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 serious injury of a 24-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 29, at 2:52 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 1:34 p.m. that afternoon, a woman approached a military police officer at the National War Memorial and reported seeing a young man possibly carrying a firearm. The man was holding a sign mentioning a political candidate. The military police called the OPS and provided a description of the man and his direction of travel. Security personnel at the Rideau Centre shopping mall then reported there was a person with that description walking in the mall. OPS officers were dispatched to the Rideau Centre and located the man on Rideau Street, just outside the shopping mall. The man produced a firearm, and OPS police officers discharged their firearms. The man fell to the ground and officers began administering first aid. The injured man [now known to be the Complainant] was transported by ambulance to the Ottawa Civic Hospital (OCH).

The OPS advised the scene covered a large area in a busy area of downtown Ottawa. Rain and a windstorm were expected. The SIU agreed to allow OPS forensic officers to examine and preserve the scene, to protect evidence from the elements. OPS forensic investigators consulted a SIU forensic investigator to ensure appropriate actions and measures were taken.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/04/29 at 3:22 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/04/29 at 5:05 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on April 30, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

CW #8 Interviewed

CW #9 Interviewed

CW #10 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between April 29, 2025, and June 23, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

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

SO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on May 22, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #7 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #8 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on May 2, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the sidewalk outside of Entrance/Exit 3 of the Rideau Centre shopping mall, 50 Rideau Street, Ottawa.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

OPS officers secured evidence at the scene to protect it from adverse weather that was expected to pass through the area, including high winds and heavy rainfall. Weather conditions were extremely windy during the SIU’s examination of the scene.

Rideau Street ran east-west with one marked traffic lane in each direction. A dedicated bicycle lane and raised sidewalk with retail shops were located on the north side. The south side featured a raised sidewalk and multiple entrances to the Rideau Centre. The incident occurred near Entrance 3, on the north side of the shopping centre.

Three vehicles were located within the secured area: two OPS marked vehicles and an OC Transpo Bus (Bus #1).

Evidence of the interaction between OPS officers and the Complainant was found on the south sidewalk of Rideau Street. The following items were identified:

• A green Dollarama grocery bag
• A handwritten placard reading "SAVE LE CANADA from RIGGED ELECTIONS. PIERRE-BRUCE CARLETON RE-ELECTION NOW!!!"
• Seven 9 mm cartridge cases
• A corkscrew
• A Winchester-Daisy Model 11, .177 calibre air pistol[2]
• Two black slip-on shoes
• A cellular telephone
• Wallet and contents
• Bundle of clothing removed by Emergency Medical Services
• Baseball cap
• Two earbuds

All exhibits were photographed and video recorded in situ in the presence of OPS forensic officers.

Winchester-Daisy Model 11, .177 calibre air pistol

A 3D scan of the scene was conducted for the purpose of creating a detailed diagram.

A SIU investigator also attended the hospital and received the Complainant’s clothing from a police officer at the hospital.

On the morning of April 30, 2025, SIU forensic investigators re-attended the scene to record daylight photographs and ensure any potential evidence that might have been displaced due to the high winds and adverse weather conditions the previous night was identified. No new evidence was located.

SIU investigators then attended the OPS forensic office and conducted an examination and photographic documentation of the subject officials’ uniforms and use-of-force equipment.

SO #2’s belt carried a double magazine pouch containing two spare magazines, with seventeen 9 mm cartridges in each magazine, a conducted energy weapon (CEW), an oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray canister, a tourniquet, an expandable baton, handcuffs and a holster containing a Glock Model 17, 9x19mm pistol, with one round of ammunition in the breech and 13 cartridges in the magazine.

Based on an anticipated administrative top-up protocol, a maximum of four cartridges were believed to have been discharged by SO #2.

SO #1’s duty belt carried a double magazine pouch with two spare magazines, one containing 17 cartridges and one with 16 cartridges of 9 mm ammunition. His belt also carried a CEW, gloves in a pouch, handcuffs, an expandable baton, a spare CEW cartridge, OC spray canister, and a Glock Model 17, Gen 5, 9x19mm pistol, with one round of ammunition in the breech and the magazine containing 12 cartridges.

Based on administrative top-up protocol, a maximum of five cartridges are believed to have been discharged by SO #1.

Glock Model 17, 9x19mm pistol, magazine, and 9 mm cartridge

Forensic Evidence

On May 13, 2025, the SIU submitted the following items to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) for examination:

• Firearms carried by SO #2 and SO #1
• Seven spent cartridge cases
• Two projectile fragments
• Clothing worn by the Complainant

At the time of this report being submitted, the SIU had not received any examination reports from the CFS.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Video Recordings - Rideau Centre

Security cameras inside the Rideau Centre captured the Complainant walking through the shopping mall while carrying a placard.

A recording documented the Complainant walking in the mall with an item sticking out from his left pocket. The recording was not sufficiently clear to allow for the identification of the item.

A second recording revealed the Complainant exiting the Rideau Centre Entrance 3 doors, with a cigarette hanging from his lips and an object sticking out from his left hip or pocket. The nature of the item could not be determined.

A third recording documented the Complainant exiting the doors of Entrance 3. He approached a man standing outside under an overhead walkway and appeared to ask him for a light for his cigarette. The Complainant then walked over to a windowsill on the east side of Entrance 3 and sat on it, just as WO #2 and SO #1 ran up to him. WO #2 reached out towards the Complainant with his left hand, while his right hand was on his pistol. The Complainant stood and backed away eastbound. SO #2 arrived at that moment. A security guard from the Rideau Centre exited the doors and walked towards the interaction between the Complainant and the three police officers. Bystanders started to flee, and a fourth police officer, believed to be WO #1, arrived and ushered people away from the incident. The officer then took out his pistol and approached the area of the interaction, which was outside the camera image.

Video Footage - OC Transpo Bus #1

The video recording from a camera mounted on the front of Bus #1 captured elements of the interaction involving the Complainant.

As the bus approached a bus stop near Entrance 3 of the Rideau Centre, the camera captured SO #2 executing a U-turn on Rideau Street and parking along the curb in front of a police vehicle occupied by WO #2 and SO #1. Security guards from the Rideau Centre were at the passenger side of the police vehicle occupied by WO #2 and SO #1.

Starting at about 2:04 p.m., as the bus pulled into the bus stop, the Complainant could be seen standing outside Entrance 3 of the Rideau Centre. It was raining and the Complainant was standing beneath an elevated walkway that connected the Rideau Centre to the Hudson’s Bay building on the north side of Rideau Street. The Complainant approached a group of people standing under the walkway and displayed a placard. A marked OPS vehicle, operated by SO #2, pulled up in front of the bus as the Complainant moved to a recessed alcove just east of Entrance 3 of the Rideau Centre.

Starting at about 2:04:27 p.m., WO #2 ran eastbound along the sidewalk, and SO #2 exited his vehicle. Seconds later SO #1, dressed in a yellow high visibility jacket, ran eastbound behind WO #2.

The bus started to pull out of the bus stop and, at 2:04:31 p.m., the Complainant could be seen in a crouched position in the recessed doorway as WO #2 arrived at his position.

Starting at about 2:04:37 p.m., WO #2 was struggling with the Complainant and moving towards Rideau Street. A pillar obstructed the view momentarily. SO #2 and SO #1 tracked the struggle at close range as it moved. A Rideau Centre security guard, believed to be CW #7, was standing approximately five metres away from the struggle.

Starting at about 2:04:41 p.m., people in the area started to flee. The security guard retreated but continued to look towards the struggle involving the Complainant and the police officers.

Starting at about 2:04:42 p.m., WO #2 was attempting to pull the Complainant to the ground, while SO #1 and SO #2 both appeared to have their arms outstretched in front of them, likely holding their pistols. Two gunshots could be heard on the recording, and WO #2 started to move away from the Complainant, who fell to the sidewalk.

Starting at about 2:04:44 p.m., two more gunshots were heard. WO #2 then appeared to take out his pistol.

Starting at about 2:04:48 p.m., the sound of another gunshot was recorded. The Complainant was down on the sidewalk at the time.

Starting at about 2:04:50 p.m., SO #2 moved to a position behind a garbage receptacle, and the Complainant was curled up on the sidewalk.

Starting at about 2:04:51 p.m., two additional gunshots were fired.

The sound of seven gunshots in total were recorded on the footage.

When the last three gunshots were fired, the Complainant was on his side on the sidewalk and his right hand was up near his head. Something was in his hand. After the gunshots were fired, the Complainant moved his right hand to the sidewalk and then raised his hand again. His hand was empty at that point.

Starting at about 2:05:16 p.m., WO #2 grabbed the Complainant and pulled him along the sidewalk.

OPS Communications Recordings

At 1:39:48 p.m., April 29, 2025, the dispatcher broadcast a call to 25 Sparks Street [the National War Memorial]. She reported that a female had approached a MP (military police) and said someone was walking with a “10-24” [weapon gun/knife]. The dispatcher reported the man was last seen walking towards the Rideau Centre. She provided a description of the subject, including the fact he was carrying a sign indicating a certain political candidate should have won the election.

An officer radioed he was speaking to the woman [CW #3] and she reported the man had a handgun in his left pocket and the firearm had a brown handle.

At 2:02:33 p.m., the dispatcher advised WO #2 that Rideau Centre security staff reported seeing someone matching the subject description near Entrance 3 of the mall. The man was carrying a sign reading, “Save Canada.” WO #2 responded he would go over to the mall.

WO #2 soon reported they were being told by mall security the subject might be in the mall.

At 2:04:24 p.m., WO #2 reported he believed they had found the subject at the corner of William Street and Rideau Street and they were moving to intercept him.

At 2:05:09 p.m., WO #2 reported, “Shots fired,” and he requested an ambulance.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPS between April 30, 2025, and May 12, 2025:

• Video footage from the Rideau Centre
• Video footage from various federal government buildings in the area of Parliament Hill
• A video recording posted online by the Complainant
• Dashboard and front door video recordings from Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission (OC Transpo) Bus #1
• Dashboard and front door video recordings from OC Transpo Bus #2
• Video footage from seven police vehicles
• Copies of three video recordings from a civilian witness (Witness #1)
• Copy of written statement of Witness #1
• Written statements from CW #8, CW #1 and CW #9
• Copy of a video recording by CW #8
• Communications recordings
• Scene photographs
• Notebook entries and Investigative Action reports of SO #2, WO #2, WO #4, WO #5, WO #6, WO #7, WO #8 and WO #1
• Notebook entries of WO #3
• Prosecution Summary
• Use of force training record for SO #2
• Use of force training record for SO #1

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained records from the following other sources between April 29, 2025, and May 14, 2025:

• Video footage from Rideau Centre
• Dashboard and front door video recordings from OC Transpo Bus #1, received from OC Transpo
• Dashboard and front door video recordings from OC Transpo Bus #2, received from OC Transpo
• Video recording posted on the website Shottawa, downloaded by the SIU
• Video footage from Canna Cabana cannabis dispensary, received from Canna Cabana
• A Reddit online posting of a photograph of the Complainant sitting on the steps of the East Block, received from CW #5
• A copy of the Complainant’s passports and a copy of a Mental Health Act Form 42 issued to the Complainant in London, Ontario, on March 7, 2025, received from CW #6
• The Complainant’s medical records, received from OCH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, SO #2, and other police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, SO #1 did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the early afternoon of April 29, 2025, the Complainant, a visitor to Ottawa, toured the area of the city around Parliament Hill. He visited the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, the East Block of the government buildings, and the Rideau Centre. It was the day after the federal election and the Complainant carried a placard protesting the results of the vote. Several persons stopped to talk to him, including an old friend who bumped into him outside East Block. The Complainant caught the attention of a schoolteacher – CW #3 – in Ottawa on a field trip with her students. She noticed a gun in his front left pants pocket and reported the matter to a military police officer standing by the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

The matter came to the attention of the OPS and officers set about trying to locate the Complainant. Rideau Centre security staff were made aware of the situation and provided a description of the Complainant. They positively identified the Complainant in the mall and advised the OPS accordingly. WO #2, in the company of SO #1, made their way to the Rideau Centre, as did SO #2.

The Complainant was outside the mall with his placard. It was raining and he was with a group of people under a walkway that connected the centre to the Hudson’s Bay building on the other side of Rideau Street, beside Entrance/Exit 3. The Complainant had just taken a seat on a windowsill east of the Entrance/Exit doors when he was confronted by WO #2 and SO #1.

WO #2 grabbed the Complainant’s left arm, and the Complainant immediately resisted. The Complainant rose to his feet and the two wrestled while making their way further onto the sidewalk away from the mall. Within seconds of their engagement, the Complainant retrieved the gun from his left pants pocket. SO #1 was the first to spot the weapon and yelled out, “Gun.” Two shots rang out, and the Complainant collapsed to the ground as two additional shots were fired. The three officers stepped back from the Complainant with their firearms drawn. The Complainant took hold of his gun again, which had fallen to the ground nearby, and three more shots were fired by police. Following the last of these rounds, the Complainant dropped the gun. The officers moved in to handcuff him and provide first-aid.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and treated for multiple gunshot injuries, including wounds to his upper arm, lower back, left hip and right buttock.

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 88, Criminal Code - Possession of Weapon for Dangerous Purpose

88 (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured by police gunfire in Ottawa on April 29, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. SO #1 and SO #2 were identified as 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 injuries.

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.

SO #2, SO #1 and WO #2, were engaged in the execution of their duties through the course of events culminating in gunfire. With reason to believe that the Complainant was walking around the Parliament Hill area of Ottawa with a clearly visible firearm, the officers were within their rights in moving to detain him for being in possession of a dangerous weapon contrary to section 88(1) of the Criminal Code.

I am satisfied that SO #2 and SO #1 fired their weapons believing it was necessary to protect themselves and others from a reasonably apprehended attack at the hands of the Complainant. SO #2 attested to that mindset in his interview with the SIU and his evidence is supported by the circumstances that prevailed at the time, most emphatically, the retrieval by the Complainant from his pocket of what appeared to be a firearm. Though the gun was, in fact, an air pistol, it gave the appearance of a semi-automatic pistol and SO #2 had every reason to treat it as such. SO #1, as was his legal right, did not avail himself of an interview with the SIU, but the same mindset can safely be inferred based on the same circumstances.

I am also satisfied that the subject officials’ gunfire – some combination of a maximum of four and five rounds by SO #2 and SO #1, respectively, totalling seven – constituted reasonable force. Aside from the first shot, which there is reason to believe was fired by SO #1, it remains unclear which of the subject officials fired which rounds. Nevertheless, as there is evidence that the Complainant was holding what appeared to be a firearm each time that a shot was fired, I am unable to reasonably conclude that any of the rounds were unjustified, regardless of who fired them. Given their proximity to the Complainant at the time – not more than several metres away – each officer would have been rightfully concerned that their lives and the lives of others in the vicinity were in immediate danger. In the circumstances, a resort to gunfire made sense at it was the only force available to the officers with the stopping power required of the moment.

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

Date: August 22, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit