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 an unidentified male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 30, 2025, at 12:07 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 29, 2025, at approximately 9:00 p.m., Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers were conducting surveillance on a vehicle (Rolls Royce Cullinan) in a parking garage located in the area of Tomken Road and Dundas Street East, Mississauga. The vehicle was of interest in relation to a carjacking that occurred the day before. The officers observed two men approaching the Rolls Royce and a takedown of one of the two men was conducted. Civilian Witness (CW) #1 was arrested without incident while the second man drove off in another vehicle. That man was involved in an interaction with a TPS officer, resulting in the officer discharging a C8 rifle. Due to the presence of a blood trail at the scene, it was believed the man had been struck. The man remained at large at the time of intake and no injury had been confirmed.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/10/30 at 12:30 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/10/30 at 1:20 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

Unidentified male

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between October 30, 2025, and November 5, 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 October 31, 2025, and November 6, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the second level of a parking garage that serviced a residential complex in the area of Tomken Road and Dundas Street East, Mississauga.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On October 30, 2025, SIU forensic services arrived at a parking garage in the area of Tomken Road and Dundas Street East at 2:30 a.m. The scene was protected by PRP officers. At the parking garage, there was a ramp leading to the second parking level. There were numerous unmarked TPS surveillance vehicles on the second level, as well as a BMW X4 and a Rolls Royce vehicle.

The BMW X4 had a licence plate, which appeared to be fake. Numerous TPS vehicles surrounded it. The rear passenger side window had been shattered and a large hole was evident in the middle of that window. Broken glass was located on the ground below the window. The front passenger side window was also shattered but still intact, and a single entry hole was noted at the rear of the window near the ‘B’ pillar. An entry hole was also located high on the rear passenger quarter panel. Three impacts were noted on the interior of the front driver side windshield. Two were low, just above the dash near the ‘A’ pillar, and the other was noted to be on the driver side of the rearview mirror. A cut was seen on the driver side of the dashboard, with a small piece of copper jacket stuck in the dashboard. An impact was also noted on the left side of the instrument cluster. The driver’s side window showed evidence of several small irregular shaped impacts. The front passenger side bumper was scratched and scraped.

A TPS unmarked vehicle, operated by the SO, was backed into a spot in the southeast corner of the garage. Several spent .223 cartridges were located around the vehicle. One was located under the front passenger corner. The second was in front of the driver side bumper. Two more were located at the base of the pillar just to the south of the vehicle. The fifth was located approximately 1.5 metres south of the driver’s door. The vehicle was photographed, and the front passenger door was opened. On the floor of the vehicle was a C8 rifle, which was taken for examination.

Examination of the scene revealed a red substance, consistent with blood staining, on both the front driver’s seat and the passenger seat of the BMW X4. A trail of the red staining began outside the BMW X4 at its rear and continued south between several vehicles down to the southeast parking garage exit. Blood was noted on several parking pillars, on vehicles and on the south wall just west of the pedestrian door. The trail continued through the door down a set of stairs to the outside. The trail continued down the outside stairs in the southeast corner of the building, and along the south side of the building westward towards Tomken Road.

Arrangements were made with members of the TPS to have the BMW taken to the TPS Forensic Identification Services (FIS) secure storage for further examination.

On November 3, 2025, SIU forensic services attended the TPS FIS headquarters where the BMW X4 had been towed for secure storage. The vehicle appeared to be in generally good condition, with minor scratching observed on the front passenger side bumper below the grille, consistent with an impact.

There were five gunshots fired into the BMW, and the trajectories of some of those gunshots were mapped by SIU forensic services in the following 3D trajectory drawing.

Trajectory rods could not be placed in the rear glass window, which was blown out (see below), as there was no support for the rods.

The SO’s C8 rifle was collected by SIU forensic services.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Communications Recordings

TPS advised there were no communications recordings as the involved officers were on a tactical channel, which was not recorded.

Video Footage – Parking Garage

On October 29, 2025, at 8:50 p.m., a BMW X4 was captured entering the parking garage with the driver using a key to gain entry. Due to the window tinting on the BMW, the number of occupants could not be seen. The BMW X4 was followed by an unmarked TPS vehicle [operated by WO #5]. Both vehicles proceeded to the second parking level, and the BMW X4 passed a parked Rolls Royce and went out of camera view. A silver Ford F150 [driven by CW #2] followed both vehicles.

At 8:51 p.m., an individual dressed in a black hoodie, black pants and a black mask, wearing blue surgical gloves [now known to be CW #1], approached the driver side of the Rolls Royce and entered the vehicle. An unmarked TPS vehicle [operated by WO #4] stopped nose-to-nose with the Rolls Royce. WO #4 exited his vehicle with his firearm pointed at CW #1, who exited the Rolls Royce. WO #5 parked directly behind WO #4. The front end of the BMW X4 appeared at the passenger side of the vehicle operated by WO #4 and abruptly reversed out of view. WO #5 approached on foot along the driver side of the WO #4’s vehicle while WO #4 took CW #1 into custody across the hood of the Rolls Royce. About 15 seconds after the front end of the BMW was seen to reverse, WO #5 flinched suddenly and ducked low behind the vehicle operated by WO #4. WO #4 hunched down and pulled CW #1 towards a stone wall and pillar, then moved out of view. WO #5 stood upright and walked to his vehicle, while WO #4 maintained custody of CW #1.

At 8:52 p.m., the southeast door of the parking garage burst open. A man stumbled through the door onto the landing outside with a panicked look on his face. He wore a dark grey hoodie and grey track pants. His right hand appeared to have blood on it and left a stain on the wooden railing and wall where his hand contacted those surfaces. He fled quickly down the steps towards the street and ran out of view.

None of the video footage captured the interaction between the unknown male and the SO.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

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

• Notes - WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #5

• General Occurrence Report
• Video footage - Parking Garage in area of Tomken Road and Dundas Street East
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• TPS policies – Surveillance; Service Firearms; C8 Rifles

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 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of October 29, 2025, members of the TPS Mobile Support Services were conducting surveillance in and around a multi-level indoor parking garage that serviced a residential complex in the area of Tomken Road and Dundas Street East, Mississauga. The TPS had tracked a stolen Rolls Royce to the second level of the garage. The owner of the vehicle had been shot and the vehicle carjacked the day before at a Petro Canada gas station on Queens Plate Drive in Toronto. The SO was inside an unmarked police vehicle parked at the southeast corner of the garage’s second level.

Shortly before 9:00 p.m., a BMW SUV approaching the parking garage caught the attention of the surveillance officers. It was followed into the garage by an unmarked police vehicle and eventually came to a stop by the Rolls Royce. The front seat passenger, CW #1, exited the BMW, approached the driver’s door of the Rolls Royce and entered the vehicle. He was wearing a mask and blue gloves. The team called for a takedown and police vehicles moved in to block the Rolls Royce before it could move. CW #1 exited the vehicle and was taken into custody without incident.

On seeing what was happening, the male driver of the BMW accelerated in reverse southwards down the east aisle of the lot towards the southeast corner, after which he travelled forward seeking an escape route to the garage’s exit ramp. The SO had exited his vehicle around this time armed with a C8 rifle. The officer fired his C8 rifle five times at the BMW, causing at least one gunshot wound to the driver’s right hand. Finding his egress out of the parking garage blocked by a surveillance team member’s car, the driver exited the BMW and ran towards an exit on the southeast corner, making his way down a stairwell to ground level and avoiding apprehension. He remains at large and his identity unknown to this date.

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.

On October 30, 2025, the PRP notified the SIU of a shooting incident the day before involving a TPS officer. The SO had reportedly discharged a firearm in the course of a police operation involving a stolen vehicle. The SIU initiated an investigation and named 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.

I am satisfied that the SO and his colleagues were engaged in the lawful exercise of their duties through the series of events culminating in gunfire. There was a pressing public interest in apprehending the persons responsible for stealing the Rolls Royce in light of the violence used by the carjackers. Whether the BMW driver or his passenger, CW #1, were responsible for the carjacking, their conduct on the day in question – driving up to the Rolls Royce and CW #1 entering the vehicle – rendered them subject to detention.

The evidence indicates that the SO fired five rounds, striking the BMW multiple times. A trajectory analysis further indicates that some, if not all, of the shots were fired from the rear passenger side of the BMW. In utterances to fellow officers after the shooting, the SO indicated that he believed he had to fire to protect himself from being struck by the BMW. Those statements must be accorded some weight, particularly as the witness and forensic evidence is consistent with the BMW reversing in the SO’s direction in and around the time of the gunfire. However, there are important aspects of the story that remain unanswered. How close to the BMW was the SO when he fired? How fast was the BMW travelling? Where was the SO positioned through the gunfire? Were positions of withdrawal or retreat available as options to the officer before he resorted to gunfire? The witness officers interviewed by the SIU did not observe the shooting and were unable to shed light on these questions. The same was true of CW #1. And, of course, the investigation did not have the benefit of a statement from the male driver. On this record, with evidence to suggest the SO fired his weapon in self-defence, and nothing in the evidence (or the lack of evidence) to believe that the SO’s acted outside the scope of the protection of section 34, there is an insufficient evidentiary foundation to warrant moving forward with criminal charges.

In arriving at this conclusion, it is important to note that the presumption of innocence – the principle at the heart of our criminal justice system – operates at all levels of the system, not just at trial. At the investigation stage of the process, the principle means that the state has the burden of producing positive evidence giving rising to a reasonable belief that an offence has been committed. Thus, where the question is whether a section 34 defence is available, there must be evidence that reasonably negates its operation in the circumstances of a case to warrant charges. There was no such evidence in this case.

I note what appears to have been a non-notification of the incident by the TPS in possible contravention of section 16 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 and section 3 of the Police Code of Conduct. Though it was immediately apparent that a TPS officer had triggered the SIU’s jurisdiction by discharging his firearm at a person, it was left to the PRP to make the notification more than three hours later. As was to be expected, not being part of the police operation in question, PRP was not in a position to provide as much preliminary information as would have been expected from the TPS. I will be raising this matter in my reporting letter to the chief of police. Consistent with the SIU’s obligations under section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring the matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: February 27, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit