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 26-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 7, 2024, at 2:20 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 2:11 p.m., an officer – the Subject Official (SO) – was stabbed in the shoulder and suffered a gunshot to the foot, and a male, whose identity was unknown at the time, had suffered multiple gunshot wounds. The incident took place on Norweld Drive in Orillia. Both the officer and male were en route to Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital (OSMH).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/11/07 at 3:20 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/11/07 at 4:50 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 4

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

26-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between November 8, 2024, and January 23, 2025.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on February 7, 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

The witness officials were interviewed between November 18, 2024, and November 28, 2024.

Investigative Delay

The Firearms Report from the CFS was received by the SIU on July 7, 2025.

Delay in the investigation was also incurred because of resource pressures in the Director’s Office.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around Cochrane Street, just west of its intersection with Matchedash Street South, Orillia.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

SIU investigators and forensic services attended the scene on November 7, 2024, at 4:50 p.m. The scene was canvassed, photographed and examined for evidence. A Leica 360 scanner was used to take measurements to construct a plan drawing of the area.

Several exhibits were collected for further examination, including an orange-coloured knife.

Figure 1 – The knife

The OPP prepared a report of their examination of the duty vest the SO was wearing at the time of the events in question, with the following results.

There was a single puncture located on the rear, exterior side of the vest cover, neartheupperrightshoulderarea,approximately4mminlength,thatpenetrated through the vest’s fabric. Below this puncture was a single ‘S’ shaped crease, approximately 65 mm in length, that extended vertically in a downward direction. The crease did not penetrate through the body armour carrier’s fabric.

The rear body armour panel was removed and examined in the area where the exterior side puncture was observed. Located on the exterior side,upper right corner, just above the ‘Velcro’ tab, was a single puncture 34 mm in size. This puncture did not penetrate through the body armour panel. No damage was observed on the body-facing side of the body armour.

Figure 2 - Rear panel of body armour

The following exhibits were submitted by the SIU to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) on December 5, 2024, for forensic examination:

Item # 4 - Magazine from police pistol (Item # 20)

Item # 6 - Cartridge case (fired)

Item # 7 - Knife sheath – yellow

Item # 15 - Cartridge case (fired)

Item # 16 - Cartridge case (fired)

Item # 17 - Knife

Item # 19 - Cartridge case (fired)

Item # 20 - Glock pistol - Model 17M, 9 x 19

Item # 21 - Cartridge case (fired)

Item # 22 - Cartridge case (fired)

Item # 23 - Cartridge case (fired)

Item # 24 - Cartridge case (fired)

Item # 25 - Cartridge case (fired)

Item # 26 - Buccal sample (Control A) from SO

Item # 27 - Buccal sample (Control B) from S

Item # 205 - Blood swab (control sample) from autopsy (the Complainant)

Item # 207 - Fingernail clippings, left hand, from autopsy (the Complainant)

Item # 208 - Fingernail clippings, right hand, from autopsy (the Complainant)

Item # 210 - Projectile/damaged bullet from autopsy (the Complainant)

Item # 211 - Projectile/damaged bullet from autopsy (the Complainant)

Item # 212 - Projectile/damaged bullet from autopsy (the Complainant)

Item # 306 - Damaged bullet/projectile – two pieces - from surgery (the SO)

Forensic Evidence

CFS Toxicology Report

By way of report dated December 17, 2024, the CFS reported cocaine and benzoylecgonine were detected in the Complainant’s femoral blood. Aripiprazole was unconfirmed in the femoral blood. Tetrahydrocannabinol, carboxy-tetrahydrocannabinol and hydroxy tetrahydrocannabinol were all detected in the Complainant’s heart blood.

CFS Biology Report

The report, dated March 10, 2025, concluded that the Complainant could not be excluded as the source of the male DNA profile (STR Profile 1) from the following:

• Blood on knife sheath
• Blood on blade and handle of knife
• Blood on Glock pistol from the SO

The SO could not be excluded as the source of the male DNA profile(STR Profile2)from the following:

• Blood on the blade of the knife

CFS Firearms Report

By way of report dated July 7, 2025, the CFS concluded that the SO’s Glock pistol functioned correctly as a semi-automatic pistol. Test fired bullets and test fired cartridges cases were generated and microscopically compared to the fired cartridge cases collected from the scene, and damaged bullet/projectile fragment collected at autopsy. The CFS determined that the fired cartridge cases from the scene had been fired from the SO’s firearm.

Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) Deployment Data – WO #2

On November 7, 2024, at 2:27:30 p.m.,[2] the trigger was pulled. A CEW cartridge was deployed, and electricity was discharged for five seconds.

At 2:27:37 p.m., the weapon was placed in ARC mode for a period of two seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Video Footage - 250 Matchedash Street South

Starting at about 2:10:25 p.m., November 7, 2024, a white pick-up truck was seen pulling off the road onto the shoulder across the street from the address. Some indiscriminate yelling could be heard off in the distance.

Starting at about 2:10:58 p.m., nine gunshots were heard. Six in succession followed by a pause of about one second, and then three more shots.

A large dog was seen running down the street away from the sounds of the gunshots.

More yelling in the distance could be heard saying, "Show me your hands, show me your hands."

Communications Recordings - 911 Call

A 911 call was received by police in the afternoon of November 7, 2024. The call-taker asked about the emergency. The caller said that he saw a male [the Complainant] south of 95 Barrie Road walking towards West Street with a leashed dog. The Complainant had assaulted the caller’s maintenance worker [CW #1]. The caller explained that an ambulance was there treating CW #1. He described what the Complainant was wearing.

Communication Recordings – Radio

On November 7, 2024, at 1:56:07 p.m., a dispatcher asked that units attend 95 Barrie Road for an assault. The suspect [the Complainant] was unknown to the victim [CW #1]. The Complainant had taken off running towards Memorial Avenue, heading west from 95 Barrie Road around Dunlop Street. A description of the Complainant was provided. The Complainant had damaged a perimeter fence and confronted CW #1, punching him and knocking him to the ground.

At 1:57:05 p.m., a police officer advised the dispatcher that they were heading down Barrie Road towards Memorial Avenue.

At 2:00:34 p.m., the dispatcher advised that the Complainant was walking eastbound towards West Street.

At 2:03:16 p.m., the SO reported that the Complainant was walking on Cochrane Street and asked for another unit for backup.

At 2:06:09 p.m., the SO shouted into his police radio, “Shots fired, shots fired. I’ve been stabbed.”

At 2:09:16 p.m., the dispatcher reported, “[The SO’s call sign], hang in there.” WO #3 and WO #4 advised they were responding to Cochrane Street. WO #3 reported that he was at the scene. The dispatcher asked for an update on the SO.

At 2:12:43 p.m., WO #3 reported, “Shots fired, shut down intersection and male [the Complainant] is in the ditch.” The dispatcher asked about location, and WO #3 responded Cochrane Street and Matchedash Street. He reported that the SO had been stabbed in the shoulder, and that other units could slow down.

At 2:17:06 p.m., WO #3 requested that police officers shut down the intersection at Cochrane Street and Matchedash Street.

At 2:21:46 p.m., WO #3 reported that the SO was awake and alert.

At 2:26:59 p.m., WO #3 requested ambulances for two injured persons - one stabbed and one shot.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between November 12, 2024, and March 11, 2025.

• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• General, Supplementary and Sudden Death Reports
• CEW deployment data
• Cellphone video and audio statement from CW #2
• Video footage from 250 Matchedash Street South
• Use of Force training records - the SO
• OPP Subject Profile Report - the Complainant
• Notes – the SO, WO #2, WO #4, WO #5, and WO #3
• OPP report on examination of the SO’s duty vest

The SIU obtained the following records from the Rama Police Service on November 26, 2024:

• Notes - WO #1

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between November 7, 2024, and July 7, 2025.

• The Report of Postmortem Examination (including CFS Toxicology Report) from the Coroner’s Office
• Biology Report from the CFS
• Firearms Reports from the CFS
• Video footage from 75 Barrie Street
• Photos of the SO’s injuries

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

In the afternoon of November 7, 2024, OPP officers in Orillia were on the lookout for the Complainant. A citizen had called to report that a male – the Complainant – had just assaulted another male around 95 Barrie Road.

The SO was on his way to court when he heard the radio broadcast of the assault and located the Complainant on Cochrane Street. He was walking eastward on the north side of the road with a black dog, approaching Matchedash Street South. The SO drove up to him in his cruiser, stopped a distance behind, and exited the vehicle. He called out to the Complainant, telling him to stop and that he was under arrest. The Complainant glanced at the officer over his right shoulder, but continued walking. He hands were in the front pockets of the hoodie he was wearing.

The Complainant was in possession of a knife. As the SO advanced to within about ten metres of him, he turned to face the officer with the knife in his right hand. The Complainant ran towards the SO, holding the knife above his shoulders, and swung the weapon down at the officer.

The SO had observed an object in the Complainant’s right hand as he was being rushed, and attempted to close the distance to prevent him swinging fully with what he feared was a knife. He felt a pain in the back of his left shoulder as the Complainant came down with the knife, and realized he had been stabbed. The SO disengaged from the Complainant and ran south. He lost his footing at the end of the road and fell into a ditch front first, but not before the Complainant had struck the officer again in the back with the knife.

The Complainant followed the SO into the ditch to resume the attack. The officer kicked out at the Complainant while on his back to keep him away. As the struggle continued, the SO drew his weapon and fired six times at the Complainant. One of those rounds entered and exited the officer’s right foot. The Complainant remained on his feet, initially, for a brief period, before falling to the ground, the knife still in his right hand. Both parties now struggled to get to their feet. The officer rose first and fired an additional volley of three shots at the Complainant, who was in the process of getting up at the time. Following the last of the shots, the Complainant threw the knife towards the SO and said he was done. He briefly tried to crawl away but soon became motionless in the ditch. The SO climbed out of the ditch, radioed that he had been stabbed and shots had been fired, and pointed his gun at the Complainant.

Additional officers arrived on scene. They ordered a prone Complainant to show his hands. WO #2 fired a CEW at the Complainant. When the Complainant appeared to lock-up, WO #5 entered the ditch and handcuffed him behind the back. WO #5 promptly began cardiopulmonary resuscitation on the Complainant.

Firefighters and paramedics attended and took charge of the Complainant’s care. He was transported to hospital and subsequently pronounced deceased.

The SO received sutures for his shoulder injury and underwent surgery for the bullet wound to his right foot.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy attributed the Complainant’s death to multiple gunshot wounds. He had sustained wounds from bullets that entered the front of the neck, the left upper chest, the right lower abdomen, the left forearm, and right thigh.

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 passed away on November 7, 2024, the result of gunfire discharged by an OPP officer in Orillia. 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.

With information at his disposal that a male fitting the description of the male he located on Cochrane Street had just committed an assault, the SO was within his rights in moving to take the Complainant into custody.

I am satisfied that the SO fired his weapon to defend himself from a reasonably apprehended attack at the hands of the Complainant. The SO said so in his SIU interview, and there is no reason to disbelieve him. In particular, the officer’s evidence that he was subjected to a knife attack by the Complainant is supported by an independent witness’s account of the Complainant’s violent disposition at the time in question, the officer’s contemporaneous utterances regarding the attack and the shooting, the stab wound to the SO’s left shoulder, and the physical evidence around the knife located in the ditch where the incident occurred.

I am also satisfied that the SO’s choice of defensive force – gunfire – was reasonable. The knife in the Complainant’s hands was capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm and death, and the officer was justified in resorting to like force to repel the attack. The use of oleoresin capsicum spray or a CEW might have thwarted the attack, but gunfire stood a better chance of immediately disabling the Complainant. Faced with a life and death decision, and only split seconds in which to decide, the officer cannot be faulted for having chosen his firearm. Nor were retreat or withdrawal viable options given how quickly events unfolded. As for the number of rounds discharged by the SO, the evidence indicates that the Complainant remained a real and present danger through the series of nine shots. That was clearly the case with respect to the first volley of gunfire as the Complainant was actively attacking the officer with a knife. It was also the case with the remainder of the shots, during which the Complainant was in close proximity to the officer, knife still in hand. Given the violence with which the Complainant had launched his attack, the SO would have had cause to believe that the Complainant was not finished. No shots were fired after the Complainant dropped the knife and said, “I’m done.”

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.[4]

Date: October 20, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit