Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.

Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019

Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
• Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
• Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
• Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
• Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
• Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act

Pursuant to section 14 (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
• Information that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.

Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
• Location information;
• Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence; and
• Other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation.

Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004

Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may also have been excluded from this report because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.

Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.

A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.

In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the death of a 44-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 28, 2026, at 2:46 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following incident.

On February 28, 2026, at 12:32 a.m., Civilian Witness (CW) #4 contacted PRP to report that her husband, the Complainant, had threatened her and their children. The Complainant was believed to be in possession of a firearm and had just left the residence - Residence #1 - on foot. At 12:48 a.m., the Complainant was located at Residence #2 on a street situated behind Residence #1. At 12:55 a.m., it was broadcast that an exchange of gunfire had occurred and that the Complainant had been shot. No officers were injured, although a bullet had struck Subject Official (SO) #1’s hat. The Complainant was pronounced deceased at the scene.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/02/28 at 3:00 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/02/28 at 4:32 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

44-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on February 28, 2026.

Subject Officials (SO)

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

SO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SO #3 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 was interviewed on April 17, 2026.

Witness Officials (WO)

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 March 3 and 16, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the driveways of Residence #2 and Residence #3, in the area of Dundas Street West and Erin Mills Parkway, Mississauga.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On February 28, 2026, SIU forensic services arriving on scene identified several areas of significance, including Residence #2, Residence #3, Residence #4 and a nearby street. Weather conditions were cool and damp, with snow-covered and icy ground surfaces.

The primary scene was located on the driveway of Residence #2. The deceased, the Complainant, was located on his back between a Honda CRV and the residence. He was handcuffed with his head oriented towards the residence and feet towards the vehicle. Observations included heavy blood staining to the face, a defect to the left side of the head, defects to the right chest area of his coat, and multiple Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) probes embedded in his clothing. A blood-stained black baseball cap with apparent defects was located near his head.

A Glock Model 26 pistol with an attached laser sight was located south of the Complainant. The firearm contained a chambered 9 mm cartridge and a magazine with three additional rounds. Multiple 9 mm cartridge cases and associated fragments were located in close proximity to the body, including near the head and feet, and surrounding driveway area. Additional items near the body included a black extended magazine with 25 live 9 mm rounds, a key tag, medical debris, and a damaged Apple iPhone.

The Honda CRV in the driveway displayed multiple bullet impacts, including damage to both side mirrors and the right A-pillar, with trajectories indicating shots originating from different directions, including the front lawn and roadway.

In the front yard of Residence #2, five 5.56 mm cartridge cases were recovered from the snow-covered grass near a large tree.

At Residence #3, located immediately north, additional evidence was recovered from the snow-covered driveway and surrounding area, including multiple 9 mm cartridge cases, a live 9 mm round, and several CEW probes distributed along the driveway and towards the tree line separating the properties. Footwear impressions were observed in the snow leading between the two properties.

At Residence #4, a bullet strike was observed on a front-facing window, continuing through the residence and into a kitchen backsplash. A projectile was recovered from inside the residence. Its trajectory was consistent with travel from the direction of Residence #2 or Residence #3.

On a nearby street, a black duffel bag was located containing a .45 calibre Kimber pistol with a chambered round, and two loaded magazines.

The following items were collected by SIU forensic services:

• A Glock Model 26 pistol from the driveway at Residence #2 next to the Complainant. The firearm contained one 9 mm cartridge in the chamber and a magazine with a capacity of ten rounds, holding three live cartridges. Coupled with the number of 9 mm cartridge cases located where the Complainant had been standing (6), this suggested that a total of six or seven rounds had been discharged from this firearm prior to recovery. Also located near the Complainant was a black extended magazine with a 31-round capacity, containing 25 live 9mm cartridges.

• A black baseball cap, heavily blood-stained and displaying two defects to the rear, from near the Complainant. His clothing, including a black winter jacket, exhibited multiple defects to the chest, arm and zipper areas, along with a linear defect to the inner lining.

The following police service firearms were examined by SIU forensic services:

• A Colt IUR 5.56 mm rifle, equipped with attachments, contained one cartridge in the chamber and a magazine with a 30-round capacity loaded with 24 cartridges. Coupled with the number of 5.56 mm cartridge cases located where SO #2 was standing (5), this suggested that the officer fired a total of five or six rounds.
• A Sig Sauer P320 pistol, assigned to SO #1, contained a chambered round and a 17-round capacity magazine with 16 cartridges, suggesting one round had been fired.
• A Sig Sauer P320 pistol, assigned to SO #3, contained a chambered round and a 17-round capacity magazine with 15 cartridges, suggesting one or two rounds had been fired.

A Peel Regional Police baseball cap was also examined by SIU forensic services and displayed defects to both the front and rear, consistent with projectile damage.

Forensic Evidence

On February 28, 2026, several firearms and related evidence were collected and subsequently submitted for forensic testing at the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS). The items included a Glock 26 Austria 9x19 pistol belonging to the Complainant, as well as a Colt IUR rifle, 5.56 NATO and two Sig Sauer P320 pistols belonging to PRP. All items were sealed at the time of collection. Twelve cartridge cases were also submitted, as well as five projectiles / fragments.

The results of the CFS examination remain pending as of the date of this report.

PRP CEW Deployment Data - WO #3

The CEW – a Taser 10 - was assigned to WO #3.

At 12:54:58 a.m.,[2] February 28, 2026, the CEW was unholstered and the safety was moved to armed.

At 12:55:02 a.m., the trigger was pulled and cartridge one was deployed. All ten cartridges were deployed with the last cartridge being deployed at 12:55:16 a.m.

At 12:55:47 a.m., the safety was activated, and the weapon was holstered.

The data indicated that the “Duration of Energizes” was for a total of 22.984 seconds; however, the total length of time during the energize that the weapon discharged high-voltage energy into a conductive material was 0 seconds. It was noted that the use of the weapon did not achieve “Neuromuscular Incapacitation”.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

PRP Communications Recordings

On February 28, 2026, at 12:32 a.m., CW #4 called 911 to report that her husband, the Complainant, was going to harm her and their children.

During multiple subsequent calls between 12:34 a.m. and 12:41 a.m., CW #4 advised that the Complainant had firearms, including what she described as a “machine gun”, and that he was in a distressed mental state. She described the Complainant and what he was carrying. She also reported that he had left the home and was hiding near trees at the end of the street, possibly waiting for a ride.

At 12:40 a.m., the first police unit was dispatched, and officers began responding to Residence #1.

By about 12:45 a.m., the first officers had arrived on scene. Officers, including SO #1, WO #4 and WO #5, obtained information that the Complainant was armed and had stated he would kill himself if confronted by police. Footprints were located leading away from the residence towards Erin Mills Parkway, and it was communicated that the Complainant might be carrying two firearms, one possibly in a bag.

Between 12:49 a.m. and 12:53 a.m., officers tracked the footprints and reported a possible sighting of the Complainant near Erin Mills Parkway and Dundas Street West.

At 12:53 a.m., officers advised they had located the Complainant and were in foot pursuit.

By 12:54 a.m., it was broadcast that the Complainant was running with an object in his hand. Shortly after, it was confirmed he was armed and being held at gunpoint by police near Residence #3.

At 12:55 a.m., officers broadcast that the Complainant was moving towards the rear of the residence, followed immediately by transmissions of “shots fired”. Additional gunfire was reported seconds later.

At 12:56 a.m., officers reported “suspect down”, followed by confirmation that the Complainant was down and not moving.

At 12:57 a.m., Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were requested to attend Residence #2. SO #1 reported that he had been struck in the head, though it was later determined a projectile had struck his baseball cap but he did not sustain injury.

EMS units arrived and, at 1:14 a.m., the Complainant was pronounced deceased.

PRP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On February 28, 2026, at about 12:45 a.m., SO #1, WO #5 and WO #4 arrived at Residence #1 and spoke with CW #4. She reported that she had forced her husband, the Complainant, out of the home after seeing him with a long firearm. CW #4 stated that the Complainant had left walking towards the wooded area at the end of the street and she believed he was waiting for a ride. She further advised that he might have been carrying two firearms, possibly concealed in a duffel bag, and warned officers that if confronted, he might harm himself. She repeatedly told officers that the Complainant liked police and would not intentionally harm them.

Within minutes, officers began tracking the Complainant’s movements. Fresh footprints in the snow led from the street towards Erin Mills Parkway.

At 12:52 a.m., WO #5 observed the Complainant on a path leading towards a nearby street and called out, “Police, don’t move.” The Complainant fled, prompting WO #5 and WO #4 to pursue him on foot. During the pursuit, the Complainant removed an item from a duffel bag and discarded the bag before continuing on.

At 12:54 a.m., the Complainant ran into the driveway of Residence #3. By this time, multiple officers had converged and taken positions of cover around the property. The Complainant was observed standing near the front entrance, holding a handgun at his side. Officers repeatedly issued commands for him to drop the weapon, but he did not do so. WO #3 deployed her CEW, which was ineffective in immobilizing the Complainant.

Moments later, the Complainant moved south through a brush area towards the adjacent property, Residence #2. As he did so, he raised his firearm and discharged it in the direction of officers. Gunshots were heard, and SO #1 reported that he had been struck in the head; however, this was later determined to have been a projectile that struck his cap without causing injury.

The Complainant continued moving in the driveway area of Residence #2, near a Honda CRV. Although he briefly raised his hands and placed them on the vehicle, he then again lifted his right arm in the direction of officers while still armed. In response, SO #2 fired multiple rounds from his C8 rifle. The Complainant fell to the ground.

At 12:56 a.m., officers advanced and observed the Complainant lying on his back and unresponsive. A handgun was located near him and was moved away. The Complainant was handcuffed, and officers immediately began life-saving measures, including CPR. He was observed to have sustained significant injuries, including a gunshot wound to the head.

EMS arrived at 1:02 a.m. Despite resuscitative efforts, the Complainant was pronounced deceased at 1:14 a.m.

Following the incident, officers returned to the area of a nearby street, where the discarded duffel bag was recovered. Inside, a second firearm - a 9 mm 1911-style handgun - was located concealed within a box.

PRP In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

On February 28, 2026, at 12:53:34 a.m., SO #1 drove from Residence #1 to an adjacent street as officers continued their response to the incident involving the Complainant. Moments later, WO #5 and WO #4 were observed running southbound on the adjacent street in pursuit of the Complainant, who had fled on foot.

The Complainant ran up the driveway of Residence #3 and stopped near the top of the driveway by the stairs leading to the front door. Within seconds, additional police units arrived.

By 12:54:12 a.m., several officers had taken positions of cover behind a wall, a utility pole, and a white cargo van on the driveway, all with their firearms drawn.

The Complainant moved southeast towards the backyard of Residence #3. A few seconds later, he turned and continued south, running through a line of shrubs that separated Residence #3 and Residence #2. As he moved through the line at 12:55:16 a.m., the Complainant raised his right arm up and back, prompting nearby officers to take cover.

SO #2 positioned himself behind a tree near the bottom of the driveway at Residence #2, with his C8 rifle drawn. The Complainant was observed within the brush line between the two properties. SO #1 moved from his position behind the white cargo van and proceeded down the driveway, out of the camera’s field of view.

At 12:56:18 a.m., several officers moved up the driveway of Residence #2 with their firearms drawn, while others crossed from Residence #3 to Residence #2 at 12:56:43 a.m. to secure the scene and the Complainant’s position.

EMS arrived at 1:03 a.m.

At 1:10 a.m., officers attended Residence #4, where they entered the residence and directed flashlights towards a lower window area, which was later identified as the location where a projectile had struck and damaged the glass.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PRP between February 28, 2026, and April 23, 2026:

• CEW deployment data –WO #3
• Fingerprints - the Complainant
• Persons Detail Report – the Complainant
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings and related documentation
• General Occurrence & Supplementary Reports
• ICC footage - SO #1, WO #8 and WO #2
• PRP Incident Response Policy
• BWC footage - WO #1, WO #2, SO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #6, WO #7, WO #8, WO #9, SO #3, SO #1 and WO #5
• Notes - WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5, WO #6, WO #7, WO #8, WO #9, SO #2, Officer #1, Officer #2 and WO #10

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between February 28, 2026, and May 1, 2026:

• Preliminary Firearms Report from CFS
• Pathology Clothing Exhibit Transfer Form from Ontario Forensic Pathology Service (OFPS)
• Pathology Preliminary Cause of Death Form from OFPS
• Pathology Personal Effects Form from OFPS
• Pathology Sample Collection Form from OFPS

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with SO #2 and other police and non-police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, SO #1 and SO #3 did not agree interviews with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the early morning of February 28, 2026, PRP officers were dispatched to the residence of CW #4, in the area of Dundas Street West and Erin Mills Parkway, Mississauga. CW #4 had called 911 to report concerns that her husband – the Complainant – was going to harm her and their two children. She indicated that the Complainant was in possession of firearms.

SO #1, WO #5 and WO #4 arrived at the address and spoke to CW #4. She confirmed that the Complainant was armed and had fled the residence. WO #5 and WO #4 began to search the area for the Complainant and located him a short distance away. They chased him on foot as the Complainant turned a corner to run along a footpath back towards the street on which the residence of CW #4 was located before continuing in the same direction past the street. As he ran, the Complainant reached into a duffel bag he was carrying, retrieved a Glock semi-automatic handgun, and dropped the bag. The bag was subsequently found to contain a firearm. Repeated commands that he stop went unheeded.

The Complainant continued his flight, turning left at the next intersection. WO #5 and WO #4 followed as the Complainant turned onto the driveway of Residence #3. By this time, other officers were arriving on scene in cruisers, including SO #3, who was partnered with his coach officer, WO #9. With their handguns drawn, the two took a position of cover behind a utility pole at the end of the driveway. WO #5, WO #4, SO #1 and WO #3, took cover behind the wall of a garage, beside the driveway, and a van parked in a parking alcove adjacent to the garage. The Complainant stood at the top of the driveway, in the area of the stairs leading to the entrance to Residence #3, the gun in his right hand. He repeatedly screamed “no” to commands that he drop the gun. The time was about 12:55 a.m.

As the standoff continued on the driveway, WO #3 discharged her CEW. The probes struck the Complainant’s clothing but did not achieve neuromuscular incapacitation. Shortly after, the Complainant began to make his way across a shrub line that separated Residence #3 from Residence #2. As he did so, the Complainant pointed his firearm in the direction of the officers located near the van and garage, and fired at least one shot. A bullet struck the baseball hat SO #1 was wearing but did not physically injure the officer. Almost simultaneously, SO #1 and SO #3 fired their weapons. It is unclear whether any of these shots struck the Complainant, but he remained standing and made his way onto the driveway of Residence #2 where he took cover behind a vehicle parked facing the house.

At about this time, SO #2 arrived on scene armed with a C8 rifle and positioned himself behind a large tree on the front lawn of Residence #2, a distance from the Complainant’s location. Approximately 30 seconds after the first volley of gunfire, the Complainant fired his weapon again in the direction of the officers located in the area of Residence #3. SO #2 fired twice but the Complainant remained standing beside the vehicle. There followed another exchange of gunfire involving the Complainant and SO #2, resulting in the Complainant falling to the ground.

Officers approached the Complainant cautiously and moved his Glock away from him. They applied pressure to his wounds and initiated CPR

Paramedics were on scene shortly after 1:00 a.m. The Complainant was pronounced deceased at 1:14 a.m.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to a gunshot wound to the head. He documented multiple gunshot wounds, including injuries to the right bicep, the left side of the back where a projectile was recovered, and a gunshot wound to the forehead.

Section 34, Criminal Code - Defence of Person – Use or Threat of Force

34 (1)A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) They believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) The act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) The act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

(c) the person’s role in the incident;

(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

The Complainant passed away on February 28, 2026, the result of a gunshot wound to the head sustained in an exchange of gunfire with PRP officers. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3 subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s death.

Section 34 of the Criminal Code provides that conduct that would otherwise constitute an offence is legally justified if it was intended to deter a reasonably apprehended assault, actual or threatened, and was itself reasonable. The reasonableness of the conduct is to be assessed in light of all the relevant circumstances, including with respect to such considerations as the nature of the force or threat; the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon; and, the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force.

The PRP officers involved in the operation to locate and arrest the Complainant were at all times engaged in the lawful exercise of their duty. With information to believe that the Complainant was in possession of firearms and a serious danger to public safety, the officers were duty bound to do what they could to find the Complainant and take him into custody as quickly as possible.

I am satisfied that SO #2, SO #1 and SO #3 fired their weapons to protect themselves and other officers from a reasonably apprehended attack by the Complainant. Though only SO #2 provided that evidence firsthand in an interview with the SIU, the mindset of all three officers may safely be inferred by the compelling circumstantial evidence, including the video footage that exists of the events in question. That evidence indicates that the Complainant was pointing and/or firing his gun in the direction of officers when subject officials discharged their weapons.

I am also satisfied that the officers’ choice of force, namely, gunfire, constituted reasonable force. In a highly dynamic and volatile situation, the officers continually tried to convince the Complainant to drop his firearm. The Complainant refused at every turn. Less-lethal force was also attempted by way of WO #3’s CEW discharges, but these were ineffective, probably because of the winter clothing the Complainant was wearing. The subject officials who gathered around the Complainant at Residence #3 and, then, Residence #2, exercised restraint and only fired their guns when their lives or the lives of other officers were in imminent peril as the Complainant pointed and/or fired his Glock. At that moment, one cannot fault the subject officials for choosing to meet an immediate risk of death with a resort to lethal force of their own.

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

Date: June 10, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit