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 48-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 6, 2025, at 6:20 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) West Region contacted the SIU with the following information.

On November 6, 2025, at 3:52 p.m., Haldimand OPP responded to an Intimate Partner Violence call in Selkirk. A female had reportedly fled the residence after her husband - the Complainant - became violent and started damaging their home, suffering a cut in the process. The Complainant tried to hide in a shed but was found by the officers. He was armed and taunted the officers to shoot him. He eventually emerged from the shed with two hammers. An officer discharged an Anti-riot Enfield Weapon (ARWEN) at the Complainant, striking him twice. The Complainant was apprehended and taken by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to West Haldimand General Hospital (WHGH).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/11/06 at 6:45 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/11/06 at 8:21 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on November 18, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Not interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on November 6, 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

The witness officials were interviewed on November 17, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in the rear yard of a residence situated in Selkirk.

Physical Evidence

The scene consisted of a home with a driveway on the east side of the home. There was a walkway along the east side of the home leading to a chain link fence and gate.

The rear yard was shared with a neighbouring home. There was a detached shed along the west side.

Three ARWEN cartridge cases were found at the gate to the rear yard.

At the rear side of the garage was a garage door with glass panels. Some of the panels had been smashed. The safety glass on the door window to the shed had been smashed. Items inside the shed had been knocked to the floor. There was a strong smell of gasoline inside the shed, and one overturned gasoline container.

The scene was examined and photographed by SIU forensic services, which collected ARWEN projectiles and cartridge cases as exhibits.

The ARWEN rifle - a 37mm ARWEN made by Police Ordnance Company - was examined. It was equipped with a laser sight and optical sight. There was a round rotating magazine below the barrel that held a maximum of five cartridges. There were two live cartridges in the magazine.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

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

Starting at about 4:26 p.m., November 6, 2025, Officer #1 moved to the east side of the residence. Also present were the SO, WO #2, Officer #2 and Officer #3. From the southwest corner of the house, the SO spoke to the Complainant.

Starting at about 4:38 p.m., Officer #1 was informed that the Complainant was in possession of two hammers.

Starting at about 4:48 p.m., the Complainant shouted, “Kill me, kill me.” The SO fired one round from his ARWEN. The SO fired a second shot, and the Complainant was ordered to get on the ground. The Complainant shouted, “Kill me,” and the SO fired a third round. The Complainant dropped to the ground onto his stomach. He was handcuffed behind the back and assisted off the ground.

OPP BWC Footage - Officer #4

Starting at about 4:23 p.m., November 6, 2025, CW #2 exited her residence [now known to be a residence across the street], and Officer #4, Officer #5 and Officer #1 entered and performed a search. From inside the home, Officer #4 took possession of a shotgun and secured it in his vehicle.

OPP BWC Footage - The SO

Starting at about 4:21 p.m., November 6, 2025, the SO walked to the area of the scene accompanied by several officers.

Starting at about 4:25 p.m., the SO, using a loudhailer, announced his presence and asked CW #1 to leave the home.

Starting at about 4:26 p.m., the SO spoke with CW #1 and was informed that her husband, the Complainant, was in a shed in the rear yard of the home.

Starting at about 4:27 p.m., the SO positioned himself on the southeast corner of the residence and spoke to the Complainant.

Starting at about 4:29 p.m., the Complainant inquired about the consequences of exiting the shed holding two hammers. The SO and the Complainant engaged in conversation for approximately nine minutes. The Complainant stood in front of the shed with a hammer in each of his hands and said, “Kill me.”

Starting at about 4:38 p.m., the SO moved from his position and went to his vehicle. He replaced his rifle with an ARWEN, loaded it with five canisters, and returned to the southeast corner of the house.

Starting at about 4:41 p.m., the Complainant announced that he had a 45-calibre weapon and was not concerned whether it was used against him or the SO. Moments later, he stated that he did not possess a firearm.

Starting at about 4:42 p.m., the Complainant demanded to see his wife and dog, and threatened to exit the shed armed with hammers.

Starting at about 4:48 p.m., the Complainant walked out of the shed with a hammer in each hand and shouted, “Kill me, kill me, kill me.” From his position, the SO fired a single shot from the ARWEN. The SO then fired a second shot and ordered the Complainant to get on the ground. The Complainant shouted, “Kill me.” The SO fired a third round and ordered the Complainant again to the ground. The SO approached the Complainant and repeatedly told him not to move.

Communications Recordings – 911

Starting at about 3:50 p.m., November 6, 2025, CW #1 called 911 from a residence in Selkirk. She reported that her husband, the Complainant, was an alcoholic on a bender for the last three days. He was throwing rocks at vehicles and damaging property, and had accidentally injured his arm. CW #1 had locked away his firearm and ammunition. EMS were required.

Starting at about 3:52 p.m., CW #2 called 911 from a residence across the street. She reported that the Complainant had been in mental distress for the last couple of hours. He screamed and broke windows. CW #1 had approached CW #2’s residence carrying a hunting gun. She urged the dispatcher to send help quickly and disconnected.

Communications Recordings – Radio

Starting at about 3:52 p.m., November 6, 2025, police units were dispatched to a residence in Selkirk. The Complainant had cautions on his record for family violence and assault. Multiple hunting rifles were reported at the residence. CW #1 was last reported walking towards a residence across the street with a firearm.

Starting at about 4:04 p.m., CW #1 left a shotgun with CW #2 at her residence across the street. An unknown number of long guns or rifles were at the residence.

Starting at about 4:41 p.m., the Complainant claimed he had a gun and was not sure whether he was going to shoot himself.

Starting at about 4:42 p.m., the Complainant demanded to see his wife and dog, or he would come out with hammers and police would have to shoot him.

Starting at about 4:49 p.m., the SO deployed his ARWEN three times. The Complainant was taken into custody. EMS were advised to approach. The Complainant had a large gash on his left arm. He was apprehended under the Mental Health Act and transported to hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between November 6, 2025, and November 17, 2025:

• Names, contact information and statements of civilian witnesses
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• General, Supplementary and Arrest Reports
• Communications recordings
• BWC footage
• In-car camera footage
• Notes - WO #2 and WO #1

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from WHGH on November 26, 2025.

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

In the afternoon of November 6, 2025, OPP officers were dispatched to a residence in Selkirk. CW #1 had called police to report a disturbance involving her husband – the Complainant. An intoxicated Complainant was throwing rocks at vehicles and damaging their property, cutting himself in the process. She had taken the precaution of removing his firearm from the home.

Uniform officers and a member of the OPP Emergency Response Unit – the SO – arrived at the scene at about 4:20 p.m. They spoke to CW #1 and learned that the Complainant was in a shed in the rear yard.

Led by the SO, the officers positioned themselves by the southeast corner of the home; the shed was a short distance southwest of their location. Armed with a rifle, the SO attempted to speak with the Complainant to de-escalate the situation. From the doorway of the shed, the Complainant was at times calm and agitated. He made statements suggesting he had a gun and that he wanted to provoke the officers into shooting him. The SO indicated the officers had no intention of shooting him, and that they were there to assist. The officer replaced his rifle with an ARWEN and continued to negotiate with the Complainant.

After about 20 minutes, the Complainant took hold of two hammers from inside the shed, one in each hand, and walked eastward across the rear yard saying, “Kill me. Kill me.” the SO fired three rounds from his ARWEN, striking the Complainant twice. After the third round, the Complainant lowered himself to the ground at the direction of the SO and surrendered himself. He was handcuffed and taken into custody without further incident.

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.

On November 6, 2025, the OPP notified the SIU that one of their officers had fired an ARWEN at a male – the Complainant – earlier that day in Selkirk. 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.

The Complainant had damaged property prior to the officers’ arrival and threatened the officers with a gun during the course of the standoff. He was clearly subject to arrest.

In the course of that arrest, I am satisfied, the SO’s use of the ARWEN constituted justified force. The officers had given negotiation a fair chance to resolve the situation, and it was becoming increasingly clear that the Complainant was not inclined to surrender peacefully. That was made abundantly clear when he armed himself with hammers and exited the shed. At that point, he was an imminent threat to himself and the officers. On this record, the use of the ARWEN made sense. If it worked as intended, the Complainant would be temporarily incapacitated without inflicting serious injury, providing the officers a window to move in safely to effect his arrest. That, in essence, is what occurred.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis to proceed with charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: March 6, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit