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 27-year-old man (“Complainant #1”) and a 54-year-old man (“Complainant #2”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 18, 2026, at 11:21 a.m., the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) reported that officers were dispatched at about 11:00 a.m. to a 911 call from Civilian Witness (CW) #1 regarding a man, Complainant #1, experiencing a mental health crisis at a residence in the area of Bloor Street East and Simcoe Street South in Oshawa.

The Subject Official (SO) arrived on scene at 10:54 a.m. and attempted to speak with Complainant #1, who was standing in the street holding a knife. The SO initially had her conducted energy weapon (CEW) drawn but transitioned to her firearm after observing the knife in Complainant #1’s right hand. She attempted to de-escalate the situation, but those efforts were unsuccessful.

Complainant #2 (a DRPS officer) arrived one minute later and began moving towards Complainant #1, which further agitated him. At 10:58 a.m., Complainant #1 focused his attention on the SO and sprinted towards her while holding the knife, running past a third officer, Witness Official (WO) #1. WO #1 deployed his CEW; however, it was ineffective due to Complainant #1’s clothing.

The SO discharged her firearm three times. One round struck Complainant #1 in the arm, and another struck Complainant #2 in the abdomen below his protective vest. Complainant #2 was transported to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC) while Complainant #1 was transported to Lakeridge Health Hospital (LHH).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/01/18 at 11:31 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/01/18 at 1:45 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

Complainant #1 27-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

Complainant #2 54-year-old male; interviewed

The Complainants were interviewed between January 18, 2026, and March 23, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on January 18, 2026.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on April 10, 2026.

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between January 28, 2026, and March 23, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around an intersection in the area of Bloor Street East and Simcoe Street South, Oshawa.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

Street #1 ran in a north–south direction and terminated at a T-intersection, with Street #2 extending westbound and Street #3 extending eastbound. The area consisted primarily of residential properties, and had asphalt roadways, curb lines, sidewalks, and adjacent snowbanks consistent with winter conditions. Along the north side of Street #2 and Street #3 in the area of the intersection was a snowbank, slightly behind which was a chain-link fence, which prevented access to the area to the north of the roadway.

The layout of the intersection provided an open sightline along Street #1 towards Street #3, with limited obstructions. Street lighting and residential lighting were present, and the road surfaces were clear, with snow accumulated along the roadway edges.

Upon examination, three fully marked DRPS cruisers remained within the scene, one of which had reportedly been repositioned several metres from its original location during post-incident activity.

A number of physical exhibits were documented and collected from the scene. These included three 9mm cartridge cases, CEW wire and a knife, found northeast of Street #1 on Street #3. A projectile embedded in the lower apartment doorframe was later located at Complainant #1’s residence.

The firearm belonging to the SO - a Glock 17 9mm pistol - was collected as part of the evidence related to the investigation. Upon examination, the pistol contained 14 live rounds in the magazine and one live round removed from the breech, totaling 15 rounds of 9mm ammunition. A fully loaded Glock 17 contains 18 rounds (one chambered, seventeen in the magazine), suggesting three rounds were missing. The Glock 17 pistol was submitted to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS). Results were pending on the date of this report.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data - WO #1

The data generated from the weapon recorded only the officer’s actions, including trigger activation, discharge duration, arc activity, safety engagement, and the deployment of identifiable cartridges. The data did not establish whether electrical current contacted Complainant #1.

On January 18, 2026, WO #1 was operating an Axon Taser X2.

At 10:57:05 a.m., the CEW was armed with the safety switched to the off position. At that time, both Cartridge 1 and Cartridge 2 were standard 25-foot cartridges.

At 10:59:29 a.m., the trigger was pulled, resulting in the deployment of Cartridge 1 and a discharge of electricity lasting about two seconds.

At 10:59:34 a.m., the CEW was returned to safe mode. Cartridge 2 was not deployed.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

DRPS Communications Recordings

On January 18, 2026, at 10:44 a.m., CW #1 called 911 to report that Complainant #1 was experiencing a mental health breakdown. She reported hearing him banging on walls, smashing cupboard doors, and yelling. CW #1 stated that she had encountered Complainant #1 in similar states in the past, which typically lasted about an hour, and that she avoided interacting with him because doing so tended to escalate his behaviour. Concerned for his wellbeing, she sent him a text message, after which Complainant #1 came to her door holding a steak knife. She described him as shaking, red-faced, and visibly distressed as he told her to “call the fucking cops” and stated that he was going to kill himself. He gestured with the knife in a non-threatening manner, pointed it towards himself, and then returned to his apartment. CW #1 reported that Complainant #1 did not drink alcohol and had no other weapons.

On January 18, 2026, at 10:53 a.m., the SO advised that Complainant #1 was outside near the roadway holding a steak knife and that she had him at gunpoint.

At 10:54 a.m., Complainant #2 arrived on scene armed with a CEW and attempted to communicate with Complainant #1. A negotiator was requested.

At 10:58 a.m., the SO reported that Complainant #1 was non-compliant but remained stationary and was screaming.

At 10:59 a.m., WO #1 requested emergency medical services after Complainant #2 was shot in the abdomen. Complainant #1 was taken into custody for assault with a weapon and was found to have sustained a gunshot wound to the upper left arm.

At 11:02 a.m., Complainant #1 was conscious and had a tourniquet applied. Complainant #2 was transported by ambulance to SHSC.

At 11:10 a.m., paramedics arrived to treat Complainant #1, who was reported to be in stable condition, while Complainant #2 was described as serious but stable.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO, Complainant #2, WO #1, and WO #2

On January 18, 2026, between 10:53 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., the BWCs of the SO, Complainant #2 and WO #1 captured the police response to a “suicidal person” call involving Complainant #1 at the intersection of Street #1, Street #2 and Street #3 in Oshawa.

The SO was first on scene at 10:53 a.m. and parked her fully marked cruiser on Street #2, west of its intersection with Street #1. As she exited, she initially drew her CEW and observed Complainant #1 standing on Street #1 just to the south of the intersection with Street #2 and Street #3 holding a knife in his right hand. After Complainant #1 refused repeated commands to drop the knife, the SO transitioned to her firearm, advised dispatch that she was alone and had Complainant #1 at gunpoint, and attempted to engage him verbally. As she was doing this, the SO moved to the east along the northern side of the intersection, ultimately ending up in the area close to the northern curb in the middle of the top of the “T” intersection. Complainant #1 moved towards the western curb of Street #1. In a calm tone, the SO repeatedly assured Complainant #1 that police were there to help, Complainant #1 angrily demanded to be shot and refused to comply. The SO told Complainant #1 she was not going to shoot him.

At about 10:55 a.m., Complainant #2 arrived on scene via Street #1 and approached Complainant #1 from the south armed with a CEW. Complainant #2 engaged Complainant #1 in a calm tone, inquiring as to what was the matter. Complainant #1 repeatedly pointed the knife at Complainant #2 and yelled for him to get back. Communication continued among the officers, with the SO requesting radio silence and backup units to attend. WO #1 arrived in a fully marked cruiser, parked to the east of the intersection of Street #1 on Street #3, activated his BWC, and took a position across the roadway from Complainant #1 in the area of the southeast corner of the intersection. WO #1 was armed with his CEW. During this period, officers repeatedly and calmly asked Complainant #1 to put down the knife, advising him that doing so would allow the SO to holster her firearm. Complainant #1 said he did not care and continued to demand that police shoot him. Complainant #1 alternated his focus between the officers, reacting when Complainant #2 shifted position towards the west curb of Street #1 by turning to the south to face him more directly, raising his right hand in which he held the knife and telling the officer to “get the fuck back”. At this point, Complainant #2 was positioned close to the western curb of Street #1 directly to the south of Complainant #1 and was closest to him. WO #1 was further away from Complainant #1 than Complainant #2 and was positioned to the east of Complainant #1 close to the curb on the southeast portion of the intersection. The SO was approximately the same distance away from Complainant #1 as WO #1 but positioned to the northeast of Complainant #1 very close to the northern curb at the top of the “T” shaped intersection.

At 10:58:24 a.m., after several minutes of verbal negotiation, Complainant #1 suddenly ran northeast directly towards the SO with the knife extended in his right hand. The SO turned to her left and retreated eastward along the roadway while calling out, “[Complainant #1’s first name], [Complainant #1’s first name], don’t.”

As Complainant #1 ran past him chasing the SO, WO #1 deployed his CEW, which had no apparent effect on Complainant #1 who continued advancing towards the SO, closing the distance rapidly. Complainant #2 began to chase Complainant #1, running from his position towards WO #1’s cruiser.

At 10:58:30 a.m., the SO, at this point having moved backward past WO #1’s cruiser, fired three shots in rapid succession from her service pistol. At the point when the first of the shots was fired, Complainant #2 was, from the perspective of the SO’s BWC, behind Complainant #1 and obstructed by his advancing figure. Similarly, Complainant #2’s BWC showed that the SO was obscured by Complainant #1 who was between them. Complainant #1 collapsed onto the roadway with the knife still in his right hand. Complainant #2 collapsed after sustaining a gunshot wound to the abdomen.

Immediately following the discharge, officers moved in to secure and provide medical aid. WO #1 restrained Complainant #1 and handcuffed his hands behind his back, advising dispatch that Complainant #1 had sustained a gunshot wound to his left upper arm. A tourniquet was applied by Officer #1. The SO and other uniformed officers rendered first aid to Complainant #2.

Complainant #2 was transported to SHSC, and Complainant #1 was placed on a stretcher and transported by ambulance to LHH, accompanied by WO #1.

Video Footage - Private Residence

Video footage was obtained from a camera affixed to a private residence, providing a view of the intersection at Street #1 and Street #2.

The earliest footage, time-stamped 10:53:26 a.m., showed a fully marked DRPS cruiser travelling westbound on Street #2 through the intersection at Street #1. As the vehicle passed through the intersection, Complainant #1 emerged from the west side of Street #1, walked eastward, stopped, and looked towards the police vehicle. Moments later, the SO could be heard twice yelling, “Drop the knife,” to which Complainant #1 replied, “No,” both times. This clip ended at 10:53:44 a.m.

A second clip, time-stamped 10:54:59 a.m., captured the SO standing in the middle of Street #2 facing southbound, while Complainant #1 stood in the middle of Street #1 facing north towards her.

At 10:55:02 a.m., a second fully marked DRPS cruiser [Complainant #2] travelled north on Street #1 and parked south of Complainant #1. Complainant #2 exited and approached. In response, Complainant #1 stepped backward and positioned himself closer to the east curb of Street #1. The clip ended at 10:55:26 a.m.

The final clip, time-stamped 10:58:13 a.m., showed three uniformed DRPS officers [the SO, Complainant #2 and WO #1] spaced apart in the roadway at the intersection. The SO was positioned on the north side of Street #2 armed with a pistol, WO #1 stood in the centre of Street #2, east of Street #1, armed with a CEW, and Complainant #2 was positioned in the centre of Street #1 south of Street #2, also armed with a CEW. Complainant #1 was partially out of view on the west side of Street #1.

At 10:58:16 a.m., a fully marked DRPS cruiser with emergency lights and siren activated, later identified as being driven by WO #2, entered northbound on Street #1, and parked at an angle south of Street #2.

At 10:58:24 a.m., Complainant #1 suddenly sprinted from the west side of Street #1 east towards the SO and WO #1. The SO was seen retreating backward towards the rear of WO #1’s police vehicle while yelling, “[Complainant #1’s first name], [Complainant #1’s first name], don’t.” Complainant #2 pursued Complainant #1, running eastbound on Street #2.

At 10:58:27 a.m., a distinct “pop” sound was heard, consistent with a CEW deployment

by WO #1. Complainant #1 continued running eastward past him, followed by both WO #1 and Complainant #2.

At 10:58:30 a.m., three gunshots were heard in quick succession. Complainant #1 immediately collapsed to the ground. Complainant #2, who was positioned behind WO #1 at the time of the final shot, also collapsed to the roadway. WO #2 was then observed running northbound on Street #1 towards Complainant #1. The footage ended at 10:58:50 a.m., with first aid being rendered to both Complainant #1 and Complainant #2.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the DRPS between January 19, 2026, and January 30, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Notes - WO #1 and WO #2
• BWC footage - the SO, Complainant #2, WO #1 and WO #2
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• Video footage from private residence
• DRPS Use of Force Policy
• CEW deployment data – WO #1.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained Complainant #1’s medical records from LHH on January 22, 2026.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including BWC footage, and interviews with Complainant #1, the SO and officers in the vicinity, including Complainant #2, gives rise to the following scenario.

On January 18, 2026, shortly before 11:00 a.m., police were called by CW #1, who reported that she was concerned Complainant #1 was experiencing a mental health breakdown and that he had attended at her residence while armed with a steak knife. Complainant #1 advised CW #1 to call the police as he was going to end his life, after which he left her residence. CW #1 called 911 and relayed to dispatchers what had just happened.

The SO was the first officer to arrive on scene in the area of Bloor Street East and Simcoe Street South in Oshawa. After parking her cruiser, the SO exited the vehicle, drew her CEW and observed Complainant #1 standing on Street #1 holding a knife in his right hand. The SO repeatedly commanded Complainant #1 to drop the knife, which he refused to do. The SO then put away her CEW, drew her firearm and contacted dispatch to advise them of the situation.

The SO continued to speak to Complainant #1 calmly and assured him that police were there to help him. For his part Complainant #1 refused to comply with the demands to put down the knife and demanded that the SO shoot him.

Approximately two minutes after the SO arrived on scene, she was joined by Complainant #2 and WO #1. The three police officers were standing in a rough triangle formation around Complainant #1. The officers all spoke to Complainant #1, making calm entreaties in an attempt to defuse the situation.

Approximately three minutes after the arrival of Complainant #2 and WO #1, and without warning, Complainant #1 charged directly towards the SO with his knife held out in his right hand. The SO retreated from Complainant #1 and exhorted him not to move towards her. Complainant #2 started to chase Complainant #1 from behind as he ran towards the SO. As Complainant #1 passed WO #1, the officer discharged his CEW at Complainant #1 without apparent effect as Complainant #1 kept running, closing the distance to the SO who continued to retreat. Complainant #1 had neared to within two to four metres of the SO when the SO fired her pistol three times in quick succession.

Complainant #1 was struck once in the left forearm, causing him to fall to the roadway. WO #1 took him into custody and rendered first aid.

Complainant #2 was also shot once, in the abdomen. He was transported to hospital and survived his wound.

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.

Complainant #1 and Complainant #2 were shot and wounded by the SO on January 18, 2026. The SIU was notified of the event 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 events in question.

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 positioned throughout the series of events that culminated in her discharging her firearm. Police had been called to deal with an emergency situation in which a male had attended CW #1’s unit while armed with a knife and told her to call the police as he was intent on killing himself.

Throughout her interactions with Complainant #1, the SO, and the other officers present, calmly attempted to de-escalate the situation. Complainant #1 repeatedly demanded that officers shoot him. Unfortunately, the efforts of the officers to de-escalate the situation were not successful and, without warning, Complainant #1 charged at the SO with his knife out in front of him. It bears noting that when he did so, the SO was the only officer present who had a firearm drawn and in their hand. The SO’s initial reaction to Complainant #1’s charge was to retreat and try to create distance. This effort was not only a sensible reaction but also provided an opportunity for WO #1 to attempt to put an end to the situation using his CEW as Complainant #1 ran past him in his pursuit of the SO. It is also important to note that Complainant #1’s choice to charge at the SO was motivated by his stated desire to be shot, and she was the only officer with her firearm drawn and therefore the only officer in attendance with the present ability to grant him his stated desire. On this record, I am satisfied that the SO’s gunfire was in response to a reasonably apprehended attack on her person.

I am also satisfied that the SO’s resort to gunfire constituted reasonable force. Complainant #1 appeared intent on doing her harm with his knife and had run right past another officer in his pursuit of the SO. By the time she discharged her firearm, the SO’s life was in danger. Complainant #1 was rushing towards her brandishing a knife, another officer’s attempt to disable him with less than lethal force had failed, and Complainant #1 was quickly closing the distance between them. If the SO had continued to let him close the distance, there was a very real potential that any physical engagement between them could have resulted in her suffering a grievous or mortal injury. With these factors in mind, it is difficult to understand what the SO could have done differently. In light of all of the circumstances, it is my view that it was reasonable and proportional for the SO to deploy lethal force as against Complainant #1.

As it relates to the injuries suffered by Complainant #2, it is apparent that although the SO acted intentionally to shoot Complainant #1, there was no such intent related to Complainant #2. In fact, it appears that the SO was unaware that Complainant #2 was located in the line of her fire when she discharged her firearm. The SO says that she was not aware that Complainant #2 was positioned behind Complainant #1 at the time she discharged her firearm, and her account finds support in the BWC footage which depicts a fast-moving foot chase with multiple persons moving in various directions. The BWC footage of the SO shows that in the moments just before she fired the shots, Complainant #2 moved behind Complainant #1 relative to the SO as she was facing Complainant #1. At the time the first of the shots was heard on the BWC audio of Complainant #2, he was almost completely obscured by Complainant #1, who was much closer to the SO. With these considerations in mind and in light of the highly charged atmosphere that prevailed at the time the shots were fired, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing any criminal liability on the part of the SO based in negligence.

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

Date: May 17, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit