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 38-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 18, 2025, at 7:25 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On November 18, 2025, at 4:52 a.m., the Sûreté du Québec (SQ) contacted the OPP to advise that they were pursuing a man, the Complainant, on Highway 401 at the Ontario-Quebec border. The Complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle and had been missing in Quebec since October 2025. The Complainant was also subject to several warrants in Quebec. The OPP declined to engage. The Complainant’s father, CW #2, contacted the OPP Communications Centre to advise that his son told him he was trying to commit suicide. The SQ contacted OPP to advise the Complainant was driving eastbound in westbound lanes on Highway 401, prompting the OPP to engage at this point. The SQ advised they would stand down and stop the pursuit of the Complainant. Moments later, the SQ found the Complainant’s vehicle in a ditch at mile marker 814 on Highway 401 in Quebec. The Complainant exited his vehicle with an axe in his hand and the SQ started to negotiate with him. Soon after, the OPP arrived, including officers from the OPP’s critical incident command, a canine officer, a negotiator and Emergency Response Team (ERT) officers. The Complainant only spoke French, so SQ continued to negotiate. The Complainant refused to drop the axe and walked about 250 metres from his car in the ditch. Eventually, at 6:16 a.m., two ERT officers deployed their ARWENs, and the police dog took the Complainant down. He was checked at the scene by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and found to be uninjured. The Complainant was apprehended under the Mental Health Act (MHA) and taken to the Cornwall Community Hospital (CCH).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/11/18 at 7:42 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/11/18 at 11:19 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on November 28, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between November 22, 2025, and December 2, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 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 24, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the grassy area northwest of the on-ramp to westbound Highway 401 from 4^th Line Road, Bainsville.

Physical Evidence

On November 18, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., SIU forensic services arrived at the scene at Highway 401 and Exit 825 for 4^th Line Road. Exit 825 was approximately 3.2 kilometres west of the Quebec border. Highway 401 was a divided, generally east-west major highway with at least two lanes of traffic in each direction. 4^th Line Road was a north-south, two-lane, rural road that passed over Highway 401. The exit had an exit ramp and entrance ramp for westbound traffic on the west side of 4^th Line Road.

A red Dodge Grand Caravan had collision damage and was against a guard rail for the westbound exit ramp. Tire marks in the grass led from the on-ramp, and travelled across the grassy section between the on-ramp and the off-ramp. The vehicle came to rest against the outside of the metal guardrail. It appeared that this vehicle was eastbound on Highway 401 in the westbound lanes and took the on-ramp to exit the highway. It was travelling the wrong way on the westbound on-ramp at high speeds before the driver lost control and hit the guardrail protecting the westbound off-ramp.

Approximately 150 metres north of the damaged vehicle was the intersection with 4^th Line Road. An Esso gas station was on the northeast side of the intersection and a Shell gas station on the northwest side.

There was evidence of Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) and ARWEN deployments at the scene. The evidence was found in three general areas: the off-ramp, the intersection of the off- and on-ramps and 4^th Line Road, and the field northwest of the intersection. Along the off-ramp were nine CEW probes, seven of which were from a Taser 10 model and two from a Taser 7 model.[2] They were in a linear pattern along the length of the off-ramp. There were six ARWEN cartridge cases and seven Taser 10 probes within the intersection of the off- and on-ramps and 4^th Line Road. There were four ARWEN cartridge cases, seven ARWEN projectile/batons, one Taser 7 model probe, and a running shoe in the field northwest of the intersection.

The OPP had closed all the on-ramps and off-ramps of Highway 401 at 4^th Line Road.

SIU forensic services examined the two ARWENs that had reportedly been deployed in the course of the events in question. The first was an unloaded ARWEN with a drum capacity of five cartridges. It had an attached flashlight, a laser sight and an optical sight. This weapon was issued to SO #1. The second was an unloaded ARWEN with a drum capacity of five cartridges. It had an attached flashlight, a laser sight and an optical sight. This weapon was issued to SO #2.

SIU forensic services examined a roofing hammer that had reportedly been used during the events in question. It had a large hammer head on one side and a chiseled head or an axe head on the other side.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data

There were two different models of CEWs used in the course of the incident under investigation – the Taser 10 and Taser 7 models. Two Taser 10 models were used by the SQ.

The Taser 10 is a relatively new model, significantly different than the previous models. It is loaded with ten cartridges. The cartridges are fired one at a time, so two must be fired for an electrical connection. All ten cartridges can be fired, and the Taser will look for the best electrical connections between the probes. The maximum range of each probe is 13.7 metres. Two Event Logs were provided by the SQ, one in French and the other in English.

The Event Log for the Taser 10 assigned to Officer #1 of the SQ indicated that ten cartridges were deployed. The duration of energizes, that is, the length of time the weapon attempted to cause neuromuscular incapacitation, was ten seconds. The total pulse duration, that is, the total length of time during the energize that the weapon discharged high-voltage energy into conductive material, was 0.0014 seconds.

The Event Log for the Taser 10 assigned to Officer #2 of the SQ indicated that ten cartridges were deployed. The duration of energizes was 34 seconds. The total pulse duration was 0 seconds. It appears an electrical charge did not occur.

SO #1’s Taser 7 was loaded with two 3.5-degree cartridges. At 5:38:57 a.m.,[3] November 18, 2025, the trigger was pulled. Bay 1 was deployed, and electricity was discharged for 0.689 seconds. At 5:38:58 a.m., the trigger was pulled again. Bay 2 was deployed, and electricity was discharged for 5.081 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[4]

Communications Recordings (SQ)

On November 18, 2025, starting at about 3:21 a.m., a SQ police officer contacted the OPP to report an ongoing pursuit approaching the Ontario - Quebec border. The location was Rivière-Beaudette at Highway 20 westbound; a red van with a Quebec licence plate was expected to continue onto Highway 401 westbound. They did not have the driver’s name at that time. The vehicle was approximately three-and-a-half kilometres from the border. The OPP confirmed one unit was assigned to the call and requested the reason for the pursuit. The driver had two outstanding warrants and had been reported missing. The OPP informed the SQ they would not engage in a pursuit.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – WO #1’s Vehicle

On November 18, 2025, at 3:43:06 a.m., the forward-facing camera captured WO #1 en route to a scene. Starting at about 3:44 a.m., an OPP dispatcher asked, “Any other units going to this call? Quebec Police advises they have several units on scene with their firearms drawn. Suspect is out of the vehicle. He has attempted to swing the axe towards Quebec officers.”

Starting at about 3:49 a.m., WO #1 said she could see multiple police vehicles, at least five or six: “They are not ours. They are at 4^th Line just north of the 401, by the Esso gas station.”

Starting at about 3:50 a.m., WO #1 arrived on scene. She noted, “We have SQ officers negotiating with a male party standing in the ditch on the northwest side next to the gas station. Officers negotiating with him in French. SQ officers have discharged their Tasers three times, no effect and the male has charged at them. No injuries and requested for K-9 and ERT.”

Starting at about 4:02 a.m., WO #1 updated, “Continuing negotiations, male refuses to drop the axe. Right now, we have weapons drawn, I have my Taser for less-lethal. SQ has an impact vehicle if the suspect charges towards them.”

Starting at about 4:03 a.m., WO #1 indicated “No injuries to the male suspect. SQ deployed Taser […] but they did not make it past his leather jacket.”

Starting at about 4:09 a.m., WO #1 said, “Male wants to end his life.”

At 4:17 a.m., WO #1 requested an estimated time of arrival for the ERT team, an ARWEN and a police dog unit.

At 4:36 a.m., WO #1 briefed WO #2. SQ police officers had deployed all of their Taser 10 probes. Because the Complainant was wearing a thick leather jacket, they were not able the make two-point contact.

At 4:53 a.m., WO #2 arrived on scene.

At 5:29 a.m., two ERT officers approached the scene.

At 5:31 a.m., mention was made of a plan to deploy an ARWEN, as the male was not cooperating and getting more agitated.

At 5:38 a.m., the Complainant was running away from police officers.

At 5:39 a.m., WO #1 radioed they had a person in custody and an ARWEN had been deployed.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #1

On November 18, 2025, starting at about 3:51 a.m., one of the SQ police officers approached and informed WO #1 they had used three Tasers on the Complainant, and they had not worked.

At 3:53 a.m., WO #1 approached a SQ minivan. The Complainant was standing to the right of a highway directional sign - “Highway 401 to Cornwall”.

At 3:54 a.m., WO #1 pulled out her CEW and installed the long-range cartridge.

At 3:55 a.m., WO #1 announced to a SQ police officer: “Taser, Taser, Taser.” WO #1 pointed her CEW at the Complainant and tried to communicate with him. The laser sights of the weapon were seen on his body. The Complainant said he did not want to talk because she spoke English.

At 4:08 a.m., WO #1 asked the SQ negotiator officer how communications were going. The SQ police officer said, “I don’t think he wants to die by cop. He just wants to finish his life and not hurt officers.”

At 4:24 a.m., WO #1 asked SQ police officers how many Tasers were used. They replied they had used three cartridges or 30 prongs.

At 4:27 a.m., WO #1 updated the OPP Communication Centre, explaining that the CEWs had not worked because of a thick leather jacket the Complainant was wearing.

At 5:22 a.m., ERT members SO #2 and SO #1 approached the scene in front of the SQ police officers and their vehicles. WO #1 told one of the SQ officers they would be replacing the SQ officers with the ERT members.

At 5:31a.m., the ERT police officers requested to push up the plan because the Complainant was not cooperating, and he was getting more agitated.

At 5:38 a.m., the Complainant started to walk out of a ditch.

At 5:38:48 a.m., several ARWEN shots were heard. The Complainant ran back into the ditch away from police officers. Several more shots were heard. Then a pause, yelling was heard, and more shots were heard.

At 5:39 a.m., the Complainant appeared to be on the ground and police officers were taking him into custody. WO #1 announced that a person was in custody and that an ARWEN had been deployed.

BWC Footage - WO #2

On November 18, 2025, starting at about 4:57 a.m., WO #2 was talking with WO #1 and other SQ police officers about a plan.

Starting at about 5:00 a.m., WO #2 removed the police service dog (PSD) from a SUV.

At 5:02 a.m., WO #2 approached the scene. Several SQ police officers stayed in and around the police vehicles, while three police officers stood in front of the police vehicles and communicated with the Complainant about 25 metres away. He stood in a grassy ditch shouting in French and gesturing with his hands (raising his right hand and holding something shiny in his left) at the police officers.

At 5:05 a.m., WO #2 asked a SQ police officer about the Complainant’s reaction when they deployed the CEWs earlier. The SQ police officer said they had fired 30 times.

At 5:22 a.m., WO #2 grabbed the PSD from the rear seat of the SUV and put the dog on a lead. As the police officers and the PSD got closer to the Complainant, the PSD seemed focused on the Complainant standing in the ditch and started to bark and pull harder on the leash. WO #2 distracted the dog to stop him from barking and moved to an area beside a SQ police vehicle, putting the SQ police vehicle between the dog and the Complainant.

At 5:24 a.m., a SQ police officer told WO #2 that the Complainant had said the dog was too much.

At 5:30 a.m., WO #2 and the PSD approached the area between police officers and the Complainant where a line of ERT police officers stood side-by-side facing the Complainant with weapons (ARWEN, CEW and C8) drawn and pointed at the Complainant. The Complainant stood approximately 15 metres away. The PSD began to bark and jump, and pulled hard on the leash towards the Complainant. WO #2 told the Complainant to drop the weapon, and let more leash out, allowing the dog to get closer to the Complainant. One of the ERT police officers said to WO #2 that the Complainant had said in French he wanted to use the axe on the dog. WO #2 told the Complainant to put down the weapon and he would put the dog away.

At 5:34 a.m., the Complainant started to walk north behind a highway sign and tall grass. The police officers started to lose sight of the Complainant, before he turned and walked back towards the officers and stopped.

At 5:38 a.m., WO #2 said to the other police officers that the Complainant was holding a roofing hammer. The Complainant started to walk towards a ramp. The police officers started to move towards him, and the Complainant started to make his way out of a ditch. He stood still while police officers trained their flashlights on him. The Complainant had the roofing hammer in his right hand. An ERT officer announced, “ARWEN, ARWEN, ARWEN.” The Complainant was hit and reacted. He turned and ran away from police officers towards a Shell gas station. After running about ten metres, the Complainant stopped and turned to face the officers. He held the roofing hammer about shoulder height as police officers issued commands.

At 5:39 a.m., the Complainant appeared to be hit in the chest area with a CEW, as wires could be seen in the light and the CEW was heard cycling. The Complainant had little reaction and continued to walk backward away from the police officers. The Complainant then appeared to be hit with an ARWEN round in the chest area, after which he went to his knees. The Complainant dropped the roofing hammer and had his hands at head height to the front. He was put face down by police officers from his right side. The PSD gripped the Complainant on the left shoulder area. WO #2 gave a signal and the PSD released the Complainant. WO #2 took the dog away from the Complainant.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between November 18, 2025, and December 5, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• Correspondence from the OPP regarding incident timeframe and the OPP negotiator
• BWC footage
• ICC footage
• General Occurrence Reports
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• ARWEN - Operator Manual
• ARWEN training records - SO #1 and SO #2
• Notes - SO #1, WO #1 and WO #2
• CEW deployment data - WO #1 and SO #1

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between November 19, 2025, and December 12, 2025:

• Arrest Warrant from SQ
• Event Report from SQ
• CEW deployment data from SQ
• CPIC record regarding the Complainant from SQ
• Communications recordings from SQ
• Ambulance Call Report from Cornwall EMS
• Correspondence from the CN Rail regarding train stop request
• Images[5] from Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO)
• Video footage from MTO
• The Complainant’s medical records from CCH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed interviews with the SIU. SO #1 did authorize the release of his notes.

In the early morning of November 18, 2025, SQ officers pursued the Complainant westbound towards Highway 401 and the Ontario border. The Complainant was wanted on a warrant and had taken flight to avoid arrest. The officers had called off their pursuit when they learned that the Complainant had started travelling eastbound in the westbound lanes of Highway 401. At that point, the OPP, which had been monitoring the pursuit, started to respond to the area.

The Complainant had decided to end his life by driving against traffic on the westbound lanes of Highway 401. About three-and-a-half kilometres from the Quebec border, he lost control of his vehicle, entered a grassy median that separated the highways on- and off-ramps with 4^th Line Road, Bainsville, and crashed into the guard rail of the off-ramp.

SQ officers were the first to the scene. The Complainant exited his vehicle wielding a hatchet and charged at an SQ cruiser. Two SQ officers fired their CEWs at the Complainant to no effect. He was wearing a heavy leather jacket, and the probes did not penetrate through to the Complainant’s body. A standoff ensued with officers positioned in the intersection of 4^th Line Road and the Highway 401 on- and off-ramps, and the Complainant standing in a ditch on the northwest side of the on-ramp.

OPP officers arrived on scene, led by WO #1. The time was shortly before 4:00 a.m. WO #1 spoke with SQ personnel and began to coordinate the OPP response. An ERT team was dispatched to the scene, together with a police dog handler – WO #2 – and his dog – the PSD. A negotiator was also requested.

The Complainant refused to surrender or drop his weapon. He said he only wanted to harm himself, not the officers.

At about 5:38 a.m., OPP ERT SO #1 and SO #2, standing side-by-side on the on-ramp at a distance of about ten metres from the Complainant, fired their ARWENs multiple times. The Complainant was struck several times but not felled. He turned and ran a short distance north before turning again to face the officers, the hatchet still in his right hand. SO #1 discharged his CEW at the Complainant, again with no effect, and additional ARWEN rounds were fired. The Complainant was ordered to the ground. He dropped his hatchet and eventually lowered himself to his knees. WO #2 released his dog and the ERT officers took hold of the Complainant and forced him further to ground, after which he was handcuffed.

The Complainant did not suffer any serious injury in the 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.

Section 320.13, Criminal Code – Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm or Death

320.13(1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public.

(2) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public and, as a result, causes bodily harm to another person.

(3) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public and, as a result, causes the death of another person.

On November 18, 2025, the OPP notified the SIU that two of their officers had earlier that day discharged ARWENs at a male – the Complainant – in the course of his arrest. The SIU initiated an investigation and identified SO #1 and SO #2 as 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 use of their ARWENs.

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.

By the time OPP officers engaged with him at the scene of the car crash, they had information that the Complainant had driven the wrong way on Highway 401. In the circumstances, he was subject to arrest for dangerous driving contrary to section 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code.

With respect to the force brought to bear by SO #1 and SO #2, namely, their ARWEN discharges, I am satisfied it was legally justified. The Complainant was wielding a hatchet and had threatened himself and the officers with harm. The SQ and OPP officers at the scene had tried over the course of about an hour to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the standoff without success. On this record, I am satisfied that a resort by the subject officials to their ARWENS represented a reasonable option. If the weapons worked as intended, the less-lethal rounds striking the Complainant and causing pain would sufficiently disorient him, providing a window during which the officers could safely approach to take him into custody. While the Complainant was able to withstand the impacts that occurred, the use of the weapons did appear to precipitate his eventual surrender without the infliction of serious harm.

For the foregoing reasons, there are no grounds to proceed with criminal charges in this case.

I note what appears to have been conduct on the part of SO #1 in possible violation of OPP policy and section 19 of the Police Code of Conduct. Though equipped and wearing a BWC, the officer did not turn it on before actively partaking in the police operation leading to the Complainant’s arrest. I will be referring this matter to the OPP for their review. Further to the SIU’s legal obligation under section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, the matter will also be referred to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: March 13, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit