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 24-year-old male (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 22, 2025, at 4:27 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On December 22, 2025, at 3:26 p.m., the TPS received a call about a person [now known to be the Complainant] with a knife at a residence on Shoreham Court. The Complainant had reportedly stabbed two persons at the residence– one in the arm and the other in the leg. Police officers arrived on scene at 3:31 p.m. An officer, later identified as the Subject Officer (SO), discharged his firearm at 3:33 p.m., striking the Complainant twice in the chest. Toronto Emergency Medical Services (EMS) attended and transported the Complainant to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC) via an emergency run. The Complainant was conscious and breathing.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/12/22 at 5:14 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/12/22 at 7:05 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

24-year-old male; declined an interview

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on December 22, 2025.

Subject Official

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed not necessary

WO #8 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed not necessary

WO #9 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed not necessary

The witness officials were interviewed between January 9, 2026, and January 19, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the front door of a residence on Shoreham Court, Toronto.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On December 22, 2025, 7:05 p.m. SIU Forensic Services arrived on scene at the residence on Shoreham Court. TPS police vehicles and police officers protected the scene.

The residence was located in a complex of townhomes. The homes faced onto a common walkway with additional townhomes on the opposing side of the walkway. There was a small courtyard off the common walkway. The residence’s entrance - the only entry / exit for the unit - faced north. The parking lot for these homes was accessed through a shared walkway. Two police vehicles were located in the parking area associated to the residence.

The entrance to the residence consisted of a metal screen door and an interior wood door. The metal door swung out, and the interior swung in. In the area in front of the residence was a silver .40 calibre Smith & Wesson Winchester (S&W WIN) cartridge case, a small pooling of blood, and a pair of prescription glasses. In front of an adjacent residence was a red-handled kitchen knife. The overall length of the knife was 30.5 centimetres (the blade was 18 centimetres long). There were apparent blood smears on both sides of the blade. A second .40 calibre S&W WIN cartridge case was found next to the steps off the front stoop. The two cartridge cases and a swab of the blood stain were collected from this location.

The rear yard of an adjacent residence was directly beside the parking lot and appeared to be the rear entrance or rear yard of the residence where the incident occurred. The glass windows had all been smashed and there was a police expandable baton on the ground. The baton had numerous fresh scrape marks and appeared to have been used to smash the glass. The area was photographed.

In a parking area approximately 50 metres south of the parking area associated to the residence, a bloody shirt was found. The shirt had been cut and was combined with a towel. These items were marked as an exhibit, photographed and collected.

The overall scene was photographed and scene measurements were obtained with the use of the Leica RTC360 scanner.

At 10:25 p.m., the scene was released and, at 10:27 p.m., a SIU investigator provided SIU Forensic Services two paper bags containing the Complainant’s clothing, which had been received at SHSC.

At 10:47 p.m. SIU Forensic Services attended TPS 31 Division to examine the SO’s use of force options. The Forensic Services personnel were provided a duty belt, which contained a Taser 7 conducted energy weapon, two spare magazines, an oleoresin capsicum cannister, a flashlight, and a hobble strap. The duty belt also had a Glock pistol, .40 calibre, Model 22 Gen4. It was loaded with one .40 calibre S&W WIN cartridge in the breech, and 12 cartridges in the 15-capacity magazine. The two spare Glock magazines - each with a 15-cartridge capacity - contained 14 live .40 calibre cartridges.

The Glock pistol, the seated magazine and 13 (12 in magazine and one in breech) live cartridges were collected as exhibits.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

Starting at about 3:30 p.m., December 22, 2025, WO #6 was the first police officer to arrive at the front door of a residence located on Shoreham Court. He advised he could hear yells from inside.

Starting at about 3:31 p.m., the SO arrived at the front door. WO #1 and WO #2 also arrived, and stood behind the SO and WO #6. WO #6 opened the screen door and knocked on the door, after which he stepped back and allowed the screen door to close as somebody had opened the inner door. WO #6 directed the person to come out. A male occupant of the residence was standing in front of another man – the Complainant - inside the unit. The Complainant stated, “For what. Stand back all of you,” and he pushed the male out the door. The SO opened the screen door and the male came out the door. The male’s pant leg snagged in the closed inner door, which the SO was unable to open. WO #6 kicked the inner door with his right foot, releasing the male’s pants. The door was pushed open slightly. Commands to open the door were heard as the male stepped away from the door.

The SO kicked at the door. Someone shouted, “[Complainant’s first name], open the door.” WO #3 asked the male (who had exited the residence) who was inside. He advised that a person [now known to be CW #1] was inside. The SO delivered further kicks to try to open the door. WO #3 kicked the door as well as WO #6 broadcast that the Complainant had barricaded himself inside, and breaching tools were required.

Starting at about 3:32 p.m., the SO continued to kick at the door. WO #6 left the area of the front door and went to his police vehicle in the parking lot. WO #3, WO #1 and WO #2 went through a gate to a fenced-in area, where they believed was the back door to the residence. The SO remained in the area of the front door to the residence.

Starting at about 3:32:52 p.m., the door to the residence opened slightly, and the SO grabbed the doorknob with both hands. He then stepped back and the door opened. The Complainant stepped out towards the SO. He had a knife in his right and his left hand was partially outstretched in front of him.

Starting at about 3:32:56 p.m., the Complainant’s left foot stepped down onto the front stoop. The knife was by his side.

Starting at about 3:32:57 p.m., the SO discharged his firearm twice as the Complainant approached him.

The Complainant went down onto his knees before he fell forward onto his right side, his back to the SO. The Complainant rolled off the stoop onto his left side and then onto his stomach. His right hand was under his body. WO #2 stated, “Oh fuck!” The Complainant continued to roll onto his back. The knife was seen on the ground to the left of the Complainant. WO #3, WO #2 and WO #1 came out through the open gate. The knife was moved away from the Complainant. The Complainant’s hands were handcuffed behind the back. WO #6 returned, advised the dispatcher that shots had been fired, and requested EMS.

Starting at about 3:33:21 p.m., the SO went to the male who had exited the residence and checked if he was okay. The male said he was good and advised he was related to the Complainant. The Complainant was carried to a police vehicle with the intention of transporting him to hospital. Once at the police vehicle, chest seals were applied to his wounds. The Complainant was carried further out the driveway.

Starting at about 3:36 p.m. the SO walked back towards the residence where a police officer dealt with CW #1, who was bleeding from her left arm.

Starting at about 3:36:47 p.m. the SO looked through the outer door of the unit and his BWC captured blood on the floor at the bottom of steps. He stated to a police officer, “I shot him, I seen him.”

Video Footage from Residential Complex[3]

Starting at about 3:30 p.m., December 22, 2025, WO #6 arrived at the front of the residence located on Shoreham Court. A man, later determined to be a relative of the Complainant, came from the front area of the residence and walked over to a position by the steps, which led down to the inner pathway of the townhouse unit, west of the door to the residence. Three police officers - WO #2, WO #3 and WO #1 - entered a fenced yard to the east of the front door to the residence. The SO opened the screen door and appeared to be putting his weight against the door. The front door opened and, starting at about 3:33:26 p.m., the Complainant was seen in the doorway. There was an arm’s-length distance between the SO and the Complainant. The SO quickly retreated back from the doorway as he drew his firearm. The SO took another step back, and the Complainant stepped out of the doorway. WO #3, WO #1 and WO #2, still in the fenced-in yard east of the front door, faced towards the SO, who had his service weapon pointed at the Complainant. The Complainant fell and rolled on the ground towards the SO. Starting at about 3:33:29 p.m., the SO holstered his firearm.

Communications Recordings

On December 22, 2025, at 3:26 p.m., the TPS received a 911 call from CW #2, reporting that the Complainant had a large knife and was attacking everyone in the house. Yelling could be heard in the background.

Starting at about 3:27 p.m., WO #3 and the SO were dispatched. WO #2 and WO #1 were asked to attend as well.

Starting at about 3:28:13 p.m., the dispatcher made the following broadcast: “A minimum of four police officers for calls for service to this address and involving the involved male for officer safety. The male had threatened to disarm police officers and kill them with their own firearms. Male remained focused on police officers’ firearms during previous interactions.”

The Emergency Task Force (ETF) were notified, and officers were advised to exercise caution. The man with the knife was confirmed to be the Complainant. WO #5 advised he would attend, and the dispatcher advised there was a commotion in the background of the call. Reportedly, the call-taker could hear someone screaming.

Starting at about 3:29:22 p.m., WO #6 was reportedly on scene.

Starting at about 3:29:35 p.m., WO #4 requested that an ambulance be dispatched.

Starting at about 3:29:53 p.m., no one responded to the call-taker. The line was open, and the commotion was ongoing.

Starting at about 3:31:05 p.m., a voice reportedly said, “I stabbed him.” Blood was said to be everywhere.

Starting at about 3:31:23 p.m., the Complainant reportedly said, “I killed him.” EMS were notified that someone had been stabbed. WO #6 advised he could hear yelling inside the unit.

Starting at about 3:31:49 p.m., another call came from the residence. A female was on the line telling police officers to break the door down.

Starting at about 3:32 p.m., police officers advised they were on scene. WO #6 requested breaching tools.

Starting at about 3:32:26 p.m., a male’s voice said, “I stabbed him, I don’t give a fuck, he is bleeding everywhere.”

Starting at about 3:33:12 p.m., WO #6 broadcast, “Shots fired, rush DAS.” The dispatcher advised EMS were notified. WO #6 indicated shots had been fired and the subject was down.

Starting at about 3:36:40 p.m., two officers advised dispatch that there were two stabbing victims, and three ambulances would be required.

Starting at about 3:41:37 p.m., two other officers advised dispatch that the man who was shot had been carried out to the laneway and the two stabbing victims were in the residence.

Starting at about 3:44:01 p.m., EMS were on scene.

Starting at about 3:44:46 p.m., WO #6 advised the female stabbing victim was CW #1, and the male stabbing victim was CW #2.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between December 23, 2025, and February 6, 2026:

• Communications recordings
• BWC footage - SO, WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4 and WO #8
• Video footage from residence
• In-car camera (ICC) footage
• TPS History – the Complainant
• Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report
• General Occurrence Reports
• Involved Officer List
• TPS Statement Summary – CW #1
• Notes – WO #2, WO #7, WO #1, WO #5, WO #8, WO #9, WO #3, WO #6 and WO #4
• TPS policies – Arrest; Use of Force
• Training records – the SO

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on December 29, 2025:

• Ambulance Call Report from Toronto EMS

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

At about 3:30 p.m., December 22, 2025, TPS officers were called to a residence located on Shoreham Court. A resident – CW #2 – had called 911 to report that the Complainant was armed with a knife and attacking persons inside the home.

Officers, including the SO, arrived at the front door of the home. Within seconds of their arrival, the interior door opened and a male was pushed outside by the Complainant, who quickly closed the door behind him. The male was escorted a distance from the home as officers attempted to kick open the door. As this was occurring, the dispatcher reported an ongoing commotion inside the residence, including utterances to the effect of, “I stabbed him,” and “I killed him.” Blood was said to be everywhere inside the residence. CW #1 also made a 911 call from inside the home in which she exhorted police to break open the door. Officers left the area of the front door to explore other possible access points to the house, leaving the SO alone in front of the door.

The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time. He had taken possession of a knife and inflicted serious lacerations to CW #1 and CW #2. He pushed back against the front door as officers attempted to force it open. At about 3:32 p.m., seconds after the SO had been left alone at the front door, the Complainant opened the interior door and moved quickly towards the officer. He was holding a red-handled knife in his right hand.

The SO had his right hand on the doorknob, still trying to open the door, when the door suddenly opened and he was confronted by the Complainant. The officer immediately stepped back off the front door stoop, drew his firearm and fired two shots in quick succession. The Complainant was just past the door’s threshold at the time, approximately a metre from the officer.

The Complainant was felled by the gunfire. He dropped to the stoop and rolled off it, the knife no longer in his possession. He had been struck in the left chest and right abdomen.

Officers quickly moved in and handcuffed the Complainant behind the back. Seals were applied to his wounds.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and treated for his injuries.

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 by a TPS officer on December 22, 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 shooting.

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 and the other involved officers were lawfully placed and in the exercise of their duties through the series of events culminating in gunfire. With information at their disposal from 911 calls that the Complainant had attacked persons inside the home with a knife and remained a live threat, the officers were within their rights in attempting to force their way into the residence to do what they could to prevent further harm coming to its occupants.

I am satisfied that the SO fired his gun to protect himself from a reasonably apprehended attack on the part of the Complainant. Though the officer did not provide an account of his mindset in an interview with the SIU, as was his legal right, the BWC footage is compelling evidence that the SO fired his gun to defend himself from a knife attack by the Complainant. The footage indicates that the Complainant moved in the SO’s direction with a knife and was no more than about a metre from the officer when the shots were fired.

I am also satisfied that the SO’s resort to gunfire was reasonable defensive force. The SO was responding to an emergency situation following calls to police about the Complainant attacking persons inside the residence with a knife. He would have appreciated that the Complainant represented a real and present danger of grievous bodily harm and death to those inside the house, and he would have understood the necessity of entering the home as soon as possible to protect its residents and take the Complainant into custody. On this record, there is little doubt that the Complainant constituted a lethal threat to the SO when he opened the door, confronted the officer at close range with a knife, and started to move in his direction. The officer would have had every reason to believe that his life was at imminent risk by a knife attack and that immediate action was necessary to incapacitate the Complainant. The weapon with the greatest chance of doing just that was a firearm. Lesser force without the stopping power of a gun would have left the officer dangerously exposed had they been ineffective in deterring the Complainant. Nor was retreat an option for the SO given the speed with which events unfolded.

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

Date: April 21, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit