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 40-year-old man.

Notification of the SIU[1]

On, July 22, 2025, at 1:47 p.m. [Central Time –CT],[2] Nishnawbe Aski Police Service (NAPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 22, 2025, at 1:10 p.m. NAPS constables – the Subject Official (SO) and Witness Official (WO) #2 - attended a home on Deer Lake First Nation to execute two arrest warrants in relation to the Complainant. The Complainant ran from the residence, lit himself on fire after pouring lighter fluid on himself, and rushed at the officers holding two knives. The officers reported that shots had been fired. The Complainant was reportedly on scene and first-aid was being administered.

NAPS subsequently reported that the Complainant had been pronounced deceased at the Nursing Station.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/07/22 at 3:59 p.m. (ET)[3]

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/07/22 at 10:30 p.m. (ET)

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

40-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Not interviewed; unable to locate

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

CW #8 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between July 23, 2025, and August 20, 2025.

Subject Official

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Witness Official

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between July 23, 2025, and August 19, 2025.

Investigative Delay

The Report of Postmortem Examination was received by the SIU from the Coroner’s Office on November 25, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a residence in Deer Lake First Nation.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On July 23, 2025, at 7:50 a.m. SIU forensic services began their examination of the scene. The area was cordoned-off with yellow police tape and secured with a uniformed OPP officer maintaining continuity of the property.

A black Ford F150 was parked nose into the property facing north. A white GMC Sierra pick-up truck was parked across the entrance to the driveway facing east.

SIU forensic services examined the scene and identified a blue tarp covering an area behind the black Ford F150. Underneath the tarp was a large red stain on the ground.

The following evidence was identified by SIU forensic services:

• A yellow canister of lighter fluid
• Five silver spent 9mm cartridge cases
• The SO’s Glock model 17 firearm with undermount flashlight and an attached magazine with 12 live 9mm rounds of ammunition

At 8:58 a.m., SIU forensic services entered the residence and took general scene photographs.

At 10:06 a.m., SIU forensic services attended the Deer Lake Nursing Station and examined the deceased.

At 12:30 p.m., SIU forensic services assisted with placing the deceased into an ambulance and accompanying the body to the airport for transportation to the Forensic Sciences and Coroners Complex in Toronto.

At 1:39 p.m., SIU forensic services returned to the scene and mapped it with a Leica scanner to construct a plan drawing.

At 3:35 p.m., SIU forensic services photographed the two involved officers’ uniforms and use of force equipment, along with two knives that had been secured from the scene by NAPS. One had an overall length of 32 cm with a blade length of 20 cm. The second had an overall length of 26 cm with a blade length of 15 cm.

At 6:41 p.m., SIU forensic services left the scene and departed Deer Lake First Nation.

On July 25, 2025, SIU forensic services attended the Complainant’s autopsy in Toronto. The Complainant had singeing of head hair and apparent surface burn injuries to areas of the upper body and arms. Several penetrating injuries were observed to the body on the left arm and torso.

During the autopsy, five projectiles were recovered from the deceased. Areas of entry wounds, wound tracks and the resulting injuries were documented.

At the conclusion of the autopsy, the pathologist expressed the preliminary view that the cause of the Complainant’s death was gunshot wounds to the torso.

Spent 9mm cartridges at scene 

One of two knives identified at scene

The other knife identified at scene 

The SO’s Glock firearm

Can of lighter fluid identified at scene

Forensic Evidence

The SO’s firearm, the spent cartridge cases and the projectiles recovered from the Complainant’s body were submitted to the Centre of Forensic Sciences for examination. The results of that examination were not in at the time of this report.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[4]

NAPS Communications Recordings

The recordings commenced on July 22, 2025, at 1:03:02 p.m., and concluded on July 22, 2025, at 9:12:26 p.m.

The NAPS SO called the OPP dispatcher, reporting that he and his partner were at a residence in Deer Lake trying to arrest the Complainant in relation to warrants when he pulled a knife on them. He was trying to get him to drop the knives. The dispatcher asked the SO for his location.

The SO later stated that the Complainant’s ex-girlfriend was in the house with kids, along with another person and three other children. The Complainant had poured flammable liquid on himself. He was still standing at the door, and the officer was trying to get him to drop the knives.

In a subsequent transmission, the SO announced, “Shots fired, he came running at us with a knife.”

The SO broadcast that they were performing CPR on the Complainant, who was breathing again, and there was blood coming from his mouth.

NAPS BWC Footage – WO #2

On July 22, 2025, starting at about 1:01:18 p.m., the recording began with the SO standing about a metre in front of a door on a wooden deck on the east side of a home. WO #2 stood two about metres to the SO’s left. The Complainant opened the door and stepped out onto the deck. He wore a maroon short-sleeved T-shirt and dark shorts, and was barefoot. He had a swollen blackened right eye. The SO told the Complainant that he was under arrest and to put his hands behind his back. The Complainant complied. While the SO was beginning to handcuff the Complainant, WO #2 told the Complainant that they also had a warrant for his arrest. The SO interjected and told the Complainant that he was under arrest for ‘domestic assault’. A young child stood in the doorway of the residence watching.

Starting at about 1:01:32 p.m., the Complainant asked WO #2 if he could go into the residence and get his shoes. As he was asking this, the Complainant turned and walked back into the house without waiting for a reply. The SO had not placed the handcuffs on the Complainant at that time. The officers allowed the Complainant to continue into the residence. The Complainant walked past a number of shoes inside the door into the living room and then made a right turn and walked out of sight. The SO remained standing on the deck at the open door while WO #2 was still standing to the SO’s left and away from the door.

Starting at about 1:01:54 p.m., the SO suddenly turned around with his back to the open door and quickly walked towards the stairs behind him that led to ground-level. The SO had no weapons in his hands. WO #2 turned around and quickly walked down the ramp. A marked NAPS pick-up truck was captured parked at the north side of the road, just west of the driveway, facing east in front of the home.

Starting at about 1:01:58 p.m., WO #2 took cover at the southeast corner of the house, peering around the corner, and shouted to the SO, “Where’s he at?” The SO could now be seen at the bottom of the stairs that led up to the deck, looking up at the door of the home. There was a black pick-up truck parked in the driveway of the property, parallel to the deck. It faced north and was empty.

Starting at about 1:02:37 p.m., the SO shouted to the Complainant to “come outside”. The SO did not have any weapons in his hands. The SO was heard saying, “Drop it, come outside, we have grounds for your arrest, drop the knife.”[5] WO #2, still taking cover at the southeast corner of the house, now backed away and shouted, “Drop the knife. We can deal with this.” The Complainant was seen standing on the deck with a knife in his left hand down by his left side and another knife in his right hand at waist-level. The SO had taken cover behind the fender of the front passenger side of the pick-up truck in the driveway. The Complainant alternately pointed a knife at both officers. WO #2 again said, “Drop the knife.”

Starting at about 1:02:58 p.m., WO #2 moved to a position of cover at the passenger side rear fender of the black pick-up truck. The SO was still taking cover at the front passenger corner of the same truck, shouting, “We have grounds for your arrest, okay.” The SO had his right hand positioned on his firearm, which was holstered. The Complainant remained on the deck at the top of the ramp. WO #2 shouted at the Complainant, saying, “Just talk to us man, what’s going on?” The SO repeated, “Drop the knives, just drop them, we have grounds for your arrest, we have come for the arrest, we will deal with it.” The Complainant continued to stand on the deck by the open door to the residence.

Starting at about 1:03:49 p.m., the SO repeated commands to drop the knives, saying they could resolve the issue. WO #2 said, “Just drop the knives we can deal with this, it’s not a big deal.”

Starting at about 1:04:04 p.m., the Complainant turned around and walked back into the residence.

Starting at about 1:04:29 p.m., the Complainant came back out onto the deck. Both officers shouted at him to, “Drop the knives, drop the knives.” The SO, still at the front passenger corner of the black pick-up truck, now had his conducted energy weapon (CEW) out, holding it with both hands fully extended in the direction of the Complainant.

Starting at about 1:04:30 p.m., the SO re-holstered his CEW, and placed his right hand on the butt of his firearm, which was still holstered. The Complainant retreated into the residence and closed the door. WO #2 asked if he was getting a “gun or something”.

Starting at about 1:04:44 p.m., the SO walked along the passenger side of the pick-up truck and, from the right rear of the truck, shouted, “Drop that now.” WO #2 moved up to a position of cover behind the passenger side front fender of the pick-up truck.

Starting at about 1:05:00 p.m., the SO was briefly seen walking north alongside the driver’s side of the pick-up truck in the direction of the ramp. The truck blocked a full view of the SO and it was unknown if he had any weapons in his hands. The Complainant was seen just outside the front door of the home, standing on the deck looking south towards the area where the SO’s voice was coming from. The Complainant then doused his head and upper body with lighter fluid. The SO asked, “What is that?” The Complainant’s response was indecipherable.

Starting at about 1:05:30 p.m., WO #2 had his CEW grasped in both hands. His arms were fully extended, and the CEW was pointed at the Complainant. The SO shouted to the Complainant, “Stop, stop.” The Complainant retreated into the home for one second and came back out. A female voice came from within the house, shouting, “Just stop it.”

Starting at about 1:05:45 p.m., the Complainant was at the open door standing on the deck. He shouted at the officers, “Taser me.” He continued to douse himself in lighter fluid. The SO shouted, “Come here. Drop that,” as WO #2 yelled, “Just talk to us, stop.”

Starting at about 1:07:01 p.m., the Complainant was captured engulfed in flames. WO #2 pointed his CEW at the Complainant, who remained at the open front door. The SO could not be seen in the footage as he was positioned behind the black pick-up truck. The Complainant, ablaze, ran down the ramp and, arriving at the bottom, disappeared from camera view. WO #2 took cover, and this blocked the BWC view of the Complainant. WO #2 shouted, “Stop, stop.”

Starting at about 1:07:02 p.m., the SO’s head could be seen behind the black pick-up truck looking at the Complainant. The BWC view was such that the only view of the SO was from his neck up. It could not be determined if he had any weapons in his hands.

Starting at about 1:07:05 p.m., five gunshots were heard, and WO #2 ran down the driveway on the passenger side of the black pick-up truck.

Starting at about 1:07:11 p.m., WO #2 ran towards the SO, who retreated to the road. The SO still had his firearm in both hands, outstretched and pointed at the Complainant, who was lying on his back in the driveway at the rear of the pick-up truck. The Complainant’s head pointed south towards the road and his feet pointed to the rear of the pick-up truck. WO #2 announced, “Shots fired,” and the SO re-holstered his pistol and moved towards the Complainant. The SO kicked away the T-shirt the Complainant had been wearing as it was still on fire. WO #2 removed the Complainant’s shorts and used them to apply pressure to a left shoulder bullet wound that was bleeding. The SO shouted to unknown persons to call an ambulance. Both the SO and WO #2 engaged in resuscitation efforts but the Complainant was not responding.

Starting at about 1:08:22 p.m., the Complainant gasped for air and moaned, after which there was no response from the Complainant.

Starting at about 1:09:25 p.m., WO #2 announced that the Complainant was not breathing and commenced chest compressions. He was assisted by the SO and a community member, who identified himself as a first responder.

Starting at about 1:10:25 p.m., the SO announced that the Complainant was breathing.

Starting at about 1:11:26 p.m., the SO announced that the Complainant had stopped breathing. The SO continued chest compressions.

Starting at about 1:11:40 p.m., WO #2 walked to the west side of the driveway and picked up two large knives, putting them in their police truck.

Starting at about 1:14:27 p.m., paramedics arrived and took over the Complainant’s care.

Starting at about 1:18:05 p.m., the Complainant was removed from the scene by ambulance and taken to the Nursing Station, followed by WO #2 in his pick-up truck cruiser.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the NAPS and OPP between July 25, 2025, and November 17, 2025

• NAPS Incident Reports
• Arrest Warrants for the Complainant.
• List of all civilian witnesses and interviews conducted by OPP
• Video footage from NAPS detachment
• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatched (CAD) Report
• BWC footage – WO #2
• Notes - WO #2, the SO and WO #1
• NAPS policies - Sudden Death Investigations; Arrest/Detention; Intimate Partner Violence; and Prisoner Care and Control

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between July 11, 2025, and November 25, 2025:

• Patient Care Report for the Complainant from the Deer Lake First Nation Nursing Station
• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• Doorbell camera footage
• Report of Postmortem Examination (including Centre of Forensic Sciences Toxicology Report) from the Coroner’s Office

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

At the time of the events in question, the Complainant was with his domestic partner in her residence in Deer Lake First Nation. They were just waking up when there was a knock at the front door.

The knock was the SO. He and his partner, WO #2, had arrived at the residence at about 1:00 p.m. They were there to take the Complainant into custody on the strength of two arrest warrants – one for assault with a weapon and the other for failing to comply with a court order – and for a domestic assault involving his partner. The Complainant’s partner answered the door, spoke to the officers, and returned inside to tell the Complainant that the police were there for him. The Complainant appeared at the door and stepped onto the raised porch on the east side of the house.

The officers advised the Complainant he was under arrest because of the warrants and domestic assault. The SO turned him around and was attempting to handcuff him behind the back when the Complainant re-opened the door and stepped inside, telling the officers he wanted to put his shoes on. The officers let go of his arms, allowed him to return inside, and waited on the front porch. About 20 seconds later, the SO, standing just in front of the open door with a view inside, backed away quickly down a set of stairs that ran east from the porch. WO #2 retreated from the front door down the ramp that ran south off the porch, adjacent the east side of the house, to ground-level, and stood behind the southeast corner of the residence.

The Complainant had taken hold of two knives inside the house, one in each hand, and stepped onto the porch, brandishing them in the direction of both officers. The SO continued to move eastward away from the stairs, beside the front passenger corner of a pick-up truck in the yard on the east side of the house. The officers repeatedly told the Complainant to drop the knives. WO #2 moved to the rear passenger side of the pick-up truck, and asked the Complainant to just talk to them. The officer told the Complainant that they could “deal with this” and that this was not “a big deal”. The Complainant, mostly silent, remained on the porch with the knives. His CEW now pointed at the Complainant, the SO continued to tell the Complainant to drop the knives. The Complainant re-entered the home and closed the door behind him.

About 30 seconds later, the Complainant opened the door and started waving a knife in the air. The SO had moved and was now beside the rear driver side of the pick-up truck, a distance south of the ramp leading to the porch. WO #2 was by the front passenger side of the truck. About 20 seconds passed when the Complainant re-entered the home before exiting quickly. He was now in possession of a container of lighter fluid. A female voice from inside the residence was heard to shout, “Just stop it.” The Complainant appeared to pour some of the fluid onto his shirt. Again, he re-entered and exited the home quickly, still with the lighter fluid in hand. He told the officers to “taser me” and continued to pour fluid on his body. The officers implored him to stop. The Complainant proceeded to enter and exit the home intermittently, each time pouring lighter fluid on his body as he briefly stepped through the open doorway.

On the last of these occasions, the Complainant emerged from the residence and, holding two knives with his shirt engulfed in flames, rushed down the ramp in the direction of the SO. WO #2 yelled at the Complainant to stop and moved around the front of the pick-up truck with his CEW drawn. The SO retreated a distance east of the Complainant as the Complainant advanced in his direction. The Complainant had just cleared the ramp and was at ground-level when the SO fired five shots in quick succession. The time was 1:07 p.m.

The Complainant was felled by the shots. He collapsed onto his back about a metre south of the rear driver corner of the pick-up truck.

The SO radioed that shots had been fired and paramedics were summoned to the scene. The officers performed first-aid on the Complainant, including, with the assistance of a passerby (trained as a first responder), chest compressions. An ambulance arrived and transported the Complainant to the Nursing Station, where he was pronounced deceased.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to gunshot wounds to the torso.

• 34(1)
  • (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.

• Factors

(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:

o (a) the nature of the force or threat;

o (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;

o (c) the person’s role in the incident;

o (d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

o (e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

o (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;

o (f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

o (g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

o (h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

• No defence

(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 by a NAPS officer on July 22, 2025, and shortly after passed away from his wounds. 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 unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted outside the scope of the protection provided by section 34 when he fired his weapon at the Complainant.

I am satisfied that the SO shot the Complainant to protect himself from a reasonably apprehended knife attack. Though the SO did not interview with the SIU, as was his legal right, that conclusion can reasonably be inferred from the circumstances that prevailed at the time. Chief among these was the Complainant advancing on the SO with knives in his possession, weapons capable of inflicting death or grievous bodily harm, to within a few metres of the officer when he started to fire his semi-automatic pistol.

I am also satisfied that the SO’s gunfire constituted reasonable force in self-defence. The SO and WO #2 had attempted over several minutes to persuade the Complainant to disarm himself. Regrettably, the Complainant could not be appeased. The evidence suggests he was determined to avoid going to jail. He also harboured ill will towards the police for the death of a relative in the course of an incident with police, and had apparently talked about provoking a similar confrontation with police by threatening them with a knife. The Complainant seems to have put that plan in action when he advanced quickly down the porch ramp, holding knives with his shirt on fire, in the direction of the SO. He was off the ramp and within striking range of the SO when the officer opened fire. At that moment, the Complainant, who had closed to within a few metres of the SO,[6] represented an imminent and lethal threat, and the officer was entitled to defend himself using the only weapon at his disposal with the stopping power needed in the moment, namely, his firearm. There were opportunities earlier in the engagement between the officers and the Complainant when either the SO or WO #2 might have used their CEWs, but I am unable to fault the officers for choosing instead to continue with their efforts to de-escalate the situation through verbal communication.[7] As for withdrawal or retreat, these were not viable options given the presence of women and children in the house, whose safety would have been on the minds of the officers. Lastly, with due consideration for the highly charged atmosphere that marked the final series of events culminating in the shooting, the delay inherent in reaction times, and the speed with which events unfolded, I am unable to reasonably conclude that any of the SO’s five shots, including two that entered the left back of the Complainant, were fired in the absence of a reasonable apprehension by the officer that his life was on the line. No shots were fired after the Complainant was on the ground and no longer a threat.

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

Date: December 2, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit