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 33-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 5, 2025, at 6:39 a.m., the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On December 5, 2025, at 5:24 a.m., the GSPS received a 911 call for a break and enter in progress at an address in the area of Clinton Avenue and Queen Street, Sudbury. Witness Official (WO) #1, the Subject Official (SO) and the SO’s trainee, WO #2, were dispatched. The male suspect (later identified by fingerprints as the Complainant) was reportedly armed with a knife. At 5:28 a.m., at the intersection of Queen Street and Clinton Avenue, the police officers located the Complainant. He was armed with an axe. The police officers drew their firearms and directed the Complainant to put the axe down. The Complainant refused and advanced towards WO #1’s marked Chevrolet Tahoe. He swung the axe through the windshield of the police vehicle, and advanced towards the police officers. The SO discharged his firearm, striking the Complainant. The Complainant was transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to Health Sciences North (HSN), where he was pronounced deceased at 6:06 a.m.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/12/05 at 6:47 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/12/05 at 8:49 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

33-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on December 5, 2025.

Subject Official

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

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed not necessary

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed not necessary

The witness officials were interviewed on December 6, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the intersection of Clinton Avenue and Queen Street, Sudbury

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On December 5, 2025, at 7:03 a.m., SIU forensic services were dispatched to the area of Clinton Avenue and Queen Street, Sudbury, to assist with a firearms death investigation. Due to an imminent snowfall forecast, a request was made to the GSPS that any short-lived evidence at the scene be secured by the police service.

At 11:20 a.m., the deceased was identified by means of fingerprints as the Complainant.

SIU forensic services arrived on scene at 2:30 p.m. The roads were covered with hard-packed snow. The area consisted of single-family residences. Clinton Avenue ran in a general north/south direction and Queen Street ran in a general east/west direction.

Construction pylons and temporary road closure signs were in the northwest and northeast corners of the intersection. Overhead streetlights were located on the north side of Queen Street and east side of Clinton Avenue. Due to the time of day, the streetlights were off. Several vehicles reportedly involved in the incident under investigation, to one extent or another, were located on scene.

Vehicle 1 was a fully marked GSPS police vehicle [now known to be operated by WO #2]. The vehicle was running and its emergency lighting was on and functioning. There were two police rifles secured between the front seats of the unit. The unit was oriented in a westerly direction across the northbound lane of Clinton Avenue, south of Queen Street.

Vehicle 2 was a fully marked GSPS police vehicle [now known to have been operated by WO #1]. The vehicle was running and oriented in a southwest direction in the northwest quadrant of the intersection. There was an angled defect (penetrating inward) on the front windshield of the police unit. Glass fragments were found in the interior of the unit. There were glass fragments on the engine hood. There was one police rifle secured between the two front seats. The headlights of the unit were on and illuminating the southwest corner of the intersection.

Vehicle 3 was a fully marked GSPS police vehicle. The vehicle was running with its headlights on. There was one police rifle secured between the front seats of the unit. The vehicle was oriented in a southwesterly direction on the west lane of Clinton Avenue and behind (north) of Vehicle 2.

A tarp had been placed by police officers in the approximate middle of the intersection, which covered a 9mm cartridge case identified as Exhibit 1. A second tarp was located to the north of Vehicle 2, and covered Exhibit 2, which was a non-deployed conducted energy weapon (CEW) cartridge. Exhibit 3 was also a non-deployed CEW cartridge. Exhibit 4 was assorted medical debris, including a black, right hatch-style glove. A third tarp was located north of the right rear passenger corner of Vehicle 2, which covered Exhibit 5, a wood-handled axe. A fourth tarp was on the east side of Clinton Avenue and north of the intersection in front of a residence, which covered Exhibit 6, a black nitrile glove.

The scene was video-recorded and scanned to produce a planned drawing.

At 4:21 p.m., SIU forensic services examined the subject official’s pistol, a Sig Sauer model P320 pistol. The pistol had one 9mm cartridge in the breach, and 16 9mm cartridges in the magazine. The two spare magazines each contained 17 9mm cartridges.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - Private Residence

One camera captured the intersection of Queen Street and Clinton Avenue, with construction signage and multiple construction pylons.

Starting at about 5:22:54 a.m., December 5, 2025, the Complainant walked north on Clinton Avenue towards the intersection.

Starting at about 5:23:00 a.m., the Complainant turned around, took several steps backward while facing south, then walked south on Clinton Avenue and off camera.

Starting at about 5:24:30 a.m., the Complainant appeared at the bottom right of the camera frame. He walked north on Clinton Avenue, turned left onto Queen Street, and left the frame.

Starting at about 5:26:35 a.m., a GSPS police vehicle [operated by WO #1] travelled south on Clinton Avenue and stopped in the intersection, oriented in a southwest direction.

Starting at about 5:26:50 a.m., the Complainant placed an axe on a construction pylon at the southwest corner of the intersection and then exited the frame without the axe.

Starting at about 5:26:56 a.m., WO #1 exited his police vehicle with his pistol in a two-handed, fully extended stance, pointed forward.

Starting at about 5:26:59, the Complainant picked up the axe with his right hand and moved towards the police vehicle. WO #1 activated his mounted pistol light and stepped backward towards the northeast side of the intersection.

Starting at about 5:27:07 a.m., the Complainant turned left towards the police vehicle, no longer advancing towards WO #1.

Starting at about 5:27:10 a.m., the Complainant struck the passenger side windshield of the cruiser with the axe. A second police officer [now known to be the SO] entered from the right. The SO ran north on Clinton Avenue, drew his pistol, and stopped approximately five metres from WO #1’s police vehicle.

Starting at about 5:27:13 a.m., the Complainant raised the axe above his head and pulled it slightly back before he collapsed to the ground beside the cruiser’s passenger door.

Starting at about 5:27:15 a.m., a third police officer [now known to be WO #2] ran north on Clinton Avenue. WO #1 and the SO moved around WO #1’s police vehicle with their firearms drawn and pointed at the Complainant.

Starting at about 5:27:23 a.m., WO #1 rushed towards the prone Complainant and kicked him in the lower back. The Complainant was moving around on the ground at the time. The SO returned his pistol to its holster. WO #2 returned his CEW to its holster and took control of the Complainant’s legs.

Starting at about 5:27:48 a.m., a second police vehicle arrived in camera view and a police officer [now known to be WO #3] knelt near the Complainant. WO #1’s vehicle partially obstructed the view.

Starting at about 5:29:05 a.m., two police officers, believed to be the SO and WO #2, walked south on Clinton Avenue and left the frame to the right.

Starting at about 5:30:52 a.m., a police officer performed chest compressions on the Complainant.

Starting at about 5:32:45 a.m., paramedics arrived on scene, approached the Complainant and placed him on a stretcher.

Starting at about 5:36:49 a.m., the ambulance transported the Complainant away from the scene.

Another camera showed a driveway, part of Queen Street, and a portion of the intersection.

Starting at about 5:24:45 a.m., the Complainant entered the camera frame, walked west on Queen Street and turned north into a driveway.

Starting at about 5:26:22 a.m., the Complainant reappeared from the driveway with an axe in his right hand. He walked south, turned east towards the Queen Street and Clinton Avenue intersection, and exited the frame.

Starting at about 5:26:37 a.m., the Complainant reappeared in the frame with the axe in his right hand. He walked west, looked in the direction of a vehicle parked at a residence, and exited the frame towards the Queen Street and Clinton Avenue intersection.

Starting at about 5:39:07 a.m., an unidentified man stepped onto Queen Street from a driveway. He spoke and pointed up towards the camera.

Starting at about 5:40:12 a.m., two police officers entered the frame with a construction pylon and crime scene tape. They placed the pylon within the scene area and attached tape to it.

Communications Recordings & Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

On December 5, 2025, at 5:24 a.m., CW #1 called 911 from his residence in the area of Clinton Avenue and Queen Street and reported that a man [now known to be the Complainant] had attempted to break into his residence. CW #1 had confronted the Complainant. The Complainant was in possession of a knife and had threatened to kill CW #1 and burn his house down. The Complainant then tried to puncture the tires on CW #1’s vehicle with the knife, which had a blade of three to four inches in length.

At 5:24 a.m., the dispatcher asked for any available units to respond, and a unit [now known to be WO #2 and the SO] reported they would respond. Another unit [now known to be WO #1] advised he would also respond, along with a third unit [now known to be WO #3 and WO #4]. An update was broadcast that the Complainant was puncturing holes in CW #1’s tires.

At 5:26 a.m., the Complainant was reportedly walking towards Notre Dame and the Junction Creek Trail. The dispatcher described the Complainant. The knife was about three to four inches in length. The Complainant was last seen turning onto Bond Street. WO #1 advised he was in the area.

At 5:28:01 a.m., CW #1 told the dispatcher that the Complainant had yelled at a police officer and went towards a police officer with an axe. The Complainant smashed a window of a police vehicle and a police officer shot the Complainant.

At 5:28:13 a.m., a radio transmission stated that shots had been fired, and EMS were requested. The Complainant had a gunshot wound to the right side of his stomach area. In the background of the radio transmissions, orders to the Complainant to give up his hands were heard.

At 5:30 a.m., pressure was placed on the wound and the Complainant was conscious and talking.

At 5:31:48 a.m., a request to put a rush on EMS was heard. The Complainant had stopped breathing, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation was being performed.

At 5:33 a.m., EMS arrived. WO #1 reported the Complainant was unresponsive, and in the back of the ambulance with WO #3.

At 5:38 a.m., WO #3 and WO #4 were on their way to the hospital.

At 6:07 a.m., WO #3 advised that the Complainant was pronounced deceased at 6:06 a.m.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the GSPS between December 5, 2025, and December 11, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• In-car camera footage
• CAD Report
• SO’s training records
• Fingerprint Chart - the Complainant
• General Occurrence (Sudden Death Report)
• GSPS Policies – Arrest; Use of Force
• Involved Police Officer and Civilian Witness List
• Notes - WO #1, the SO, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between December 5, 2025, and January 13, 2026:

• Video footage from a private residence
• The Complainant’s medical records from HSN
• Ambulance Call Report from Greater Sudbury Paramedic Service

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police eyewitnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

At about 5:24 a.m., December 5, 2025, GSPS officers were dispatched to an address in the area of Clinton Avenue and Queen Street, Sudbury. The homeowner – CW #1 – had observed a male on his security system attempting to enter the home. When CW #1 exited to confront the individual, the male brandished a knife at him and threatened to kill him and burn down his house. CW #1 retreated into his home and called 911.

The male was the Complainant. Following the confrontation with CW #1, he left the area walking west on Queen Street.

WO #1 was the first officer on scene, travelling southbound on Clinton Avenue towards Queen Street. Observing the Complainant at the southwest corner of the intersection, the officer brought his vehicle to a stop just onto Queen Street and exited. The Complainant picked up an axe from a construction pylon, which he had deposited there moments prior, and walked quickly towards WO #1. His semi-automatic pistol drawn and pointed at the Complainant, the officer ordered him to drop the weapon and backed away in a northeast direction.

At about this time, the SO was arriving on scene as a passenger in a cruiser operated by WO #2. WO #2, approaching Queen Street from the south, stopped the cruiser in the northbound lane of Clinton Avenue just south of the intersection. The SO exited, drew his semi-automatic pistol and ran towards the Complainant as the Complainant continued to advance on WO #1.

As he neared the front of WO #1’s cruiser, the Complainant changed directions and headed for the passenger side of the cruiser where he lifted the axe and swung it at the windshield. He subsequently retrieved the axe from the windshield and had lifted it above his head when he was shot by the SO.

The SO had tracked the Complainant’s change in direction and confronted him at a distance of about six to eight metres south of his location. The officer fired a single shot as the Complainant lifted the axe and gestured as if he were about to swing or throw the axe in the officer’s direction. The time was about 5:27 a.m.

The Complainant collapsed to the ground, the axe falling from his grip. He had sustained a gunshot wound to the abdomen.

The SO and WO #1 approached the Complainant on the ground, handcuffed him, and began to render first aid. Paramedics arrived on scene and took over the Complainant’s care. He was transported to hospital and pronounced deceased at 6:06 a.m.

Cause of Death

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

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 December 5, 2025, from a gunshot wound inflicted by a GSPS 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.

The SO was engaged in the lawful exercise of his duties through the series of events that culminated in gunfire. He and the other officers who responded to a 911 call about a male with a knife attempting to break into a home were duty bound to attend at the scene to do what they could to ensure public safety and arrest the individual.

The evidence indicates that the SO fired his gun to protect himself from a reasonably apprehended attack. Though the officer did not provide that evidence firsthand in an interview with the SIU, as was his legal right, he said as much in his notes of the incident when he described feeling his life was in danger as the Complainant raised the axe as if to throw it in his direction. Importantly, one of the witnesses to the shooting was also of the impression that the Complainant had raised the axe and swung it in a throwing motion just before the was shot. The video evidence was consistent with this interpretation of events.

The evidence also indicates that the SO’s resort to gunfire constituted reasonable force. The axe in the Complainant’s possession was clearly capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm and death, and the Complainant had already used it to threaten a civilian and WO #1. At a distance of about six to eight metres of the Complainant, the SO’s fear that his life was in jeopardy from an axe thrown in his direction was a real one. It is true that the officer had placed himself in that dangerous position, but he had done so to lend support to WO #1, who was also at imminent risk of an axe attack by the Complainant. Retreat and withdrawal were not viable options in the moment given the speed with which events unfolded and the need to act to contain a present and serious danger to police and public safety. Nor was a resort to less-lethal force a realistic alternative in the circumstances given the immediacy and gravity of the threat. Moreover, it is not clear that a CEW would have been an effective deterrent given the coat the Complainant was wearing. On this record, I am persuaded that the SO was within his rights in responding to a lethal threat with a resort to lethal force of his own.

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

Date: April 2, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit