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 28-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 3, 2025, at 2:18 a.m., the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 3, 2025, at 12:33 a.m., HRPS received several 911 calls with no voice contact but yelling in the background. The line disconnected several times. The dispatcher heard someone yelling, “Why did you do it?” and a male said, “I’m going crazy!” and “I did it all over!” HRPS officers were dispatched to an ‘unknown trouble person in crisis’ call. Four HRPS officers arrived at the address and through a window saw a man on the ground with blood. The officers entered the residence and saw a woman and a man, now known to be the Complainant. The Complainant ran upstairs to a back bedroom and into the ensuite bathroom. The officers followed the Complainant and began negotiating with him. The Complainant stabbed himself in the neck with a knife and fell out of the bathroom. He struggled with officers, and they used a shield and deployed a conducted energy weapon (CEW), after which they pursued life-saving measures. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called. Firefighters and EMS arrived and performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The Complainant and his father were deceased at the scene.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/06/03 at 3:00 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/06/03 at 4:53 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

28-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on June 3, 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

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

The witness officials were interviewed between June 3, 2025, and June 9, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired inside a residence located on Cornerstone Drive in Burlington.

Physical Evidence

The residence had been properly secured and was being guarded by HRPS officers upon SIU’s arrival. Outside, on the front porch and sidewalk, was bloodstaining in the form of passive drip patterns. Entry through the front door led directly into a hallway, off of which was a living room where a deceased male – the Complainant’s father – was lying on the floor with obvious trauma to the head and neck area. Large pooling of blood was located near the body.

Passive drip, transfer and projected staining was prevalent on the hallway floor through to the kitchen. A stairway leading to the second floor was carpeted with passive drip, transfer and projected staining on the walls and steps.

On the second-floor hallway passive drip staining led into the primary bedroom. The Complainant was found deceased on the carpeted floor, just outside the ensuite bathroom, lying on his back. The deceased had obvious trauma to the neck area and various blood patterns along with pooling of blood were nearby. There was evidence of CEW deployment near the body but not attached to the body itself. The deceased had the right wrist handcuffed only.

The adjacent ensuite bathroom showed an excessive amount of pooling and arterial gush staining on the floor and vanity area, including the sink. A knife covered in blood was found inside the sink. A bloodstained upper garment was located on the floor in front of the vanity.

At 12:06 p.m., June 3, 2025, SIU forensic services began a scene examination. Photographs were taken of the residence, and scans of the stairwell and second-floor were completed for preparation of the scene drawing.

The SIU collected the following exhibits:

• CEW probe from right side (east) of the Complainant
• Two CEW probes from right side (east) of the Complainant
• Hunting style knife in sink of vanity in primary bedroom ensuite
• Two heavily bloodstained shirts with the sleeves turned inward from ensuite floor in front of vanity

At 5:00 p.m., June 3, 2025, SIU forensic services attended HRPS Division 30 to examine and photograph the involved officers’ equipment and uniforms. But for SO #2’s unform and equipment, no visible staining or damage was found on the involved officers’ uniforms and equipment. With respect to SO #2’s items, no visible staining or damage was found on the pants, shirt, or equipment. Her right boot had staining and damage.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – WO #3

The device was armed at 12:52:00 a.m.,[2] June 3, 2025. A cartridge was deployed at 12:52:44 a.m., from the second bay. Electricity was discharged for 4.141 seconds.

A second deployment occurred at 12:52:48 a.m. A cartridge was deployed from bay one. Electricity discharged for 4.956 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

HRPS Communication Recordings & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

At 12:33:59 a.m., June 3, 2025, the HRPS received a 911 call, but a dial tone was immediately heard.

At 12:34:10 a.m., the call-taker called back and received an answer from a woman [CW #1], who said, “Hello,” followed by heated inaudible conversation with a man [the Complainant], who repeatedly told CW #1 to stop talking. CW #1 said, “Look at him, he is dead.” She asked twice, “Why did you do it?” The Complainant replied because he was, “Going crazy, you dumb (inaudible).” CW #1 asked, “Where on the body did you do it?” The Complainant replied, “Everywhere.” CW #1 yelled, “Help, please!” The Complainant said he needed her money, and CW #1 said she had to call 911.

At 12:34:36 a.m., the 911 call ended. The call-taker made several attempts to call again, between 12:34:51 a.m. and 12:36:08 a.m., but the line was busy. No further contact could be made.

At 12:37:20 a.m., WO #1 acknowledged the dispatched call for a “[assault code]” at an address on Cornerstone Drive. The dispatcher advised a 911 call had been received, initially with no contact. The call-taker called back, screaming was heard, and someone asked, “Why did you do it?” A man’s voice [the Complainant] replied, “I am going crazy.”

The dispatcher advised that the last call at the address was in October 2024 and concerned the Complainant having a mental health issue and screaming at his parents. The Complainant did not have a criminal record, but was known to police and was flagged as having mental health issues and being violent.

WO #1, SO #2, WO #2 and SO #1 were responding.

At 12:48 a.m., WO #1 announced a forced entry would be made and requested EMS.

At 12:49:36 a.m., WO #1 advised of a possible homicide and requested a rush on EMS.

At 12:50:49 a.m., WO #1 requested a shield and HRPS tactical unit status. Yelling was heard in the background. WO #1 requested that WO #2 grab a shield and confirm the number of people in the house. WO #2 responded just the wife and male upstairs were present.

At 12:51:12 a.m., WO #4 advised he had the shield.

At 12:51:24 a.m., WO #1 requested a long gun. An officer advised he was on his way.

At 12:52:33 a.m., WO #1 advised the Complainant had cut his throat and requested a second ambulance.

At 12:52: 59 a.m., WO #1 advised a CEW had been deployed and requested a first-aid kit be brought to him.

At 12:53:24 a.m., WO #4 advised the Complainant had cut his jugular.

At 12:53:41 a.m., an officer advised the Fire Department had arrived and were attending with medical personnel.

At 12:54:16 a.m., WO #1 requested a rush on medical personnel upstairs.

At 12:55:19 a.m., it was reported the man [the Complainant’s father] on the main floor had been pronounced deceased and the Complainant was being worked on by the Burlington Fire Department.

At 12:57:15 a.m., WO #4 advised the Complainant was resisting CPR efforts.

At 12:58:39 a.m., WO #4 advised the Complainant was vital signs absent and CPR was in progress.

At 1:13:19 a.m., WO #1 advised CPR was still in progress.

At 1:16:20 a.m., WO #1 advised that the Complainant had been pronounced deceased at 1:15 a.m.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the HRPS between June 3, 2025, and September 15, 2025.

• Occurrence Report
• Communications recordings
• CAD Report
• A list of previous incidents involving the Complainant
• CEW deployment data - WO #3
• Use of Force policy
• A transcript of the interview HRPS conducted with CW #1
• Search Warrant obtained by HRPS Major Crime Unit for a residence

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service on June 5, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither SO #1 nor SO #2 agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the early morning of June 3, 2025, police were dispatched to a residence on Cornerstone Drive, Burlington. They had received a disconnected 911 call from the address. When the call-taker called back, no one spoke directly to the call-taker, but a conversation between a male and female was captured suggesting the male had killed someone inside the house and was now threatening the female.

The male was the Complainant and the female was his mother, CW #1. The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time. Armed with a knife, he had attacked and killed his father in the living room on the main floor of the house. On discovering what had happened, CW #1 tried to call 911. The Complainant attempted to prevent her from doing so and assaulted CW #1. Hearing banging on the front door, CW #1 was able to free herself from her son and answer the door. The time was about 12:50 a.m.

WO #1 was at the door with SO #2, SO #1 and WO #2. WO #1 and WO #2 had observed through a window the body of the Complainant’s father on the living room floor with a pool of blood around him. The officers were prepared to force entry into the home when CW #1 opened the door. She told the officers her son was upstairs, and they proceeded to the second-floor, WO #2 staying behind to deal with CW #1.

The Complainant was in the ensuite bathroom of the master bedroom. From the hallway outside the open bedroom door, SO #1 called out to the Complainant, directing him to drop the knife and come out. The Complainant did not do so.

At WO #1’s request, additional officers arrived on scene and joined the stack of officers outside the bedroom door, including WO #4 and WO #3, the former taking the lead position with a shield. The Complainant remained in the bathroom despite repeated direction that he come out.

At about 12:52 a.m., the Complainant stumbled out of the bathroom into the bedroom. WO #3 fired his CEW and the Complainant fell to the floor. The officers moved into the bedroom and WO #3 deployed his CEW again. SO #2 handcuffed the Complainant’s right hand and he was turned onto his back. The Complainant was bleeding profusely from a large laceration across the neck. WO #1 asked for an ambulance and the officers began to administer emergency first-aid, applying pressure to the Complainant’s wound.

Paramedics and firefighters arrived on scene and took over the Complainant’s care. He was subsequently pronounced deceased on scene at 1:15 a.m.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to an incised wound of the neck.

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 of a self-inflicted injury while in the custody of the HRPS on June 3, 2025. 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.

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 either subject official, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.

SO #1 and SO #2, together with the other involved officers, were engaged in the lawful exercise of their duty through the events that culminated in the Complainant’s death. With information at their disposal of a deadly conflict in the home involving the Complainant and the use of a knife, the officers were duty bound to intervene to do what they reasonably could to prevent further harm.

I am also satisfied that the involved officers, including SO #1 and SO #2, in the few minutes that elapsed from their arrival to the Complainant’s exit from the bathroom, comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s wellbeing. They endeavoured to resolve the situation peacefully, but the Complainant ignored their repeated direction that he dispose of the knife and surrender. While those efforts were ongoing, WO #1 made plans to have additional resources attend the scene, including a shield and another ambulance. When the Complainant did exit the bathroom, having self-inflicted a very serious cut to his neck, the officers moved quickly to ensure he was under control before quickly administering first-aid. On this record, it is apparent that neither subject official nor any of the involved officers transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.[4]

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

Date: September 24, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit