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 35-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 3, 2026, at 6:20 a.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 3, 2026, at 12:20 a.m., a woman called the OPS to report that the Complainant was experiencing a mental health crisis. The Complainant told the caller he wanted to die. The caller reported that the Complainant had left in her uninsured vehicle. At 12:40 a.m., three OPS vehicles boxed-in the vehicle operated by the Complainant at Longfields Drive and Cambrian Road. The Complainant threw a knife outside the vehicle and had another knife, with which he threatened to stab himself. Additional OPS officers arrived and attempted to negotiate with the Complainant. The Complainant put the knife on the passenger seat of the vehicle. An OPS tactical team made the decision to enter the vehicle. At 4:03 a.m., tactical officers broke the windows of the vehicle and deployed a conducted energy weapon (CEW). The Complainant picked up the knife and stabbed himself in the abdomen. He was transported by ambulance to Ottawa Civic Hospital (OCH).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/01/03 at 6:48 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/01/03 at 2:01 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on January 4, 2026.

Subject Official

SO 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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #8 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #9 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between January 7 and 8, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the west side of Longfields Drive just south of the roundabout intersection of Longfields Drive and Cambrian Road, Ottawa.

Physical Evidence

There was a black Hyundai Elantra on the west shoulder of Longfields Drive with the front of the vehicle oriented slightly towards the west ditch. Both front doors of the vehicle were open and exposed to the elements. The driver and passenger door windows were shattered. There were glass fragments on the front seats and floors, as well as on the ground outside the doors. There was a minor indentation on the passenger door near the handle.

Image – Hyundai Elantra at scene

Beside the open driver’s door was a black police-issue entry tool. There was another black entry tool on the exterior of the passenger side front windshield. There was a large canister of oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray, also on the exterior of the passenger side front windshield. There was a knife with a wooden handle on the exterior of the driver side of the windshield. There was a police riot shield, which leaned against the rear quarter panel on the passenger side of the vehicle. There were small spots of blood in the trampled snow next to the rear passenger side wheel and riot shield.

On the front passenger seat were three Taser X7 model CEWs [WO #7, WO #6 and WO #1]. There was a tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) vape pen located on the front driver’s seat. There were two spent CEW cartridges with wires and probes still attached located on the front driver’s seat. One of the cartridges was associated to WO #7’s CEW and the other cartridge was associated to WO #1’s CEW. There was also one spent CEW cartridge with wires and probes still attached on the front passenger seat. The cartridge was associated to WO #6’s CEW.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data - WO #7

On January 3, 2026, at 4:01:51 a.m., the CEW assigned to WO #7 was armed. There were two live cartridges seated in their respective bays. At 4:01:52 a.m., a cartridge was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 4.94 seconds. At 4:04:20 a.m., the CEW was rendered safe.

CEW Deployment Data - WO #6

On January 3, 2026, at 4:01:42 a.m., the CEW assigned to WO #6 was armed. There were two live cartridges seated in their respective bays. At 4:01:48 a.m., a cartridge was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 4.91 seconds. At 4:01:54 a.m., a second cartridge was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 4.91 seconds. At 4:02:00 a.m., the trigger was pulled, and electricity was discharged again for 4.91 seconds. At 4:02:43 a.m., the CEW was rendered safe.

CEW Deployment Data - WO #1

On January 3, 2026, at 4:01:45 a.m., the CEW assigned to WO #1 was armed. There were two live cartridges seated in their respective bays. At 4:01:48 a.m., a cartridge was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 1.65 seconds. At 4:01:50 a.m., the second cartridge was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 5.06 seconds. At 4:01:58 a.m., electricity was discharged for 4.94 seconds. At 4:02:04 a.m., electricity was discharged for 5.67 seconds. At 4:02:10 seconds, electricity was discharged for 4.94 seconds. At 4:02:16 a.m., electricity was discharged for 6.74 seconds. At 4:02:39 a.m., the CEW was rendered safe.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On January 3, 2026, starting at about 2:30:30 a.m., WO #9 and another police officer [WO #2] stood outside and nearby two marked police vehicles. The police vehicles were parked in front and adjacent to the driver side of another vehicle with a male [the Complainant] seated in the driver’s seat. WO #2 shone a flashlight towards the Complainant. The driver side window was closed on the Complainant’s vehicle. WO #2 asked the Complainant to lower his window. The Complainant lowered the window a couple of centimetres. He could not be heard on the footage. WO #2 said, “We can have a real good conversation about medical-assisted death if you put the knife outside.” WO #9 offered to take the Complainant to the hospital to discuss medical assistance in dying. The Complainant did not respond and instead made phone calls.

Starting at about 2:36:49 a.m., the Complainant closed his driver side window. The OPS officers spoke among themselves for several minutes. WO #2 knocked on the windshield several times, but the Complainant ignored him.

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage

On January 3, 2026, starting at about 12:36:13 a.m., WO #3 drove westbound on Barnsdale Road with her emergency lights activated. She arrived behind another police vehicle [WO #2] travelling the same direction, also with its emergency lights activated. WO #3 and WO #2 followed a civilian vehicle [the Complainant] northbound onto Greenbank Road. The Complainant turned eastbound onto Cambrian Road, then southbound through a roundabout onto Longfields Drive. WO #2 drove around the Complainant’s vehicle and stopped in front of him. WO #3 stopped her vehicle adjacent to the Complainant’s driver side door. WO #3, WO #2 and WO #4 positioned themselves at the front of WO #3’s and the Complainant’s vehicles. Over the next few hours, the OPS officers apparently spoke with the Complainant.[3] Additional police officers arrived.

Starting at about 3:16:51 a.m., a tactical officer arrived at the front of WO #3’s vehicle. Additional tactical officers arrived shortly. Snow continually covered the windshield of WO #3’s vehicle, which would obstruct the ICCS view until the wipers were activated. An OPS officer periodically knocked on the Complainant’s windshield.

Starting at about 4:01:41 a.m., WO #3’s vehicle suddenly reversed. Three tactical officers rushed towards the Complainant’s driver’s door. Their bodies obscured any view of the Complainant. There was an unknown number of tactical officers on the passenger side of the Complainant’s vehicle.

Starting at about 4:02:40 a.m., the tactical officers on the driver side of the Complainant’s vehicle walked towards the trunk and out of camera view.

Starting at about 4:03:06 a.m., an ambulance arrived.

Starting at about 4:15:25 a.m., the ambulance left the scene.

OPS Communications Recordings

On January 3, 2026, at 12:19 a.m., the OPS received a call from the Ottawa Paramedic Service notifying them of a call for service. A woman had called to report a family member [the Complainant] experiencing suicidal ideation. The Complainant had left the residence in an uninsured vehicle.

Starting at about 12:24 a.m., the woman called OPS to report what she had already reported to the Ottawa Paramedic Service. She provided a description of the vehicle the Complainant had left the residence in and his direction of travel. She reported that the Complainant believed he would die from a disease, and physicians had not taken him seriously.

Starting at about 12:33 a.m., a police officer [WO #2] reported he had located the Complainant’s vehicle westbound on Barnsdale Road. WO #2 attempted a traffic stop but the Complainant did not stop and accelerated away. Another police officer [WO #3] caught up to WO #2. WO #3, WO #2 and another police officer [WO #4] planned to perform a rolling block on the Complainant’s vehicle. The Complainant was stopped southbound on Longfields Drive and the vehicle was surrounded.

Starting at about 12:40 a.m., a police officer advised that the Complainant was armed with a machete and barricaded in his vehicle. The Complainant had lowered his window and communicated with the officers. An ambulance was dispatched to the scene.

Starting at about 12:43 a.m., the Complainant had removed the keys from the ignition. One minute later, the Complainant was said to have thrown a knife outside of his vehicle before it was subsequently reported that he had a second knife. A dispatcher attempted to call the Complainant’s cell phone but there was no answer.

Starting at about 12:59 a.m., the Complainant reportedly asked the police officers to shoot him.

Starting at about 1:02 a.m., the Complainant held the knife to his throat and had closed his vehicle window. The dispatcher tried different phone numbers to reach the Complainant but was unsuccessful.

Starting at about 1:35 a.m., a police officer advised that the Complainant had become less communicative. A police officer had sent a text message to the Complainant but there was no response. Over the course of the incident, the Complainant sometimes held the knife in his hand and, at other times, lowered it and let it go.

Starting at about 3:05 a.m., the Complainant held the knife against his stomach. He appeared to press it against his skin but did not break the surface of the skin.

Starting at about 4:00:59 a.m., a police officer [the SO] advised the knife was on the passenger seat and said, “Go ahead.”

Starting at about 4:02 a.m., a police officer advised the Complainant had been extricated from the vehicle. He had a small puncture wound to his abdomen.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPS between January 3, 2026, and March 24, 2026:

• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Notes – WO #2, WO #6, WO #8, WO #7, WO #5, WO #3, WO #1, WO #4 and WO #9
• Investigative Action Reports – WO #5, WO #3 and WO #1
• CEW deployment data - WO #7, WO #6 and WO #1
• BWC footage
• ICCS footage
• Communications recordings
• Use of Force Policy
• Mental Health Incidents Policy

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from the OCH on January 28, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and 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 or the release of his notes.

In the early morning of January 3, 2026, OPS officers were on the lookout for a Hyundai Elantra following a call to police from a woman. The woman had called to report that a family member – the Complainant – had left their residence in the vehicle. He was of unsound mind and experiencing suicidal ideation.

WO #2 located the vehicle and attempted to pull it over. The Complainant refused to stop and picked up his speed. WO #3 and WO #4, driving separate cruisers, joined WO #2. The three of them decided to attempt a rolling block of the Elantra. At about 12:40 a.m., the officers positioned their cruisers around the Elantra and brought it to a stop facing south on the west shoulder of Longfields Drive, a short distance south of Cambrian Road.

The officers exited their cruisers and attempted to engage with the Complainant. The Complainant had a knife that he occasionally held at his neck and abdomen. The officers realized that the Complainant was only a risk to himself, and put their firearms away. He was upset and asked the officers to kill him. He talked of being infected with spores and fungi. As time went by, the Complainant became less responsive to the officers’ overtures.

A team of OPS tactical officers arrived on scene and surrounded the Elantra. Among their ranks was a trained negotiator who also attempted to bring the standoff to a peaceful resolution. The Complainant could not be persuaded to let go of the knife and exit the vehicle. A plan was agreed that the tactical officers would storm the vehicle to take the Complainant into custody when and if he placed the knife away from his person.

At about 4:00 a.m., the SO gave the signal to move in after the Complainant had put the knife on the front passenger seat. Tactical officers smashed the front door windows and discharged CEWs at the Complainant and OC spray into the vehicle. The Complainant retrieved the knife and suffered a stab wound to the abdomen. The officers took possession of the knife and removed the Complainant from the Elantra.

The Complainant was transported to hospital by paramedics and treated for a four-centimetre laceration to his abdomen.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Section 17, Mental Health Act - Action by Police Officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by OPS officers on January 3, 2026. 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 arrest and injury.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injury. In my view, there was not.

The evidence establishes that the Complainant was mentally unwell at the time of the events in question and a clear danger to himself. The officers who gathered around his vehicle on Longfields Drive, and the SO, who gave the order directing the tactical officers to move in, were within their rights in seeking to take the Complainant into custody under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

It is also apparent that the police operations culminating in the Complainant’s arrest, the latter stages of which occurred under the command of the SO, were reasonable throughout. The rolling block of the Elantra was executed safely and without incident. The negotiations that unfolded in the several hours after the Complainant was stopped, including in part by a trained negotiator, appear to have been conducted with care and compassion. The decision to rush the vehicle is due deference. By that time, negotiations had been given a fair chance to succeed but appeared to be going nowhere, and there was the ever present concern that the Complainant might act on his suicidal thoughts by self-harming with the knife in his possession. A more proactive posture made sense in the circumstances. Lastly, the force used by the tactical officers, namely, the use of CEWs and OC spray, was commensurate with the exigencies of the moment. It was imperative that the Complainant be incapacitated as quickly as possible to prevent the knife from being used to inflict grievous bodily harm or death on himself or the officers. In essence, that is essentially what happened; though the Complainant suffered a knife wound,[4] he escaped the incident without lethal injury.

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

Date: May 1, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit