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 35-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 25, 2025, at 11:05 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 25, 2025, at 9:51 a.m., the PRP received a 911 call from Civilian Witness (CW) #1.[2] CW #1 reported a family dispute in which the Complainant had been ordered out of the apartment, located in the area of Steeles Avenue West and Hurontario Street, Brampton. The Complainant suffered from significant mental health issues, including schizophrenia. There was mention he might be armed with a knife. At 10:04 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) and the Witness Official (WO) arrived on scene. At 10:05 a.m., one of the officers broadcast over the police radio that the Complainant had been shot. The Complainant was transported to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC) with a lower abdomen bullet wound.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/06/25 at 11:15 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/06/25 at 11:45 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Not interviewed (declined)

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 25, 2025, and June 26, 2025.

Subject Official

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

Witness Official

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on July 2, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in an apartment in a residential complex located in the area of Steeles Avenue West and Hurontario Street, Brampton.

Inside the entry hall were a stainless-steel kitchen knife, measuring 34 cm in overall length with a blade 20.5 cm long, on the floor towards the left wall; a first-aid bag against the far wall; and, a stained white T-shirt [later identified as belonging to the Complainant] on the floor. A 9 mm brass cartridge case was found on the entry mat immediately inside the door.

A bullet defect was visible in the wall between the kitchen and main hall. The bullet defect continued through to the adjacent refrigerator. Examination confirmed the projectile passed through the Complainant, penetrated the wall and refrigerator, and lodged in the interior refrigerator wall after passing through food items inside. A partially deformed copper and lead projectile was recovered from the refrigerator.

Figure 1 - The 34 cm stainless-steel kitchen knife

Physical Evidence

The SO’s equipment was examined by the SIU, including his ballistic vest, duty belt and uniform, which were all free of visible defects or staining. Within the vest pocket, two spent brass 9 mm cartridge cases were recovered. A silver spent 9 mm cartridge case was found in the bag containing his equipment. His duty belt carried a Taser Model 7 CEW, oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray, an expandable baton, handcuffs, a Leatherman tool, and a service pistol [a Sig Sauer P320] with two spare magazines. The pistol was unloaded at the police station, revealing one live 9 mm round in the chamber and 16 remaining in the magazine, for a total of 17 bullets. Given the magazine capacity of a Sig Sauer P320 was 17, and the PRP practice of topping up the magazine, his pistol could hold 18 bullets. Examination confirmed the SO’s service pistol discharged one bullet during the incident.

Figure 2 - SO’s firearm, cartridge and magazine

The WO’s equipment was also examined, including his ballistic vest, duty belt and uniform, which were without defects or staining. One brass 9 mm cartridge case was recovered from his vest pocket. His duty belt included a Taser 7 CEW, OC spray, expandable baton, spare cartridges, and service pistol [a Sig Sauer P320] with two spare magazines. The pistol was unloaded at the police station and found to contain one live 9 mm round in the chamber and 17 in the magazine.

The SIU also collected the Complainant’s clothing.

Forensic Evidence

On July 3, 2025, the SO’s Sig Sauer pistol was submitted to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS). Firearm examination results were pending at the time of this report.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Video Footage – Residential Complex Common Area

The footage captured the hallway of the residential complex.

On June 25, 2025, starting at about 10:07:07 a.m., two uniformed officers [the SO and the WO] entered the frame from the top of the hallway, walked to the end, and knocked on the door of the Complainant’s unit.

Starting at about 10:07:50 a.m., CW #2 opened the door and briefly interacted with the officers.

Starting at about 10:08:01 a.m., the officers entered the unit. By 10:08:25 a.m., the door had closed behind them.

Between 10:08:41 a.m., and 10:09:15 a.m., the SO exited and re-entered the unit multiple times, appearing to communicate over his radio.

The footage concluded at 10:10:21 a.m., with the unit door closing.

PRP Communications Recordings

On June 25, 2025, at 9:50 a.m., a 911 call was placed by CW #2 from a residence in the area of Steeles Avenue West and Hurontario, Brampton. She reported the Complainant was experiencing a schizophrenic episode. She explained he had a history of bipolar disorder and depression, was not taking his medications, and was acting aggressively towards CW #1. He was said to be possibly under the influence of cannabis or alcohol. CW #2 said she had locked herself in a room to avoid confrontation. She was whispering to prevent her brother from overhearing her calling police, as he had previously threatened, “If you call the police watch what will happen.” Although knives were present in the kitchen, the Complainant did not have any weapons at the time of the call. During the call, the Complainant was reportedly in an adjacent room near the apartment door while CW #1 was on the balcony unharmed. The 911 dispatcher remained on the line until officers knocked and entered the apartment, after which the call was disconnected.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO

At 10:07:33 a.m., June 25, 2025, the WO knocked on an apartment door, which was opened by CW #2. Inside, the Complainant was seated at the kitchen table. CW #2 whispered that her brother had schizophrenia and was subject to conditions prohibiting him from being in the apartment. He had acted aggressively towards CW #1.

Starting at about 10:08:25 a.m., the SO approached the Complainant and asked what was happening. The Complainant suddenly stood, advanced aggressively with a large knife, and shouted, “Get out of my house!” He closed on the SO, who backed away and drew his firearm into a two-handed, high-ready position. The Complainant continued to advance with the knife at waist level, jabbing it back and forth. The SO fired one shot, and the Complainant immediately clutched his abdomen and fell to the floor, dropping the knife. CW #2 remained in the living room, outside the SO’s line of fire, while the WO positioned himself nearby and then knelt beside the Complainant. Both officers assured the Complainant he would be okay and encouraged him to breathe. The SO exited the apartment briefly to report “shots fired” and request a rush on Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The WO applied pressure and a bandage to the Complainant’s abdominal wound while also handcuffing the Complainant in front of the body. Additional officers arrived at 10:13 a.m., and the SO exited the apartment shortly after.

BWC Footage – The WO

The WO drew his firearm at 10:08:31 a.m. and shifted to the hallway. He was within approximately one metre of the Complainant during the SO’s firearm discharge. The WO remained with the Complainant, applying pressure to his wound and encouraging him to breathe, until relieved by Officer #1 at 10:13:18 a.m.

The WO exited the apartment at 10:23:23 a.m.

EMS arrived at 10:23:58 a.m.

The WO deactivated his BWC at 10:28:06 a.m.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the PRP on July 15, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• Occurrence Report
• Incident Details Report
• Person Detail History Report
• Policy – Incident Response
• Training records - the SO
• Notes - the WO
• BWC footage - the WO and the SO

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on July 23, 2025.

• Video footage from residential complex
• The Complainant’s medical records from SHSC

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

In the morning of June 25, 2025, the SO and the WO were dispatched to a residence in the area of Steeles Avenue West and Hurontario Street, Brampton, following a 911 call to police about a domestic disturbance in the residence. CW #2 had contacted police to report that the Complainant was in mental health crisis and acting aggressively towards CW #1. She explained that the Complainant had warned the family against calling the police.

Arriving at the apartment, the officers knocked on the door and were greeted by CW #2. She confirmed the information provided during the 911 call and asked that the Complainant be removed from the home. The officers entered the hallway through the front door and began to make their way towards the kitchen, where the Complainant was sitting calmly at a table. Leading the way, the SO was several metres from the Complainant when he asked how he was doing. The Complainant reacted by quickly rising to his feet and ordering the officer out of the residence. He started to walk towards the officer, ordering him again out of the residence and picking up a large knife from the kitchen counter as he walked by.

The officers drew their firearms and started to backpedal down the hallway, ordering the Complainant to drop the knife. The Complainant continued to advance on the officers, waving the knife in their direction, and was shot in the abdomen by the SO when he had neared to within a couple of metres of the officer.

The WO administered first-aid by applying pressure to the wound. Paramedics attended and transported the Complainant to hospital. He had sustained a gunshot entry wound to the left abdomen and an exit wound to the left flank.

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 shot and seriously injured by a PRP officer on June 25, 2025. 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 shooting.

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 the WO were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties through the series of events culminating in gunfire. Having been dispatched to the home regarding a domestic disturbance, the officers were within their rights in entering the residence at CW #2’s invitation to question the Complainant and ensure the residents’ safety.

I am satisfied that the SO fired his weapon to defend himself from a reasonably apprehended knife attack at the hands of the Complainant. Though the SO did not provide that evidence firsthand in an interview with the SIU, as was his legal right, the inference arises naturally from the circumstances that prevailed. Principally, these included the fact that the Complainant was brandishing a knife in the SO’s direction while advancing on the officer with purpose.

It is also apparent that the SO’s choice of defensive force, namely, a single gunshot, was reasonable. The officer had approached the Complainant in a non-threatening fashion, asking how he was doing. However, the situation escalated dramatically when the Complainant immediately stood up, told the officers to leave the apartment, and armed himself with a knife. At that point, the SO and the WO were faced with a real and imminent threat of grievous bodily harm and death, and justifiably drew their firearms. Still, they exercised restraint by backing up to create distance and directing the Complainant to drop the knife. Regrettably, the Complainant could not be deterred. He continued to advance, leaving the SO little choice but to act to defend himself when the Complainant had closed the distance to no more than a couple of metres. In the split seconds that the SO had available to protect himself from a knife attack, nothing less than a firearm had the immediate stopping power required of the moment. On this record, I am satisfied that the SO’s conduct in choosing to meet a threat of death with a resort to lethal force of his own was commensurate with the exigencies of the situation.

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

Date: October 17, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit