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 39-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 9, 2026, at 10:26 p.m.,[2] the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Rainy River Detachment contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 9, 2026, at approximately 8:03 p.m., OPP officers responded to a person in crisis call at an address in the area of Ena Lake, north of Kenora. They encountered the Complainant, who was not receptive to police officers and did not respond to their directions. He armed himself with what appeared to be an axe and advanced towards the officers. Conducted Energy Weapons (CEWs) were deployed with negative results. Three OPP officers discharged their firearms at the Complainant. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responded and pronounced the Complainant deceased at the scene.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/03/09 at 11:45 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/03/10 at 12:35 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

39-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed; next-of-kin

The civilian witness was interviewed on March 11, 2026.

Subject Officials (SO)

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

SO #2 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on March 1, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a cabin situated in the area of Ena Lake, north of Kenora.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic services attended the scene at 2:40 p.m., March 11, 2026. The driveway leading up to the cabin was approximately 300 metres long over winding and hilly terrain, and contained hard-packed snow. At the end of the driveway were several outbuildings and a narrow walking path of packed snow leading to a cabin.

There was an area of disturbance in the snow on the north side of the walking path and south of the cabin. This area contained numerous footwear impressions in the snow, flattened packed snow and what appeared to be red blood staining along with some medical debris. Approximately two metres west of the blood staining was a yellow CEW on top of the snow. Approximately two metres south of the CEW and just on the north edge of the walking path was a set of heavy ballistic panels for a ballistic vest. Approximately three metres southwest of the ballistic panels and on the south edge of the walking path was a sledgehammer with the handle sticking upright out of the snow. On the walking path and approximately two metres east of the blood staining were four pink pin flags with plastic specimen containers covering cartridge cases (three 9mm and one .223). The area of disturbance was approximately ten metres south of the southeast corner of the cabin and approximately two metres north of the walking path. Due to diminishing daylight, SIU forensic services returned to the scene again on March 12, 2026, to complete their examination.

SIU forensic services recovered five 9 mm cases, one .223 case and three projectiles at the scene.

Also collected by SIU forensic services were the firearms discharged in the incident under investigation.

The firearm discharged by SO #3 was a Glock Model 17 semi-automatic pistol. Its magazine contained 16 unfired 9 mm cartridges. SO #3’s two spare magazines both contained 17 rounds.

The firearm discharged by SO #1 was a Glock Model 17 semi-automatic pistol. Its magazine contained 15 unfired 9 mm cartridges. SO #1’s two spare magazines both contained 17 rounds.

The firearm discharged by SO #2 was a Colt C8 .556. Its magazine contained 26 unfired .223 cartridges. SO #2’s spare magazine contained 28 rounds.

SIU forensic services collected CEW probes and cartridges at the scene, as well as a yellow CEW and a wooden handle sledgehammer.

SIU image of the sledgehammer recovered at the scene

Forensic Evidence

Firearms Report

On May 8, 2026, the Centre of Forensic Sciences provided the SIU a Firearms Report. SO #3’s Glock 17 pistol was identified, within the limits of practical certainty, as having fired two cartridge cases (items nine and ten). SO #1’s Glock 17 pistol was identified, within the limits of practical certainty, as having fired three cartridge cases (items 11,12 and 13). SO #2’s Colt C8 rifle was identified, with the limits of practical certainty, as having fired one cartridge case (item 8).

CEW Deployment Data

SO #3 deployed his CEW twice on March 9, 2026, at 9:13 p.m. The initial deployment was for about three seconds and the next for about five seconds. At 9:17 p.m., SO #3 deployed his CEW twice, first for about a half-a-second, and then for about five seconds. At 9:21 p.m., the CEW was deployed for about three seconds.

WO #2 deployed his CEW twice at 9:17 p.m. The first was for about four seconds, and the second for about five seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On March 9, 2026, at 8:34 p.m., SO #2, WO #1, SO #3 and WO #2 were positioned at the end of the Complainant’s driveway in the area of Ena Lake, north of Kenora. SO #2 initiated verbal contact with the Complainant, who yelled indistinctly from a distance.

At 8:50 p.m., SO #1 arrived, and the five officers made their way up the Complainant’s driveway on foot in the snow. SO #1 conversed with the Complainant on his cellphone and attempted to calm him. The Complainant said nonsensical things and sounded intoxicated. He stated, “I’ll fucking kill you if you trespass,” and, “I’ll end you when you arrive.” His comments fluctuated between vulgar, belligerent and confused.

At 9:02 p.m., the officers reached the residence.

At 9:05 p.m., officers approached a locked wooden door on the east side of the residence. SO #1 continued negotiations with the Complainant to exit his residence. The Complainant banged at the inside of the door and yelled. Five minutes later, the Complainant briefly appeared at a window beside the door. He yelled for police to unlock the wooden door, which he battered from inside. SO #1 disconnected the call with the Complainant. The Complainant appeared at the window and repeatedly yelled, “Look!” as he held an object to his throat before he moved out of view. The Complainant punched out the window screen and again threatened to kill officers. The Complainant then extended an axe outside the window and smashed the glass of the outer door. The Complainant angrily insisted police open the door.

At 9:13 p.m., SO #1 reported the incident was now considered a barricaded armed person situation in the residence. The Complainant appeared at the window and SO #3 deployed his CEW twice with negative results. The Complainant screamed and stepped behind a curtain, out of view. He could be heard crying inside the residence before he went silent.

At 9:14 p.m., SO #1 directed everyone to return to the south side of the residence where a perimeter was established.

At 9:17 p.m., the Complainant exited the residence from the west side and approached WO #2. WO #2 yelled commands to, “Get down,” and, “Drop it.” The Complainant ran several metres towards officers positioned in an approximate semi-circle facing him. His advance was hampered by deep snow. He held a sledgehammer in front of his body in a two-handed grip. WO #2 stood at the westernmost position armed with a CEW, and to his right was WO #1 with a C8 rifle. SO #1 was armed with his pistol and SO #2 with a C8 rifle. SO #3 had a CEW. WO #2 yelled, “Taser, taser, taser,” and deployed his CEW, which appeared ineffective. He screamed, “Shoot him, shoot him,” as the Complainant continued to advance. In quick succession, SO #3 deployed his CEW and fell backwards, and three or four gunshots were fired as the Complainant fell face down to the ground. Two additional shots were then fired.

At 9:18 p.m., SO #1 removed the sledgehammer from beside the Complainant. The Complainant was placed in handcuffs behind the back, and he was rolled over. CPR was initiated by SO #3. SO #1 requested EMS. The Complainant was not breathing and had no pulse. SO #3 confirmed the Complainant had suffered a gunshot wound to the head.

At 9:49 p.m., EMS arrived. Chest compressions continued. CEW prongs were present on the Complainant’s body.

At 9:52 p.m., EMS took over the Complainant care and, at 10:00 p.m., EMS terminated care.

Communications Recordings & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

On March 9, 2026, at 7:03 p.m., the Provincial Communications Centre (PCC) received a call from the Complainant, stating he needed help, and that he had consumed drugs and alcohol. He initially identified himself with a different name, and he sounded intoxicated. He spoke about being defrauded by a bank. He then went on about people living in his attic. The dispatcher noted a mental health-related call from January 2026.

At 7:09 p.m., the Complainant threatened to kill the call-taker. Four officers were dispatched to an address in the area of Ena Lake.

At 7:12 p.m., a mental health crisis worker in the PCC took over communications with the Complainant, who indicated he would shoot the police officers if they attended. Given this information, the call was routed back to the dispatcher.

At 7:32 p.m., the Complainant said he did not have any weapons, and was at a house in the area of Ena Lake. He said he would stab or slit the officers’ throats.

At 8:03 p.m., the Complainant indicated there was a dead man in the house. He then insisted he was armed.

At 8:19 p.m., WO #2 was first on scene. He advised there was a vehicle in the driveway of the residence, blocking the driveway. A records check identified an individual associated with the address.

At 8:28 p.m., SO #1 contacted the individual associated with the address (a family member), who indicated he did not believe the Complainant had any firearms. The family member said that the Complainant was schizophrenic and possibly off his medication. Officers attempted to speak to the Complainant from the roadway to no avail.

At 8:48 p.m., it appeared the Complainant had gone to his house. Officers made their way up the long driveway, arriving at the house at 9:07 p.m.

At 9:13 p.m., SO #1 advised the Complainant had an axe and had barricaded himself. A CEW was deployed into the house but was unsuccessful.

At 9:18 p.m., SO #1 advised the “suspect was down”. CPR was reportedly being administered, but there was no pulse.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPP Kenora Detachment between March 10 and 13, 2026:

• Notes - WO #1, WO #2 and SO #2
• BWC footage - WO #1, WO #2, SO #2, SO #3 and SO #1
• List of involved officers
• CAD Report
• Police communications recordings
• OPP SOCO[4] photographs of the scene
• Policy - Mental Health Occurrence/Person in Crisis; Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following other records from the following other sources:

• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service, on March 14, 2026
• Firearms Report from the Centre of Forensic Sciences, on May 8, 2026

In the evening of March 9, 2026, OPP officers were dispatched to an address in the area of Ena Lake, north of Kenora. The resident – the Complainant – had called police to report he needed help. He had consumed drugs and alcohol, and spoke of people living in his attic. As he continued on the call, it became apparent that the Complainant was in mental health crisis. He stated that he would kill police officers sent to his home.

SO #1, SO #2, SO #3, WO #1 and WO #2, began arriving at the address at about 8:15 p.m. They made their way on foot up a 300-metre long driveway packed with snow en route to the Complainant’s cabin. During the trek, SO #1 and the Complainant spoke on the phone. The Complainant was highly agitated and disordered. He repeatedly threatened to kill SO #1 and the other officers. SO #1 attempted to calm the Complainant. He told them the officers were there to help and would leave after they were assured he was okay. The officers came to learn from a Complainant’s family member, whom police had reached out of province, that the Complainant was schizophrenic and possibly off his medication.

Upon reaching the cabin, officers set up by a door on the lower level of the house. The Complainant could be heard screaming from behind the door and banging on it. He was eventually seen holding an axe through a window. Officers encouraged him to come outside. At one point, the Complainant pushed out the screen of a window beside the door. SO #3, armed with a CEW, discharged his weapon at the Complainant through the open window, but the weapon did not appear to result in neuromuscular incapacitation. The time was about 9:13 p.m.

SO #1 decided that an OPP Emergency Response Team (ERT) team should be deployed to deal with the Complainant in light of the axe the officers had seen and his refusal to exit. At his instructions, the officers moved to a higher grade and set up a perimeter outside the upper level of the home. The plan was to contain the scene pending the arrival of the ERT officers. As SO #1 was organizing where the officers should position themselves, the Complainant emerged from the west side of the upper cabin. He held a sledgehammer and began to run in the direction of the officers south of him – WO #2 and WO #1. WO #2 discharged his CEW but the Complainant continued to advance in his direction. As the Complainant neared to within three to five metres of WO #2, who had fallen moving backwards, gunfire erupted.

SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3 were located several metres east and south of the Complainant when he emerged from the cabin in WO #2’s direction. At about the same time as WO #2 had fired his CEW, so too did SO #3. Immediately thereafter, SO #2 fired a single shot from the C8 rifle he was holding as SO #1 fired three times from his semi-automatic pistol. The Complainant fell front forward onto the snow-covered ground, the sledgehammer beside him. Having discharged his CEW without effect, SO #3 transitioned to his semi-automatic pistol and fired twice at the Complainant on the ground.

The officers moved in, removed the sledgehammer and handcuffed the Complainant. Emergency first-aid was performed, including CPR. Paramedics attended and took charge of the Complainant’s care. He could not be resuscitated and was pronounced deceased.

Cause of Death

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

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 March 9, 2026, the result of gunshot wounds inflicted by OPP officers. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming three subject officials – SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3. 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 subject officials were engaged in the lawful exercise of their duties and lawfully placed through the events that culminated in gunfire. The Complainant had himself called police asking for help about people in his attic. He had also given the police reason to believe that he was unstable, potentially armed and, in his condition, a threat to himself and others. In the circumstances, the officers were duty bound to respond to the address to do what they could to prevent harm coming to the Complainant and ensure public safety.

I am satisfied that the officers who discharged their CEWs and firearms after the Complainant exited his cabin did so to protect against a reasonably apprehended attack. Though the subject officials did not avail themselves of interviews with the SIU to provide that evidence firsthand, as was their legal right, their mindsets are safely inferred from the circumstances that prevailed when their weapons were fired. Confronted with an individual who had repeatedly threatened the officers’ lives, armed with a sledgehammer and advancing quickly on WO #2 and WO #1, there would have been little doubt that the Complainant represented a real and imminent risk of serious bodily harm and death to the officers and that defensive force was necessary.

I am further satisfied that the force used by the subject officials, namely, gunfire, constituted reasonable force. The Complainant had given the officers every indication that he was intent on doing them harm. Knowing that he was not of sound mind, the officers had gone to some lengths in their efforts to defuse the situation. Regrettably, the Complainant could not be calmed and exited from his cabin with a two-handed grip on a sledgehammer, which the officers could only have interpreted as the Complainant attempting to make good on his threats. Less-lethal force was tried by WO #2 and SO #3 as the Complainant closed the distance on the former, but it had no effect; the Complainant continued to advance and had neared to within striking range of WO #2. What was required in the moment was the immediate stopping power of a firearm. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that SO #2 and SO #1 acted without warrant when they simultaneously fired their weapons. With respect to SO #3’s two shots, which occurred just after the Complainant went down, some allowance must be made for the highly charged circumstances of the moment and the delay inherent in reaction times. With these considerations in mind, the evidence falls short of reasonably establishing the SO #3 fired his gun without a reasonable belief that doing so was necessary to protect against an imminent risk of grievous bodily harm and death.

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

Date: July 7, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit