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 serious injury of a 59-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 19, 2025, at 10:14 a.m. the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On December 19, 2025, at approximately 7:22 a.m. NRPS officers attended a building on Second Street in the City of Welland to keep the peace while the city removed a fence from the property. The owner of the property, the Complainant, armed himself and opened fire on the police officers. Witness Officer (WO) #1 was struck in the chest but saved by her ballistic vest. Two other police officers, the Subject Officer (SO) and WO #2, returned fire. It was not known if the Complainant was struck. He was barricaded inside the building. The NRPS had the property locked down and had deployed their tactical unit and a negotiator.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/12/19 at 11:08 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/12/19 at 1:45 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 20, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on December 22, 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 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between December 29, 2025, and December 30, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a building situated on Second Street in the City of Welland.

The building was the Complainant’s home. It sat in about the middle of a large property. There was a wooden fence partly along the west side of the property. On the wooden fence, the Complainant had painted phrases with an anti-government theme. At the corner nearest the intersection, and along the south side of the property in front of the building, was a chain link fence.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On the east side of the building was a large parking lot and a driveway. Double, metal side-doors opened out to the parking lot. They had been forcefully removed from their frame by police tactical officers using heavy equipment. A mushroomed projectile was located underneath a door. It was through these doors the Complainant had come out at both the outset and the conclusion of the incident. An armoured tactical vehicle was parked nearby. There were two spent .223 cartridges inside the tactical vehicle.

SIU Forensic Services catalogued the placement of bullet impacts, projectiles and cartridge casings throughout the building. They located multiple firearms, including a .357 magnum revolver with its hammer cocked back and a second .44 magnum revolver. They located boxes of ammunition. One of the windows along the west side had been broken open. Several of the other windows had smaller holes. Inside the building 22 ARWEN batons were found. There were ARWEN projectiles and cartridge cases on the lawn and on the roadway on the west side of the building.

The winter coat the Complainant had been wearing when he was shot was found inside. There was one hole in the rear left shoulder area, but not a corresponding hole in the front of the coat. The chair in front of a computer desk was soaked with a red blood-like substance that was also on the floor. In a laundry basket, there were blood-soaked clothing items, including a black T-shirt with holes in the left shoulder, consistent with the Complainant having bled heavily from when he was shot until he surrendered.

The Complainant’s pick-up truck was parked just outside the double-doors. It had five holes in the radiator.

On the street in front of the driveway entrance, consistent with where WO #1, WO #2 and the SO had reportedly discharged firearms, were several cartridge cases. A City of Welland front-end loader at the intersection had a small entry hole in a lower window near the front of the machine. The interior front console was damaged, and a projectile was noted between the right panel and the steering column.

SIU Forensic Services examined a fully marked NRPS Ford Explorer. The driver side window and the passenger side window were missing. Glass fragments remained in the window frame and there was broken glass all over the interior. Several possible bullet holes were noted on the vehicle.

SIU Forensic Services examined, photographed and/or collected police equipment and uniforms of the following officers.

WO #1

• A damaged portable radio component; radio missing from pouch; a projectile jacket fragment located in between radio pouch and vest; uniform duty jacket with a defect on the sleeve; uniform pants (defect left rear pant leg area near buttock, knees soiled)
• Two spare Glock magazines (14 cartridges each)
• Glock Model 22 Gen4 40 calibre semi-automatic pistol; one cartridge removed from breech and four in the magazine
• Colt C8 .223 calibre semi-automatic rifle; 29 cartridges in the magazine (unloaded from firearm and separate); spare magazine containing 30 cartridges[2]

WO #2

• Two spare Glock magazines (14 cartridges each)
• Glock Model 22 40 calibre semi-automatic pistol; one cartridge removed from breech and 11 contained in magazine
• Colt C-8 .223 calibre semi-automatic rifle; 30 cartridges in the magazine (unloaded from firearm and separate)[3]

SO

• Two spare Glock magazines (14 cartridges each)
• Glock Model 22 Gen4 40 cal. semi-automatic pistol; one cartridge removed from breech and 11 cartridges in the magazine
• Colt C8 .223 calibre semi-automatic rifle; 29 cartridges in the magazine (unloaded from firearm and separate); two spare magazines containing 30 cartridges each

WO #6

• Colt IUR 5.56 calibre semi-automatic rifle; 27 cartridges in the magazine (previously removed from weapon)

WO #7

• Colt IUR 5.56 calibre semi-automatic rifle; 24 cartridges in the magazine

Also collected were 29 spent ARWEN cartridges, 31 ARWEN batons, 15 spent .40 calibre cartridges, three spent .223 calibre cartridges, six spent .308 (.762) calibre cartridges, seven deformed projectiles, two metal jacket fragments, one Gildan brand blue T-shirt, and one Wetskin brand blue winter coat.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[4]

Video Footage

Starting at about 7:48:12 a.m., December 19, 2025, CW #1 was captured walking down a driveway and then taking a few steps westbound on the road dragging a section of fence. He put the section of fence down and walked back eastbound towards the driveway. The Complainant came out of a set of double-doors on the east side of the building. WO #1 immediately got out of the passenger side of the closest police cruiser. The Complainant appeared to place both his hands into the front pockets of a three-quarter-length winter coat he was wearing and walked briskly. His back was towards the camera. The SO moved his police cruiser forward and opened the door. The Complainant reached a grass area, where WO #1 was walking towards him. CW #1 was directly behind WO #1.

Starting at about 7:48:23 a.m. the Complainant, while still walking, pulled his right hand out of his coat pocket and pointed at WO #1 (with what is now known to be a gun), who began to turn away. CW #1 also turned away and ran behind the closest police cruiser. The Complainant brought his left hand up in front of him to his right hand as if to hold the gun in two hands. There was a bright flash on WO #1’s upper torso and head area. WO #1 stumbled to the east towards the driveway, then ran towards the rear of a police cruiser.

Starting at about 7:48:29 a.m., the Complainant swung his arms to his right and pointed the gun at WO #2, who was behind the same police cruiser near the engine hood. Another white flash was seen, this time near the Complainant’s hands, consistent with a muzzle flash from his handgun. The Complainant turned counterclockwise. His right hand was still outstretched and pointed towards the police cruiser. Another white flash was seen from his right hand. The police officers and CW #1 were hiding behind the police cruiser. The Complainant ran back towards the building. WO #2 stood up over the hood of the police cruiser in a shooting stance. There were white flashes from his pistol. The SO moved to the rear of a police cruiser with his hands extended forward.

Starting at about 7:48:34 a.m., the Complainant reached the double-doors from which he had exited. The SO raised his hands, consistent with aiming a pistol and shooting at the Complainant. The Complainant stepped across the threshold of the double-doors to go back inside. As he did so, both the SO and WO #2 were standing with their arms outstretched towards the door as white flashes were seen from each of their pistols. A few minutes later, a puff of what appeared to be smoke appeared on the front hood of the police cruiser closest to the building.

NRPS Communications

At 5:50 a.m., December 19, 2025, a person called and requested police presence while workers removed a fence. Information gleaned from this person and relayed on the police radio to WO #1 and WO #2 provided no indication the Complainant was in possession of a firearm or that he would shoot at police officers.

At 7:48 a.m., WO #2 said on the police radio, three times, that shots had been fired.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the NRPS between December 19, 2025, and January 29, 2026:

• General Order - Use of Force
• Initial General Occurrence Report
• Background of the Complainant
• Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Reports
• List of involved police officers
• Documents related to a search warrant - building on Second Street in
• Civilian witness statements
• Notes – WO #10, WO #5, WO#8, WO #9, the SO, WO #1, WO #2, WO #7, WO #4, WO #6 and WO #3
• Training records of WO #10, WO #9 and WO #8, WO #1, the SO, WO #2, WO #7 and WO #6
• NRPS footage – the Complainant’s arrest and transport
• Communications recordings
• Video footage from a building on Second Street in
• Supplementary Report from Halton Regional Police Service regarding damaged
• Photos
• Dash camera footage from a civilian’s vehicle
• Drone footage from Peel Regional Police
• In-car camera (ICC) footage
• Dash camera footage from City of Welland vehicles

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between December 22, 2025, and December 31, 2025:

• The Complainant’s medical records from Hamilton General Hospital (HGH)
• City of Welland Case Summary
• City of Welland Bylaw Notice
• City of Welland Order
• City of Welland Media Summary
• Videos and photographs
• Ambulance Call Report from Niagara Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
• Niagara EMS Incident Reports

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

Shortly after 7:00 a.m., December 19, 2025, WO #1 and WO #2 were dispatched to stand-by with municipal workers as they tore down a fence illegally erected by the Complainant in front of a building on Second Street in the City of Welland. The Complainant had previously threatened municipal workers, and the police were there to preserve the peace if the need arose. Not long after their arrival on scene at about 7:20 a.m., the officers were joined by the SO in anther cruiser. WO #1 and WO #2’s cruiser was stopped against the north curb facing west. The SO’s cruiser was stopped alongside the driver side of WO #1 and WO #2’s cruiser facing east. Much of the work had been performed by the municipal crew when the Complainant emerged from a set of double-doors at the east side of the building.

The Complainant had a fully-loaded .357 revolver in the right pocket of his jacket as he walked southwards to confront the workers. WO #1 saw the Complainant and exited the passenger side of her cruiser to intervene. She was no further than about three to five metres from the Complainant when he drew his firearm and fired multiple rounds at the officer, at least one of them striking WO #1. WO #1 ran south seeking cover behind her cruiser. The Complainant continued to fire and retreated towards the double-doors of his residence. He was met by gunfire from WO #1, WO #2 and the SO, each of whom were positioned on the driver side of WO #1 and WO #2’s cruiser. One of those rounds – most likely fired by the SO – struck the Complainant in the left shoulder just before he re-entered the home.

Shortly thereafter, the Complainant appeared again on one or two occasions, this time from the front entrance on the south side of the residence. Now armed with a long gun, the Complainant fired shots at a piece of heavy equipment that had been used to remove the fence – a front-end loader. The operator ran from the vehicle to seek cover. Shots were also fired in the direction of police. WO #1 had by this time retrieved a C8 rifle from her cruiser, which she used to fire a single shot at the Complainant. The Complainant returned inside the building.

Additional police personnel arrived on scene and there ensued a lengthy standoff which ended the following morning when the Complainant was taken into custody by police.

Section 34, Criminal Code of Canada - 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 was shot and wounded in an exchange of gunfire with NRPS officers on December 19, 2025. 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 gunshot wound.

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 lawfully engaged in the exercise of his duties through the series of events that culminated in the exchange of gunfire with the Complainant. He was on a public roadway and present to preserve the peace as municipal personnel worked to remove a fence that had been illegally erected by the Complainant.

It is readily apparent that the SO fired his weapon to protect himself and his fellow officers from a reasonably apprehended attack on their persons. The SO said so in his notes and there is no reason to doubt his account. On the contrary, the circumstantial evidence establishes that the SO, WO #1 and WO #2 were themselves either under fire or at imminent risk of gunfire from the Complainant when the SO fired his weapon.

It is also apparent that the force used by the SO, namely, two to four rounds from a Glock semi-automatic pistol, constituted reasonable defensive force. The SO and his fellow officers were under fire at the time. Their lives were clearly at risk. WO #1 and WO #2, similarly situated as the SO, felt the same way and also acted by discharging their firearms at the Complainant. In fact, WO #1 had been struck by the Complainant and would likely have been grievously injured or killed but for the protection of her ballistic vest. Lesser force was not an option at the time given the distance that separated the parties. Nor was less-lethal force as capable as lethal force of meeting the exigencies of the moment, that is, the Complainant’s immediate incapacitation.

In the result, while it appears that the Complainant was shot and wounded by a shot fired by the SO, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the injury was attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the officer. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.[5] The file is closed.

Date: April 17, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit