it from under the seat, and started shooting at me.”

Starting at about 11:04:08 p.m., a male sergeant approached SO #1 and asked what happened. SO #1 said, “He just started shooting, the fricking guy, idiot, he didn’t have to shoot, I just saw him, he pulled it from under the seat and was pointing towards me, I had to duck down, and I had to start shooting, because as soon as I heard the first shot, he started shooting.” The sergeant asked if SO #1 fired. SO #1 said he fired.

TPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – SO #2’s Cruiser

On April 20, 2025, starting at about 10:52:01 p.m., SO #2 arrived at a traffic stop [now known to face westbound, in the south curb lane, in front of 569 Sheppard Avenue West]. The police vehicle faced a red Infiniti. The driver of the Infiniti [Female #1] and the front passenger [CW #1] were seated in the vehicle. SO #2 and his partner [WO #1] exited the police vehicle. Another police vehicle [SO #1] was stopped behind the Infiniti with its roof lights activated.

Starting at about 10:52:28 p.m., SO #1 walked to the driver side of the Infiniti. Another police vehicle [WO #2] arrived and stopped facing west along the driver side of the Infiniti. SO #1 spoke to Female #1. Female #1 exited the driver side of the Infiniti. CW #1 exited the passenger side of the Infiniti. WO #1 grabbed CW #1’s left arm and escorted her west of the Infiniti. Female #1 walked in front of the Infiniti to the passenger side of the Infiniti.

Starting at about 10:55:06 p.m., a female [Female #3] exited the back seat of the Infiniti, on the passenger side. SO #1 looked into the Infiniti on the driver side.

Starting at about 10:55:11 p.m., gunfire was heard from the interior of the Infiniti. SO #2 moved backwards, west of the open passenger door of the Infiniti, and drew his firearm. At the same time, SO #1 moved to the front of the Infiniti. The officer got down on the roadway as he drew his firearm, which he fired multiple times. SO #2 fired multiple rounds into the passenger side of the Infiniti. SO #2 moved back behind the Infiniti and fired multiple rounds into the back window of the vehicle. SO #1 continued to fire multiple rounds from the front of the Infiniti.

Starting at about 10:55:21 p.m., when the gunshots stopped, SO #1 ran east in the direction of the rear of SO #2’s police vehicle. A male voice yelled, “Shots fired, shots fired!” A male voice yelled, “Get out of the fucking car, get out of the car now!” A woman [Female #2] exited the back seat of the Infiniti on the passenger side and got down on the ground. A male’s voice yelled, “Get out of the car now!” A male [Male #1] exited the back seat of the Infiniti, and got down on the ground, on the passenger side. SO #2 looked into the Infiniti, and holstered his firearm. WO #3 crossed the roadway from the north side with his firearm pointed at the Infiniti. More police officers approached the Infiniti.

TPS ICC Footage – SO #1’s Cruiser

On April 20, 2025, starting at about 10:46 p.m., a red Infiniti was captured travelling past SO #1’s cruiser in the opposite direction. SO #1 made a U-turn and, at 10:47 p.m., the Infiniti stopped at the right curb [now known to be eastbound in the south curb lane in front of 569 Sheppard Avenue West]. SO #1 stopped behind the Infiniti. He exited his police vehicle, walked to the driver side of the Infiniti, and spoke to the driver [Female #1]. SO #1 was handed something from inside the Infiniti.

Starting at about 10:49 p.m., SO #1 returned to his police vehicle. The officer reported to the dispatcher his location, and that he was with a vehicle containing four people. He noted there was a smell of cannabis coming from the vehicle and the driver had a G1 licence. The dispatcher asked that other units attend SO #1’s location. SO #2 and WO #1, and WO #2, noted they would attend.

Starting at about 10:52 p.m., emergency lights approached the area and another police vehicle pulled in front of the Infiniti, facing westbound. SO #2 and WO #1 exited the vehicle. SO #1 walked to the driver side of the Infiniti, and SO #2 and WO #1 went to the passenger side of the Infiniti. SO #1 spoke to Female #1. WO #2 arrived at the scene, stopping his police vehicle on the driver side of the Infiniti.

Starting at about 10:54:31 p.m., Female #1 exited the driver side of the Infiniti and CW #1 exited from the passenger side of the Infiniti. CW #1 was escorted by WO #1 westward. WO #2 spoke to Female #1, after which he re-entered his police vehicle and drove west.

Starting at about 10:55:01 p.m., SO #1 looked into the Infiniti on the driver side. SO #2 was at the passenger door of the Infiniti. Female #1 stood on the sidewalk on the passenger side of the Infiniti. Female #3 exited from the passenger side, back seat of the Infiniti.

Starting at about 10:55:11 p.m., gunfire was heard that appeared to come from the interior of the Infiniti. SO #2 quickly stepped back from the passenger door of the Infiniti and drew his firearm. SO #1 moved to the front of the Infiniti. He got down on the pavement while drawing his firearm. Multiple gunshots were heard. SO #2 fired from the passenger side of the Infiniti and SO #1 fired into the front of the Infiniti. Female #2 and Female #1 ran west along a grassy area and the sidewalk. SO #2 continued to fire while he moved to the back of the Infiniti.

Starting at about 10:55:18 p.m., SO #2 stopped shooting and, at 10:55:21 p.m., the gunshots stopped. SO #2 took cover behind a utility pole on the passenger side of the Infiniti.

Starting at about 10:55:40 p.m., a male voice broadcast, “Shots fired,” over the radio. The dispatcher acknowledged and requested that all available units attend 569 Shepperd Avenue West.

Video Footage – Plaza - 548A Sheppard Avenue West

The plaza was located on the north side of Sheppard Avenue West, directly across from the scene of the shooting. The time-stamp on the footage, adjusted in the references below, was 12 hours ahead of actual time.

On April 20, 2025, starting at about 10:47 p.m., a fully marked TPS police vehicle with emergency lights activated [SO #1] stopped a small red car [Infiniti] in the south curb lane of Sheppard Avenue West. The vehicles faced east. SO #1 approached the driver side of the Infiniti on foot, and then returned to his police vehicle.

Starting at about 10:52 p.m., a fully marked police vehicle [SO #2] with its emergency lights activated approached from the east and stopped facing the Infiniti. SO #2 and a second police officer [WO #1] walked to the passenger side of the Infiniti, and SO #1 walked to the driver side.

Starting at about 10:54 p.m., a third police vehicle [WO #2] with its emergency lights activated stopped facing westbound, partially blocking the view of the Infiniti. WO #2’s police vehicle then travelled westbound. The driver of the Infiniti [Female #1] exited and walked across the front of the Infiniti to the south sidewalk.

Starting at about 10:55 p.m., SO #1 reached for his firearm and jumped to the front of the Infiniti, from which location he fired his weapon. People were seen to run west on the south sidewalk. SO #1 then ran eastbound to the back of SO #2’s police vehicle.

TPS Radio Communications

On April 20, 2025, starting at about 10:49 p.m., SO #1 advised dispatch that he had a vehicle stopped at 569 Sheppard Avenue West and asked for assistance. There were four persons in the car and a smell of marijuana, and the driver had a G1 licence.

Starting at about 10:53 p.m., SO #2 and WO #1 advised they would attend and, at 10:55 p.m., they were on scene. SO #1 broadcast the licence plate of the stopped vehicle.

Starting at about 10:56:09 p.m., WO #2 advised that shots had been fired, and they had them at gunpoint.

Starting at about 10:56:18 p.m., Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were advised.

Starting at about 10:56:34 p.m., SO #2 advised that they had one victim. The officer reported the victim was a 17-year-old and asked that EMS be expedited.

Starting at about 11:03 p.m., a TPS unit advised that SO #2 had been shot at but not hit.

Starting at about 11:12 p.m., another TPS unit advised that EMS would be going to SHSC on an emergency run.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between April 21, 2025, and June 5, 2025:

• BWC footage
• ICC footage
• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Involved Officers List
• Notes – WO #2, WO #4, WO #5, WO #1 and WO #3
• TPS Policy - Use of Force
• TPS History - the Complainant
• Use of Force Training Records

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between April 24, 2025, and July 30, 2025:

• Ambulance Call Report from Toronto EMS
• Firearms Reports from the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS)
• Report of Postmortem Examination from Coroner’s Office (including CFS Toxicology Report)
• Video footage from plaza at 548A Sheppard Avenue West
• Cellphone video footage from a female witness

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the evening of April 20, 2025, Female #1 was driving an Infiniti G35 2-door coupe eastbound on Sheppard Avenue West when she was pulled over by a police officer – SO #1 – east of Bathurst Street, beside the apartment complex at 569 Sheppard Avenue West. CW #1 was in the front passenger seat. In the back seat behind the driver was Female #2. Male #1 occupied the middle back seat and the Complainant was seated to his right. Female #3 was also in the rear of the vehicle, sitting on the Complainant’s lap. The officer walked to the driver door and explained through the open window why he had stopped the vehicle. It was missing a front licence plate and its windows were heavily tinted. Female #1 provided SO #1 her licence and explained that the vehicle as not hers; it belonged to an acquaintance. The officer asked them to wait while he returned to his cruiser to run checks on Female #1’s licence.

A few minutes later, SO #1 returned to the driver door of the Infiniti. He told Female #1 that he smelled cannabis in the vehicle and his intention was to have them all step out so it could be searched. By this time, two additional officers had arrived – SO #2 and his partner, WO #1 – and were standing by the passenger side of the Infiniti, their cruiser stopped facing west in front of the vehicle. CW #1 exited the passenger door and was escorted by WO #1 westward towards SO #1’s cruiser. Female #1 exited the driver door and walked around the front of the Infiniti towards the vehicle’s passenger side. Female #3 was the next to exit after SO #2 folded the front passenger seat forward. The Complainant subsequently moved as if he was about to exit the Infiniti when he suddenly reached to his left with his right hand before swinging his right hand to the right in the direction of the open door. He was in possession of a semi-automatic pistol, which he fired once or twice at SO #2.

SO #2 recoiled backwards, drew his firearm, and fired multiple rounds in the direction of the Complainant while moving to his left towards the back passenger side of the Infiniti. SO #1, standing by the driver door when the Complainant first fired, drew his firearm while moving to the front of the Infiniti and lowering himself behind the hood. He fired multiple rounds in the direction of the Complainant. From inside the vehicle, the Complainant had fired an additional three or four times before he was incapacitated. From start to finish, the shooting lasted ten seconds. The time was 10:55 p.m.

Following the gunfire, Female #2 and Male #1 were ordered out of the Infiniti at gunpoint and taken into custody. The Complainant was removed from the vehicle, placed on the ground, and provided emergency first-aid and CPR.

Incredibly, aside from the Complainant, no other person suffered gunshot injuries, including neither of the subject officials, each of whom was in the other’s crossfire for most of the exchange.

The Complainant was taken to hospital and succumbed to his injuries the next day.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to gunshot wounds of the head. The Complainant had sustained four wounds to the back of the head. Five additional bullet wounds were identified to the front extremities below the waist.

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.

Section 7(1), Highway Traffic Act – Permit Requirements

7 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway unless,

(a) there exists a currently validated permit for the vehicle;

(b) there are displayed on the vehicle, in the prescribed manner,

(i) number plates issued in accordance with the regulations showing the number of the permit issued for the vehicle, or

(ii) number plates described in subsection (7.2) if the vehicle is an historic vehicle and the Ministry has issued a currently validated permit for it; and

(c) if required under the regulations, evidence of the current validation of the permit is affixed to a number plate in the prescribed manner.

Section 12(3), Cannabis Control Act - Transporting Cannabis - Search of Vehicle or Boat

12 (1) No person shall drive or have the care or control of a vehicle or boat, whether or not it is in motion, while any cannabis is contained in the vehicle or boat.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply with respect to cannabis that,

(a) is in its original packaging and has not been opened; or

(b) is packed in baggage that is fastened closed or is not otherwise readily available to any person in the vehicle or boat.

(3) A police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that cannabis is being contained in a vehicle or boat in contravention of subsection (1) may at any time, without a warrant, enter and search the vehicle or boat and search any person found in it.

(4) This section applies to cannabis obtained for medical purposes in accordance with Part 14 of the Cannabis Regulations (Canada) or in accordance with a court order, except in such circumstances as may be prescribed.

The Complainant suffered gunshot wounds at the hands of TPS officers on April 20, 2025, resulting in his death the following day in hospital. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s death.

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 satisfied that SO #1’s and SO #2’s gunfire was legally justified pursuant to the section.

SO #1 and SO #2 were engaged in the execution of their duties through the events that preceded the shooting. SO #1 was within his rights in stopping the Infiniti for a traffic infraction when he observed it was being operated without a front licence plate contrary to section 7(1)(b)(i) of the Highway Traffic Act. Further, when SO #1 detected the odour of cannabis coming from within the interior of the vehicle, he had lawful grounds to remove its occupants so that the Infiniti could be searched under section 12(3) of the Cannabis Control Act, 2017.

Though neither of SO #1 and SO #2 provided firsthand evidence of their mindset at the time they fired their weapons, I am satisfied they did so to protect themselves from a reasonably apprehended attack by the Complainant. The circumstances naturally give rise to the inference. When the Complainant pointed a gun in the direction of SO #2 and fired at point-blank range, and then continued to fire, the officers could only have concluded that their lives were in immediate peril and that action of some type was imperative if they were going to survive. It makes sense, on this record, that they would resort to return gunfire to defend themselves.

I am also satisfied that the officers’ choice of defensive force – multiple rounds fired in rapid succession in the direction of the Complainant – constituted reasonable force. To be sure, the number of rounds fired by the officers – somewhere between 14 and 16 by SO #1, and ten and 11 by SO #2 – contributed to an incredibly dangerous situation. Aside from the Complainant, there were two other persons in the back seat of the Infiniti who could easily have been struck by one or more bullets, not to mention the three individuals who had exited the Infiniti but remained in close proximity to the car when the gunfire began. The officers themselves were at risk from each other’s gunfire positioned, as they were, across from each other. On the other hand, it is difficult to see that the officers had any other real choice in the circumstances. Without any warning or hesitation, the Complainant had fired at SO #2. The officers had every reason to believe that he would continue to fire and, indeed, he did. The Complainant’s immediate incapacitation was what was needed in the moment if the officers were going to preserve themselves, and nothing short of the stopping power of their firearms carried that potential. The number of shots fired by the officers is worthy of scrutiny, but is understandable in the final analysis given the evidence that the Complainant discharged his firearm three or four more times after the officers first started to fire. It is also noteworthy that the officers did not shoot indiscriminately into the Infiniti; rather, as the trajectory of the bullets entering the vehicle showed, their gunfire was generally aimed at the rear passenger side seat where the Complainant was located.

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

Date: August 5, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit