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 discharge of a firearm by the police at a 79-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 26, 2025, at 10:51 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 26, 2025, at 9:12 p.m., TPS received a call regarding a male, the Complainant, upset with his noisy neighbour. The neighbour was a student at Toronto Metropolitan University. The Complainant had a knife and began threatening suicide. The police attended his apartment and spoke to him for several minutes. At 9:20 p.m., a conducted energy weapon (CEW) was deployed but it was ineffective. Four rounds from a less-lethal firearm were then deployed, after which the Complainant was apprehended under the Mental Health Act (MHA) and transported to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/08/26 at 11:10 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/08/27 at 12:56 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on August 27, 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

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between September 8 and 10, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the kitchen area of an apartment in the area of Yonge Street and Gerrard Street.

Physical Evidence

On August 27, 2025, at 1:35 a.m., a SIU forensic investigator arrived at an apartment building in the area of Yonge Street and Gerrard Street, Toronto. In the hallway outside the Complainant’s apartment, the SIU identified CEW wire, a CEW probe, a discharged CEW cartridge and one unfired CEW cartridge.

Inside the apartment, the SIU recovered four spent less-lethal cartridge cases and four less-lethal projectiles. On the floor at the east end of the kitchen was a green less-lethal projectile and two spent less-lethal cartridge cases. Further examination revealed two more spent less-lethal cartridge cases underneath a microwave stand. On the north side of the kitchen island at the junction of the tile and parquet floor of the living room were three additional less-lethal projectiles. On the floor in front of the bedroom, a large red handled kitchen knife was located. It had an overall length of 33 centimetres and a blade length of 19 centimetres.

Less lethal projectiles

Knife recovered at scene

The SIU forensic investigator subsequently attended TPS 52 Division and examined the less-lethal shotgun reportedly deployed during the incident. The weapon had an orange stock and slide. The chamber and magazine were empty. There was an ammunition holder on the outside of the stock that held six live projectile rounds.

Less-lethal Shotgun

Forensic Evidence

TPS CEW Deployment Data – WO #1

On August 26, 2025, at 8:19:23 p.m., the trigger of the CEW was pulled, and electricity was discharged for 4.932 seconds.[2]

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Communications Recordings

On August 26, 2025, at 9:12 p.m., the TPS received a telephone call from the Complainant, who advised a student vomited a week earlier in his apartment and the Complainant could not stand the smell anymore. He wanted to stab the student.

WO #5 and WO #4 were dispatched to an apartment in the area of Yonge Street and Gerrard Street. The Complainant advised the call-taker he was going to grab a knife.

At 9:13 p.m., the dispatcher reported over the police radio that the Complainant was going to place the knife to his wrist. He refused to drop the knife.

At 9:15 p.m., WO #5 and WO #4 reported they were on scene. The dispatcher reported the Complainant kept repeating he was tired, and he wanted police officers to smell the vomit.

At 9:18 p.m., the dispatcher reported the Complainant was tapping the knife against a table or counter.

At 9:19 p.m., the call between the Complainant and the TPS call-taker was disconnected. Police on scene reported to the dispatcher, “He’s got the knife in his hand.” The officers on scene then reported, “Taser deployed.”

At 9:20 p.m., officers on scene reported the knife was secured.

At 9:21 p.m., police on scene reported there might be carbon monoxide fumes in the apartment.

At 9:23 p.m., police informed the dispatcher that all TPS officers and the Complainant were out of the apartment.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO

On August 26, 2025, starting at about 9:18 p.m., the SO was captured standing behind WO #3 as WO #3 knocked on the door of the Complainant’s apartment. The apartment door was opened, and police yelled, “Drop the knife, drop the knife!” WO #3 pushed the door open, and the Complainant retreated into the apartment. The SO called out, “He’s on the right side in the kitchen.” The SO entered the apartment with his less-lethal shotgun pointed at the Complainant, who stood at the end of a long waist-high kitchen counter separating the kitchen and living area. The SO stood at the opposite end of the counter, at the entrance into the kitchen. The Complainant stated, “I don’t care,” and faced the SO. The SO yelled, “Drop the knife.” The Complainant held a large kitchen knife in his right hand at chest level. The Complainant stated, “I honestly will do it, I honestly will do it.” WO #1 then deployed his CEW, and the sound of the CEW discharging could be heard. The Complainant briefly shrugged but remained standing, holding the knife in his right hand pointed towards the ceiling. Within moments, the SO fired his less-lethal shotgun four times. The Complainant went down onto one knee, with his back to the SO. WO #2 yelled, “Hands on, go!” The SO approached the Complainant from behind and grabbed his right hand, which was holding the knife. At 9:19 p.m., the footage stopped.

Starting at about 9:20 p.m., the BWC recording resumed and WO #1 and the SO held the Complainant’s right hand and right forearm. The Complainant’s left hand was handcuffed. The Complainant was turned onto his stomach to lie on the kitchen floor and his right hand was handcuffed. A police officer had their knee on the Complainant’s left shoulder. An alarm had gone off.

Starting at about 9:21 p.m., the Complainant was moved from the kitchen to the living area. The large kitchen knife that had been held by the Complainant was kicked across the floor towards a bedroom entrance and the Complainant was dragged from the apartment into the corridor.

Starting at about 9:23 p.m., the Complainant stated he needed an ambulance. WO #5 told him the ambulance was en route.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between August 26, 2025, and September 9, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• General Occurrence Report
• BWC footage
• List of involved officers
• Notes - WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #5 and WO #4
• TPS policies – Arrest; Use of Force
• CEW deployment data - WO #1’s CEW

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from SMH on September 2, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police eyewitnesses, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of August 26, 2025, TPS officers were dispatched to an apartment in the area of Yonge Street and Gerrard Street. The Complainant had called police to complain about international students residing with him. He reported he was in possession of a knife and said that he wanted to stab one of the students.

Several police officers, including the SO, arrived at the apartment and knocked on the door. The Complainant answered holding a knife to his neck. Officers yelled at the Complainant to drop the knife and followed him as he retreated into the apartment. The Complainant took up a position at the end of a kitchen island, still holding the knife. From the other end of the island, officers continued to direct him to drop the knife. The Complainant refused and threatened to harm himself. Armed with a CEW, one of the officers – WO #1 – fired his weapon with no effect on the Complainant. He remained standing with the knife in hand. Moments later, the SO, holding a less-lethal shotgun, fired his weapon four times at the Complainant. The Complainant dropped to a knee and officers moved in to engage him physically. The knife was pried out of his right hand and he was handcuffed.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and treated for lacerations and a puncture wound. He was also subjected to psychiatric examination.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code - Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

Section 88, Criminal Code - Possession of Weapon for Dangerous Purpose

88 (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

On August 26, 2025, the TPS notified the SIU that one of their officers had discharged a less-lethal shotgun at a male – the Complainant – earlier that day. The SIU 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.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.

With cause to be concerned that the Complainant had designs on doing harm to himself and another resident of the apartment with a knife, the SO and his fellow officers had lawful grounds to enter the apartment and take him into custody for being in possession of a dangerous weapon contrary to section 88(1) of the Criminal Code.

I am also satisfied that the force used against the Complainant in aid of his arrest was lawful. The officers only resorted to their weapons after repeated requests that the Complainant disarm failed. The use of less-lethal weapons made sense in the circumstances. A hands-on engagement was risky given the knife in the Complainant’s possession, clearly capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm or death. If the weapons worked as intended, the Complainant would be temporarily neutralized without the infliction of serious injury, opening a window of opportunity within which the officers could approach and safely take him into custody. While the CEW discharge did not have that effect, the less-lethal shotgun essentially did just that. On this record, the weapon’s use by the SO was commensurate with the exigencies of the situation.

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

Date: December 24, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit