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 injuries of a 56-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 28, 2024, at 9:58 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On December 28, 2024, TPS received a call from someone who was assaulted by a man [the Complainant] with a staple gun. At 7:38 a.m., TPS received another call about a man [the Complainant] with a gun who had pointed it at someone in an elevator and pulled the trigger. The gun did not discharge. At 7:40 a.m., TPS 12 Division officers arrived at an address in the area of Jane Street and Woolner Avenue and made contact with the Complainant in an apartment. At some point, police officers discharged a less-lethal (LL) shotgun and a conducted energy weapon (CEW). Both were ineffective. The CEW injured the Complainant just under his right eye. One of the TPS officers discharged their pistol three times. There were three bullet casings in the building stairwell. Emergency Task Force (ETF) officers arrived. Another LL firearm might have been deployed again, which was also ineffective. It was reported the Complainant still had a staple gun with him. ETF officers breached the apartment door, and a blunt impact projectile (BIP) was deployed. ETF officers successfully arrested the Complainant. The Complainant was taken to Humber River Hospital (HRH). The victim of the staple gun incident was taken to St. Joseph’s Health Centre.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/12/28 at 10:12 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/12/28 at 11:51 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on January 10, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between December 28, 2024, and January 9, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #3 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #1 was interviewed on April 3, 2025.

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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #7 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between January 9, 2025, and March 22, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around an apartment, and the north and east hallways, of a building in the area of Jane Street and Woolner Avenue, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

On December 28, 2024, SIU forensic investigators attended and examined the scene. The scene had been secured by TPS.

There were multiple elevators which opened to a central hub on each floor. There were hallways extending outwards from the central elevator hub. There was a stairwell at the end of each hallway. The scene spanned from the end of the north hallway, through the central elevator hub, to the end of the east hallway, including the north and east stairwells. The Complainant’s apartment was located at the end of a hallway.

The Complainant’s apartment was a two-bedroom and one bathroom unit with a galley-style kitchen, a living room, and a balcony. The entrance to the apartment opened into the living room. The balcony was accessible from the living room.

At the end of the east hallway, near the stairwell, were two 12-gauge LL shotgun shells along with internal debris from the shells. Further along the hallway towards the central elevator hub were two more LL shotgun shells, internal debris from the shells, and a LL sock round. The LL sock round was coated with a fluorescent green powder, which transferred to impact locations. The four LL shells, the internal debris, and the sock round were collected.

From the central elevator hub, two 12-gauge LL shotgun shells were collected along with various internal debris from the shotgun shells. There was fluorescent green powder on the north and west walls of the elevator hub. The powder marks indicated a LL sock round impacted the north wall and ricocheted to the west wall, which left powder marks in both locations. The location of the powder marks was consistent with a LL deployment from the east hallway in a western direction.

There was a circular hole in the west wall of the central elevator hub near the ceiling, approximately 2.3 metres above the floor. There was green powder transfer around the edges of the hole, which indicated another LL sock round had penetrated the drywall. The location of the hole was consistent with a LL deployment from the east hallway in a western direction. The LL sock round was unable to be retrieved from within the wall without extensive damage being caused to the apartment building.

There was a small amount of blood located in the central elevator hub near the north wall. A blood swab was collected from this source.

In the north hallway, near the central elevator hub, was a LL sock round located on the ground. The sock round had torn open and the beads within had spilled out onto the ground. The LL sock round and its spilled contents were collected.

Approximately five metres south of the Complainant’s apartment was the internal debris from a CEW cartridge. The CEW debris was collected. Outside the Complainant’s apartment door was a large concentration of this same internal debris.

At the end of the north hallway was green powder on the north wall from a LL sock round impact. The LL sock round was located on the floor directly below the powder mark. The location of the powder mark indicated a LL deployment occurred and the round travelled from south to north in the north hallway. The LL sock round was collected.

On the floor of the hallway directly outside the Complainant’s apartment were numerous blood droplets, which indicated the blood source was stationary in this position for a period of time.

A stairwell was located across from the Complainant’s apartment and slightly offset from his door. On the stairwell landing were two .40 caliber pistol shell casings, which were collected. There were also six spent CEW cartridges with serial numbers associated to CEWs assigned to WO #1, WO #5, and WO #4, which were collected. Attached to the CEW cartridges were the associated wires and probes.

The door to the Complainant’s apartment showed no signs of forced entry. There was a horizontal bullet strike to the door located approximately 1.2 metres above the ground. The bullet strike was approximately ten centimetres long and parallel to the ground. The bullet was not lodged in the door and had not penetrated the door. The bullet strike appeared tangential and appeared to have struck the door as it was partially closed.

In the apartment living room were a bullet and a copper bullet fragment located on the ground behind the apartment front door, which were collected. This was likely the bullet that impacted the door. There were CEW probes and wires between the living room and the kitchen. There was a silver construction-style staple gun on the floor. It was not loaded with any staples. The staple gun was photographed and left in the custody of the TPS.

On the sofa was a satchel. Inside the satchel was a carving knife and a paring knife, which were collected. They had blades measuring 210 millimetres [8.2 inches] and 95 millimetres [3.7 inches], respectively. There was another knife located underneath an electric heater on the living room floor, which was collected. It had a blade that measured 135 millimetres [5.3 inches].

There was a BIP round located on the living room floor near the balcony door. The BIP round had broken into two pieces, which were collected.

There was a bullet hole in the drywall of the interior wall which separated the apartment from the balcony. The bullet did not penetrate the exterior brick and remained lodged inside the space between interior and exterior walls. The location of this bullet hole indicated its trajectory likely originated from outside the apartment front door. The hole in the drywall was examined and the bullet was located within, but it had fallen behind an electric heater and was unable to be retrieved without extensive damage to the apartment unit. It was decided to leave the projectile inside the wall.

On the balcony were two areas of fresh saliva mixed with blood.

There were blood droplets in the kitchen, living room, and bathroom. In the kitchen, there was a small pool of dried blood on the floor.

There was a fridge in the kitchen, which appeared to have been moved away from the wall slightly. There was another knife located behind the fridge, which was collected. It had a blade measuring 120 millimetres [4.7 inches].

In the bathroom, there was a LL sock round soaked with blood, which was collected. There was a small amount of blood inside the toilet bowl. A towel hung from the towel rack with blood and green powder transfer on it.

On December 28, 2024, at 2:25 p.m., SIU investigators collected a bag of the Complainant’s clothing from the hospital. In the bag was a coat with blood stains on the front. There was green powder transfer on the front left shoulder, the left abdominal area, and the right abdominal area. A LL sock round was located inside the left coat pocket. There were blood smears on the right thigh and left shin of the pants.

At 8:25 p.m., SIU forensic investigators attended TPS 12 Division to examine and photograph the use of force equipment, which had been secured for the SIU.

A LL shotgun assigned to SO #2 was examined. The 12-gauge DRAG Stabilizing Marking shotgun was identified as a LL firearm by the bright orange butt-stock and fore-stock. It was loaded with four LL shotgun shells, which were identical to those found at the scene. The weapon was not collected by the SIU.

A duty belt assigned to SO #1 was examined. Attached to the belt were standard use of force options, which included a Glock 22 .40 caliber pistol in a holster and two spare pistol magazines. The spare magazines were 15 round capacity Glock magazines, and each one contained 14 .40 caliber rounds. There was one .40 caliber round in the breech and 11 rounds in the seated magazine.[2] The pistol, seated magazine, and ammunition within the magazine were collected by the SIU.

At 9:28 p.m., SIU forensic investigators attended the TPS ETF building to examine and photograph the use of force equipment, which had been secured for the SIU.

The BIP firearm assigned to SO #3 was examined. There were no obvious manufacturer markings or serial number stamped on the firearm. It was equipped with a scope on top of the barrel and a flashlight at the end of the barrel. The firearm held six 40-millimetre BIP projectiles in a magazine. The firearm was unloaded, which revealed five live BIP rounds and one empty shell casing. The empty shell casing was collected.

Figure 1 - SO #1’s firearm

Figure 2 - SO #3’s BIP launcher

Figure 3 - BIP projectile

Figure 4 - SO #2’s LL shotgun

Figure 5 - LL shotgun projectile

Figure 6 - Complainant’s staple gun

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – WO #1, WO #5, WO #4, WO #3 and WO #7

On December 28, 2024, at 6:58:49 a.m.,[3] the “Taser 7” model CEW issued to WO #1 was armed. At 6:59:53 a.m., he deployed a cartridge. Electricity was discharged for 1.22 seconds. At 6:59:55 a.m., he deployed a second cartridge. Electricity was discharged for 5.07 seconds. There was an audible auto-shutdown warning.[4] At 7:00:01 a.m., electricity was discharged for 4.94 seconds. There was an audible auto-shutdown warning. At 7:00:06 a.m., electricity was discharged for 4.94 seconds. There was an audible auto-shutdown warning. At 7:00:17 a.m., electricity was discharged for 4.94 seconds. There was an audible auto-shutdown warning. At 7:00:23 a.m., electricity was discharged for 4.94 seconds. There was an audible auto-shutdown warning. At 7:00:39 a.m., electricity was discharged for 4.94 seconds. There was an audible auto-shutdown warning. At 7:05:42, the CEW entered power save mode.

On December 28, 2024, at 6:59:53 a.m., the “Taser 7” model CEW issued to WO #5 was armed. At 7:00:02 a.m., he deployed a cartridge. Electricity was discharged for 2.56 seconds. At 7:00:05 a.m., he deployed a second cartridge. Electricity was discharged for 5.08 seconds. There was an audible auto-shutdown warning. At 7:00:16 a.m., electricity was discharged for 5.07 seconds. The CEW was rendered safe.

On December 28, 2024, at 6:56:23 a.m., a “Taser 7” model CEW issued to WO #4 was armed. At 6:57:14 a.m., a cartridge was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 4.95 seconds. There was an audible auto-shutdown warning. At 6:59:51 a.m., he deployed a second cartridge. Electricity was discharged for 4.95 seconds. There was an audible auto-shutdown warning. At 6:59:58 a.m., electricity was discharge for 4.97 seconds. At 7:05:02 a.m., the CEW entered power save mode.

On December 28, 2024, at 7:54:15 a.m., the “Taser 7” model CEW issued to WO #7 was armed. At 7:54:16 a.m., a cartridge was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 5.06 seconds. There was an audible auto-shutdown warning. The CEW was rendered safe.

On December 28, 2024, at 7:28:16 a.m., the “Taser 7” model CEW with issued to WO #3 was armed. At 7:54:09 a.m., a cartridge was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 4.39 seconds. There was an audible auto-shutdown warning. At 7:54:16 a.m., he deployed a second cartridge. Electricity was discharged 4.95 seconds. There was an audible auto-shutdown warning. At 7:54:24 a.m., electricity was discharged for 4.93 seconds. At 7:54:35 a.m., electricity was discharged for 5.06 seconds. At 7:54:47 a.m., electricity was discharged for 5.13 seconds. At 7:54:58 a.m., electricity was discharged for 5.07 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[5]

Video Footage from the Scene

On December 28, 2024, at 7:38:59 a.m.,[6] a man [the Complainant] moved into the elevator. He carried a silver staple gun in his right hand and a satchel on his left side hung from a shoulder strap. He remained near the threshold of the elevator and waited for several minutes as he moved in and out of the elevator and ensured the elevator doors never closed.

At 7:42:12 a.m., he exited the elevator. The elevator never left the floor it was on.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On December 28, 2024, at 7:41:25 a.m., WO #4, WO #1, and WO #5 arrived at a building in the area of Jane Street and Woolner Avenue. They spoke to a man [CW #3] outside the building. CW #3 reported a man [the Complainant] had pointed something at him, then pulled the trigger, and said ‘pop’. CW #3 provided a physical description of the Complainant and the location of the Complainant’s apartment.

At 7:47:43 a.m., WO #2, SO #1 and SO #2 arrived.

At 7:48:15 a.m., WO #1, SO #2, WO #5, SO #1, and WO #2 consulted a floor plan posted in the lobby of the apartment building. The TPS officers discussed a plan to attend the floor below the Complainant, and then walk up to the Complainant’s floor. WO #4 remained in the lobby to take a BWC statement from CW #3. SO #1, WO #5, WO #1, SO #2, and WO #2 entered the elevator. In the elevator, WO #1 said, “Even with a staple gun, it could do some damage.”

At 7:50:25 a.m., WO #1, WO #5, SO #1, SO #2, and WO #2 discussed their plan of approach. They planned to walk up the north and east stairwells and avoid the south stairwell to avoid crossfire. They wanted to contain the Complainant. SO #2 and WO #2 would take the east stairwell. SO #2 carried a LL shotgun and WO #2 said he would be equipped with a lethal option. WO #1, WO #5, and SO #1 would take the north stairwell.

At 7:51:07 a.m., WO #6 arrived in the lobby.

At 7:52:19 a.m., SO #2 and WO #2 arrived at the Complainant’s floor in the east hallway. They walked towards the central elevator hub and looked down the north hallway. The Complainant appeared from the north stairwell. There was a paramedic stretcher in the north hallway. WO #2 aimed his pistol at the Complainant. SO #2 ducked for cover and ran backwards a few steps. He aimed his LL shotgun down the north hallway. WO #2 said, “Shoot him, shoot him.” The Complainant approached with his right arm raised up.

At 7:52:42 a.m., SO #2 discharged his LL shotgun once. The Complainant ran towards SO #2 and WO #2.

At 7:52:45 a.m., as SO #2 and WO #2 retreated backwards into the central elevator hub, the Complainant appeared from around the corner to the north hallway. He raised up his right arm again. SO #2 discharged a second round from his LL shotgun. The Complainant briefly retreated around the corner, then appeared again and raised his right arm.

At 7:52:46 a.m., there was a radio broadcast about shots fired. WO #4 and WO #6 ran to the elevator and travelled to the floor below where the Complainant was located.

At 7:52:50 a.m., as SO #2 and WO #2 retreated backwards into the east hallway, and the Complainant ran into the central elevator hub. SO #2 discharged a third round from his LL shotgun. The Complainant ducked. He charged towards WO #2 but then remained at the entrance to the east hallway. SO #2 and WO #2 took a position at the east stairwell.

At 7:53:05 a.m., WO #2 said, “Get close, get close, cause I’m not going to shoot him with a gun.” SO #2 yelled at the Complainant to get down. The Complainant retreated from view into the north hallway.

At 7:53:25 a.m., WO #2 broadcast a radio transmission about how the Complainant was armed with a staple gun. He advised LL rounds had been deployed and were ineffective.

At 7:55:28 a.m., WO #4, WO #5, SO #1, and WO #6, went to the south hallway stairwell. They took the stairs down to the next floor and walked to the north stairwell.

At 7:56:09 a.m., SO #2 was about to hand his LL shotgun to WO #2 when SO #2 looked down the east hallway. The Complainant was in the central elevator hub again. SO #2 said, “Here he is, here he is.” He yelled out, “Drop it,” multiple times. The Complainant walked towards SO #2. He appeared to stagger and lunge forwards down the hallway.

At 7:56:20 a.m., SO #2 discharged three rounds from his LL shotgun in quick succession [it is believed either the first or second round in this sequence struck the Complainant’s eye]. After the second round in the sequence, the Complainant turned his back to SO #2 and hunched over. He walked towards the central elevator hub and used the south wall for assistance. SO #2 continued to yell, ‘Drop it’. He walked slowly towards the Complainant. The Complainant disappeared from view up the north hallway. He chanted indiscernibly.

At 7:56:47 a.m., SO #2 and WO #2 slowly walked up the north hallway. The Complainant stood at the end of the hallway outside his apartment.

At the same time, WO #4 slowly walked up the north stairwell with his CEW drawn. There were indiscernible chants from upstairs.

At 7:57:12 a.m., WO #4 arrived at the north stairwell door on the Complainant’s floor. The Complainant was outside his open apartment door at the end of the hallway. He walked into his apartment. WO #4 deployed his CEW at the Complainant’s back. It was ineffective. The Complainant closed his apartment door.

WO #4 dropped to his knee on the right side of the stairwell door and kept his CEW aimed at the apartment door. WO #1 was directly behind him and aimed his CEW at the apartment door. WO #5 was up the stairs towards the floor above. WO #6 was down the stairs towards the floor below.

At 7:58:14 a.m., WO #2 called out, “I didn’t see any firearm, just a staple gun.”

At 7:58:25 a.m., the Complainant opened his apartment door. He had a LL round stuck in his right eye. His left hand was behind his apartment door. Multiple TPS officers yelled for him to show his hands and come out into the hallway. The Complainant raised his right hand, but his left hand remained behind the door. He spoke indiscernibly.

At 7:58:52 a.m., SO #2 moved the paramedic stretcher across the hallway and stood behind it to use it as cover.

At 7:58:59 a.m., the Complainant closed his apartment door.

At 7:59:23 a.m., WO #1 directed SO #1 to transition from his CEW to his pistol. SO #1 complied. WO #4, WO #5, and WO #1 all had CEWs drawn and pointed at the apartment door.

At 7:59:53 a.m., the Complainant opened the apartment door again. He quickly raised up a silver object [staple gun] with his right hand.

At 7:59:55 a.m., WO #4 deployed his CEW again. It was ineffective. WO #1 also deployed his CEW, and it was ineffective.

At 8:00:06 a.m., WO #4 held his CEW in front of his chest with his right hand and with his left hand he touched the barrel of the CEW. He screamed in pain and threw the CEW into the hallway in front of him. He fell down onto his left side. WO #1 yelled, “Man down, man down.”

At 8:00:07 a.m., SO #1 discharged one round from his pistol towards the Complainant’s apartment.

At 8:00:11 a.m., SO #1 discharged a second round from his pistol towards the Complainant’s apartment. WO #1 deployed his CEW again and it was ineffective.

At 8:00:17 a.m., SO #1 continued to aim his pistol towards the apartment and yelled, “Drop your fuckin’ weapon now.”

At 8:00:24 a.m., WO #4 drew his pistol and held it pointed towards the ground.

At 8:00:53 a.m., WO #1 placed his CEW on the ground. He drew his pistol and aimed it at the Complainant. The Complainant yelled, “I’m innocent.”

At 8:01:00 a.m., additional TPS officers arrived in the north hallway.

At 8:01:28 a.m., WO #4 aimed his pistol at the closed apartment door.

At 8:01:51 a.m., WO #6 asked who had fired. SO #1 said he had fired two shots. The officers discussed the staple gun in the Complainant’s hand.

At 8:02:56 a.m., the Complainant opened his apartment door quickly. He held a silver object [staple gun] in his right hand. He raised the staple gun up towards the TPS officers. There were several ‘click’ sounds.

At 8:03:28 a.m., the Complainant closed his apartment door. Multiple TPS officers moved towards the door and held it shut. They applied leg restraints to the door handle and pulled.

At 8:03:50 a.m., the Complainant attempted to open the door while the officers held it shut. The officers attempted to communicate with the Complainant until ETF officers arrived.

At 8:16:22 a.m., ETF officers arrived and took over control of the apartment door. They peered through the mail slot on the door. They attempted to communicate with him but were unsuccessful.

At 8:32:06 a.m., WO #7 was able to communicate with the Complainant. The Complainant believed the TPS officers would kill him. WO #7 said he did not want the Complainant to use the staple gun or charge at TPS officers. WO #7 tried to convince the Complainant to get medical attention.

At 8:41:00 a.m., the Complainant picked up the staple gun and tried to open the apartment door, but it was held shut by the ETF officers. WO #7 provided the Complainant with instructions to be arrested peacefully.

At 8:52:52 a.m., WO #7 said the Complainant had a knife. The Complainant told the ETF officers to open the door so he could show them what he had found.

At 8:54:10 a.m., the ETF officers entered the apartment. WO #7 entered first, followed by WO #3. They were equipped with ballistic shields and CEWs. SO #3 entered next with a BIP firearm.

At 8:54:18 a.m., there was the sound of a firearm discharge [BIP discharge]. The Complainant screamed in pain. There was the sound of CEW electrical current.

At 8:54:23 a.m., SO #3 entered the kitchen. The Complainant was on his left side on the floor. WO #7 pointed his CEW at the Complainant. The Complainant convulsed on the floor. SO #3 knelt on the Complainant and pinned him to the ground with his right hand. The ETF officers rolled him onto his stomach and handcuffed the Complainant’s hands behind his back. Tactical paramedics arrived within a minute and a half.

Police Radio Communications / 911 Calls

On December 28, 2024, at 7:23 a.m., Toronto Paramedic Services called TPS to report a man [CW #4] had been assaulted with a staple gun by his neighbour [the Complainant]. They provided the Complainant’s address and advised he had a history of mental health issues.

At 7:34 a.m., a man [CW #3] called 911. CW #3 reported a man [the Complainant] had entered the elevator with him, pointed a gun at his head, and pulled the trigger twice. The gun did not discharge. He provided a physical description of the Complainant.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between December 28, 2024, and February 6, 2025:

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Use of Force Policy
• Persons in Crisis Policy
• Communications recordings
• BWC footage
• Video footage from the scene
• CEW deployment data
• Use of Force training records
• Notes – WO #4, WO #1, WO #2, WO #5, WO #7, WO #3, and WO #6
• Diagram – WO #3

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the Complainant’s medical records from HRH on January 14, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, none of the subject officials authorized the release of their notes, and SO #2 and SO #3 did not agree an interview with the SIU. SO #1 did sit for an interview with the SIU.

In the morning of December 28, 2024, the Complainant, while of unsound mind, began to threaten and assault fellow residents of a building in the area of Jane Street and Woolner Avenue. In one instance, while holding an unloaded staple gun, he entered an elevator with CW #3, pointed the staple gun at him, and pulled the trigger. Believing the Complainant had just attempted to shoot him with a firearm, CW #3 fled the elevator, made his way to the ground floor and called 911. In another case, the Complainant had struck CW #4 with the staple gun, causing injury to his chest. Paramedics attended at CW #4’s apartment and contacted police to report what had occurred.

TPS officers responded to the calls for assistance, including SO #1 and SO #2. A team of them, including SO #1, made their way to the floor below the Complainant’s apartment using the elevator and then took the stairwell at the end of the building’s north hallway intending to access the Complainant’s floor. SO #2, in the company of WO #2, proceeded to the Complainant’s floor using the building’s east stairwell. The plan was to contain the Complainant.

WO #1 was with SO #1, and the first officer to encounter the Complainant. He and his team were still in the stairwell when the Complainant appeared at the stairwell’s doors. WO #1 asked to see his hands. The Complainant refused to show his hands and subsequently pointed a staple gun in their direction and fired. The officers fled down the stairwell and exited onto the hallway to regroup. The Complainant descended via the stairwell and attempted to gain access to the hallway but was unable to open the door because the officers on the other side were holding it shut.

The Complainant returned to the upper hallway with the staple gun and confronted WO #2 and SO #2, the latter armed with a less-lethal shotgun that fired sock rounds. The officers had turned the corner from the east corridor onto the north corridor when they observed the Complainant. The Complainant raised his right arm in their direction, at which time SO #2 fired a round from his weapon. Seconds later, as the officers retreated southwards towards a central hub of elevators, SO #2 fired his shotgun a second time at the Complainant, who was advancing on the officers. A few more seconds and SO #2, now having retreated into the east corridor of the building, discharged a third round. A final volley of three shots were fired by SO #2 in the direction of the central elevator hub, one of which struck the Complainant in the eye. Hobbled, the Complainant returned to the north hallway and walked down the corridor to his apartment, entering the unit.

Shortly thereafter, a team of officers, including WO #1, SO #1, WO #4, WO #5, and WO #6, formed by the north corridor stairwell opening, across from the Complainant’s apartment. The Complainant intermittently opened and closed his door, refusing direction that he show his hands. On one of these occasions, WO #4 deployed his CEW at the Complainant. The discharge had no effect. On another, the Complainant appeared with the staple gun in his right hand and fired it in the direction of the officers. WO #4 and WO #1 deployed their CEWs, and SO #1, standing by the left side of the stairwell door looking out, fired his semi-automatic pistol twice in the direction of the Complainant. Unfazed by the CEWs or the firearm discharges, the Complainant returned inside his apartment and closed the door. At this time, the officers secured the Complainant’s door shut with leg restraints and held it shut pending the arrival of ETF officers.

ETF officers arrived on scene and attempted to negotiate the Complainant’s peaceful surrender from outside his apartment door. After about 35 minutes of these efforts, the ETF decided to enter the apartment and did so through the unlocked front door. WO #3 and SO #3, with a CEW and BIP firearm, respectively, at the ready, encountered the Complainant in the living room. They fired their weapons as the Complainant raised the staple gun in their direction and pressed the trigger. The Complainant fell to the floor in the kitchen area and was physically engaged by the officers. He refused to release his arms and was tasered by a third ETF officer – WO #7 – after which he was handcuffed behind the back.

The Complainant was taken to hospital after his arrest and diagnosed with multiple facial fractures.

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 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 was seriously injured in a confrontation with TPS police officers on December 28, 2024. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation naming SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3 subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident involving the Complainant.

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 Complainant had threatened his neighbours with a staple gun, and assaulted one of them with the device. He was clearly subject to arrest for a variety of criminal offences, including assault with a weapon.

With respect to the less-lethal force brought to bear by the officers, including the BIP firearm and less-lethal shotgun used by SO #2 and SO #3, and the CEW discharges, I am satisfied it constituted lawful force. The officers were aware that the Complainant had brandished a staple gun at various persons. They also had information to believe that he might have attempted to fire a gun at a resident of the building. In the circumstances, the officers would have justifiably been wary of a direct physical engagement with the Complainant, particularly given the possibility that he could be armed with an actual firearm. Accordingly, I am unable to reasonably conclude that any of the officers acted precipitously when they resorted to their less-lethal weapons. On each such occasion, the aim was to temporarily incapacitate the Complainant, thereby allowing for a window of opportunity within which they might safely approach and take him into custody.

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. In my view, SO #1’s firearm discharges fell within the protective ambit of section 34.

I accept that SO #1 fired his weapon believing it was necessary to defend himself and others from a reasonably apprehended attack by the Complainant. That is what the officer said in his SIU interview, and it is an inference supported by the circumstantial evidence. That evidence consisted of information the officer had regarding the Complainant’s threatening behaviour, his use of a staple gun, and his possible possession of an actual firearm. With all that in mind, it makes sense that SO #1 would have harboured a genuine and reasonable concern for his safety and the safety of his colleagues, and the need to take pre-emptive action, when the Complainant opened the door and raised his right arm in their direction.

The resort by SO #1 to his firearm was also, in my view, a reasonable use of force. While the Complainant was not actually in possession of a firearm, the officer could not have known that with any certainty. On the contrary, he had cause to believe that the Complainant was, in fact, armed with a gun, which he had a short time earlier used to try and shoot a neighbour. On this record, when the Complainant opened his door and appeared as if he was about to fire in the direction of the officers, I am satisfied that SO #1 acted with legal justification when, in the few seconds he had to react, he chose to meet a reasonably apprehended threat of death or grievous bodily harm with a resort to lethal force of his own.

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

Date: April 25, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit