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 65-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 11, 2025, at 7:59 p.m., the Chatham-Kent Police Service (CKPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 11, 2025, at 2:11 a.m., a man called CKPS to report an intimate partner violence incident. He had heard a woman [now known to be the Civilian Witness (CW)] screaming in the backyard of an address in Wallaceburg. Police officers attended the address. A male - the Complainant - barricaded himself in the residence. He had knives in his possession. The CKPS Emergency Response Team (ERT) and a canine officer attended. The police officers obtained a Feeney warrant[2] to enter the residence due to the escalating behaviour of the Complainant, who threatened to harm himself. At 3:01 p.m., ERT police officers entered the residence. The Complainant cut his neck with a knife. Three ERT police officers deployed their conducted energy weapons (CEWs) to prevent further injury to the Complainant. The Complainant was initially transported by ambulance to Chatham-Kent Health Alliance – Sydenham Campus (CKHA-SC) but was subsequently transferred to Hotel-Dieu Grace Healthcare in Windsor due to the extent of his injuries. The Complainant sustained an arterial bleed in his neck.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/10/11 at 8:49 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/10/11 at 11:18 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on October 20, 2025.

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on October 20, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

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

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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between October 14 and 16, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a house situated in Wallaceburg.

Physical Evidence

On October 12, 2025, at 12:33 a.m., SIU forensic services were on scene, which had been secured and guarded by CKPS police officers. At the front of the residence was a window that had been smashed out. A ladder leaned up against the wall to the left of the window. There were four CEW deployed cartridges, on the grass, and CEW wire was tangled up in the window blinds, which had been pulled outside.

The doorway to the residence showed signs of being forced with the lockset and door framing damaged.

Inside the residence was a patio door leading to a porch. The patio door glass had been smashed out. The entire area was in disarray, and there was an area of pooled staining suspected to be blood. There was evidence of CEW deployment, which included “Taser 7” deployed cartridges, wire, probes, separators and blast doors. Extended CEW wire that was observed suggested trajectory from a source close to the entrance stairway towards a bedroom door.

There was evidence of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) intervention.

Closer to a dining room table was a kitchen-style knife on the floor with transfer staining, suspected to be blood. The entrance door to a bedroom had been forced and damaged. CEW wire exited this room into the living room area near the staining on the floor. The bedroom window was smashed-out. It was the same window previously described near the ladder outside. CEW wire extended from this window towards the bedroom door, which suggested a trajectory from a source outside the residence, through the smashed-out window.

Several CEW probes were observed embedded into the bed covers, the wall near the doorway, and the damaged door. There were two more kitchen-style knives on the bed.

The bathroom was in disarray and there was evidence of transfer staining suspected to be blood on the window.

SIU forensic services collected evidence at the scene, including seven deployed CEW cartridges, 15 CEW probes, a knife, and blood swabs.

Measurements of the scene were taken to complete a planned drawing, and photography was conducted.

At 5:50 a.m., SIU forensic services arrived at the CKPS Headquarters to examine the CEWs used in the incident. A staff sergeant turned over the following weapons, which were photographed and returned:

• Taser 7, issued to the SO
• Taser 7, issued to WO #1
• Taser 7, issued to WO #3

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – WO #1

On October 11, 2025, at 3:00:16.516 p.m., WO #1 pulled the trigger on Bay 2. Electricity was discharged for 4.774 seconds.

At 3:00:27.841 p.m., the trigger was pulled on Bay 1. Electricity was discharged for 4.747 seconds.

At 3:00:35.854 p.m., the trigger was pulled on Bay 1. Electricity was discharged for 5.014 seconds.

At 3:00:42:840 p.m., the trigger was pulled on Bay 1. Electricity was discharged for 5.941 seconds.

At 3:00:55.460 p.m., the trigger was pulled on Bay 1. Electricity was discharged for 5.063 seconds.

At 3:01:25:701 p.m., the trigger was pulled on Bay 1. Electricity was discharged for 3.610 seconds.

At 3:01:29.763 p.m., the trigger was pulled on Bay 2. Electricity was discharged for 2.973 seconds.

At 3:01:30.874 p.m., the trigger pulled on Bay 2 was rejected due to shut down. The right arc button was depressed. Electricity was discharged for .068 seconds.

CEW Deployment Data - The SO

On October 11, 2025, at 3:00:27.380 p.m., the SO pulled the trigger on Bay 1. Electricity was discharged for 4.959 seconds.

At 3:00:34:205 p.m., the right arc button was depressed. Electricity was discharged for 4.931 seconds.

At 3:00:41.804 p.m., the left arc button was depressed. Electricity was discharged for 4.927 seconds.

At 3:00:48.419 p.m., the left arc button was depressed. Electricity was discharged at for 4.926 seconds.

At 3:00:54.639 p.m., the left arc button was depressed. Electricity was discharged for 4.926 seconds.

At 3:01:04.833 p.m., the trigger was pulled on Bay 2. Electricity was discharged for 4.947 seconds.

CEW Deployment Data - WO #3

On October 11, 2025, at 3:00:49.583 p.m., the trigger was pulled on Bay 1. Electricity was discharged for 5.094 seconds.

At 3:00:52.443 p.m., the right arc button was depressed and there was an audible shutdown warning.

At 3:01:02.349 p.m., the trigger was pulled on Bay 2. Electricity was discharged for 4.953 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - Officer #1

On October 11, 2025, at 2:22 a.m., two CKPS uniformed police - Officer #1 and Officer #2 - stood on the front lawn outside a residence in Wallaceburg. They spoke to a man - the Complainant - through an open, lower window. The Complainant slurred his words and was unintelligible. Officer #1 asked to speak to the CW. The Complainant directed Officer #1 to another window and stated that the CW was fine. Officer #1 located the CW at the east side of the residence. She was crying and slurring her words. She indicated that the Complainant had hurt her.

At 2:26 a.m., Officer #1 had a brief conversation with the Complainant, in which he claimed to be fine. He said that now that the CW had left, she was not welcome to return.

At 2:28 a.m., Officer #1 spoke to the CW. She explained that the Complainant had recently used drugs and assaulted her in the back yard. Officer #1 called for an ambulance for the CW.

At 2:31 a.m., Officer #1 obtained a video statement from the CW. The CW described the weapons in the residence, which included a crossbow and several knives.

At 2:42 a.m., Officer #1 and Officer #2 approached the residence and advised the Complainant that he was going to be arrested for uttering threats, forcible confinement and assault with a weapon.

At 2:51 a.m., Officer #2 tried to engage with the Complainant and said, “Put down the knife.” The police officers exited the residence.

At 2:58 a.m., the Complainant spoke with the police officers out the front bedroom window. His voice was slurred. He said, “Get off my fucking property.”

At 3:01 a.m., the Complainant yelled out the front bedroom window, “I am going to kill myself,” and he shut the window.

Drone Video Footage

The video started at 2:58 p.m., October 11, 2025, and captured two extension ladders on either side of a side window. An ERT police officer - WO #1 - climbed the ladder on the east side of the window, and another ERT police officer - Officer #3 - climbed the right ladder. WO #1 carried a tool, which he used to break the window glass. Officer #3 carried an Anti-riot Weapon ENfield. An ERT police officer - WO #2 - stood at the bottom and steadied the ladder WO #1 was on.

At 32 seconds into the video, WO #1 started to break the window glass.

At one minute into the video, WO #1 drew his CEW and deployed it several times.

At 2:10 minutes into the video, WO #1 reloaded cartridges in his CEW.

At 2:22 minutes into the video, a light was seen from a CEW deployment.

At 2:50 minutes into the video, WO #1 ejected a cartridge and spoke on the radio.

At 3:07 minutes into the video, WO #1 holstered his CEW.

At 4:48 minutes into the video, both officers descended their ladders.

Communications Recordings & Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Reports

On October 11, 2025, at 2:10 a.m., CKPS received a 911 call from a man. He reported a woman screaming from a residence in Wallaceburg.

At 2:12 a.m., the CKPS dispatched a “priority one” call, regarding a woman screaming at a residence. The address was provided.

At 2:15 a.m., Officer #2 arrived. All was said to be quiet.

At 2:41 a.m., Officer #1 asked to have EMS attend at a nearby intersection to check on a woman who had been choked.

At 2:50 a.m., Officer #2 advised that the Complainant had barricaded himself upstairs. The Complainant had a knife and a crossbow. Officer #1 broadcast that there were grounds for the arrest of the Complainant on charges of assault causing bodily harm, pointing a firearm, uttering threats, forcible confinement, and multiple counts of assault.

From 3:00 a.m. to 4:26 a.m., WO #5 indicated he would assume command. ERT members were en route and the SMEAC [Situation, Mission, Execution, Administration, Command plan] had been sent out to all units.

At 4:41 a.m., WO #2 advised that containment had been set up. WO #1, the ERT team leader, was on scene and took control.

At 5:02 a.m., WO #4 assumed control of the operation as the Critical Incident Command.

At 5:34 a.m., WO #4 advised WO #1 that he had reviewed and approved the mission plans.

At 7:26 a.m., a police drone was in the air.

At 7:29 a.m., the Complainant’s crossbow was found in the back yard.

From 8:00 a.m. to 11:58 a.m., WO #1 reported negotiations were ongoing.

At 11:31 a.m., Officer #4 reported that the Complainant had a knife. WO #4 and WO #1 were advised that a Feeney warrant had been approved.

From 12:03 p.m. to 2:04 p.m., the Complainant continued talking but could not be understood.

At 2:13 p.m., WO #1 reported the Complainant was still speaking to the negotiator. He did not want to come out, and he said that he had a knife to his throat. It was believed he was leaning against a door with his back to prevent entry.

At 3:00 p.m., a breach was conducted and EMS approached.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from CKPS between October 12, 2025, and October 30, 2025:

• BWC footage - Officer #1
• Police communications recordings
• Drone footage
• Transportation video - the CW
• Assigned Officer List and Roles
• CAD Reports
• CKPS Civilian Witness Statements - Witness #1, Witness #2 and Witness #3
• Civilian statement – the CW
• CKPS policies - Emotionally Disturbed Persons; Use of Force; Armed and Barricaded Persons; Arrest
• General Occurrence Report
• Supplementary Reports
• History of Contacts - the Complainant
• Notes – WO #1, WO #3, the SO, WO #4, WO #5 and WO #2
• Pending Charge Report - the Complainant
• Criminal Record – the Complainant
• Incident Synopsis
• CEW deployment data

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between October 30, 2025, and November 18, 2025:

• Ambulance Call Report from Medavie EMS

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other witnesses, police and non-police, 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.

In the early morning of October 11, 2025, CKPS officers were dispatched to a house in Wallaceburg. A man had contacted police to report a female screaming in the backyard of a residence in what appeared an incident of domestic abuse. Officer #1 and Officer #2 arrived on scene at about 2:20 a.m. They located the Complainant at one of the windows and attempted to speak to him from outside. Asked where the CW was, the Complainant said she was fine. Shortly after, the officers encountered the CW by the east side of the house. She reported that the Complainant had a crossbow and knives. He had assaulted and confined her at the address. Officer #1 and Officer #2 approached the residence and advised the Complainant that he would be arrested on a series of charges. The Complainant yelled out a window that he was going to kill himself. The time was about 3:00 a.m.

Under the command of WO #4, additional police personnel began to deploy to the scene, including the SO and other members of the CKPS ERT. ERT officers set up containment around the home and attempted to reach the Complainant. The Complainant was mostly non-responsive. At about 11:20 a.m., the Complainant appeared at a front window. He had a knife held to his neck. A Feeney warrant was obtained in the event that a forced entry into the home became necessary. With negotiations at a standstill and increasing concern that the Complainant was about to harm himself, the decision was made to forcibly enter the home.

At about 1:45 p.m., a team of ERT officers, including the SO, broke through a door of the residence and made entry. They checked the house for other persons and then took up a position outside the door to the bedroom in which the Complainant had barricaded himself. Through the bedroom door, the SO attempted to have the Complainant peacefully surrender to no avail. At about 2:00 p.m., the Complainant explained that he was up against the bedroom door with a knife to his neck in such a fashion that any effort to push open the door would result in his neck being punctured. He said he wanted to die.

At about 3:00 p.m., the police decided to force entry into the bedroom from two points, first, via the bedroom window from the outside and then, through the bedroom door. WO #1, with a CEW at the ready, climbed a ladder up to the main floor bedroom window and broke the glass. On seeing the Complainant seated with his back against the bedroom door, the knife held to his neck, the officer immediately discharged his CEW. He did so multiple times as the Complainant appeared to push the tip of the knife further into his neck. Shortly after, the team of officers outside the bedroom broke open the door. Among them, the SO and WO #3 did the same with their CEWs. The officers quickly overwhelmed the Complainant, pried the knife from his possession, and handcuffed him behind the back.

Paramedics transported the Complainant from the scene to hospital. He had suffered an arterial bleed. The life-threatening injury was successfully treated.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant suffered a serious self-inflicted injury in the course of his arrest by CKPS officers on October 11, 2025. 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 arrest and injury.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the officers who participated in the police operation at the residence, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injury. In my view, there was not.

The officers who responded to the residence and took part in operations culminating in the Complainant’s arrest were engaged at all times in the discharge of their lawful duties. With information at their disposal that the Complainant had forcibly confined and assaulted the CW, the officers were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody for those crimes.

In the discharge of their duty, I am satisfied that the officers, including the SO, comported themselves with due care and attention for the Complainant’s wellbeing and public safety. Under the command of WO #4, the police made reasonable efforts to resolve the situation peacefully through negotiations led by the SO. Nearby residents were directed to shelter in place, paramedics were staged in the vicinity, and additional police resources, such as a drone, were deployed at the scene. After negotiations had been given a fair opportunity to work – upwards of ten hours – and with statements coming from the Complainant suggesting the standoff would only end with his death, WO #4 fairly concluded that a more proactive posture was in order. The forced entry that ensued into the Complainant’s bedroom might have been the catalyst for his stabbing himself in the neck. On the other hand, the use of the CEWs and the officers’ surge into the bedroom did prevent the Complainant inflicting fatal injury and may have saved his life.

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

Date: January 29, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit