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 serious injury of a 19-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 11, 2026, at 6:23 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 11, 2026, at 5:42 a.m., the Emergency Task Force (ETF) was executing search warrants in collaboration with the Guns and Gangs Unit at an apartment in the area of Black Creek Drive and Trethewey Drive when an officer [now known to be Officer #1] and the Complainant were shot. The Complainant had been transported to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) via emergency run with multiple gunshot wounds. He was in life-threating condition. The involved officer was transported to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC) and subsequently pronounced deceased.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/06/11 at 7:30 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/06/11 at 8:30 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 4

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

19-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on July 22, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Not interviewed; declined

CW #4 Not interviewed

CW #5 Not interviewed; declined

CW #1 and CW #2 were interviewed on June 11, 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

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #7 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #8 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #9 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #10 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between June 22, 2026, and July 21, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a bedroom of an apartment in the area of Black Creek Drive and Trethewey Drive, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

The apartment was located adjacent to a stairwell. The door opened inward and was hinged on the right side. Damage was observed around the locking mechanism, consistent with a forced breach.

Inside the apartment entrance, a blood smear was present on the floor. The entrance area opened into a short hallway, with a kitchen immediately to the right and a hallway leading to the bedrooms on the left. A deployed distraction device remained on the floor near the entrance. Seven spent .223 cartridge cases were also observed in the entrance area of the apartment.

The hallway outside the apartment contained numerous items of police equipment. Near the apartment entrance and adjacent stairwell, a TPS tactical uniform had been removed and was lying on the floor.

On the main floor of the building, the area surrounding the building’s centrally located elevators contained visible passive blood staining on the tile floor. The staining, located in a common area providing access to the building’s elevators, was consistent with emergency medical and transport activities undertaken following the incident.

A forensic examination of the scene resulted in the seizure of Winchester .223 calibre cartridge cases from various locations within the apartment.

Two Colt C8 semi-automatic rifles, reportedly discharged in the incident under investigation by Officer #1 and the SO, were collected from the ETF office. Associated with the rifles were four rifle magazines. One of the SO’s magazines contained 13 Winchester .223 cartridges; the other two were 30-capacity magazines each containing 28 cartridges. Officer #1’s rifle magazine contained 24 cartridges.

Additional exhibits seized included a blood swab collected from the main-floor elevator area of the building, a pair of shorts, and a gold-coloured chain with a pendant. The shorts and chain were obtained through the TPS Forensic Identification Services.

Forensic Evidence

The Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) concluded that the three .45 calibre cartridge cases recovered from the apartment had been fired from the Springfield Armory XDM Compact .45 calibre pistol seized during the investigation. In addition, three fired bullets or bullet jacket fragments recovered from the apartment, together with a fourth recovered from Officer #1’s body, were all identified as having been fired from the same pistol.

A subsequent examination of nine additional metal and bullet jacket fragments recovered from the apartment determined that six were of no evidentiary value, that is,the six fragments were too damaged or lacked sufficient identifying characteristics to obtain an accurate comparison and, therefore, could not assist in determining their source. The remaining three fragments could neither be identified nor eliminated as having been fired from the .45 calibre pistol. One fragment had been recovered from the hallway wall leading to the Complainant’s bedroom, another from the bedroom itself, and the third from the hallway floor.

Further firearms testing compared bullet jacket fragments with two TPS Colt C8 rifles. One fragment recovered from the Complainant’s bedroom was identified as having been fired from the SO’s rifle. The remaining two fragments could neither be identified nor eliminated as having been fired from either police rifle.

Finally, the CFS examined 18 rifle cartridge cases recovered from the apartment and compared them to the two seized TPS Colt C8 rifles. Fourteen cartridge cases were identified as having been fired from the SO’s rifle, while four cartridge cases were identified as having been fired from Officer #1’s rifle. The cartridge cases were recovered from the entrance area, hallway, and the Complainant’s bedroom.

Expert Evidence

Trajectory Analysis by SIU Forensic Services

A trajectory analysis conducted by SIU forensic services identified 14 projectile trajectories associated with police firearm discharges within the apartment. Eight trajectories originated in the hallway outside the Complainant’s bedroom and passed through the east hallway wall into a bedroom, travelling in a generally northeast direction. The projectiles subsequently fragmented, creating additional damage throughout the bedroom. Three additional trajectories entered through the bedroom door and terminated in the north bedroom wall, while other trajectories were identified through defects in the bedroom floor, a hallway closet door, and a bedroom door at the end of the hallway.

The analysis also identified two trajectories believed to be associated with the Complainant’s firearm discharges. One trajectory travelled from the hallway into the kitchen area, where a large-calibre projectile was recovered, and another travelled through the bathroom area, striking the shower curtain and tile wall.

The examination included three-dimensional scanning and trajectory reconstruction, which documented the location, direction, and relationship of the projectile paths throughout the apartment.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Communications Recording & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report / Event Chronology

The incident was initiated at 5:42 a.m., June 11, 2026, for an address in the area of Black Creek Drive and Trethewey Drive. Shortly after, an officer advised dispatch that a police officer had been shot and requested additional police resources.

At 5:45 a.m., ETF Headquarters similarly notified dispatch that an officer was down and requested the attendance of as many units as possible. Arrangements were then made to transport the injured officer, Officer #1, to hospital on an emergency basis.

At 6:13 a.m., the Complainant, who had also sustained gunshot wounds during the incident, was transported to SMH by emergency run. He arrived at hospital by Emergency Medical Services at 6:40 a.m.

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - Officer #1, the SO, WO #7, WO #6, WO #9, WO #5, WO #4, WO #3, WO #10, WO #8 and WO #2

The BWC footage captured the execution of a search warrant at an apartment in the area of Black Creek Drive and Trethewey Drive, beginning at 5:39:52 a.m. Following a forced entry and the deployment of a distraction device, ETF officers entered the apartment and encountered two female occupants [CW #1 and CW #2] near the living room. As officers moved into the residence, Officer #1 advanced into the hallway leading to the bedrooms.

At 5:40:04 a.m., the Complainant emerged from the first bedroom on the right side of the hallway. He extended his right arm and pointed a handgun towards Officer #1. Gunfire immediately followed. The Complainant discharged his firearm at close range, striking Officer #1, who fell backwards into the hallway. The Complainant then retreated and/or fell back into the bedroom doorway. Within seconds, the SO moved past Officer #1 and fired his C8 rifle. Initial rounds were fired through the interior wall separating the hallway from the Complainant’s bedroom. The SO then advanced to the bedroom doorway, obtained a direct line of sight into the room, and fired additional rounds in a downward direction towards the Complainant. Audible cries of pain were heard following the exchange. The entire gunfire event occurred within a matter of seconds.

Following the shooting, officers continued to secure the apartment and the remaining occupants. WO #7 immediately removed Officer #1 from the hallway. The Complainant was located lying face down on the floor of the bedroom with a handgun nearby. He was handcuffed, removed to the stairwell, and provided emergency medical treatment. Simultaneously, life-saving measures were undertaken for Officer #1, who had sustained gunshot wounds to his left arm and chest.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between June 12, 2026, and July 7, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• BWC footage - Officer #1, the SO, WO #7, WO #6, WO #9, WO #5, WO #4, WO #3, WO #10, WO #8 and WO #2
• Police communications recordings
• CAD Report / Event Chronology
• Copy of signed section 487 Search Warrant - the Complainant’s apartment
• Incident Action Brief related to the entry at the Complainant’s apartment
• Notes - WO #7, WO #6, WO #9, WO #5, WO #4, WO #3, WO #10, WO #8, WO #1 and WO #2
• TPS policies - Use of Force Policy; ETF Deployment

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between June 11, 2026, and July 28, 2026:

• Video footage from apartment building
• The Complainant’s medical records from SMH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other 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 11, 2026, an ETF Team prepared to conduct a dynamic entry into an apartment in the area of Black Creek Drive and Trethewey Drive. A search warrant targeting the Complainant had been secured for the apartment by the TPS Integrated Guns and Gangs Task Force. The Complainant was wanted in relation to an ongoing firearm investigation. Hours earlier, he had been observed to be in possession of a firearm. The plan was to secure the apartment and the Complainant ahead of the execution of the search warrant by the investigation team.

Shortly before 5:40 a.m., the ETF officers approached the apartment. Officer #1 was the third officer in the stack outside the front door. The SO was behind him. Both had their C8 rifles at the ready. Using a ram, WO #9 and WO #5 forced open the door at about the same time as shouts went out that the police were present with a search warrant. Officer #1 deployed a distraction device into the apartment and officers began to make their way inside. CW #1 and CW #2 were the first persons encountered by the police in the hallway a short distance from the door. Officer #1 continued past one of the females, turning left into another hallway that led to bedrooms and a bathroom. He had taken a step or two when the door to the first bedroom on his right opened and the Complainant appeared. From the doorway, the Complainant raised his right arm holding a pistol in Officer #1’s direction and fired three times. The officer reacted immediately, discharging four rounds from his C8 rifle before collapsing onto his back in the hallway. The SO was just behind Officer #1 when the gunfire began. He pointed his C8 rifle and fired nine times. There was a momentary pause in the shooting as the SO moved forward towards the open bedroom door; the Complainant had either retreated and/or fallen into the bedroom during the initial volley of C8 gunfire. From the open doorway, the SO pointed his C8 in a downward direction and fired five more times at the Complainant, after which he continued to make his way down the hallway to check on the occupants of the other rooms.

In addition to CW #1 and CW #2, the apartment also contained CW #4 and CW #3. None of them were injured in the incident.

Officer #1 had been struck and grievously wounded by the Complainant. ETF officers pulled him out of the apartment and immediately rendered emergency care. Tactical paramedics staged in the area arrived and took charge of the officer’s care. He was transported to hospital and subsequently succumbed to his injuries.

The Complainant was also removed from the apartment and provided emergency care by ETF officers and paramedics. A tourniquet was applied to his left leg and a seal to a chest wound. He was transported to hospital with gunshot wounds to the chest, abdomen, back, flank, right arm and both legs.

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 was seriously injured by police gunfire in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on June 11, 2026. 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 arrest and injuries.

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.

I am satisfied that Officer #1, the SO and the rest of the ETF Team were lawfully placed and in the execution of their lawful duties when they forced entry into the Complainant’s apartment. They were acting on the strength of a search warrant that authorized their entry into the premises to search for firearms-related evidence in connection with a prior incident. Moreover with information at their disposal that the Complainant was in possession of a firearm, a dynamic entry made sense. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the ETF to believe that storming the residence with little notice of their presence and an overwhelming show of force would mitigate the risks associated with the Complainant’s access to a gun.

I am also satisfied that Officer #1 and the SO fired their weapons to defend themselves and their fellow officers from a reasonably apprehended attack at the hands of the Complainant. The Complainant had pointed a handgun in their direction and fired multiple times, striking Officer #1 and ultimately costing the officer his life. There can be no doubt that the officers believed their lives to be in danger and that they acted to protect themselves from grievous bodily harm and death. The same holds true with respect to the SO’s second volley of five shots, which occurred after a slight pause in the gunfire. Without confirmation that the Complainant was incapacitated, and with good reason to believe that he was still armed or had ready access to the gun, the Complainant remained a lethal threat as far as the SO was concerned.

Lastly, the evidence establishes that the officers comported themselves reasonably when they fired at the Complainant. The Complainant’s use of a gun against the officers left them with no alternative but to try to defend themselves with a resort to lethal force of their own. Put simply, nothing short of a firearm had the stopping power required of the moment. Retreat or withdrawal were not viable options given the speed at which events unfolded, and the use of less-lethal weaponry would have exposed the officers to a greater risk of harm.

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

Date: October 9, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit