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: 

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 injuries of a 44-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On November 2, 2022, at 10:20 a.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On November 2, 2022, at around 8:16 a.m., YRP had received a complaint of a suspicious vehicle on Hanlan Road, Vaughan. At 8:40 a.m., YRP officers arrived on scene and had an interaction with the Complainant. The Complainant came at one of the police officers with a knife and was shot. The Complainant was transported to hospital having suffered serious injuries.

The Scene

On November 2, 2022, at 10:54 a.m., SIU forensic investigators were dispatched to an address on Hanlan Road, Vaughan.

At 12:02 p.m., the SIU forensic investigators arrived on scene - a private commercial location. It was a clear, mild and sunny day.

The scene was contained to the parking lot out front of a business at the address.

The SIU forensic investigators began taking overall photographs of the scene, including relevant pieces of evidence.

The SIU forensic investigators conducted an inspection of all the vehicles. They also checked underneath the relevant vehicles to locate any evidence.

The SIU forensic investigators placed exhibit markers identifying items of interest and evidence that was later collected for the investigation. The items were photographed and documented via a Total Station mapping device. Not all exhibits were collected.




Figure 1 - Parking lot where the shooting occurred

1) A head covering (not collected);

2) A nickel (not collected);

3) A bullet fragment;

4) A bullet fragment;

5) A cartridge casing;

6) A knife (blade – about 13 centimetres in length);

7) A cartridge casing;

8) A cartridge casing;

9) An unknown substance thought to be watermelon (not collected);

10) A red stain thought to be blood;

11) A glove (not collected);

12) A cartridge casing;

13) A cartridge casing;

14) A bullet fragment;

15) A Nissan logo;

16) Latex gloves (not collected);

17) A stop stick (not collected);

18) A cartridge casing;

19) A wallet containing identification; and

20) A cell phone.

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, SO #1 and several civilian eyewitnesses, as well as video footage that captured the incident. As was his legal right, the other subject official – SO #2 – chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the morning of November 2, 2022, SO #2 and SO #1 were dispatched to an address on Hanlan Road, Vaughan. A call to police had been placed reporting the presence of a Dodge Caravan, unaffiliated with the premises, with a male in the vehicle.

The male was the Complainant. He had pulled into the front lot of the address the evening before to sleep, parking the van against the south wall of the business such that it faced south.

SO #2 was the first of the officers to arrive on scene, stopping his cruiser a short distance from the front of the van, facing northwest. He was joined within a few minutes by SO #1, who maneuvered his cruiser to a stop facing east a couple of metres from SO #2’s driver’s side door. The time was about 8:42 a.m.

SO #1 exited his cruiser, approached the Complainant’s driver’s side door, and attempted to speak with him. When the Complainant refused to roll down the door window, the officer opened the door and asked him what he was doing there. The Complainant said he was sleeping. SO #2 joined SO #1 by the open driver’s side door and attempted to speak with the Complainant. The Complainant refused to exit the van after SO #2 told him he could see drug paraphernalia in the vehicle, and the officers took physical hold of him to extricate him from the vehicle. Shortly after doing so, they each jumped back from the open driver’s door. The Complainant had retrieved a knife and displayed it to the officers.

The officers retreated a distance as the Complainant, knife in hand and still seated in the van, closed the driver’s door. The Complainant started the van and drove forward a short distance, intending to navigate his way around the police vehicles. Seeing this, SO #2 rushed to his vehicle and drove forward, pinning the van with the cruiser’s push bar. At SO #2’s direction, SO #1 retrieved a stop stick device from the trunk of SO #2’s vehicle and deployed it underneath the rear driver’s side wheel of the van. Within seconds of doing so, as SO #1 walked south past the driver’s side of the van towards SO #2’s cruiser, the driver’s door opened and the Complainant stepped out with the knife in his right hand.

SO #1 was the first to react. The officer turned to face the Complainant, drew and pointed his firearm, and stepped backwards quickly around the rear of SO #2’s cruiser as the Complainant ran quickly in his direction. SO #2 promptly followed suit. He emerged from the driver’s seat of the cruiser, gun in his right hand, as the Complainant rushed alongside the passenger side of his vehicle, rounded the rear and closed the distance to SO #1. With SO #2 slightly behind and a couple of metres north of SO #1, both of them backtracking from the charging Complainant, each officer fired his weapon three times. The time was 8:47 a.m.

The Complainant was immediately felled by the gunfire. He landed front first on the pavement a distance south of the front end of SO #1’s cruiser. The knife he had been holding was dislodged from his hand in the process, and came to rest underneath another parked vehicle in the lot.

Following the shooting, the Complainant was handcuffed, searched and provided first-aid by the officers.

The Complainant was taken from the scene in ambulance to hospital. He had sustained gunshot-related injuries to the torso and left arm.

Section 34, Criminal Code -- Defence of person - Use or threat of force

(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.

(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.

The Complainant was shot and seriously injured by two YRP officers in Vaughan on November 2, 2022. The officers – SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as the subject officials in the ensuing SIU investigation. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with the shooting.

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 SO #1 and SO #2 acted within the limits of justification prescribed by section 34.

SO #1 and SO #2 were lawfully placed and in the discharge of their duties at the time of the shooting. They had been called to the scene of a suspicious vehicle parked where it ought not have been, and were entitled to approach the Complainant to investigate the reasons for his being there. Thereafter, having observed what looked like drug paraphernalia in the van, the officers were within their rights in directing the Complainant to step outside the vehicle and, when he refused, to forcibly pull him out so they could investigate a potential drug offence.

The evidence establishes that each officer fired their weapon attempting to protect themselves from a reasonably apprehended knife attack at the hands of the Complainant. The Complainant had in his possession a dangerous weapon capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm or death – a knife with a blade measuring about 13 centimetres in length. And he had left little doubt what his intentions were when he rushed at SO #1 with the knife in hand, waving it in the officer’s direction.

The evidence also establishes that the force used by the officers in defence of their persons, namely, three gunshots each, delivered in rapid succession at about the same time, was reasonable. Having first seen the knife in the Complainant’s possession inside the van, the officers had initially planned to stand-down and await the arrival of tactical officers. That was sensible. However, their hands were forced when the Complainant stepped out of the van and ran towards SO #1. Even then, SO #1 waited a brief period and retreated until the Complainant had approached dangerously close – no more than a couple of metres – before he discharged his gun. By that point, the officer simply had no other option if he was going to protect himself from the knife in the Complainant’s possession. The same is also substantially true of the shots fired by SO #2. At the sight of the Complainant chasing his colleague with a knife, he exited his cruiser to confront him with a gun, presumably to defend SO #1 from the advancing threat. He, too, was no more than about two metres away from the Complainant, himself now also within range of an imminent knife attack, when he pulled the trigger. On this record, I am unable to conclude that the subject officials comported themselves unreasonably when, faced with a real and present risk of death, they chose to meet a lethal threat with a resort to lethal force of their own.

In the result, as I am satisfied for the foregoing reasons that each subject official used only legally justified force in their engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.



Date: March 2, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit