Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.

Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019

Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
• Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
• Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
• Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
• Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
• Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act

Pursuant to section 14 (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
• Information that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.

Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
• Location information;
• Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence; and
• Other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation.

Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004

Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may also have been excluded from this report because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.

Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.

A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.

In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the discharge of a firearm by the police at a 19-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 26, 2025, at 6:52 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 26, 2025, at 6:00 p.m., Guns and Gangs Task Force officers followed a stolen vehicle into an apartment complex in the area of Jane Street and Finch Avenue West, Toronto. They boxed the vehicle in and directed the two male occupants to exit. A police officer discharged his firearm at one of the men when he observed him reaching for his waistband. The two occupants were arrested, and a firearm was located in the vehicle.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/05/26 at 7:07 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/05/26 at 8:50 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

19-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on May 26, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on May 26, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

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

The subject official was interviewed on June 25, 2025.

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

WO #6 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between May 28, 2025, and June 1, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the parking lot of an apartment complex located in the area of Jane Street and Finch Avenue West, Toronto.

A white Honda Civic was backed into a parking space against a fence line. There were seven TPS unmarked vehicles parked in front, left and right of the parked Honda Civic, all generally facing southeast. One TPS vehicle was in contact with the passenger door of the Honda Civic.

Physical Evidence

The following items of evidentiary significance were identified and processed:

• The SO’s firearm
• Discharged cartridge case
• Projectile defect in Honda Civic

The SO’s firearm was a Glock Model 27, .40-calibre pistol. The inserted magazine contained 11 unfired cartridges.

Figure 1 – The SO’s firearm

There was a projectile defect in the rear driver’s side bumper of the Honda Civic that was believed attributable to the SO’s firearm discharge. The defect appeared to travel from left to right with no clear exit defect. Because neither a projectile nor projectile fragments were located, positive confirmation that the defect was caused by a bullet from the SO’s firearm could not be made.

Figure 2 – Projectile defect in the rear driver’s side bumper of the Honda Civic

A fired .40 S&W calibre, Winchester brand cartridge case was recovered on the ground southeast of the Honda Civic along a fence line.

Forensic Evidence

The SO’s Glock Model 27 pistol and recovered cartridge case were submitted to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS). Their examination of the items determined the following:

• The pistol was identified as having fired the recovered cartridge case.
• The pistol functioned as designed as a semi-automatic firearm. Its trigger, firing pin and drop safeties functioned as designed.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage – Apartment Building

The video was not time-stamped.

A white, four-door Honda Civic [now known to be driven by the Complainant, with front seat passenger, the CW] was captured entering the parking lot of the apartment building and reversing into a parking space. Eighteen seconds later, TPS covert vehicles driven by the SO and WO #5 approached. The SO stopped by the front driver’s side of the Honda Civic while WO #5 impacted the front passenger door and stopped. Five more TPS covert vehicles stopped in various locations around the Honda Civic.

The SO ran to the driver’s door as it opened. The Complainant fled and the SO grabbed him using his right arm and hand. The SO placed the Complainant in a bear hug hold as they transitioned to the sidewalk.

WO #5 struck the Complainant on the top of the head, while WO #6 ran at and kicked the Complainant. The struggle made its way up against a fence where the Complainant was forced to the ground.

The SO’s right arm extended forward, and WO #5 directed his hand in a safe direction.

The Complainant was assisted to a standing position and examined by police officers

[now known to be checking for a gunshot wound].

TPS Communications Recordings – Radio

Starting at 5:58 p.m., May 26, 2025, a police officer advised TPS communications centre dispatch that he was at an address in the area of Jane Street and Finch Avenue West and an ambulance was required. A man was conscious and breathing, and had no obvious injuries. There had been a firearm discharge.

TPS Communications Recordings – Telephone

Starting at 5:59 p.m., May 26, 2025, the TPS communications centre called Emergency Medical Services requesting they attend an address in the area of Jane Street and Finch Avenue West for a ‘discharge firearm’ incident.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between May 26, 2025, and July 9, 2025:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Civilian Witness List
• General Occurrence Report
• Event Details Report
• Communications recordings
• Guns and Gangs Task Force Surveillance Report
• Video footage
• Notes - WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5 and WO #6
• Use of force qualifications for the SO
• Policies - Incident Response, Arrest and Detention, and Persons in Custody

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained a Firearms Report from the CFS on August 7, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO and other civilian and police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the early evening of May 26, 2025, the Complainant had just reversed into a parking spot in the parking lot of an apartment complex in the area of Jane Street and Finch Avenue West when the Honda Civic he was operating was surrounded by several vehicles. In the front passenger seat of the Civic was the CW.

The vehicles around the Civic were unmarked police vehicles. Unknown to the Complainant and the CW, they had been followed to the parking lot by a team of TPS Guns and Gangs officers. Earlier that day, Guns and Gangs officers had located the Civic, which they had reason to believe was stolen and used in recent shooting incidents in the city, in the parking lot of Pine Point Park around Highway 401 and Islington Avenue. The Complainant had arrived at the parking lot, retrieved a bag from the occupant or occupants of another vehicle arriving in the area, and entered the Civic using a key from the bag. The team of officers followed the Civic and watched it stop to pick up the CW before making its way northbound on Highway 400 and to the address in the area of Jane Street and Finch Avenue West. That is where one of the team supervisors – WO #2 – called for a takedown.

The SO was the first officer to approach the Complainant and the CW, stopping his vehicle by the front driver side of the Civic. He was followed by other officers, including WO #5, who drove into the passenger side of the Civic. With his firearm in his right hand, the SO exited his vehicle and ordered the Complainant to stop and put his hands up. The Complainant was out of the Civic at this time and starting to flee in a southeast direction towards a fence behind the vehicle. The SO quickly caught the Complainant and wrapped his arms around him as the two found themselves by the fence. WO #5 and WO #6 (the third officer on scene) immediately joined the fray. They struck the Complainant and attempted to wrestle him to the ground. It was during this physical engagement that the SO’s firearm was discharged. No one was struck by the projectile.

The Complainant was taken to the ground and handcuffed behind the back. The CW was also removed from the vehicle and arrested.

Section 86, Criminal Code - Careless Use of Firearm, etc.

86 (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons.

(2) Every person commits an offence who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act respecting the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sales of firearms and restricted weapons.

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

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment

(i) in the case of a first offence, for a term not exceeding two years, and

(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, for a term not exceeding five years; or

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

On May 26, 2025, the TPS notified the SIU that an officer’s firearm had been fired in the course of arresting a male – the Complainant – earlier that day. The SIU initiated an investigation, naming the SO the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the discharge of his firearm.

I accept that the SO’s gun was fired unintentionally. That is what the officer said in his SIU interview and there is no reason to disbelieve him. According to the SO, he was holding the Complainant in a type of bear hug, trying to constrain his arms as the two wrestled by the fence, when he felt a tug on his shooting hand and his gun went off.

If the shooting was unintentional, and no one was struck by the bullet, then the offence that arises for consideration is careless use of a firearm contrary to section 86(1) of the Criminal Code. As an offence of penal negligence, a simple want of care will not suffice to give rise to liability. Rather, the offence is predicated on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have observed in the circumstances. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was a want of care in the manner in which the SO used his firearm, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction. In my view, there was not.

With information at their disposal that the Complainant was operating a stolen vehicle, I am satisfied that the SO was within his rights in seeking to arrest him for being in possession of a stolen vehicle.

I am also satisfied that the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing that the SO failed to comport himself with the requisite care in the way he used his firearm. The officer’s decision to physically engage the Complainant is subject to legitimate scrutiny. The risk of accidental discharge is a real one where an officer tussles with a struggling subject with their firearm out. Ideally, where there is a need to be ready with a lethal use of force, a coordinated approach is deployed whereby an officer with a firearm at the ready provides cover as other officers make contact to effect an arrest. Circumstances, however, are rarely ideal, as this case demonstrates. I accept that the SO had cause to approach the Complainant with his gun drawn. The Civic he was operating was connected to a series of recent shootings, and the bag he had been provided by a third party at Pine Point Park appeared to contain an object of some weight in it as the Complainant entered the vehicle.[3] Regrettably, when the Complainant chose to run instead of surrender to police as directed, the SO was left with split seconds to decide on a course of action. He could have stood down, but that would have risked a potentially armed and dangerous individual going free. His decision to engage, in the circumstances, was not without justification. For the same reasons, once he did get physically involved, it would have proven difficult to disengage without first bringing the Complainant under control. Importantly, it appears that the SO did what he could to mitigate the risk by maintaining his finger off the trigger, consistent with the training he had received. On this record, if the SO’s conduct risked an unintentional firearm discharge, and it did, the risk was a calculated one that fell short of constituting a marked departure from a reasonable level of care.

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

Date: September 23, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit