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 48-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On February 21, 2026, at 5:51 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

Earlier that day, the Complainant contacted emergency services in relation to hallucinations he was experiencing. Police and paramedics located him barricaded in a bedroom and, at his request, transported him to South Bruce Grey Health Centre - Kincardine Hospital (SBGHC). He was discharged at approximately 9:00 a.m. At 9:16 a.m., OPP officers responded to the residence of the Complainant’s former partner on information he had attempted to break in. Prior to their arrival, the Complainant fled in her vehicle. Throughout the day, the Complainant committed multiple motor vehicle thefts and residential break and enters, one of which involved the theft of a firearm. OPP officers located the Complainant driving a stolen vehicle on a roadway in a rural area outside of Port Elgin in Bruce County and deployed a Tire Deflation Device (TDD), resulting in the vehicle losing control and entering a ditch. The Complainant ran to a nearby residence while in possession of a sawed-off shotgun and demanded the occupants provide him their vehicle keys. Emergency Response Team (ERT) officers confronted the Complainant. He pointed a firearm at them, and an officer fired a C8 carbine rifle. The Complainant was transported to Southampton Hospital (SH) and pronounced deceased.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/02/21 at 6:16 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/02/21 at 10:53 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

48-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on February 22, 2026.

Subject Official

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on April 28, 2026.

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on March 5, 2026

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the driveway of a house located in a rural area outside of Port Elgin in Bruce County. The residence was a detached home situated on the south side of a two-lane roadway.

Scene Diagram

Source: SIU

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic services attended the scene. The home had an attached garage to the east end with the front door to the west, both facing north towards the street. A walkway extended across the front of the house from the west side of the driveway to the front door. Parked on the south side of the road, west of the driveway, facing easterly in the eastbound lane was an unmarked OPP Chevrolet Tahoe (SO and WO #2). A white Lincoln SUV was partially in the banked snow to the south side of the roadway, east of the driveway. Both front tires were damaged with the rims exposed and gouge marks visible on the asphalt road surface from the west to the vehicle location. In the driveway were an OPP Ford Explorer (not involved), OPP Ford Transit (WO #1), and the homeowners’ Ford F-150 pick-up truck and Volkswagen Golf. A black shotgun with a pistol grip and short barrel was on the front passenger seat of the Volkswagen. The surface of the driveway to the west of the Volkswagen contained eight .223 (5.56 mm) rifle cartridge cases.

SIU forensic services examined the firearm recovered from the front passenger seat of the Volkswagen Golf. It was a Winchester shotgun, Model 2400 semi-automatic 12 Gauge 2 ¾ inch chamber with a shortened barrel. A pistol grip was affixed, replacing the standard stock, shortening the overall length further. A mesh bag was attached in front of the receiver, which extended over the ejection port, designed to catch ejected shells. A pencil-style flashlight was affixed to the left side of the fore-stock and tubular magazine. A shot shell holder attached to the left side of the receiver had six shot shells. A sling was attached to the pistol grip. The shotgun had one shot shell in the receiver and two similar shot shells in the tubular magazine. All nine shot shells were similar in appearance with the headstamp on each shell marked as “ANGEE BIN Dummy Round 12 GA 2 ¾”. The nine shells were inert.

Image 1 – The Winchester shotgun.

Image 2 – The Winchester shotgun.

SIU forensic services examined the firearm the SO had discharged in the incident. It was a Colt C-8 model semi-automatic carbine 5.56 mm (.223 calibre). The rifle was affixed with a sling, flashlight and sighting systems. The firearm had been made safe, with the magazine detached and the round removed from the chamber. The magazine had a 30-round capacity and contained twenty live rounds of .223 ammunition.

Image 3 – The C-8 rifle.

Forensic Evidence

Firearms Report from Centre of Forensic Sciences

The Firearms Report, dated May 5, 2026, concluded that the Winchester Model 2400 12 gauge met the Criminal Code definitions of “firearm” and “prohibited firearm”, and functioned as designed as a semi-automatic shotgun. The firearm was modified with a hole in the top of the barrel and was in firing condition. The barrel had been cut down from its manufactured length to 34.95 centimetres, with an overall length of 62.9 centimetres.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Doorbell Camera Footage from the Residence

On February 21, 2026, starting at 3:51 p.m., a police siren was sounding as the Complainant appeared at the driver side of a F-150 pick-up truck parked in the driveway of the residence. The Complainant proceeded south to a parked Volkswagen, returned to the F-150, and then walked out of sight. The Complainant ran along the walkway at the front of the residence with a firearm [now known to be a modified pistol-gripped shotgun] in his right hand towards the front door. The Complainant pulled on the door handle and then stepped back and kicked the door with his right foot. The Complainant stumbled backward, steadied himself, raised the gun to just above his waist and pointed it towards the front door. The door opened [now known to have been opened by CW #1] and the Complainant moved forward with the firearm pointed at CW #1. The Complainant stated, “Get the fuck back, I have a loaded weapon buddy, I will blow your chest off.” The Complainant entered the residence and repeatedly demanded the vehicle keys.

BWC Footage – The SO

On February 21, 2026, starting at 3:50 p.m., the SO was driving a police vehicle on a roadway in a rural area outside of Port Elgin in Bruce County with WO #2 as a front seat passenger. He parked west of the driveway at a residence, paused briefly behind the open driver’s door, and then ran east towards the driveway.

Starting at 3:51 p.m., the SO raised his sling-mounted carbine rifle to chest height and shouted, “Police don’t move. Show me your fucking hands.” A Lincoln SUV was east of the driveway in a snowbank. The SO shouted, “Do not move,” as WO #1, driving a Transit van, turned into the driveway. The SO lowered his rifle and ran up the driveway, passing the stopped Transit van on the passenger side. The SO approached a stationary Volkswagen that was reversed into the driveway and raised his carbine rifle to chest height. The Complainant was seated in the driver’s seat with the door closed and window raised. His left arm was extended and his hand was holding the steering wheel as he looked towards the police officer. The SO pointed his rifle at the Complainant and said, “Do not fucking move.” The Complainant rotated his upper body to his right looking down towards the passenger side. As the SO said, “Do not move. Show me your fucking hands,” the Complainant raised his left hand to shoulder height. The SO opened the driver’s door. The Complainant looked towards the police officer, with his left hand by his legs. The Complainant turned his head towards the passenger side and raised his left hand to chest height. In his right hand was a modified shotgun, which he appeared to obtain from near the centre console.

Image 4 – Still image from the SO’s BWC.

The Complainant gripped the stock of the firearm with his left hand and pointed it towards the SO as he looked towards him. The SO discharged eight rounds in quick succession at the Complainant and the Complainant slumped to his right..

OPP Dispatch Event Details & Communications Recordings

Throughout the day of February 21, 2026, police officers were investigating the Complainant for multiple residential break and enters, theft of motor vehicles and weapons offences.

A white Lincoln SUV [now known to be a stolen vehicle driven by the Complainant] was reported to be exiting a driveway in a rural area outside of Port Elgin in Bruce County. It was speeding up and might have struck a TDD. The Complainant was approaching a roadblock set up nearby.

Starting at 3:49 p.m., the Lincoln SUV had reportedly struck a TDD, gone airborne, left the roadway, and crashed.

Starting at 3:50 p.m., the Complainant was said to have entered a residence [now known to be the residence outside of which the incident took place]. A police officer was in fresh pursuit.

Starting at 3:51 p.m., WO #1 was blocking the driveway with this police vehicle. Shots were reportedly fired and the Complainant was struck.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between February 21, 2026, and April 28, 2026:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Summary of related occurrences
• Dispatch Event Details
• Police communications recordings
• Body-worn camera (BWC) footage
• SO’s annual use of force training records
• Notes – WO #1, the SO and WO #2
• OPP policies - Use of Force; Emergency Response Team

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between February 23, 2026, and May 5, 2026:

• Doorbell camera footage from the residence where the incident took place
• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• Firearms Report from the Centre of Forensic Sciences

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the SO and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario.

OPP officers were on the lookout for the Complainant in the Bruce Grey area on February 21, 2026. The Complainant was the suspect in a series of residential break and enters and automobile thefts. He was also believed to have assaulted a woman and stolen a firearm in one of his break and enters. Officers were eventually able to identify his movements when he stole a set of car keys containing a tracking device. This led them to a property in a rural area outside of Port Elgin in Bruce County, where attempts were made to contain the Complainant. The Complainant was able to elude apprehension and fled in a stolen Lincoln SUV.

The Complainant was of unsound mind. He had earlier called emergency services seeking help in relation to hallucinations he was experiencing, and agreed to accompany police to hospital. Regrettably, when he left hospital, he embarked on a crime spree involving break-ins, thefts, assault and dangerous driving.

The SO, a member of the OPP ERT, and his partner, WO #2, were among the officers searching for the Complainant. They were eastbound, responding to an address where the vehicle being driven by the Complainant was reported to be located and efforts were being made to contain it, when he came across the Complainant fleeing the scene in the SUV. The officer pursued the SUV eastward as it travelled past TDDs that had been deployed in the area.

The Complainant lost control of the SUV and crashed it into a snowbank on the south side of the roadway, just east of a residence located in a rural area outside Port Elgin in Bruce County. He exited the vehicle armed with a sawed-off shotgun, approached the front door and attempted to kick it in. When the husband and wife homeowners presented themselves at the door, he pointed the firearm in their direction, threatened to shoot them, and demanded their car keys. The couple surrendered the keys to a Volkswagen Golf parked on the driveway, and then fled to their basement.

The SO and WO #2 arrived on scene just as the Complainant made his way to the Volkswagen and entered the vehicle. Moments before, WO #1 drove onto the driveway to block the Volkswagen’s egress from the property. Armed with a C-8 rifle, the SO rushed towards the driver’s door of the Volkswagen and ordered the Complainant to show his hands. The Complainant raised his empty hands. The officer then opened the driver’s door as the Complainant retrieved a shotgun with his right hand and pointed it at the SO. The SO reacted immediately and discharged eight rounds from his C-8 rifle. The time was 3:51 p.m.

The Complainant slumped to his right, the front of his torso across the centre console of the vehicle. He remained in that position until officers pulled him out and applied first aid.

Paramedics attended the scene and took charge of the Complainant’s care. He was pronounced deceased in hospital at 4:30 p.m.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to multiple gunshot wounds to the torso and extremities.

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 passed away on February 21, 2026, the result of gunshot wounds inflicted by an OPP officer. 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 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 SO was engaged in the exercise of his duty through the brief but dynamic sequence of events that culminated in gunfire. With information to believe that the Complainant had been engaged in serious criminal activity that day, the officer was within his rights in moving to take him into custody on the driveway of the residence located a rural area outside of Port Elgin in Bruce County.

The evidence establishes that the SO fired his C-8 rifle to defend himself from a reasonably apprehended attack at the hands of the Complainant. He said so in his SIU interview, and his account is amply supported by the circumstantial evidence. Confronted by the Complainant brandishing a shotgun in his direction, it is plain to see how the officer believed that a resort to force was necessary to preserve himself from an immediate threat of death.

The evidence further establishes that the SO’s choice of defensive force, namely, gunfire, constituted reasonable force. When the Complainant pointed the shotgun in the SO’s direction at point-blank range, there was no time for retreat or withdrawal or an opportunity to seek cover. Nor would less-lethal force have sufficed to address the exigencies of the situation. What was required in that moment was the stopping power of a firearm. With respect to the number of rounds fired, the eight shots were discharged in rapid succession over the course of about two seconds, and the officer stopped firing after it was apparent that the Complainant was incapacitated. On this record, I am satisfied that the SO acted reasonably from shots one through eight.

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

Date: June 16, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit