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 injuries of a 34-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 5, 2025, at 2:31 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 2, 2025, at 9:50 p.m., the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) received a call from Civilian Witness (CW) #1, reporting that he had sold a rifle to the Complainant at 4:30 p.m. and forgot to ask for his Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL). He had phoned the Complainant, who advised that he did not have one and that he was going to start shooting people and committing a genocide. GSPS put out a bulletin on the male and the OPP became involved. The OPP Tactical Response Unit (TRU) began to track the Complainant’s cellphone. On October 5, 2025, the Complainant was spotted on the side of Highway 11, Latchford. When officers approached him, he disappeared into the bush. An OPP Police Service Dog (PSD) was deployed. The dog was shot by the Complainant. The Complainant fled towards Highway 11 and emerged from the bush firing on OPP officers. OPP TRU members returned fire. The Complainant was hit numerous times. He was flown to Sudbury for surgery.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/10/05 at 2:57 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/10/05 at 10:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on October 14, 2025, and November 3, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between October 6, 2025, and October 16, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject officials were interviewed between October 17, 2025, and October 30, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #7 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #8 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #9 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #10 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #11 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #12 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #13 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #14 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between October 16, 2025, and October 30, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the bush and woodlands in and around the intersection of Highway 11 and Roosevelt Road, Latchford.

Highway 11 aligned in a general north/south direction and Roosevelt Road aligned in a general east/west direction. The surrounding area was rural, boggy and thick bushland. An armoured recovery vehicle (ARV) was located at the scene.

SIU forensic services attended the scene, took photographs and completed a scene diagram.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

OPP forensic services advised SIU they had secured some of the exhibits and taken photographs prior to SIU arrival due to inclement weather and the risk of lost evidence.

SIU forensic services examined the scene and collected seven 223 cartridge cases from the west side of the highway and six 223 cartridge cases from the rear compartment of the ARV.

The ARV was taken to an examination facility and examined by SIU forensic services on October 6, 2025. Five 223 cartridge cases and one 9mm cartridge case were located behind seats. These cases appeared aged, dusted and rusty. They were not suspected of being involved in the incident under investigation.

Three rifles believed to have been used by the Complainant were located in the bushland near to where the Complainant was arrested. A revolver was reportedly located in the Complainant’s pants pocket.

The following are images of the recovered firearms.

Forensic Evidence

SO #1’s C8 rifle and spare magazines were examined. His used magazine contained 22 rounds, suggesting six rounds had been fired. His three spare magazines were each loaded with 28 rounds.

SO #2’s C8 rifle and spare magazines were examined. His used magazine contained 19 rounds, suggesting nine rounds had been fired. His two spare magazines were each loaded with 28 rounds.

A total of fifteen rounds were believed to have been fired from both C8 rifles. Thirteen 223 cartridge cases were located during the scene examination, leaving a deficit of two cartridge cases.

A further six ammunition cases were located during a vehicle examination conducted the following day. These ammunition cases are not believed to be associated with the incident under investigation. The ARV vehicle was known to be used during officer training, and the ammunition cases appeared to be aged, rusted and dusty.

Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) Submissions

A CFS forensic scientist provided a Preliminary Firearms Notification Letter regarding his examinations.

SO #1’s rifle matched two cartridge cases located on the west side of the highway and SO #2’s rifle matched six cartridge cases located in the rear of the ARV. The remainder of the cartridge cases examined were inconclusive.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

GSPS Communications Recordings

On October 2, 2025, at 8:54 p.m., CW #1 called GSPS and reported he had sold a semi-automatic rifle and 180 rounds of ammunition to the Complainant. Proof of the Complainant’s PAL was requested, and he responded with comments that prompted CW #1 to contact police.

OPP Communications Recordings

OPP communications commenced at 3:30 p.m., October 3, 2025. OPP communications coordinated with OnStar to track a pick-up truck, receiving intermittent GPS updates indicating the vehicle was moving and later stationary near Highway 11. OPP crews attended and set up a containment site at Roosevelt Road and Highway 11. The Complainant’s vehicle was sighted approaching the containment and then reversing away. Authorization was provided to OnStar to initiate a gradual slowdown of his vehicle.

An OPP helicopter crew reported seeing the Complainant’s vehicle and him armed with multiple firearms. They reported the Complainant had left the vehicle on foot and entered the surrounding bush.

The remainder of the communications recordings concerned the tracking and search operations conducted on October 4 and 5, 2025.

OPP Helicopter and Drone Footage

The OPP helicopter video recording captured the crew assisting in the search for the Complainant. The helicopter was required to refuel at the time of the shooting and did not capture the firearm exchange.

At 0039 seconds into one of the drone video recordings, the Complainant was captured discharging two rounds from a weapon from behind a tree. The image below is a screen shot of the relevant drone footage.

Although difficult to see, the blue arrow indicates the muzzle flash from the Complainant’s firearm.

Almost straight away, the Complainant fell over to the ground. He got up and walked towards the highway holding an arm in the air. He fell over again and laid in the tall grass. A PSD charged at the Complainant and grabbed his arm while on the ground. TRU officers moved in and took him into custody.

OPP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - Officer #1, Officer #2 and Officer #3

On October 5, 2025, officers were positioned on Highway 11. At 1:57 p.m., loud gunfire was heard - two gunshots first, quickly followed by numerous gunshots in rapid succession. Officers were heard shouting verbal commands towards the Complainant to put his hands in the air.

At 2:00 p.m., a PSD (PSD #2) was released and engaged the Complainant. The Complainant had visible injuries and blood on his right arm. PSD #2 bit around the Complainant’s right upper arm area until he was released by WO #8.

Officer #1 commenced first-aid. Officers reported that the Complainant had a firearm in his right pocket.

At 2:09 p.m., the Complainant was assisted onto a stretcher.

OPP In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

On October 5, 2025, at 1:56:47 p.m., an OPP ARV was positioned on Highway 11, north of Roosevelt Road. An additional ARV was positioned to the north. Officers positioned themselves on the roadway, aiming their rifles towards the bush. The ARV crossed to the east side of the road. The Complainant was in the long grass and raised his left arm. He lifted himself to a kneeling position and appeared to be in medical distress.

OPP Forensic Officer Photographs

Due to inclement weather and the time of arrival of SIU, OPP forensic services were asked to preserve evidence and photograph the scene to prevent loss of evidence. These photographs were reviewed and contained images of SO #1 and SO #2 with their full use of force options, their C8 rifles and magazines, shell cases located in the rear of the ARV and the injury to PSD #1.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP and GSPS between October 8, 2025, and December 1, 2025:

• GSPS and OPP communications recordings
• GSPS and OPP Computer-aided Dispatch Reports
• GSPS and OPP Occurrence Reports
• BWC footage – Officer #1, Officer #2 and Officer #3
• OPP drone footage
• OPP ICC footage
• Notes - WO #1, WO #5, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #6, WO #7, WO #8, WO #9, WO #10, WO #11, WO #12, WO #13, and WO #14
• OPP photographs

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

Between October 6, 2025, and November 26, 2025, the SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources:

• Cellphone text messages from CW #1

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, both subject officials and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

On October 3, 2025, the OPP were called by the GSPS to assist in a manhunt for the Complainant. The evening before, CW #1 had contacted police to report concerns about the Complainant. CW #1 had sold the Complainant rifles and ammunition in Sudbury on October 2, 2025. When he subsequently called the Complainant to confirm that he had a firearms Possession and Acquisition Licence, the Complainant refused to produce the authorization and instead commented that he was a perpetrator of genocide and a threat to civilization.

With the assistance of geocoordinate data from the Complainant’s cellphone and pick-up truck, police ascertained that he was located in the area of Highway 11 and Roosevelt Road, Latchford. Police personnel made their way to the area and set up a checkpoint. OPP TRU teams arrived on scene and eventually staffed the checkpoint. At about 4:15 p.m., October 3, 2025, the Complainant’s pick-up truck approached the checkpoint before reversing course and disappearing around a bend on Highway 11. An OPP helicopter crew observed the pick-up truck stop and the Complainant exit the vehicle. The Complainant accessed a number of firearms from the back of his truck and entered the bush. The crew relayed this information to OPP officers on the ground.

OPP TRU officers conducted search operations in the bush for the Complainant. The Complainant, a former member of the Canadian military, used camouflage to elude detection.

In the morning of October 5, 2025, OPP TRU officers targeted a bushfire in the area of Straight Lake, believing the Complainant had set the fire. A police dog handler and his dog – PSD #1 – assisted in the search. The Complainant came across PSD #1 when off leash and fired at the dog multiple times. PSD #1 suffered a gunshot wound to an ear. TRU officers observed the Complainant near railway tracks heading towards Highway 11. A number of them entered an ARV and repositioned the vehicle a distance north of Roosevelt Road on Highway 11. Loudhailers were used to direct the Complainant to come out with his hands empty.

At about this time, TRU officers, WO #13 and WO #7, were on foot running north from Roosevelt Road on the west shoulder of Highway 11, attempting to make their way to the ARV. The Complainant, from a position in the bush about 25 metres east of the ARV, fired two shots from a rifle in the direction of the officers. SO #1, in the ARV at the time, exited the vehicle and returned fire at the Complainant. SO #2, also in the ARV, did the same through a gun port from the interior of the vehicle.

The Complainant suffered gunshot wounds to the right arm. His brachial artery was seriously damaged and his right distal radius, humerus and elbow bones fractured. He was arrested, taken to hospital and held there under the authority of the Mental Health Act for paranoid psychosis.

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 suffered gunshots in the course of his arrest by OPP officers on October 5, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s arrest and injuries.

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.

SO #1 and SO #2 were engaged in the execution of their lawful duties through the series of events that culminated in the exchange of gunfire. The police operation that unfolded around the area of Highway 11 and Roosevelt Road was both lawful and reasonable. The Complainant was unlawfully in possession of multiple firearms with which he intended to do harm. His arrest was a matter of pressing public interest. The OPP deployed significant resources to the area, including two TRU teams, a helicopter, canine units, a drone and ARVs. Throughout their search efforts, officers attempted to communicate with the Complainant with loudspeakers to de-escalate the situation.

In their interviews with the SIU, SO #1 and SO #2 were clear that they fired their C8 rifles to protect WO #13 and WO #7 from what they perceived was a lethal threat at the hands of the Complainant.[3] The officers’ apprehensions were well-founded. The Complainant had fired twice in the direction of WO #13 and WO #7 before SO #1 and SO #2 returned fire.

It is also apparent that the force used by SO #1 and SO #2 constituted justifiable force. The Complainant was firing in the direction of WO #13 and WO #7, whose lives were in peril as a result. His immediate incapacitation was necessary to protect the lives of those two officers. Nothing short of the stopping power of a firearm would suffice in the circumstances to deal with the threat. Indeed, whether the Complainant’s wounds are attributable to one or both subject officials, their gunfire effectively put an end to the danger he represented. On this record, I am satisfied that the subject officials, each acting independently at the same time, comported themselves reasonably when they chose to meet a lethal threat with a resort to lethal force of their own.

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

Date: January 28, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit