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 death of a 38-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 22, 2025, at 2:50 a.m., the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 21, 2025, the Complainant, while in Brampton with a woman and her child, fatally shot the woman before fleeing with the child. This homicide prompted Peel Regional Police (PRP) to issue an AMBER Alert after witnesses reported seeing a child with the Complainant immediately following the shooting. The Complainant left the child with family members and departed for Niagara Falls. Around this time, PRP advised NRPS that grounds existed to arrest the Complainant and efforts to locate him began. At about 2:35 a.m., October 22, 2025, police received information indicating the Complainant was in the Niagara Falls area, allowing NRPS tactical officers to begin mobile surveillance. The Complainant was located at a gas station located on Thorold Stone Road. A confrontation occurred involving gunfire, although the sequence of fire was not immediately clear. The SO had discharged his weapon striking the Complainant. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called. At 2:53 a.m., the Complainant was pronounced deceased.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/10/22 at 4:05 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/10/22 at 6:02 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 6

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

38-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Not interviewed (declined)

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on October 22, 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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #7 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #8 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #9 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #10 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #11 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

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

WO #13 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between October 28, 2025, and February 24, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a Chevrolet stopped beside Pump 1 of Gales Gas Bar, 7537 Thorold Stone Road, Niagara Falls.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic services arrived on scene at 6:10 a.m., October 22, 2025. The scene had been properly secured and was being guarded by several NRPS officers. It was situated on the northeast corner of the intersection of Thorold Stone Road and Montrose Road. The gas station had two gas pump islands with a kiosk at the south island closest to the roadway.

Between the islands was the deceased, the Complainant, closer to the south island and near Pump 2. The deceased was lying on his back with his head oriented west.

At 7:01 a.m., photography was commenced showing views of the deceased as found at the scene. It was observed that there was obvious trauma to the upper body, head, neck and right thigh area.

On the pump island near the deceased and between Pump 2 and the kiosk was EMS paraphernalia and opened packaging along with police equipment indicative of a pry bar. On the side panel of Pump 2 was a defect indicative of an impact site. Examination of this site suggested trajectory to be right to left as one faced the panel. The projectile perforated into the interior of the pump mechanism.

At the south side of the Pump 2 island, and closest to the roadway was a vehicle – Vehicle 1. Vehicle 1 was a beige Chevrolet. It was oriented east at the south side of the pump island. Both rear doors were opened. Both rear door windows and windows to the rear compartment area were smashed out. The driver’s door window was smashed out.

The interior of the vehicle contained personal items, clothing and food packaging. The front passenger seat was reclined slightly, and the rear driver side seat was folded down. On the driver’s seat and in clear view was a single cartridge case. In the rear compartment and in clear view was a single cartridge case and a projectile. On the ground at the driver side of the vehicle was another cartridge case and another projectile.

At the driver side opened rear door was a blanket and pillow lying on the seat with staining suspected to be blood. On the door frame was also an area of staining suspected to be blood. At the driver side rear quarter panel was a defect considered to be an impact exit site.

At the rear of the vehicle on a blanket on the ground near the tailgate was a Smith & Wesson 9mm semi-automatic pistol. The weapon had been made safe with the slide locked back, and the magazine and ammunition removed.

Near the passenger side rear door of the vehicle on the ground was another piece of police equipment indicative of a pry bar.

Surrounding Vehicle 1 were the following police vehicles that had been identified by the NRPS as being involved in the incident under investigation.

Vehicle 2 was an unmarked police vehicle assigned to the NRPS ETU. It was oriented northeast partially blocking the front of Vehicle 1.

Vehicle 3 was an unmarked police vehicle assigned to the NRPS ETU. It was oriented east - northeast alongside Vehicle 1 and behind Vehicle 2.

Vehicle 4 was an unmarked police vehicle assigned to the NRPS ETU. It was oriented east - northeast behind Vehicle 1. A baby carriage was observed on the ground at the driver side of the vehicle.

At 7:30 a.m., SIU forensic services commenced photography of the scene.

Following photography, SIU forensic services identified the following evidence from the scene:

1. Hornady 9mm cartridge case
2. Projectile
3. Smith & Wesson 9 Shield 9mm pistol (1 cartridge from breech / four cartridges in magazine)
4. Projectile from inner mechanism of Pump 2
5. Pry bar
6. Pry bar
7. Cartridge case from driver’s seat of Vehicle 1
8. Cartridge case from rear compartment of Vehicle 1
9. Projectile from rear compartment of Vehicle 1
10. EMS paraphernalia

At 11:15 a.m., SIU forensic services met with personnel from the vehicle transportation company, who had arrived to transport Vehicle 1 from the scene to their facility. Vehicle 1 was loaded onto the secured towing vehicle and sealed.

At 12:30 p.m., the vehicle transportation company exited scene with Vehicle 1. SIU forensic services completed a walkthrough of the scene and discovered an additional impact site on the south exterior wall of the kiosk near ground level. Embedded into the wall was a single projectile. At 12:35 p.m., the projectile was collected as Exhibit 11.

AT 1:35 p.m., SIU forensic services arrived at NRPS Headquarters, 5700 Valley Way, Niagara Falls, and met with NRPS Professional Standards to examine and collect police equipment involved in the incident under investigation. NRPS Professional Standards provided the following police equipment assigned to the SO:

• Ballistic vest
• Two Colt C8 magazines (loaded with .223 cartridges)
• Two live distraction devices
• Portable radio
• Flashlight
• Multi tool
• First aid kit
• Duty belt
• Pair of hatch gloves
• Two Glock 9mm magazines (loaded each with 17 9mm cartridges)
• Conducted Energy Weapon (loaded with two non-deployed cartridges)
• Glock Model 47 9mm semi-automatic pistol
• One Hornady 9mm cartridge removed from breech
• Magazine with eight Hornady 9mm cartridges

SIU forensic services noted that the Glock Model 47 9mm semi-automatic pistol has the capacity to be fully loaded with 18 cartridges (17 in the magazine and one cartridge in the breech). A total of nine cartridges were removed during examination, suggesting that this weapon was void of nine cartridges.

At 12:45 p.m., October 23, 2025, SIU forensic services arrived at the vehicle transportation company, where Vehicle 1 had been secured. Arrangements had been made to facilitate transfer of the vehicle to a Peel Regional Police (PRP) facility for a joint search and examination by PRP and SIU.

At 8:15 a.m., October 24, 2025, SIU forensic services arrived at PRP Division 22, 7750 Hurontario Street, Brampton, to complete a parallel search of Vehicle 1 with PRP. Two impact sites were identified and examined.

Impact Site 1 was located on the rear surface of the driver side “B” pillar. The impact perforated the rear surface plastic covering into the inner structure of pillar and exited out through the front surface plastic covering. The trajectory beyond the pillar led to the lower dashboard area to the left of the steering wheel and perforated the plastic panelling into the inner structure of the dashboard. A projectile was recovered from inside the dashboard structure.

Impact Site 2 was located in the plastic panelling on the driver side of the rear compartment interior. The impact perforated the plastic panelling and continued through the inner structure and exited into the driver side rear wheel well. The impact continued into the rear plastic quarter-panel and exited. The exit point was noted during the initial examination of the vehicle at the scene.

Additional items of evidence were identified and collected from Vehicle 1, including multiple fired cartridge cases.

Forensic Evidence

On November 12, 2025, the two Glock 47 pistols and the Smith and Wesson M and P were submitted to the CFS, as were the projectiles and cartridge cases recovered at the scene and in Vehicle 1.

By way of Preliminary Firearms Notification Letter, the CFS indicated that eight of the recovered fired cartridge cases were fired from the SO’s Glock Model 47 9 x 19 semi-automatic pistol.

The CFS further indicated that the remaining three fired cartridge cases submitted to the CFS were fired from the Smith and Wesson M and P 9 Shield 9mm semi-automatic pistol recovered from the Complainant.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

NRPS Communications Recordings – Radio

On October 22, 2025, at 2:18 a.m., Emergency Task Unit (ETU) and surveillance units were monitoring a residence in the area of Thorold Stone Road and Kalar Road when Vehicle 1 entered the driveway. The driver, later identified as CW #3, exited the vehicle and entered the residence alone. She returned a short time later carrying a bag, which she opened, throwing blankets into the rear seat of the vehicle before re-entering the residence.

At 2:30 a.m., CW #3 re-entered Vehicle 1, started the vehicle, and backed out of the driveway. At that time, there was no confirmation that the Complainant was in the rear seat.

At 2:33 a.m., information was received that suggested that the Complainant was probably in the Chevrolet when it attended the residence.

NRPS ETU and surveillance units followed Vehicle 1 to a gas station on Thorold Stone Road, where CW #3 briefly stopped at 2:35 a.m.

At 2:37 a.m., CW #3 went to another gas station on Thorold Stone Road, stopping at a gas pump at 2:38 a.m. No additional individuals were observed in the vehicle at that time.

At 2:39 a.m., NRPS ETU received authorization to conduct a takedown of Vehicle 1. ETU officers immediately converged on the vehicle and initiated a full takedown.

At 2:40 a.m., an ETU member reported over the radio that the Complainant was in the rear seat of the vehicle and that shots had been fired.

At 2:41 a.m., it was reported that the Complainant had been shot and a firearm was present in the back seat. An ambulance was required.

At 2:42 a.m., the Complainant was removed from the rear seat of the vehicle and placed on the ground, where lifesaving efforts were initiated. It was observed that he had sustained gunshot wounds to his right arm, neck, chest and upper leg.

At 2:45 a.m., it was reported that only one member of the NRPS ETU had been involved in the shooting, later identified as the SO.

Image 1 - Complainant Firearm

Image 2 - SO Firearm

NRPS In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – WO #12

The footage began on October 22, 2025, at 2:40:39 a.m., as WO #12 drove eastbound on Thorold Stone Road, Niagara Falls.

At 2:42:13 a.m., WO #12 arrived at the scene, and parked east of the gas pumps before walking towards a kiosk. Several unmarked NRPS ETU vehicles were already positioned on the south side of the kiosk, including three unmarked police vehicles, one of which was parked behind Vehicle 1.

At 2:42:20 a.m., ETU members carried a body, later identified as the Complainant, from the south side to the north side of the kiosk and placed him on the ground.

An ambulance arrived on scene at 2:42:27 a.m.

Crime scene tape was established around the gas bar at 2:49:15 a.m.

Video Footage - Gales Gas Bar

The footage obtained from Gales Gas Bar only captured the interior of the gas kiosks where the attendants were located. At no time did the video depict the interaction between NRPS and the Complainant.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the NRPS between October 23, 2025, and February 13, 2026:

• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• NRPS notes - the SO, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5, WO #6, WO #7, WO #8, WO #9, WO #10, WO #11, WO #12, and WO #13
• PRP notes – WO #1
• ICC footage – WO #12
• AMBER Alert – PRP
• C216 - the Complainant’s fingerprints
• NRPS policy - Use of Force
• General Occurrence Report (NRPS)
• General Occurrence Report (PRP)

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between October 22, 2025, and February 12, 2026:

• Video footage from Gales Gas Bar
• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• Report of Postmortem Examination from the Coroner’s Office
• Preliminary Firearms Notification Letter from the Centre of Forensic Sciences

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of October 21, 2025, the NRPS organized a search effort to locate and arrest the Complainant. The Complainant was wanted in relation to the shooting death of a woman earlier that day in Brampton. Witnesses had observed him after the homicide in a Nissan SUV with a young child. An Amber Alert for the whereabouts of the child was issued and the child was subsequently found safe with family members. The Complainant had reportedly left the child with family before heading towards Niagara Falls.

Under the command of WO #11, NRPS ETU officers, surveillance assets and dog teams were mobilized to assist in the search for the Complainant. The police were able to track the Complainant to a residence in the area of Thorold Stone Road and Kalar Road, Niagara Falls, the address he had provided the rental company in connection with the Nissan SUV observed at the scene of the homicide. A Chevrolet, Vehicle 1, had arrived at the address with the Complainant in the rear. The driver – CW #3 – had exited the vehicle, entered the address and returned with blankets, depositing them in the rear seats of the vehicle before re-entering and driving away.

The ETU followed from a distance in three unmarked police vehicles. Vehicle 1 entered the Gales Gas Bar at the northeast corner of Montrose Road and Thorold Stone Road, and came to a stop facing eastward beside Pump 1. The ETU vehicles, on authority from WO #11 to conduct a takedown of the Vehicle 1, drove onto the gas station grounds and surrounded the vehicle on three sides – the front, the rear and the passenger side. The gas pump was to the north of Vehicle 1.

ETU officers exited their vehicles and took up positions around Vehicle 1, some with breaching tools used to break the vehicle’s windows. Among the officers, the SO found himself at the passenger side of Vehicle 1 with his Glock at the ready. The Complainant appeared from underneath the blankets in the rear and fired three shots in the SO’s direction. The officer immediately returned fire, discharging eight or nine rounds and striking the Complainant multiple times. The cartridge cases found inside Vehicle 1 suggest the SO’s Glock semi-automatic pistol was inside the vehicle, through the smashed-out rear passenger side window, for most if not all of the shots. The trajectories of some of those shots further suggest the SO was moving east to west (or vice versa) during the gunfire and/or that some of the rounds he fired ricocheted in the vehicle. The time was about 2:40 a.m.

The Complainant sustained several gunshot wounds to the upper body. A semi-automatic firearm was retrieved from his right hand after the shooting. Officers removed the Complainant from the rear of the truck and began to administer emergency first aid. Tactical paramedics were nearby and arrived on scene. The Complainant was pronounced deceased at 2:53 a.m.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to a gunshot wound of the chest.

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 passed away on October 22, 2025, the result of a gunshot wound to the chest inflicted by a NRPS officer. 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 death.

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.

I am satisfied that the SO fired his weapon to defend himself from a reasonably apprehended attack by the Complainant. Though the officer did not provide that evidence firsthand to the SIU in an interview, as was his legal right, his mindset is safely inferred from a review of his notes and the circumstances that prevailed at the time. As he approached Vehicle 1, the SO had reason to believe that the Complainant was in possession of a gun that he had used the day before to shoot a woman. Confronted by that same individual pointing and firing a gun in his direction, the officer would have had every reason to believe that he needed to act to save himself and his fellow officers from death or grievous bodily harm.

I am also satisfied that the SO’s choice of defensive force – eight or nine rounds of gunfire – constituted reasonable force. The officer’s life was in imminent peril. The Complainant had just fired his gun at him and there was every reason to believe that he would continue to fire. Nothing short of the Complainant’s immediate incapacitation would meet the exigencies of the moment, and the only weapon with the stopping power capable of doing that was a firearm. With respect to the number of shots fired, there is no reason in the evidence to believe these were more than were warranted. The SO indicated in his notes that he fired until he believed the threat posed by the Complainant had ended. With allowance made for the nature of delay inherent in reaction times, the fact that the eight or nine shots were fired in rapid succession, and the uncertainty in the evidence with respect to which shots in the sequence struck and incapacitated the Complainant, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO’s apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm did not persist through the entirety of the officer’s gunfire.

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

Date: March 17, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit