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 46-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 29, 2024, at 6:58 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

According to the OPP, on November 29, 2024, at about 5:20 p.m., OPP officers conducted a high-risk vehicle stop on Highway 401 near Homer Watson Boulevard. An officer discharged a single round from his service pistol, striking the driver of the subject vehicle - the Complainant - in the arm.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/11/29 at 7:21 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/11/29 at 9:27 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on November 30, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between November 29, 2024, and December 3, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

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

The subject official was interviewed on January 27, 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

The witness officials were interviewed between December 9, 2024, and February 19, 2025.

Investigative Delay

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

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a pick-up truck stopped in the middle of three Highway 401 eastbound lanes, south of Homer Watson Boulevard, Kitchener.

The Complainant’s Chevrolet Colorado pick-up truck was in the centre lane, with three OPP cruisers positioned beside the driver’s door, front driver’s corner, and back passenger corner. The SO’s vehicle was not captured in the scene photo (below) because it had been moved to the south shoulder prior to the SIU’s attendance.

Figure 1 – Police vehicles and Chevrolet Colorado pick-up truck at scene

Physical Evidence

The following items were processed by SIU forensic services:

• Fired cartridge case
• Fired projectile
• Glock Model 17M 9mm semi-automatic pistol
• Chevrolet Colorado pick-up

The SO’s Glock firearm was recovered with one cartridge in the breech and 16 cartridges in the magazine

Figure 2 – the SO’s firearm, magazine and cartridges

The Complainant’s Chevrolet Colorado was found with a bullet hole through the centre area of the windshield.

Figure 3 – The Chevrolet Colorado pick-up truck

Forensic Evidence

Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) Firearms Report

On February 12, 2025, CFS authored a report concluding that the Glock firearm functioned as designed as a semi-automatic pistol. The trigger pull weight ranged between 9.63 pounds and 10.66 pounds, with an average trigger pull weight of 10.05 pounds. It was identified, within the limits of practical certainty, as having fired the cartridge case collected at the scene.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

On November 29, 2024, starting at 5:18 p.m., WO #2 located the Complainant’s Chevrolet Colorado pick-up truck travelling east on Highway 401. WO #4 directed a rolling block be initiated using as many officers as possible.

Starting at about 5:19 p.m., the SO drove on the south shoulder of eastbound Highway 401, pacing the Complainant from behind. WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3 were also pacing the Complainant’s vehicle from behind. The SO entered a live lane and pulled along the passenger side of the Complainant’s pick-up truck, activated the emergency lights, and stopped on an angle in front of the vehicle, blocking its path forward.

WO #2 stopped on the Complainant’s driver side on an angle, hood to hood with the SO. WO #3 was at the back driver side while WO #1 was along the passenger side. WO #2 walked to the back of his vehicle. The Complainant was ordered to raise his hands, and his left arm was captured being raised in the air. The video footage did not capture what the Complainant was doing with his right arm.

Starting at about 5:22:38 p.m., the SO got out of his vehicle and unholstered his firearm. He raised his firearm and, with a two-handed grip, pointed it at the Complainant’s windshield and discharged one round.

Starting at about 5:23:02 p.m., the Complainant, CW #1, CW #2 and CW #3 were removed from the vehicle.

Starting at 5:26:35 p.m., the SO moved his police vehicle to the south shoulder.

OPP Communications Recordings – Telephone

On November 29, 2024, at 4:39 p.m., the OPP Provincial Communications Centre (PCC) received a call reporting a man [CW #3] having jumped from a moving Chevrolet Colorado pick-up truck. The driver [the Complainant] and occupants subsequently placed CW #3 back into the vehicle in a semi-conscious state. The caller checked on their wellbeing, and they said everything was fine and asked that the police not be called. The vehicle left towards Highway 401 as the occupants threw items from the vehicle.

At 4:42 p.m., the OPP PCC received information from Emergency Medical Services (EMS) of a caller [CW #1] indicating there had been a domestic dispute in the backseat of their vehicle when CW #3 jumped. CW #3 got back in the vehicle and said he did not want EMS. They were driving him to the Woodstock Hospital.

OPP Communications Recordings – Radio

At 4:41 p.m., November 29, 2024, OPP officers were dispatched for a ‘disturb the peace’ call in the Foldens Line and Highway 401 area. Reportedly, a man [CW #3] had jumped from a moving Chevrolet Colorado pick-up truck after a domestic dispute. The pick-up was southbound on Oxford Road 6. Further information indicated that the occupants were throwing items from the vehicle, and it had almost reversed into the caller as it departed.

At 5:18 p.m., WO #2 located the Chevrolet Colorado [the Complainant] eastbound on

Highway 401 in the middle lane. A rolling block with three or four cruisers was organized to stop the vehicle.

At 5:21 p.m., WO #4 directed that an officer take the lead in communications and execute a high-risk takedown. WO #2 advised dispatch he would position himself at the front of the Chevrolet Colorado, WO #3 to the rear, and the SO and WO #1 on the passenger side.

At 5:22 p.m., a high-risk takedown was executed.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between November 29, 2024, and February 13, 2025.

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Names of civilian witnesses and statements provided
• General, Supplementary and Arrest Reports
• Crown Brief Synopsis
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• ICC video
• Annual use of force training records for the SO
• Notes - WO #4, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3
• Policy - Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between December 4, 2024, and February 13, 2025.

• The Complainant’s medical records from Hamilton Health Sciences General Hospital
• Firearms Report from the CFS

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, 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 29, 2024, the OPP received a call about a male having jumped from a moving pick-up truck and subsequently being returned to the truck covered in blood. The caller had stopped to help, and was told that everything was fine and not to call police. Shortly after, the OPP were contacted by EMS with information about a female calling to report that a male had jumped from the back seat of her vehicle. The male was now back in the vehicle, and they were transporting him to hospital.

The male was CW #3. He was in the back seat of a Chevrolet pick-up truck with his estranged partner – CW #2 – en route to Parry Sound. The female was CW #1, riding in the front passenger seat of the truck. Her husband – the Complainant – was operating the vehicle. The Complainant and CW #1 had agreed to take CW #3 and CW #2 to Parry Sound when the two got into a heated argument. The Complainant had pulled off the highway to allow the situation to calm. However, shortly thereafter the argument resumed, leading CW #3 to exit the vehicle while still in motion, sustaining facial injuries. After getting back into the vehicle with the Complainant’s involvement, and insisting he be taken to hospital, CW #1 cancelled EMS

OPP officers were dispatched to locate the pick-up truck and check on the condition of its occupants. With the help of ‘pings’ of CW #1’s cellphone, the officers were able to locate the pick-up truck as it travelled eastbound on Highway 401 towards Kitchener. By this time, the truck had travelled past the hospital in Woodstock, heightening concerns about the health and welfare of its occupants and a possible kidnapping scenario involving CW #3. A sergeant monitoring the situation called for the officers to execute a “high-risk takedown”.

The SO was operating a marked SUV at the time. He and WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3, each in their separate cruisers, came upon the Complainant’s pick-up truck in heavy traffic on the eastbound lanes of Highway 401 before the Homer Watson Boulevard exit. WO #2 and the SO brought their vehicles to a stop at an angle in front of the driver and passenger side front corners of the pick-up truck, respectively, as WO #3 and WO #1 positioned their cruisers behind the truck. WO #2 and the SO exited their vehicles with guns drawn and pointed at the Complainant. Within three seconds of the SO opening his cruiser’s door to exit, his firearm discharged once in the direction of the Complainant.

Following the shooting, the pick-up truck’s occupants were removed from vehicle. The Complainant had been struck in the right arm. He was transported to hospital and treated for his wounds.

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 was shot and wounded by an OPP officer on November 29, 2024. 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 shooting.

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.

The SO and his colleagues were engaged in the exercise of their lawful duties through the series of events culminating in gunfire. With information at their disposal of an injured male in the pick-up truck, possibly being held against his will, the officers were within their rights in stopping the truck to ensure its occupants were okay.

In his SIU interview, the SO said that he fired to protect himself from what he thought was an imminent attack by the Complainant. The officer explained that he believed the Complainant was about to point and fire a gun at him when he rapidly reached down towards the centre console area of the truck with his right arm before quickly raising it back up.

There are aspects of the evidence that raise difficulties with the SO’s account, but I am unable to reasonably conclude with any confidence that the officer did not fire his gun to defend himself from a reasonably apprehended threat of gunfire from the Complainant. On the one hand, the evidence establishes that the Complainant did not have a gun and was not reaching for a gun when he was shot. In fact, WO #2, whose attention was focussed on the Complainant in the seconds before the shooting, indicated that the Complainant had done nothing from his vantage point to make the officer believe he was retrieving a gun or a weapon of any kind when the shot occurred. On the other hand, the evidence at its highest cannot be said to negate the SO’s description of an abrupt movement on the part of the Complainant consistent with the retrieval of a gun. The video footage of the event is not definitive of the issue and there is evidence that the Complainant was attempting to place the gear shifter of his truck into ‘park’ around the time of the shooting, leaving room for the possibility that the Complainant made a move with his right arm that the SO reasonably interpreted in the way he did. The SO was wrong in his assessment, but mistakes of fact will not deprive an officer of the self-defence justification if the mistake was a reasonable one to have been made in the circumstances. In the highly charged atmosphere of this event, in which I accept the SO harboured a legitimate concern that the police were dealing with an abduction and, by extension, the presence of weapons, it is entirely possible that the officer reasonably believed, albeit mistakenly, that the Complainant was reaching for a gun and that shooting him was necessary in self-defence.

Lastly, I am satisfied that the SO’s choice of defensive force, namely, gunfire, constituted reasonable force. If the officer had cause to fear that the Complainant was about to shoot him, which possibility cannot be excluded for the aforementioned reasons, then it seems nothing short of the immediate stopping power of a firearm would suffice to protect himself in the circumstances.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the SO. The file is closed.

Date: October 21, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit