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 58-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 26, 2024, at 3:21 p.m., the Thunder Bay Police Service (TBPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 2:18 p.m., the TBPS received several calls from motorists about a man [later identified as the Complainant] walking along Highway 11/17 at Pebblestone Road carrying a shotgun. Two police officers responded in separate police vehicles. On their arrival in the area, Witness Official (WO) #1 broadcast that the man was not following commands. At 2:36 p.m., the officer reported that the man had fired a shot in his direction, striking his police vehicle. At 2:37 p.m., it was reported another police officer, the Subject Official (SO), had discharged a single shot from his service pistol, striking the man in the right side of the chest. The police officers attended to the Complainant and observed an entry wound. An ambulance from the Superior North Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was called, and arrived at 2:44 p.m. The Complainant, conscious and breathing, was transported to the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (TBRHSC).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/12/26 at 3:42 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/12/28 at 8:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on January 6, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on December 28, 2024.

Subject Official

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

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

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness official was interviewed on January 6, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around Highway 11/17 east of Pebblestone Road, Kakabeka Falls.

Physical Evidence

On agreement with the SIU, the scene was processed by the TBPS given the length of time it would have taken the SIU to arrive.

On December 26, 2024, at 3:32 p.m., WO #3 and WO #2 were detailed to attend an officer involved shooting on Highway 11/17 at Pebblestone Road. They arrived on scene at 4:05 p.m., and WO #2 was detailed to take overall photographs. Officer #1 was also on scene, and he was detailed to take drone photographs.

Highway 11/17 generally ran in an east/west direction with one westbound lane, two eastbound lanes, and a paved shoulder on each side. WO #1’s marked police vehicle was located 88.86 metres southeast from the middle of Pebblestone Road. It faced south across the eastbound lanes. A truck faced eastbound in the eastbound lane, west of WO #1’s cruiser.

The SO’s cruiser was a fully marked TBPS SUV. It faced westbound, partially over the double-yellow line, approximately 37 metres east of where the Complainant’s clothing lay on the roadway. A 9-millimetre cartridge case was located on the roadway on the passenger side.

On the eastbound shoulder near WO #1’s cruiser were medical supplies used by paramedics, a shotgun, a spent shotgun shell, multiple unspent shotgun shells, and clothing belonging to the Complainant. The shotgun was described as a bolt action shotgun. Gloves, a hat, boots, a jacket and a black sheath with knife were also present. One spent shotgun shell, which was reddish brown in colour, was found in the snowbank off the shoulder of the roadway.

Figure 1 – The Complainant’s bolt action shotgun

WO #1’s cruiser was noted to have a defect on the driver’s door. Paint chips were observed on the ground by the rear driver’s side door. An issued patrol rifle was observed on the driver’s seat of WO #1’s cruiser.

There was a defect to the left front door with black scuffing to the left top of the defect. The defect measured 19.6 centimetres (7.75 inches) horizontal times 12 centimetres (4.75 inches) vertical. The positioning of the centre of the defect was 64.7 centimetres (25.5 inches) from the front door seam and 99.6 centimetres (39.25 inches) from the floor. The impact strike of the pellets was at an approximate 45 - degree angle to the front of the unit. Approximately 25 pellets impacted the inner door panel with pellets penetrating the inner door panel and entering the passenger compartment. One pellet penetrated through the side door panel. There were three defects to the driver’s seat back. 48 shot pellets were recovered from within the door cavity. One pellet was recovered from the driver’s seat back. In total 51 pellets were recovered.

Figure 2 – Defect to the driver’s door of WO #1’s cruiser

The SIU retained the SO’s issued pistol - a Glock 17 GEN5 with an attached TLR-7A stream light. There was one 9 mm cartridge in the breech. The duty magazine was a Glock 9 mm magazine with a capacity of 17 – 9 mm cartridges. The magazine contained 16 – 9 mm cartridges.

Figure 3 - The SO’s Glock firearm

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #1

On December 26, 2024, starting at about 2:20 p.m., WO #1 was captured operating a police vehicle from an urban area into a rural region on a highway [now known to be westbound on Highway 11/17 out of Thunder Bay].

Starting at about 2:34 p.m., WO #1 stopped his police vehicle in the live westbound lane of Highway 11/17, and spoke with another police officer - the SO - who was stopped in his police vehicle [now known to be facing westbound, on the north shoulder of Highway 11/17, towards Pebblestone Road]. WO #1 advised the SO that he would go up the highway and block eastbound traffic. WO #1 requested that the OPP close the highway.

Starting at about 2:34:45 p.m., WO #1 stopped his police vehicle, after turning it to the left, across the eastbound lanes [now known to be just east of Pebblestone Road]. He grabbed his C8 rifle from its mount, exited the cruiser, and walked across the front of his vehicle, looking eastbound up the south shoulder of the road. The emergency lights on his police vehicle were activated. WO #1 shouted, “Drop the shotgun buddy,” and then, “Will you set the gun down for me buddy. It’s all good.” A voice could be heard to respond but what was said was indiscernible. WO #1 said, “Put the gun down, I need you to put the gun down buddy,” and, “Stop walking, that’s all you got to do. Stop walking. Stop walking with the gun right now.” WO #1 broadcast to dispatch that a man - the Complainant - was walking on the highway with a shotgun. The camera then provided a view down the shoulder of the road where the Complainant’s silhouette could be seen just east of the second telephone pole, east of the police vehicle. WO #1 repeatedly told the Complainant to drop the shotgun. The Complainant repeatedly told WO #1, “Fuck you.” WO #1 asked the Complainant his name and said, “Talk to me, I need you to talk to me.” The Complainant said, “No, I can’t,” and walked closer to WO #1 with the shotgun held at waist level, the butt of the gun cradled in his right arm and the barrel of the gun pointed away from WO #1.

Starting at about 2:36:07 p.m., the Complainant turned to his right and pointed the barrel of the gun at WO #1 from about four metres away. WO #1 raised his C8, moved quickly to the rear passenger side of his police vehicle, shouted, “Holy fuck man,” and crouched down.

At 2:36:16 p.m., one shot was heard followed immediately by a second shot, which was not as loud. WO #1 broadcast that gunshots had been fired. The officer approached the Complainant, who lay on his left side on the snow at the edge of the shoulder of the road. The shotgun lay on the roadway to the right side of the Complainant. WO #1 picked up the shotgun and threw it to the side. WO #1 grabbed the Complainant’s right arm and the SO grabbed his left arm, and they pulled him onto the road and lay him in the recovery position on his right side. WO #1 notified dispatch that the Complainant had been hit on the right side of his chest.

BWC Footage - The SO

The video started on December 26, 2024, at 2:32 p.m. The SO was captured driving and holding a microphone in his right hand.

Starting at about 2:32:37 p.m., the SO exited his police vehicle, and stood and faced the driver’s side of his police vehicle on the shoulder of the road beside a highway. The officer said, “What’s going on man?” A voice was heard to say something that was indiscernible. The SO said, “Take it easy dude, okay, take it easy.” The figure of a man [now known to be the Complainant] could be seen at the back of the police vehicle. He was holding a long gun with the butt of the gun cradled in his right arm/elbow at waist level. The SO got back in his car and quickly drove down the highway [now known to be eastbound on Highway 11/17 from Pebblestone Road]. The officer radioed for another unit, and made a U-turn.

Starting at about 2:33:22 p.m., the SO stopped [now known to be facing westbound on the north shoulder of Highway 11/17].

Starting at about 2:34 p.m., a voice was heard to say, “I’ll block the highway down there.” A police vehicle [now known to be operated by WO #1] with its emergency lights activated was seen at the side of the SO’s police vehicle. The SO said, “He never pointed it at me, but he told me to get the fuck away.” WO #1 drove away and the SO drove slowly forward, broadcasting a description of the Complainant.

Starting at about 2:35:16 p.m., the SO exited his police vehicle, and stood facing eastbound, waving at oncoming westbound traffic. A voice over the radio could be heard to say, “Stop walking,” followed by, “The male has a shotgun.” The SO jumped back into his police vehicle at 2:35:40 p.m. He quickly drove westbound and stopped at 2:36:06 p.m., exiting his police vehicle and drawing his service pistol. WO #1 appeared at the back of his police vehicle, crouched down, with his C8 rifle pointed to the front of his police vehicle in the direction of the Complainant.

Starting at about 2:36:15 p.m., the Complainant pointed his shotgun, from waist level, in the direction of WO #1. WO #1 shouted, “Drop the fucking gun now.” WO #1’s command was overlapped by the SO shouting, “Drop it.” At 2:36:16 p.m., the Complainant fired his shotgun in the direction of WO #1 and, at 2:36:17 p.m., the SO fired one shot from his service pistol in the direction of the Complainant. The Complainant fell to the ground. At 2:36:21 p.m., WO #1 broadcast that shots had been fired.

The SO walked westbound, with his service pistol pointed in the direction of the Complainant. WO #1 approached the Complainant on the ground, next to the shoulder of the road, and broadcast, “I got the gun away from the male, he’s down.” The SO re-holstered his service pistol and ran towards WO #1 and the Complainant. The SO grabbed the Complainant’s left arm at the shoulder, and WO #1 grabbed the Complainant’s right arm, and the police officers pulled the Complainant off the snow and onto the roadway. The Complainant groaned in pain. The SO asked him his name. The Complainant provided his first name.

Starting at about 2:37:51 p.m., other police officers appeared on scene and WO #1 broadcast that the Complainant had a wound to his right chest. An ambulance was requested, and the police officers administered first aid.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – The SO’s Cruiser

The footage started at 2:34:09 p.m., December 26, 2024. The SO’ s police vehicle was captured stopped on the shoulder at the side of a highway [now known to be westbound on Highway 11/17]. The road was clear and the wooded areas on both sides of the highway were snow-covered. At nine seconds into the video, a fully marked TBPS vehicle [now known to be operated by WO #1] travelled westbound slowly from the driver’s side of the SO’s police vehicle. WO #1’s emergency lighting was activated. WO #1 drove westbound on Highway 11/17 into the distance.

Starting at about 2:34:43 p.m., WO #1 was seen to turn his police vehicle to the left, blocking the eastbound traffic on Highway 11/17. The SO moved forward slowly. The camera eventually captured the silhouette of a person [now known to be the Complainant] at the south side of the highway east of WO #1’s location. The SO continued to move forward and, at 2:35:17 p.m., he stopped his police vehicle in the westbound driving lane of Highway 11/17.

Starting at about 2:35:44 p.m., the SO started to move slowly forward, westbound.

Starting at about 2:35:55 p.m., the Complainant’s silhouette was seen to walk westbound on the south shoulder of the road towards WO #1’s police vehicle. At 2:36:07 p.m., the SO stopped and faced westbound with half his police vehicle in the westbound lane and half in the eastbound lane, a short distance east of a green road sign at the north side of the roadway which said, “Pebblestone Road.” WO #1’s police vehicle blocked the eastbound traffic on Highway 11/17 just east of Pebblestone Road, stopped on a slight southwest angle. A stopped eastbound civilian vehicle could be seen just west of WO #1’s vehicle. The Complainant appeared to be in front of the hood of WO #1’s police vehicle. The front of WO #1’s police vehicle pointed halfway across the south lane, and the Complainant stood at the edge of the south lane, which was an approximate distance of about 1.5 metres to 2 metres (4.9 to 6 feet) away from the vehicle. The Complainant held something in his hands; however, the distance was too far to discern exactly what it was. The Complainant stepped back to the south side of the shoulder of the road and pointed the object at the passenger side of WO #1’s police vehicle. At 2:36:13 p.m., WO #1 stepped to the back of his police vehicle and squatted to the roadway at the rear passenger side. At 2:36:17 p.m., the Complainant was seen to fall backwards onto the ground.

Starting at about 2:36:19 p.m., the SO came into the camera view at the driver’s side of his police vehicle with his service pistol drawn and pointed westbound towards WO #1’s police vehicle. WO #1 approached the Complainant and appeared to pick up an object before he bent down. The SO ran towards the Complainant. WO #1 and the SO each grabbed one of the Complainant’s hands, and they pulled him out of the snow and onto the shoulder of the road, placing him on his back.

Starting at about 2:37 p.m., a fully marked TBPS SUV [now known to be operated by Officer #2 and Officer #3] arrived westbound on Highway 11/17 on the south side of the road.

ICC Footage – WO #1’s Cruiser

The ICC video from WO #1’s cruiser started at 2:20:19 p.m., December 26, 2024.

Starting at about 2:34:02 p.m., WO #1 stopped his police vehicle, westbound on a live lane [now known to be Highway 11/17] beside the SO’s cruiser.

Starting at about 2:34:14 p.m., WO #1 started to drive forward, westbound. Nobody could be seen on the shoulder of the south side of the roadway.

Starting at about 2:34:36 p.m., WO #1 stopped his police vehicle in a southwest direction.

Starting at about 2:34:54 p.m., WO #1 walked across the front of his police vehicle, carrying a C8 rifle.

Starting at about 2:35:02 p.m., WO #1 stood at the front left fender of his police vehicle facing eastbound.

Starting at about 2:36:03 p.m., the Complainant, who was carrying a shotgun, appeared on the left side of the screen and approached from an area south of the shoulder of the road. He walked onto the roadway directly in front of the police vehicle and pointed his shotgun at WO #1, who held his C8 pointed to the ground. WO #1 seemed to be taken by surprise by the Complainant’s approach. WO #1 raised his C8 and moved to the back of his police vehicle, off screen. The Complainant turned to his right side and moved back, in the direction of the shoulder of the road. He appeared to manually load his shotgun and stood off the shoulder of the road. The Complainant pointed the shotgun at the front of the police vehicle and fired the shotgun in the direction of the police vehicle.

Starting at about 2:36:16 p.m., the Complainant attempted to reload his shotgun and fell backwards to the ground.

Starting at about 2:36:28 p.m., WO #1 approached with his C8 rifle pointed at the Complainant. He picked up the shotgun and threw it to his left side.

Starting at about 2:36:46 p.m., WO #1 and the SO pulled the Complainant backwards onto the shoulder of the road.

Communications Recordings

On December 26, 2024, at 2:18 p.m., CW #3 telephoned the TBPS and reported that a man was walking eastbound on the shoulder of Highway 11/17 at Pebblestone Road, carrying a firearm. At 2:27 p.m., a second call was received from CW #2.

At 2:33 p.m., the SO was on scene. He advised that a man was upset and had a firearm.

At 2:35 p.m., the SO requested that the highway be closed in both directions.

At 2:35 p.m., the dispatcher advised that the OPP were en route to close the highway.

At 2:35:59 p.m., WO #1 broadcast that the Complainant was not following commands.

At 2:36:17 p.m., WO #1 broadcast that the Complainant had a shotgun and, at 2:36:27 p.m., that shots had been fired, the Complainant was down, and he had taken the shotgun away from him.

At 2:36:59 p.m., a sergeant requested that an ambulance be called. WO #1 advised that the Complainant had been shot on the right side of his chest and there was no exit wound.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TBPS between December 27, 2024, and January 27, 2025:

• BWC footage
• ICC footage
• Dashcam footage
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• General Reports
• Break and Enter Report
• Involved Police Officers and Assignments
• Use of Force Training – the SO
• Cautions / Flags - the Complainant
• Police history - the Complainant
• Notes – WO #2, WO #1, the SO, and WO #3
• Scene photographs
• Policies - Arrest Release Detention & Use of Force Policy
• Witness Statement – CW #4

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between January 8, 2025, and January 22, 2025:

• Ambulance Call Report from EMS
• The Complainant’s medical records from TBRHSC

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, and police and non-police 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. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of December 26, 2024, TBPS officers were dispatched to Highway 11/17 in the area of Pebblestone Road following 911 calls about a male walking alongside the highway with a firearm. The SO was the first officer to arrive. He located the male – the Complainant – walking westward towards him on the south side of the highway as the officer travelled eastbound in his cruiser. The SO stopped and spoke to the Complainant to ask what he was doing. The Complainant swore at the officer and pointed the shotgun he was holding at him. The SO drove off a distance eastbound before turning to travel west, bringing the cruiser to a stop on the northside of Highway 11/17 and radioing for assistance.

WO #1 arrived on scene in his cruiser shortly thereafter. He stopped alongside the SO’s cruiser and the two talked for a period. Deciding it was wise to close the highways, WO #1 resumed his travel west. He proceeded past the Complainant, still walking west on the south side of the highway, and brought his cruiser to a stop facing southwest across the two eastbound lanes of Highway 11/17, a short distance east of Pebblestone Road. WO #1 took hold of his C8 rifle, exited the cruiser, and went around the front end of the vehicle towards the passenger side. From that position, the officer repeatedly directed the Complainant to drop his weapon.

The Complainant continued to advance on WO #1, refusing to drop the shotgun. As he came face to face with the officer, at a distance of several metres, the Complainant raised his shotgun in WO #1’s direction and pulled the trigger. The shotgun failed to discharge. Moments later, he stepped back and pulled the trigger again. This time, the weapon fired, leaving pellet-impact strikes on the driver’s side of the cruiser and a hole in the driver’s door. WO #1, who had taken cover behind the rear passenger side of the cruiser, was not struck. Just after he fired the second time, the Complainant was struck by a bullet and fell to the ground.

From a distance of about 37 metres north and east of the Complainant, in the vicinity of his cruiser, the SO had fired his semi-automatic pistol a single time at the Complainant. The shot struck the Complainant in the right chest.

The SO and WO #1 approached the Complainant on the ground, secured him in handcuffs, and rendered first aid pending the arrival of paramedics.

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 suffered a gunshot wound at the hands of the police on December 26, 2024, in Kakabeka Falls. 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 injury.

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.

The SO and WO #1 were engaged in the lawful exercise of their duties through the series of events culminating in gunfire. Aware of the 911 calls reporting a male openly carrying a firearm on a public roadway, and then approached by the Complainant brandishing a shotgun in their direction, the officers had cause to confront the Complainant for serious criminal offences and to ensure public safety.

Though the SO did not interview with the SIU to provide a firsthand account of his state of mind at the time he fired his weapon, as was his legal right, he did authorize the release of his notes in which he described shooting at the Complainant as he raised his shotgun a second time in the direction of WO #1. The clear import of the officer’s account is that he fired his gun believing it was necessary to prevent the Complainant from shooting his colleague. The SO’s apprehensions in this regard find support in the circumstantial evidence, including, most emphatically, the fact that the Complainant did get a shot off in the direction of WO #1 just before he was struck by the bullet fired by the SO.

I am also satisfied that the SO’s shooting constituted a reasonable measure of force in defence of WO #1. It is apparent that the SO had no other recourse other than to fire at the Complainant if he was going to intervene to prevent grievous harm or death coming to WO #1. The Complainant had seconds prior tried to shoot WO #1, and he was in the process of firing at him a second time when the SO took his shot. Given the distance between the parties, and the need in the moment to immediately incapacitate the Complainant, nothing short of the stopping power of a firearm would have sufficed.

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

Date: April 25, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit