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 58-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 7, 2026, at 10:10 a.m., the Guelph Police Service (GPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 7, 2026, at 9:10 a.m., the GPS received multiple calls about a man - the Complainant - screaming and throwing furniture from the balcony of his apartment located in the area of Willow Road and Edinburgh Road North, Guelph. Officers arrived on scene at 9:22 a.m. and set up positions in and out of the building. Suspected blood staining was observed on the exterior door and a man could be heard screaming from within the apartment. Out of concern for the safety of potential occupants in the apartment, officers breach the barricaded front door at 9:26 a.m. An officer fired a conducted energy weapon (CEW) at the Complainant. The Complainant was too far away and the discharge was ineffective. The Complainant positioned himself on a bedroom windowsill and fell backwards out of the window, landing on the ground below. No other occupants were in the apartment. Officers at ground level rendered assistance and contacted Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The Complainant was transported to the Guelph General Hospital and pronounced deceased at 10:00 a.m.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/06/07 at 10:45 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/06/07 at 11:07 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

58-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 7 and 19, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on June 15, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around an apartment in the area of Willow Road and Edinburgh Road North, Guelph.

Physical Evidence

At 3:45 p.m., June 7, 2026, SIU forensic services arrived on scene. On the ground below the apartment were broken glass and household items, including a television, computer monitor, clothing, golf clubs and a vacuum cleaner.

At 4:08 p.m., SIU forensic services entered the apartment. The entrance door appeared to have been forced open with damage around the lock mechanism. There was a small amount of what appeared to be blood staining on the exterior side of the door, below the peep hole. The door would only open approximately 30 centimetres as it was blocked on the inside by an overturned stove and refrigerator. The inside of the apartment was in disarray with appliances, shelving and furniture overturned and strewn about.

The second bedroom of the apartment had two windows. The bottom slider part of the one window was open, and the screen torn apart. On the other window, the glass above the slider part was broken out with blankets covering the lower frame of the broken portion. There was what appeared to be a small amount of blood on the wall between the two windows as well as what appeared to be a blood stain on a wall, near the doorway.

There was evidence of a CEW discharge in the bedroom, including a CEW probe, with wire attached and tangled in a metal overturned shelf base, about 1.25 metres from the door into the bedroom. There were two CEW wires leading from the same area (metal shelf base) to two CEW probes imbedded in a portion of the wall between the two windows.

SIU forensic services photographed the apartment and collected the CEW probes and wire.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data - The SO

On June 7, 2026, at 9:27:28 a.m., Bay 1 was deployed and electricity discharged for 1.026 seconds. At 9:27:29 a.m., Bay 2 was deployed and electricity discharged for 4.948 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage from Apartment Building

The videos depicted the Complainant outside the building prior to him falling. The Complainant went back into the building and, shortly after, glass could be seen smashing onto the ground below the Complainant’s apartment.

Cellphone Video Footage from CW #1

On June 7, 2026, starting at about 9:08 a.m., CW #1 recorded a shirtless man - the Complainant - in emotional distress. He threw cups and pillows from an open apartment window. An adjacent window’s main section was smashed. CW #1 commented, “He’s been tripping for three days.” The Complainant uttered incoherently.

Starting at about 9:10 a.m., the Complainant leaned out the open window and threw a box of clothing and other items to the ground below.

Starting at about 9:11 a.m., the Complainant threw a large-screen television through the smashed portion of the larger window. He yelled, “I love you, I love you, I love you,” in addition to individual names and incoherent utterances. He propped a black and white photograph with frame against the smashed window and said, “I love my dad.”

Starting at about 9:13 a.m., the Complainant threw a smaller television from the window. Various electronic and other debris were scattered on the ground.

Starting at about 9:24 a.m., the Complainant placed blankets over the broken window frame and covered the window. He yelled, “Help me,” and recited his full name, birthday, birthplace and social insurance number.[3]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - WO #1, WO #2, the SO and WO #3

On June 7, 2026, starting at about 9:20 a.m., WO #2 and WO #1 arrived at an apartment in the area of Willow Road and Edinburgh Road North, Guelph, and knocked on the apartment door. What appeared to be blood could be seen on the door. From inside the apartment, the Complainant yelled unintelligibly and sounded in distress. The sounds of breaking objects and glass shattering could be heard. The SO and WO #3 arrived three minutes later. There was a discussion about the urgency of the situation. Starting at about 9:24 a.m., officers attempted to kick-in the door, but it appeared to be barricaded from within. WO #1 managed to squeeze through a small gap in the breached door, followed by the other officers. The interior of the apartment was in disarray.

Starting at about 9:27 a.m., WO #1 walked through the debris to a bedroom door at the far end of the apartment. The doorknob was tied off with rope to the inside. The SO was behind WO #1 extending his drawn CEW and pointing it through a gap in the bedroom door. The Complainant could be seen in the bedroom wearing shorts and shirtless. From the end of a bed, the Complainant said, “Oh, my god. Jump out the window.” He turned away from the officers and moved towards the larger of two smashed windows, one of which had a blanket draped over the pane. The SO deployed his CEW at the Complainant, which had no effect in halting the forward progress of the Complainant. Once at the window, the Complainant positioned himself on the windowsill and fell backwards out of the window just as the SO fired his weapon a second time. The officers cleared debris from the doorway and entered the bedroom. On the ground, officers performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation until EMS arrived.

Police Communications Recordings - 911 Calls

On June 7, 2026, at 9:10 a.m., a woman called 911 with respect to a man [now known to be the Complainant] at an apartment in the area of Willow Road and Edinburgh Road North, Guelph. She indicated he was screaming, breaking windows and throwing objects outside, including a television.

At 9:12 a.m., another woman called 911 regarding the Complainant, who had been exhibiting mental breakdown all weekend. He was throwing items from his apartment. Police had been called twice earlier in the weekend.

At 9:14 a.m., a third woman called 911 with similar information regarding the Complainant. Shortly after, an unknown person called 911 indicating the Complainant was mentally unstable and had threatened suicide in the past.

At 9:16 a.m., another unknown caller alerted police of the Complainant with similar information.

At 9:19 a.m., a man updated police with similar information.

At 9:22 a.m., a fourth woman updated police with similar information.

Police Communications Recordings – Radio

On the morning of June 7, 2026, officers began to respond to a call for service at about 9:14 a.m., with WO #1 being first to broadcast he was at the door of the Complainant’s apartment, hearing a male voice screaming. Another broadcast indicated there was no confirmation of how many people were inside the apartment.

At 9:22 a.m., a sergeant authorized a breach of the door because of an imminent safety concern.

At 9:26 a.m., the door was opened slightly and officers entered the apartment.

At 9:27 a.m., there was a broadcast that the Complainant had jumped out of the window, and that a CEW had been deployed prior to him jumping. EMS were requested.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the GPS between June 14, 2026, and June 18, 2026:

• BWC footage - WO #1, WO #2, the SO and WO #3
• In-car camera footage - WO #2 and WO #1
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• General Occurrence Report
• Person History - the Complainant
• E Briefing Report (previous interaction)
• GPS policies - Use of Force; Police Response to Persons in Crisis
• Notes - WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3
• CEW deployment data - the SO

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between June 8, 2026, and June 10, 2026:

• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• Cellphone footage from CW #1
• Video footage from

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the morning of June 7, 2026, GPS officers were dispatched to an apartment in the area of Willow Road and Edinburgh Road North following several 911 calls reporting a male from the apartment screaming, breaking windows and throwing objects outside, including a television

The male was the Complainant. His mental health had been in decline in the last few days, prompting visits to his apartment from GPS officers. On those occasions, satisfied that there were no grounds to apprehend the Complainant under the Mental Health Act, the officers had taken their leave. On this occasion, the Complainant yelled about Jesus and that he loved his dad, and broke out the glass from his bedroom windows.

WO #1 and WO #2 were the fist officers on scene, followed shortly by the SO and WO #3. They could hear the Complainant inside but were unable to get him to open the door. Seeing what appeared to be blood on the door and concerned for the Complainant’s safety, the officers decided to force entry.

The Complainant had barricaded the door with household appliances and it took repeated kicks by WO #1 and WO #2 before the door finally gave way, opening slightly. Led by WO #1, the officers squeezed through the gap and entered into an apartment in complete disarray. They negotiated their way to a bedroom door, which was also barricaded, and forced it open. From the doorway, the SO fired his CEW at the Complainant, inside the bedroom. The discharge had no effect on the Complainant. The SO discharged his CEW again as the Complainant proceeded to one of the windows, sat on the ledge and tipped himself backwards through the smashed out glass. He landed on the ground below.

Officers on scene rendered care to the Complainant. Paramedics attended the scene and transported him to hospital where he was pronounced deceased at 10:07 a.m.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to multiple blunt impact trauma, consistent with a fall from height.

Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Death

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

Section 17, Mental Health Act - Action by Police Officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

The Complainant passed away on June 7, 2026, following a fall from height. As GPS officers were attempting to apprehend the Complainant at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO was identified as 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.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.

The SO and the other officers who attended at the Complainant’s apartment were lawfully placed and engaged in the discharge of their duty through the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s fall from the window. With information to believe that the Complainant was of unsound mind and a danger to himself and others, the officers were within their rights in moving to apprehend him under section 17 of the Mental Health Act in the interests of his safety and the safety of the public. When they were unable to have the Complainant open the door for them, the officers reasonably concluded that a forced entry was legally justified based on exigent circumstances. There was what appeared to be blood smeared on the front door and a legitimate concern that items tossed from the apartment could endanger persons below.

Once through the front door, the SO and his colleagues comported themselves reasonably. Specifically, the use by the SO of the CEW made sense. There was a pressing need to take the Complainant into custody as soon as possible to prevent him hurting himself or others. If the weapon worked as intended, the Complainant would have been temporarily incapacitated, allowing the officers time to enter the bedroom to take control of him and preventing his fall from the window. Regrettably, the discharge was not effective and the Complainant was able to make it to the window and jump through it before any of the officers had even entered the bedroom.

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

Date: October 5, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit