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 34-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 11, 2025, at 6:32 a.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

The police received a call at 4:44 a.m. from the tenants of a residential building in the area of Highway 7 and Warden Avenue, Markham, reporting a man and a woman yelling in a unit and requesting a wellbeing check. Police officers arriving on scene heard screaming from inside the unit and forced entry. A man was stabbing a woman in the back and a police officer shot him. The man and woman were transported to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/06/11 at 6:46 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/06/11 at 8:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

34-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 11, 2025, and June 12, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between June 16, 2025, and June 20, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in a unit of a residential building in the area of Highway 7 and Warden Avenue, Markham.

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic services attended and processed the scene.

The following items with evidentiary significance were processed by SIU forensic services:

• The SO’s Glock Model 45 magazine and ammunition. One live cartridge was in the breech and 16 were in the magazine.

Figure 1 - the SO’s firearm

• A folding knife located on the floor near a massage table.

Figure 2 - Folding knife

• A discharged 9mm Luger cartridge case located on the hallway floor by the entrance.

Forensic Evidence

Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) Firearms Report

By way of report a Firearms Report dated August 29, 2025, the CFS determined that the cartridge case was fired by the SO’s firearm.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage – Residential Building

Interior video from the building captured the involved police officers in the main lobby and elevator hallway.

YRP Communication Recordings

On June 11, 2025, starting at 4:40 a.m., CW #3 called 911 and reported a noise complaint to the YRP communication centre call-taker. He identified the unit directly above his as the source of arguing, screaming, yelling, crying and the sound of furniture being toppled over. CW #3 had alerted security earlier, but when they arrived there was no answer at the door.

Starting at 4:47 a.m., the SO and WO #2 were dispatched to a residence in the area of Highway 7 and Warden Avenue, Markham, for a ‘check welfare’ call for service. Dispatch advised a tenant, CW #3, had reported hearing furniture being thrown, and a male and female [the Complainant and CW #1] yelling and screaming. Security personnel [CW #4] had attended at the unit, but the noise continued.

Starting at 4:54 a.m., WO #1 was on scene.

Starting at 5:01 a.m., WO #2 advised there was no response at the address despite knocks at the door. Noise was heard coming from inside.

Starting at 5:05 a.m., WO #2 was said to be on his way up to the unit with a master key.

Starting at 5:09 a.m., WO #1 heard yelling from the unit and requested WO #2 attend with the master key.

Starting at 5:10 a.m., WO #2 advised entry was being made.

Starting at 5:11 a.m., WO #2 advised shots were fired and Emergency Medical Services were required.

Starting at 5:13 a.m., WO #2 advised the Complainant had been shot in the head and CW #1 had sustained stab wounds to the back.

Starting at 5:15 a.m., the SO advised the Complainant had actively stabbed CW #1 and shots were fired.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the YRP between June 12, 2025, and June 17, 2025:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Civilian Witness List
• General Occurrence Report
• 911 Call History Report
• Communications recordings
• Use of Force qualifications for the SO
• Officer notes
• Policy: Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between June 13, 2025, and August 29, 2025:

• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• Firearms Report from the CFS
• Building Security Incident Report
• Photographs of CW #1’s injuries
• CW #1’s medical records from SHSC

The evidence collected by the SIU, including the eyewitness accounts of one civilian and two police officers, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the early morning of June 11, 2025, YRP were called to a residence in the area of Highway 7 and Warden Avenue, Markham. A resident of another unit at the complex had contacted police to report a disturbance. He had heard a male and a female arguing, screaming and crying, and the sounds of furniture toppling over in the unit.

The SO, joined by WO #1 and WO #2, arrived outside the unit at about 5:00 a.m. WO #2 knocked on the door several times, identified himself and fellow officers as the ‘police’, and asked the occupants to open the door. There was no response from inside to their knocks, but the officers heard sounds that concerned them, including a female saying, “Ouch, ouch, ouch.” The officers attempted to enter but the door was locked. WO #2 left to retrieve a master key from the building security personnel while WO #1 and the SO remained at the door.

WO #2 returned a few minutes later with a security guard from the building. The guard unlocked the door and let the officers inside.

Once through the front door, WO #1 and the SO proceeded down a corridor towards an open living space. There they observed a naked woman – CW #1 – lying facedown on a massage table. She appeared uninjured and motioned with her arms, but was otherwise unresponsive when asked if she okay. Within moments, the Complainant appeared from a bedroom door across the room and advanced quickly on CW #1. He was holding a knife, which he used to stab CW #1 in the back multiple times. The Complainant was ordered to stop what he was doing, but continued to stab CW #1. The SO fired his semi-automatic firearm once, striking the Complainant in the head.

The Complainant collapsed and was subsequently declared deceased.

CW #1 was transported to hospital and treated for her stab wounds.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to a gunshot wound of the head.

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.

The Complainant died on June 11, 2025, the result of being shot by a YRP officer. The SIU was notified of the incident and 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 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 the SO’s use of his firearm constituted justified force within the ambit of the provision.

The SO, WO #1 and WO #2 were lawfully placed and engaged in the exercise of their duty through the series of events culminating in gunfire. Given the sounds that had been reported coming from the unit, and what they heard for themselves as they stood outside the front door seeking to gain entry, they had cause to be concerned that someone was being hurt. In the circumstances, their entry into private premises was authorized by the exigent circumstances that prevailed.

The evidence indicates that the SO fired his weapon to protect CW #1 from a reasonably apprehended attack. Though the SO did not choose to provide that evidence firsthand to the SIU, as was his right, the facts speak for themselves in this case. Confronted with the Complainant actively stabbing CW #1 in the back, it is natural to infer that the officer shot the Complainant to prevent grievous bodily harm or death coming to CW #1.

The evidence also indicates that the SO’s resort to gunfire constituted reasonable force. A physical engagement with a subject armed with a knife would have placed his life in jeopardy and was off the table. The SO might have considered the use of an intermediate weapon, such as a CEW, but that would have risked something less than the full and immediate incapacitation of the Complainant if the weapon’s probes missed their mark or did not result in neuromuscular failure for whatever reason. The stopping power of a firearm represented the officer’s best chance of ending the Complainant’s assault on CW #1. In fact, the use of the weapon did instantly neutralize the Complainant and prevent further grievous harm and, possibly, death, coming to CW #1.

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

Date: October 8, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit