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 discharge of a firearm by the police at a 26-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 20, 2024, at 10:49 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) notified the SIU that an ARWEN[2] had been discharged at the Complainant earlier that evening.

According to the OPP, police officers responded to a Mental Health Act (MHA) call at an address in Seaforth at 3:30 p.m. Negotiations failed, and Tactics and Rescue Unit (TRU) officers were deployed at 10:15 p.m., to enter the residence to preserve life. The Complainant was found holding a knife. TRU officers discharged an ARWEN twice. The Complainant was apprehended under the MHA and taken to the Alexandra Marine and General Hospital (AMGH) where no serious injury was diagnosed.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/12/21 at 6:34 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/12/21 at 9:36 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on December 21, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Not interviewed

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a residence in Seaforth.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Cellular Telephone Video

On December 24, 2024, the SIU received cellular telephone video recordings of the event from a civilian.

TRU officers were captured out front of a residence. One TRU officer used a ram to open the front door, and about six TRU officers positioned themselves near the front door. A few minutes later, the Complainant slammed the front door, and shut and turned the lights off within the residence. An officer then broke a front window and cleared the glass and the blinds. The Complainant appeared in the window holding a large knife. TRU officers came down off the porch as another member took a position on the right side of the window with a rifle in hand. A short time later, the front door was kicked open.

The Complainant appeared in the window once again, but further back in the room, still holding the knife. More glass was cleared from the window frame. A period of time went by, and the Complainant could still be seen in the house holding a knife. A faint shot-like sound was heard, and the Complainant appeared in the window with his hands up and behind his head. The Complainant walked outside to the porch and lay face down for arrest.

In-car Camera (ICC) Video

The footage showed uniformed officers arriving on scene and, at 5:47 p.m., TRU officers taking over. Broadcasts could be heard about the Complainant having a knife and refusing to communicate with police. A police officer was heard speaking to a family member of the Complainant, who indicated the Complainant had mental health issues and refused to listen to anyone.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between December 20, 2024, and December 24, 2024:

• Scene photographs;
• ICC recordings;
• Body-worn camera footage;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Notes – WO #2; and
• Notes – WO #1.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on December 24, 2024:

• Civilian video recording; and
• The Complainant’s medical records from AMGH.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with the Complainant and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

Police were called to a home in Seaforth on December 20, 2024, following a domestic disturbance involving the Complainant and a family member. The family member had contacted police to have the Complainant removed from the residence.

Aware that the Complainant had armed himself with a knife, intending to harm himself, and was refusing to exit, officers surrounded the home and police negotiators contacted the Complainant by phone. In time, TRU officers arrived on scene and took over the police presence closest to the residence. At about 10:00 p.m., the officers were directed to force open the front door. The Complainant was seen inside the house holding a knife. He made his way to the front door and closed it again before turning off all the interior lights. TRU officers breached a front window and again observed the Complainant with a knife. The SO fired his ARWEN twice striking the Complainant’s upper body. The Complainant dropped the knife and was taken into custody.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code - Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

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.

On December 20, 2024, the OPP notified the SIU that an ARWEN had been discharged at the Complainant earlier that evening in the course of his arrest. The SIU 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 use of the ARWEN.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was subject to apprehension under section 17 of the Mental Health Act. He was of unsound mind and a clear threat to himself and others.

I am also satisfied that the use of the ARWEN by the SO was legally justified. After a protracted period of negotiation with the Complainant during which little progress had been made, the police were within their rights in adopting a more proactive approach. With a knife in his possession, they could reasonably have surmised that the Complainant was at increasing risk of harming himself as time continued to pass. That concern would have been reinforced by the smell of gas coming from within the residence. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted with excess when he fired his ARWEN at the Complainant.  Given the knife in his possession, a direct physical engagement with the Complainant was effectively off the table. Rather, it made sense to attempt to temporarily incapacitate the Complainant from a distance with less-lethal force.

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

Date: April 17, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit