SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OFP-552
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
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 discharge of a firearm by the police at a 33-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On December 24, 2024, at 12:24 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.
On December 24, 2024, at 10:35 a.m., the OPS received a call from paramedics seeking assistance at a mental health call for service at an address in the area of Baseline Road and Greenbank Road, Ottawa. Officers were dispatched. At 11:05 a.m., an OPS officer reported the subject of the call, the Complainant, had barricaded himself. At 11:12 a.m., a sergeant called for the Tactical Unit (TU) and a negotiator to be dispatched. At 11:44 a.m., a uniformed police officer reported a door at the residence was opening and a TU officer was communicating with the Complainant. At 11:45 a.m., the Complainant re-entered the residence. At 11:50 a.m., it was reported the Complainant was in custody. In the course of the incident, a TU officer [now known to be the Subject Official (SO)] had discharged a Defense Technology 40 mm extended range impact weapon (40 mm launcher) at the Complainant, striking him in a thigh. The Complainant was taken to Queensway Carleton Hospital (QCH), where he was admitted under the Mental Health Act (MHA). He sustained no serious injury. The 40 mm launcher was secured by the TU sergeant. Considering the forecasted snowfall, it was agreed OPS forensic officers would process the outdoor scene, which consisted of the launcher projectiles and cases.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/12/24 at 1:03 p.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/12/26 at 12:04 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
33-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on December 27, 2024.
Civilian Witness (CW)
CW Interviewed
The civilian witness was interviewed on December 31, 2024.
Subject Official
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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #9 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
The witness officials were interviewed between January 7, 2025, and January 8, 2025.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in and around a residence located in the area of Baseline Road and Greenbank Road, Ottawa.
Physical Evidence
At the scene, the OPS collected two 40 mm cartridges and two 40 mm projectiles, and took photographs of the Complainant’s knife and the scene, including the interior and exterior of the residence.
Figure 1 – The Complainant’s knife
Figure 2 - Two 40 mm launcher projectiles
Figure 3 – The SO’s extended range impact weapon (40 mm launcher)
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
OPS Communications Recordings
On December 24, 2024, at 10:35:37 a.m., EMS contacted the OPS Communications Centre and provided an address in the area of Baseline Road and Greenbank Road. They advised that a male, the Complainant, was involved, and he suffered from depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. He was deemed suicidal and had used a kitchen knife to cut his wrist. The Complainant remained in the kitchen while another person in the residence, Witness #1, had locked herself in a room upstairs. The Communications Centre advised there had been a previous mental health call at the address in November 2024.
At 10:47:29 a.m., dispatch radioed that EMS was staged in the area.
At 10:50:35 a.m., WO #1 reported that the Complainant was seated on a couch in the back room and in possession of a knife. Dispatch issued a directive to cease transmissions on the channel to maintain clarity for the ongoing call.
At 11:05:10 a.m., WO #2 reported the presence of a barricaded person and subsequently requested control of the channel. It was confirmed Witness #1 had exited the residence. WO #2 initiated efforts to establish a perimeter.
At 11:12:26 a.m., WO #1 communicated to all officers involved in the barricaded person call that there were grounds for apprehension under the MHA. A sergeant called for assistance from the TU and a negotiator.
At 11:23:04 a.m., WO #1 radioed to all officers the Complainant had no firearms and had attempted suicide a month earlier.
At 11:26:09 a.m., WO #2 radioed the objective was to apprehend the Complainant safely under the MHA. A perimeter was established.
At 11:44 a.m., a sergeant reported the front door had opened, and the Complainant was seen outside the residence engaged in communication with the TU officers. It was noted the Complainant was not in possession of a knife. An unidentified officer remarked, “If we get a 40 around his backside, we could make him move.” WO #7 conferred with another officer regarding the possibility of taking action the next time the Complainant exited the residence, should an opportunity arise. They spoke about retrieving the 40 mm launcher from WO #5. About one minute later, the Complainant re-entered the residence.
At 11:50 a.m., multiple police officers broadcast that the Complainant was in custody. Four minutes later, it was reported the Complainant was being transported to QCH. A request was made to notify QCH security that they were en route.
OPS Scene Photos
On January 6, 2025, the OPS provided the SIU with a photobook, which contained a cover page and 36 photographs of the scene and exhibits. The scene was photographed by OPS’s Forensic Identification Section.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPS between December 31, 2024, and January 21, 2025:
- Notes and Investigative Action Reports - WO #3, WO #4, WO #1, WO #2, WO #8, WO #9, WO #5, WO #6, WO #7 and the SO
- Use of Force History - the SO
- The SO’s 40 mm launcher requalification
- Witness List
- Computer-aided Dispatch Report
- Communications recordings
- Record of Mental Health Call
- Photos
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between December 30, 2024, and January 3, 2025:
- Five photographs of injuries, received from the Complainant
- Three photographs of sponge-round, received from the Complainant
- The Complainant’s medical records from QCH
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.
In the morning of December 24, 2024, OPS officers began arriving at a residence in the area of Baseline Road and Greenbank Road, Ottawa. Witness #1 had called police expressing concern about the Complainant. She indicated the Complainant was suicidal and had cut himself with a knife.
Patrol officers were the first to arrive. A number of them entered the residence and spoke to the Complainant. The Complainant was in possession of a knife and refused to cooperate with the officers, waving the knife in their direction. Removed from the home by one of the officers, Witness #1 told him that the Complainant was at risk of harming himself with the knife. She noted an earlier suicide attempt by the Complainant the month prior. The officer – WO #1 – re-entered the house and advised the other officers there were grounds to apprehend the Complainant under the Mental Health Act. The Complainant remained belligerent, and the officers thought it best to remove themselves from the home and call in the TU.
TU officers, including the SO, began arriving on scene at about 11:45 a.m. and set up an inner perimeter around the front door of the residence. Minutes later, the Complainant emerged onto his front step and threatened the officers before re-entering and closing the door. The TU decided that they would attempt to prevent the Complainant re-entering the home by way of a 40 mm launcher in the event he exited again and continued to ignore police commands to surrender.
At about 11:48 a.m., the Complainant opened the door and stepped onto the front landing. He was not holding a knife. He berated the officers with insults and threats. From a position several metres east of the Complainant’s location, the SO, armed with the 40 mm launcher, fired a sponge-round from his weapon. The projectile struck the Complainant on the left leg but he remained standing and continued to yell at the officers. The SO fired two additional shots, again striking the Complainant’s left leg. This time, the Complainant lowered himself to the ground and placed his hands up. Officers moved in and took him into custody.
The Complainant was seen at hospital but not diagnosed with any serious injury.
Relevant Legislation
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.
Analysis and Director's Decision
On December 24, 2024, the OPS notified the SIU that one of their officers had fired a 40 mm launcher at a male – the Complainant – earlier that evening. 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 40 mm launcher.
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.
The evidence establishes that the Complainant, while of unsound mind, had cut himself and was at risk of doing himself and the officers harm at the time of the events in question. On this record, I am satisfied he was subject to lawful apprehension under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.
I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself within the limits of the criminal law when he fired his less-lethal firearm at the Complainant. By that point, over the course of about an hour during which the police attempted to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the standoff, it had become clear that the Complainant would not surrender into police custody. At the same time, the Complainant’s aggressive demeanour and access to a knife, coupled with information from Witness #1 that he was suicidal, reasonably suggested the standoff should be ended sooner rather than later to avoid the risk of harm materializing. The officers could have embarked on a hands-on physical confrontation with the Complainant when he stepped out the front door, but, given he was possibly still in possession of a knife,[3] that would have risked serious injury or even death. In the circumstances, the use of the 40 mm launcher would appear a warranted use of force. If it worked as designed, the impact with the Complainant of the less-lethal projectiles would open a window of opportunity during which he could be safely apprehended without the infliction of serious injury. In essence, that is what occurred.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: April 23, 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]
- 3) He was seen without a knife in his hands, but the officers could not be sure he did not have one on his person. [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.