SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-PCD-458

Warning:

This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

Mandate of the SIU

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.

Information Restrictions

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.

Mandate Engaged

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 52-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 26, 2024, at 1:42 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU of the death of the Complainant.

According to the OPP, on October 25, 2024, at about 9:00 p.m., the Complainant called the OPP’s Provincial Communication Centre (PCC) and advised that he heard voices and had shot two family members inside their residence in the area of Muskoka Road 3 North and Highway 60, Huntsville. He had a rifle and other guns in the house. Crisis negotiators and Emergency Response Team (ERT) officers responded and set up a perimeter around the home. At 11:16 p.m., voice contact was made with the Complainant by telephone and continued until 1:19 a.m. [now known to be 12:18 a.m.] when he stopped communicating. After about 30 minutes, ERT utilized an armoured vehicle (ARV), breached a window and deployed a Remote Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) drone inside the residence. The drone located two deceased females and a dog on the second floor, and the Complainant, who was deceased, in the lower level. All appeared to have sustained gunshot wounds to the head.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/10/26 at 2:52 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/10/26 at 7:45 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

52-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on October 26, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

The subject official was interviewed on December 5, 2024.

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on November 28, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a residence situated in the area of Muskoka Road 3 North and Highway 60, Huntsville.

Physical Evidence

Windows and doors of the residence were significantly damaged and showed signs of forced entry. The front door showed significant damage. The living room window showed up to 28 impact sites from a firearm, from the inside out. On the front lawn were tire marks leading up to the front door and a small, damaged window where the ARV was utilized to breach the entry points.

At the back of the residence were windows and a door that led into the basement. Most of the windows and door had impact sites from a firearm discharged from the inside out. The residence’s side windows had impact sites from firearm discharges from the inside out. Neighbouring residences and outbuildings showed evidence of impact sites. Two deceased women were located in the living room with obvious trauma to their heads. On the floor of the living room were numerous cartridges and cartridge cases showing calibres of 7.62mm and 9mm.

The kitchen and dining room contained numerous cartridges and cartridge cases of both calibres on the counter and floor. A 9mm semi-automatic pistol was on the kitchen counter to the right of the sink along with two magazines. A window had impact sites indicating trajectory from inside out. There were cartridge cases and impact sites to the floor of the hallway leading to the bedrooms and the bathroom. Both bedrooms had numerous cartridge cases on the floor and beds, and both windows on the south showed signs of impact with trajectory from inside out.

Stairs to the basement had both cartridges and cartridge cases on the steps. A fireplace in the basement showed signs of having been tampered with and a backdoor showed impacts on the glass window from inside out. A large amount of live ammunition and magazines was located on a coffee table. Along a wall was an assault-style semi-automatic rifle. A tote near the coffee table had an additional rifle along with other gun-related equipment. The Complainant was located near the foot of a bed and leaning back on his left side. He showed signs of obvious trauma to the right side of the head. A rifle with the stock wedged against a clothing rack was along the wall with the muzzle leaning up against and towards the body. The trigger was oriented up.

Along the wall, above the bed, was an area of staining believed to be blood. There was a single impact site on the wall that perforated the wall and exited into an adjoining room. Further impact sites included a perforating impact to a bookshelf. The impact perforated the door and continued to the back wall of a closet where it struck a drywall surface. The bloodstaining on the wall and path of the recovered projectile were suggestive that the origin of the projectile was from the rifle located near the deceased.

The following items were collected by SIU forensic investigators and submitted to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) for examination:

  • Ten fired cartridge cases located on the floor by the Complainant; and
  • Simonov model SKS rifle located by the Complainant.

Forensic Evidence

A single projectile recovered from the wall behind the Complainant, and believed to have been fired by him causing his death, was collected by SIU forensic investigators and submitted to CFS Biology and Firearms Sections for examination.

On January 29, 2025, a report was issued by the CFS Biology Section indicating there was no blood detected on the projectile. As a result, no DNA comparison was conducted. The projectile was transferred to the CFS Firearms Section for comparison with the rifle located by the Complainant. The results of the firearms testing remain outstanding.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

911 Communications Recordings

On October 25, 2024, starting at 8:46 p.m., three 911 telephone calls from residents in the area were received by the PCC advising that they had heard multiple gunshots.

Starting at 9:00 p.m., the Complainant called the PCC advising he was hearing voices in his head and had, unfortunately, ended up shooting two family members with a rifle. He still had the rifle and was going to stay in the house and relax. Both deceased females were dead on a couch in the living room, along with the family dog.

Starting at 9:03 p.m., the Complainant indicated hearing very clear voices that were not hallucinations. He would not put the loaded firearm away and was walking around with it and still shooting rounds. He did not want police officers to enter and did not want to walk out. He did not want to spend his life in jail and wanted to end his life. Voices were telling him he only had so long to live.

Starting at 9:10 p.m., the Complainant would not come out and meet with officers; he just wanted to be left alone and there was no chance that the police were going to get him to go outside. The rifle was a .30 calibre with a scope, and he had two 9mm handguns. The Complainant walked around the basement, and had shot two family members about an hour prior. They were definitely deceased.

Starting at 9:16 p.m., the Complainant would not allow police officers to enter and check on his family members, and he would not recommend that as it was not safe. They were definitely dead, and he was not going to go to prison for the rest of his life.

Starting at 9:20 p.m., the Complainant said he believed the neighbours were trying to kill him. Between 6:00 to 7:00 p.m., that evening, he had seen neighbours on their decks with firearms. Because it was imminent the neighbours were going to kill them, he had acted pre-emptively and did it himself.

Starting at 9:25 p.m., the Complainant indicated he had shot his family members twice each in the side of their heads, and a few shots to the dog. He had ammunition and many more shots left.

Starting at 9:26 p.m., the Complainant indicated he refused to turn the gas off and might blow up the house. An alarm was sounding in the background.

Starting at 9:27 p.m., the Complainant walked around his house enjoying his last few moments.

Starting at 9:40 p.m., the Complainant indicated he had blindly shot at the neighbours around the same time he shot a family member.

Starting at 9:59 p.m., the Complainant indicated he would panic if police officers breached the house.

Starting at 10:34 p.m., the Complainant said he did not trust that there were no police officers in the garage, and he would shoot them if there were.

Starting at 10:54 p.m., the Complainant asked how to end his life. He asked what the police officers had planned and what was going on outside of his residence.

OPP Radio Communications / Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

On October 25, 2024, starting at 9:01 p.m., police officers were dispatched by the PCC to a weapons call in the vicinity of Muskoka Road 3 North and Highway 60 on information neighbours were advising that for the past five minutes they had been hearing gunshots. Further information was received that the Complainant was reporting that he had shot two family members. The Complainant would not put the loaded firearm away and did not want anyone breaching the residence. He did not want to walk out, did not want to spend the rest of his life in jail, and wanted to end his life.

Starting at 9:04 p.m., ERT and Tactics and Rescue Unit (TRU) were requested.

Starting at 9:09 p.m., police officers were on scene.

Starting at 9:28 p.m., police officers smelled propane.

Starting at 9:44 p.m., a police officer saw the Complainant in the house near the front door.

Starting at 9:56 p.m., TRU was deployed.

Starting at 11:04 p.m., the mission statement was broadcast: Safely contain address and negotiate safe surrender of the Complainant, keeping utmost regard of public safety and units. Lawfully on property under section 25 of use of force.

Starting at 12:48 a.m., TRU breached doors of the house and a window, and inserted a drone. The Complainant and two women were located with trauma. The Complainant had what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

OPP TRU Radio Communications

A police officer [believed to be the WO] advised a breach would be met adversely.

A police officer stated that if negotiations were going well, they would sit and wait but they were concerned about the people in the house. An officer smelled natural gas.

The WO advised to go ahead with the breach plan, and he would keep them updated with respect to the crisis negotiations.

The WO asked if anyone heard a gunshot, and police officers responded they did not - just some glass breaking.

The WO advised that they no longer had contact with the Complainant and that crisis negotiators heard what they thought was a gunshot.

A police officer advised that the RPAS drone was in the garage. The door was open into the house, which opened into a kitchen. There was a pistol on the counter and a door leading downstairs. Two deceased women were located.

In the basement was the Complainant, face down on a bed with fresh blood and trauma to his head. There was a long gun beside him with a wooden stock.

Police officers entered the residence followed by EMS. The three parties were confirmed deceased.

OPP Crisis Negotiator Communications

The Complainant answered the phone. The crisis negotiator introduced himself and asked the Complainant how he was and what was going on. The Complainant responded that he ended up shooting two family members and a dog. The crisis negotiator asked the Complainant if they were still in the house with him. He confirmed they were, and they were deceased. The crisis negotiator asked him how he knew they were deceased, and the Complainant stated they were cold and stiff. He shot them with a rifle.

The Complainant was in the garage walking back and forth, enjoying the last time he had as he did not plan on being alive. He indicated there was nothing really left, there would be a bunch of problems, and he did not want to go through the court system.

The Complainant expressed concerns about his neighbours. The Complainant had audio and a video of them shooting weapons, though not necessarily at him but generally upwards. He heard them firing guns that morning. The Complainant had been getting threats that he would be killed after which they would go after his family. He did not want his family to be hurt and tortured as he had heard a lot of gruesome things.

The Complainant confirmed he had a .30 caliber rifle and a 9mm handgun, and no one else was in the home. The gunshot wounds were everywhere on his family members.

The crisis negotiator told the Complainant it would be good idea to come out and have a chat with the police. The Complainant said that was not for him because it would be a lengthy process that he did not want to go through.

The crisis negotiator asked the Complainant his plan for the remainder of the night and said that he was there to talk to him. The Complainant confirmed two deceased women were in the living room.

The Complainant had one gun with him, and the others were in the basement. He possessed two handguns and two rifles. The Complainant asked if he was going to get jumped and the crisis negotiator told him no one was going to do anything. They were having a conversation and he wanted to work some stuff out with him. The crisis negotiator assured the Complainant no one was going to bother him inside.

The crisis negotiator asked the Complainant if would come outside so they could enter and assess his family members. The Complainant replied he would not go outside.

The Complainant believed the neighbours were trying to kill him, which had caused the current situation, and that they had fired rounds that morning around 7:15 a.m. The Complainant had audio and video of the neighbours saying they would kidnap his family members.

The crisis negotiator asked if he still had the recordings and the Complainant said he did. USBs and hard drives were in a bucket and police officers could open the door and pick them up. The crisis negotiator expressed safety concerns for the police officers retrieving them. Their main concern was to check the decease women and ensure he was okay.

The crisis negotiator told the Complainant they did not want him to hurt himself. The Complainant told the crisis negotiator not to breach the house. The crisis negotiator assured him they would not enter so long as they were talking but explained that they needed to ensure everyone was okay. The crisis negotiator did not want the Complainant to hurt himself. The Complainant replied that was how the incident would unfortunately conclude. He said he was going to stay with his family, and that was a decision that he made.

The Complainant felt guilty over what he had done but happy because he knew the consequences his family members would have faced. If he was killed, they would have been kidnapped and abused.

The crisis negotiator said he should go outside, and they would hold those persons accountable and there were police officers willing to listen to him. The Complainant would not come out because of the consequences of him speaking to the police, and because he might get killed anyway.

The Complainant said this was a one-way ticket for him and he did not want to live through it but felt like he had saved his family.

The Complainant said the incident occurred around 7:00 p.m., and he fired intentionally and blindly through the blinds because he believed people were surrounding him outside. He believed he was being hunted, and confirmed that shooting his family members was intentional.

The crisis negotiator asked the Complainant about a heavy gas smell outside. He confirmed he turned the stove gas on as he had contemplated blowing the entire house up but had since turned if off.

The Complainant asked if they were planning to enter, and the crisis negotiator said they were not. The Complainant said he thought he heard someone entering and the crisis negotiator assured him that was not happening. The crisis negotiator asked the Complainant to consider coming outside because he did not believe him to be a bad person. The officer said that the Complainant had been forced into a difficult situation.

The Complainant was concerned that people were entering. It sounded like he had moved away from the phone, and he was heard saying something inaudible in the distance.

There was no further contact with the Complainant.

OPP RPAS Drone Footage

The RPAS drone entered the garage and through an open door into the kitchen where a semi-automatic handgun was observed on the counter.

The RPAS drone entered the dining room and then down a hallway towards the living room. The ARV with emergency lighting illuminated was on the front lawn outside the open front door. The RPAS drone continued into the living room where two deceased women were located. Both had obvious trauma to their heads. The family dog was at the feet of one of the women, also with obvious trauma.

The RPAS drone continued into the basement where the Complainant was discovered. There was a rifle at his feet leaning against the bed, with the stock on the ground and the barrel at an angle facing him. He also had obvious trauma to his head.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between November 1, 2024, and February 11, 2025:

  • Names and roles of involved police officers;
  • RPAS drone video;
  • CAD Report;
  • Communications recordings;
  • Notes - the WO; and
  • Policy - Barricaded Suspect / Hostage Incident.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between October 28, 2024, and January 29, 2025:

  • Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service; and
  • CFS Biology Report.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the SO and audio footage that captured the event in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of October 25, 2024, starting at about 8:45 p.m., the OPP received 911 calls from residents in the area of Muskoka Road 3 North and Highway 60, Huntsville, reporting the sound of multiple gunshots. At about 9:00 p.m., the Complainant contacted the OPP and indicated he had shot dead two family members at their home. Officers were dispatched to the scene.

The Complainant was of unsound mind. He had been hearing noises and believed his neighbours were bent on killing him and his family. He had decided to pre-emptively kill his family to spare them what he believed would be their painful deaths at the hands of third-parties.

The acting critical incident commander – the SO – was advised of the situation and took charge of police operations. Under his command, ERT and TRU officers were deployed, and a team of negotiators was brought in. By about 10:50 p.m., the TRU officers had assumed containment positions around the house. A half-hour later, negotiators contacted the Complainant by phone. The Complainant steadfastly refused their requests that he exit the home and indicated he would soon take his own life. He told police that he was armed with a rifle and handguns.

At about 12:17 a.m., an armoured vehicle was deployed to approach the house and breach doors and windows. The plan was to send in a drone to make observations inside the residence. Shortly after, the Complainant, in a basement bedroom, shot himself in the head with a rifle. The drone located two deceased women with massive head trauma in the main-floor living room, a deceased dog, also shot in the head and in the living room, and the Complainant, located deceased in the basement with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. TRU officers entered the residence at about 12:53 a.m.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to “perforating gunshot wound to head”.

Relevant Legislation

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.

Analysis and Director’s Decision

The Complainant passed away on October 26, 2024, during a standoff with OPP officers in Huntsville. 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 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 officers under his command were engaged in the lawful execution of their duties through the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s death. Knowing of the Complainant’s reported deeds, the officers were duty bound to attend at the scene to do what they reasonably could to ensure public safety and take the Complainant into custody.

The evidence indicates that the SO, in his capacity as the critical incident commander, comported himself with due care and regard for public safety at all times. Given the gravity of the situation, the inspector was right to make his first priority scene security and the call-out of specialized personnel – ERT and TRU officers. Once those assets were in place, trained negotiators under the inspector’s command contacted the Complainant and did what they could to have him peacefully surrender into custody. When it became apparent that negotiations had stalled, the SO had a difficult decision to make. He could continue to give negotiations time in the hope of a breakthrough, or he could adopt a more proactive posture. Though the Complainant had reported that two family members were deceased, the inspector could not be sure that was in fact the case, and the need to get inside the house as soon as possible to check on their status would have weighed heavily on him. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the inspector acted hastily or recklessly when he decided that it was time to breach the windows and doors of the house to get a drone inside even if, as it appears, the Complainant decided to take his own life at that moment.

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

Date: February 21, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

  • 1) Unless otherwise specified, the information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s findings of fact following its investigation. [Back to text]
  • 2) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]

Note:

The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.