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 35-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 22, 2026, at 7:15 p.m., the Windsor Police Service (WPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 22, 2026, at 6:33 p.m., officers were involved in a shooting in the area of Thornbury Crescent in Windsor. Preliminary information indicated that officers were called to the area following reports of a man [now known to be the Complainant] chasing another man [now known to be CW #4] with a knife. The Complainant had reportedly stabbed CW #4 and fled to a rear yard in the area. The Complainant ran at police and was shot. He was transported to Windsor Regional Hospital - Ouellette Campus and pronounced deceased.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/05/22 at 7:21 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/05/22 at 7:46 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

35-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 May 23, 2026.

Subject Officials (SO)

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

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

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 June 1, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the grounds behind the northernmost row of townhouses situated on Rose-Ville Garden Drive across from Vine Court, Windsor.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On May 22, 2026, at 7:46 p.m., the SIU agreed to have the WPS hold the scene until morning, given the lack of daylight at the time of intake, and poor weather conditions.

On May 23, 2026, at 9:50 a.m., SIU forensic services attended the area of Rose-Ville Garden Drive. In this area were two long townhouse complexes, running in an east-west direction. Each complex contained ten units. The area of interest concerned the complex to the north. A parking lot was immediately to the east of this complex. The fenced-in backyards of these townhouses were on the north side of the building. There was a common lawn area between the townhouses and the fenced property line to the north. This is where the interaction with the WPS officers occurred.

A total of thirteen yellow exhibit markers were in various areas of the lawn west of the parking lot. No exhibits were next to the markers. Information received from WPS forensic services indicated that the exhibits had been collected and stored by them due to poor weather conditions.

The scene was mapped by SIU forensic services using a Leica 3d scanner, and the area was searched utilizing a metal detector. Two additional spent 9mm cartridge cases were located.

On May 23, 2026, at 1220 p.m., SIU forensic services attended WPS Headquarters to collect the exhibits that they had retrieved from the scene, including:

• Eight spent 9mm cartridge cases
• Black shirt
• Pair of jeans, with wallet and a CEW) probe
• One right Nike running shoe
• One red-stained gold ring
• One projectile collected from the jeans
• Knife

SO #1’s uniform and use of force equipment were examined:

• Boots and uniform pants with belt
• Uniform shirt
• CEW (not discharged)
• Baton, pepper spray, knife and handcuffs
• Glock 45 pistol (with attached light) (magazine with 14 rounds and one chambered round)
• Two spare magazines with a total of 17 rounds each
• Ballistic vest with radio, C8 magazine, tourniquet and Axon audio microphone

The ammunition count suggested that SO #1 fired two rounds or, possibly, three rounds if the officer’s firearm was ‘topped-up”[2] ahead of the incident.

SO #2’s uniform and use of force equipment were examined:

• Uniform shirt, pants and boots
• CEW (not discharged)
• Baton, pepper spray and handcuffs
• Glock 45 pistol (with attached light) (magazine with 16 rounds and one chambered round)
• Two spare 9mm magazines with a total of 17 rounds each

The ammunition count suggested that SO #2 either did not fire a round or, possibly, fired one round if the officer’s firearm was ‘topped-up”[3] ahead of the incident.

SO #3’s uniform and use of force equipment was examined:

• Uniform shirt, pants, boots and gloves
• CEW (discharged once with two probes)
• Baton, pepper spray and handcuffs
• Glock 45 pistol (with attached light) (magazine with 11 rounds and one chambered round)
• Two spare 9mm magazines with 17 rounds in each

The ammunition count suggested that SO #3 fired five rounds or, possibly, six rounds if the officer’s firearm was ‘topped-up”[4] ahead of the incident.

There were ten cartridge cases recovered at the scene, but no projectiles. There were ten missing cartridges discharged (if the firearms were “topped up”) between the three subject officials. One projectile was recovered at the postmortem.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data - SO #3

On May 22, 2026, the CEW was discharged at 6:36:20 p.m. for 5.059 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[5]

Cellphone Video Footage from CW #1

This footage captured the Complainant struggling with CW #4. Both men had their hands on [what is now known to be] a knife. CW #4 managed to grab the knife and toss it onto the road.

Video Footage from CW #3

Six video recordings were provided to the SIU by CW #3. One clip was very short and captured the sound of three bangs [now known to be gunshots] in rapid succession. Another recording depicted emergency personnel doing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on the Complainant. A summary of the other four recordings is below.

On May 22, 2206, at 6:33:43 p.m., SO #2, SO #1 and SO #3 were captured standing to the east of the Complainant. The Complainant lay on his right side on the grass. SO #2 had her firearm drawn and extended out front of her body. A male police officer asked the Complainant to throw the knife away and said that the police were there to help.

At 6:33:56 p.m., the Complainant said, “They fuckin’ set me up.” Again, the Complainant was told to toss the knife away and that police were there to help. The Complainant repeated, “Fuckin’ set me up.” SO #3 armed himself with a CEW. The Complainant went to a seated position and officers yelled at him to stay down and not get up. He said, “Who’s that?” and attempted to get up from the ground. At this time, CW #3 stopped recording for a period. When the recording resumed, officers yelled at the Complainant not to get up. The Complainant pointed in the direction of the police and said, “I never did that, I never did that.” The Complainant sat on his buttocks with his legs extended out in front of him. SO #2 told the Complainant that nobody wanted to hurt him and that they would get him help. SO #2 said, “Don’t move, put it down.” The Complainant was told not to touch the knife and that it was not worth it. The Complainant was told to toss the knife away. The video recording ended at this time.

At 6:36:37 p.m., CW #3 began recording again. SO #2, SO #1, SO #3 and WO #2 were to the east of the Complainant. SO #2 had her firearm drawn extended out front of her body. SO #3 had a CEW and SO #1 had his pistol. The officers moved back as a group and went behind a green utility box. The Complainant remained motionless on the grass, on his stomach.

At 6:38:19 p.m., one of the male officers said, “I can’t see the knife. His arm is underneath his torso right now.” SO #2 said, “Can you hear me?” followed by a male officer saying, “We need you to put your arm out at your side so we can come help you.” A different male officer said, “My man, you have to toss the knife to the side. We need to get you help right now. Can you please toss the knife to your side so we can get you some help. We have paramedics here right now; we need to get you help.” Two male officers grabbed the Complainant by the feet and dragged him away from where he lay on the ground. He did not move. A male police officer [WO #2] flipped the Complainant over to his back and reached towards the ground. WO #2 had an object in his hand [knife]. He stepped away from the Complainant and placed the knife on the grass. Emergency Medical Services were advised and lifesaving measures were performed on the Complainant.

WPS In-car Camera (ICC) Body-worn Microphone (BWM) Recordings

The ICC units in WPS police vehicles were connected via Bluetooth to BWMs. This provided the investigation with an audio record of the interaction between officers and the Complainant. Given the distance the officers were from their vehicles, the recordings were imperfect and segments of the audio did not record. It was not clear if parts of the audio recordings where gunshots were heard captured all of the shots fired, given the sporadic connection of the BWM.

SO #1’s BWM recordings provided the best insight into the events in question.

At 6:33 p.m., May 22, 2206, SO #1 announced that SO #2 and SO #3 were in foot pursuit of a suspect [the Complainant] westbound behind a row of townhouses. SO #1 then broadcast. “Male charging at them with a knife.” The sound of what was believed to be four gunshots could be heard. SO #1 broadcast, “Shots fired by police,” followed by, “Get down on the ground.” Almost simultaneously three more gunshots could be heard. SO #1 broadcast, “Again, shots fired by police. Male suspect down, still getting up.” Commands were issued to the Complainant to stay on the ground and put the weapon down. The Complainant was ordered to lay on his stomach and discard the knife. The Complainant could be heard responding to police that he had been set up. The Complainant was again ordered to lay on his stomach, to which he responded, “I’m going to stab myself in the throat.” Officers tried to negotiate with the Complainant, and WO #2 arrived. The Complainant was told by SO #1, “Do not get up.” The Complainant said, “I never did that. I never did that.” Negotiations continued and officers told the Complainant they did not want to hurt him; they wanted to get him help. Further commands were issued not to touch the knife. The Complainant repeated that he had been set up. Officers tried to engage the Complainant, asking him questions such as his name and if he had been shot. He was told to drop the knife. The Complainant was then loudly directed to get on the ground.

At 6:36:23 p.m., there was the sound of three gunshots in rapid succession, as well as the sound of a CEW deployment. SO #1 requested that officers move back behind a green utility box. There was an indication the knife was underneath the Complainant.

The remainder of the audio recordings dealt with moving the knife away from the Complainant, and medical attention.

WPS Communications Recordings[6]

Calls were made to 911 starting at about 6:30 p.m. by CW #1 and a woman. It was reported that a male [the Complainant] was chasing another male [CW #4] with a knife around a Jeep. The Complainant was then said to be trying to stab CW #4.

Starting at about 6:33 p.m., an officer broadcast that officers were in pursuit of the Complainant, the Complainant was charging at the officers with a knife, and that shots had been fired by police and the male was down.

“Shots fired” broadcasts were made at 6:33:24 p.m., at 6:33:29 p.m. and at 6:34:21 p.m. The only recording that captured the sound of gunfire was at 6:33:29 p.m., in which three shots could be heard in the background.

Starting at about 6:36 p.m., it was reported that the Complainant was still refusing to drop the knife.

Starting at about 6:40 p.m., the Complainant was said to be unresponsive and CPR had started.

Starting at about 6:42 p.m., paramedics were allowed to approach the Complainant.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the WPS between May 26, 2026, and July 17, 2026:

• ICC BWM recordings - SO #1, SO #2, SO #3, WO #1 and WO #2
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Police communications recordings
• General Occurrence Report
• Notes and witness statements - WO #1 and WO #2
• CEW deployment data
• WPS policies - Use of Force; Agency Firearms; Conducted Energy Weapon; Arrest; Lethal Force Incidents
• Fingerprints of the Complainant for postmortem identification
• Photographs
• Video footage from Windsor transit bus

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between May 23, 2026, and May 26, 2026:

• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• Cellphone video from CW #1
• Cellphone video from CW #3

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and audio-video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officials did not agree interviews with the SIU or the release of their notes.

The Complainant and CW #4 were good friends. The two spent time together in the afternoon of May 22, 2026, during which they drank beer and the Complainant consumed crack cocaine. They were at a park when CW #4 called another of his friends – CW #2 – to drive them home.

CW #2 picked them up at about 5:30 p.m. and was driving on Rose-Ville Garden Drive when the Complainant suddenly attacked CW #4. Sitting in the rear passenger-side seat, the Complainant wrapped his right arm around CW #4’s neck and chest. He was holding a knife and accusing CW #4 and CW #2 of “setting me up”. The Complainant suffered from mental illness and was experiencing a psychotic episode. He attacked CW #4 with the knife and cut his hand. CW #2 pulled over on Rose-Ville Garden Drive, exited the vehicle and went around to the front passenger door to help defend CW #4. He was eventually able to pull the Complainant out of the vehicle, throwing him to the ground, after which he drove away.

CW #4 had also exited the vehicle and was now alone with the Complainant, who chased him with the knife around a parked Jeep. The Complainant eventually caught up to CW #4 and the two went to ground on the northside boulevard of Rose-Ville Garden Drive, across from Vine Court. CW #4 was on his back with the Complainant mounted over his waist. The two grappled and CW #4 was able to remove the knife from the Complainant’s right hand, throwing it onto the roadway. With police sirens now sounding in the background, the Complainant stood up and ran towards the rear (north) of the northernmost row of townhomes located on Rose-Ville Garden Drive, across from Vine Court. The area consisted of a narrow strip of grass bordered by wood fencing at its northern and southern sides.

It was about 6:25 p.m. when 911 calls were received by the police from citizens reporting the Complainant’s assault on CW #4. Police officers arriving on scene at about 6:32 p.m., including SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3, came across CW #4 in the parking lot east of the row of townhouses behind which the Complainant had fled. They ascertained that CW #4 was the victim of the reported assault and that the Complainant was nearby behind the townhouses.

SO #2 and SO #3 ran to the grassy strip and were confronted by the Complainant west of their location. He rushed at the officers with the knife in hand and was felled by a volley of four shots. The time was about 6:33 p.m. About seven seconds later, as SO #1 was just arriving to join SO #2 and SO #3, the Complainant rose to his feet and advanced on the officers a second time, again with the knife in hand. He dropped again, this time by a volley of three shots.

The Complainant was wounded but not incapacitated. He attempted to get up from the ground but stumbled back down. The officers, several metres east of his location, repeatedly directed him to discard and not touch the knife. They told him they wanted to help him. The Complainant continued to state that he had been set up. After approximately three minutes, the Complainant rose to his feet and advanced on the officers a third time, still in possession of the knife. Three rounds were fired at the Complainant and SO #3 discharged a CEW. The Complainant fell to the grass in a prone position and did not move again.

Unsure whether the Complainant remained a threat, the officers waited at a distance while directing the Complainant to disarm himself. Eventually, they made their way closer to the Complainant and pulled him backwards by the legs. Underneath him was the knife. An officer picked it up and placed it by the southern side fence. SO #2 commenced CPR.

Paramedics, who were already on scene nearby, arrived quickly and assumed care of the Complainant. He was transported to hospital where he was pronounced deceased.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to a gunshot wound to the anterior left chest. He had sustained six gunshot injuries, including a re-entry wound. The non-fatal wounds were to the right chest, right upper arm, right knee, right lower leg and left thigh. Only one projectile was recovered. The Complainant had four wounds to the left forearm caused by a sharp force, possibly a knife.

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 May 22, 2026, the result of gunshots discharged by WPS 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.

SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3 were engaged in the exercise of their lawful duties when they attended at the scene of a reported knife assault and confronted the Complainant at the back of a row of townhouses on Rose-Ville Garden Drive. They had information via the 911 calls, and directly from witnesses in the area, of the Complainant’s attack on CW #4. They were, in the circumstances, duty bound to contain the threat the Complainant posed and take him into custody as soon as possible.

I am also satisfied that SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3 discharged their firearms - three rounds by SO #1, one by SO #2 and six by SO #3 – to defend themselves and each other from a reasonably apprehended assault by the Complainant. Though the officers did not avail themselves of SIU interviews to provide that evidence firsthand, as was their legal right, the inference may safely be drawn from the circumstantial evidence. The most emphatic piece of this evidence is the fact that each of the three volleys of gunfire was immediately preceded by the Complainant advancing on the officers with a knife in his possession. There would have been little doubt in the officers’ minds, the Complainant just having attacked CW #4 with a knife, that the Complainant meant to do them harm as he closed the distance on them.

The manner in which SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3 chose to defend themselves was reasonable. To reiterate, the officers were all aware of the knife attack on CW #4 moments before their arrival on scene and would have been keenly aware that the Complainant continued to represent a danger to their lives with the knife still in his possession. That danger became an acute one as he advanced on their position to within several strides on each occasion that gunfire rang out, justifying a resort to lethal force by the officers. Anything less than the immediate stopping power of a firearm would have increased the risk of grievous bodily harm or death coming to the officers.[7] Nor can it realistically be said that withdrawal or retreat were options available to the officers to protect themselves. The Complainant had to be contained in the interests of public safety. He was in the throes of a psychotic episode that had manifested itself in violence against a close friend and remained a threat to himself and others.

It remains unclear at the end of the investigation how many shots each of the subject officials fired in each of the three volleys of gunfire. Be that as it may, as I am satisfied for the foregoing reasons that the subject officials comported themselves lawfully throughout the encounter with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.

Date: September 18, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit