Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.

Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019

Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
• Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
• Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
• Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
• Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
• Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act

Pursuant to section 14 (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
• Information that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.

Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
• Location information;
• Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence; and
• Other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation.

Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004

Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may also have been excluded from this report because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.

Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.

A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.

In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the discharge of a firearm by the police at a 42-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 13, 2025, at 8:00 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 13, 2025, at 5:13 a.m., the Complainant called the OPP to report a man on a dock in a small community on the north shore of the St. Lawrence River waving a gun. Local OPP officers arrived and engaged with the Complainant, who was identified as the man who had called the OPP. OPP Tactical Response Unit (TRU), Emergency Response Team (ERT), a crisis negotiator and a canine unit also responded. The officers talked to the Complainant and eventually discharged a conducted energy weapon (CEW), which was ineffective. At some point, the Complainant racked his gun, and an ERT officer and a TRU officer deployed their Anti-riot Weapon Enfields (ARWENs). That too proved ineffective, and the Complainant ran away from the officers. The police dog was deployed and the Complainant was brought to the ground. He had been transported to a nearby hospital by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) with unknown injuries.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/07/13 at 8:13 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/07/13 at 1:05 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 13, 2025.

Subject Officials

SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 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

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

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

WO #8 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #9 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #10 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #11 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #12 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness official was interviewed on July 16, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the shoreline of a small community on the north shore of the St. Lawrence River.

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic services examined the scene and collected six ARWEN cartridge cases, two ARWEN baton projectiles, and CEW cartridge cases, probes and wires.

SIU forensic services photographed the ARWEN launchers used by SO #1 and SO #2.

Figure 1 - ARWEN projectile in water

Figure 2 - ARWEN projectile on chair

Figure 3 - SO #1’s ARWEN

Figure 4 - SO #2’s ARWEN

SIU forensic services located and photographed a replica firearm and a rock.

Figure 5 - Replica firearm

Figure 6 - Rock

Forensic Evidence

The ARWEN launcher used by SO #1 was examined by SIU forensic services and found to have discharged one baton. The ARWEN launcher used by SO #2 was examined and found to have discharged five batons.

Six cartridge cases were found within the scene. Only two baton projectiles were located: one at a table and the other in the water under a rock.[2]

CEW Deployment Data – WO #3

On July 13, 2025, at 5:54 a.m.,[3] the trigger was pulled and cartridge one was deployed. Electricity was discharged for five seconds. Forty seconds later, the trigger was pulled again and cartridge two was deployed. Electricity was discharged for five seconds.

CEW Deployment Data - WO #2

On July 13, 2025, at 5:48 a.m., the trigger was pulled and cartridge one was deployed. Electricity was discharged for three seconds. Eight seconds later, the trigger was pulled and cartridge two was deployed. Electricity was discharged for two seconds.

CEW Deployment Data - WO #5

On July 13, 2025, at 7:08 a.m., the trigger was pulled and cartridge one was deployed. Electricity was discharged for about five seconds. About seven seconds later, the trigger was pulled again, and electricity was discharged for about five seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[4]

OPP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – WO #11, WO #3, WO #5, WO #6, WO #7 and WO #1

On July 13, 2025, the first officers arrived on scene at 4:38 a.m. The Complainant was by the shoreline and said he had two guns; one was loaded and the other was not. Officers continually called out to the Complainant for him to put the gun down and tried to engage him in conversation.

Starting at about 5:46 a.m., uniformed patrol officers ran towards the Complainant, who jumped into the water. WO #3 and WO #2 discharged their CEWs at the Complainant. Officers retreated and took cover behind a tree and police vehicles.

Officers continually shouted commands for the Complainant to drop his gun and come to them. They said they wanted to ensure his safety.

Starting at about 7:08 a.m., the Complainant was out of the water with a hand inside a backpack. SO #2 shouted, “ARWEN, ARWEN, ARWEN,” and he and SO #1 discharged their ARWENs at the Complainant. Tactical officers and WO #4 (with his police dog) ran towards the Complainant. The police dog was the first to contact the Complainant, who fell on the grass and landed on his buttocks. The Complainant had an obvious open injury to the lower left forearm before any officer reached him. The police dog bit the Complainant around both the lower and upper back areas. Officers arrived and engaged with the Complainant, briefly struggling with him. WO #5 deployed his CEW at the Complainant’s upper back area. The officers handcuffed the Complainant’s hands behind the back and no further force was used against him.

OPP In-car Camera (ICC) Footage – WO #1

On July 13, 2025, WO #1 arrived on scene at 4:45 a.m. and stopped his cruiser facing the water. Tactical officers were positioned behind a tree for cover.

Starting at about 7:08 a.m., SO #2 shouted, “ARWEN, ARWEN, ARWEN,” and advanced quickly towards the Complainant while firing five rounds from his ARWEN. SO #1 fired one round at the Complainant at the same time. The police dog and his handler, WO #4, and other officers ran towards the Complainant, who tried to run away from them. The Complainant fell on his buttocks as the police dog bit him.

OPP Drone Footage

On July 13, 2025, the drone was launched at 5:27 a.m. The recording provided an aerial view of the interaction prior to both ARWENs being deployed. The Complainant was seen hiding in a small boat, under a Seadoo jet ski, and in the water, holding what appeared to be a gun and another object tucked into his pants waistband. He pointed the gun towards officers. He exited the water and retrieved a black object from a bag. The footage concluded at 6:52 a.m. when the drone battery depleted.

OPP Communications Recordings

At 4:25 a.m., July 13, 2025, the Complainant phoned the OPP non-emergency line and reported a man with a gun in the shoreline area of a small community on the north shore of the St. Lawrence River. He disconnected the call, and the OPP call-taker attempted to call back. Checks conducted on the phone number identified the Complainant as the caller.

OPP officers were dispatched at 4:31 a.m. They reported the Complainant was in a boat and had pointed a firearm at officers. Officers attempted to engage him. They had seen two objects that looked like pistols.

At 5:47 a.m., officer reported CEWs had been deployed with no effect.

At 7:08 a.m., an officer reported the Complainant was in custody. EMS were requested. the Complainant was said to have consumed a lot of methadone.[5]

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between July 14, 2025, and September 16, 2025:

• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• BWC footage – WO #11, WO #3, WO #5, WO #6, WO #7 and WO #1
• Notes –WO #1, WO #7, WO #10, WO #12, WO #4, WO #3, WO #2, WO #5, WO #8, WO #6, WO #9 and WO #11
• ICC footage - WO #1
• Drone camera footage
• General Occurrence Report
• Charge Synopsis Report
• Arrest warrants – the Complainant
• CEW deployment data – WO #3, WO #2 and WO #5
• Use of Force training records – SO #1 and SO #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

On July 28, 2025, the SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from the hospitals at which he was treated.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes.

In the early morning of July 13, 2025, OPP officers were dispatched to the shoreline area of a small community on the north shore of the St. Lawrence River following a call to police from the Complainant indicating there was a man with a gun in the area. WO #1 and WO #2 were the first to arrive on scene. They were confronted by a man in and around a boat docked by the St. Lawrence River shoreline, pointing what looked like a firearm at them.

The man was the Complainant. The Complainant was high on cocaine and methadone. Armed with a replica firearm, he had called police hoping to provoke a lethal confrontation in which they would shoot him.

The officers took cover and arrangements were made to have ERT and TRU officers, a crisis negotiator, and a police dog unit deploy to the scene. WO #1 repeatedly directed the Complainant to put his firearm down. The Complainant refused. He told the officers that either he or they would be shot and killed.

Additional officers arrived on scene and took up perimeter positions around the Complainant. Negotiations continued but were unsuccessful in bringing the standoff to an end. At about 5:45 a.m., approximately an hour from the arrival of the first officers, WO #2 and WO #3 advanced on the Complainant as he moved towards the water, each firing their CEWs. The deployments had no effect on the Complainant, and the officers retreated to positions of cover.

Shortly after 7:00 a.m., the Complainant emerged from the water, approached a table and picked up a backpack. He proceeded to place his hand inside the backpack before pointing it at the officers. SO #2 and SO #1 fired their ARWENS at the Complainant; the former five times, the latter, once. The Complainant was struck but not felled. He attempted to run away from the officers but was quickly engaged by a police dog and grounded. Officers rushed towards him and, following a brief struggle during which WO #5 fired his CEW, handcuffed the Complainant.

The Complainant was transported from the scene to hospital where he was diagnosed with a midshaft ulnar fracture of the left arm. He had also suffered dog bites to the lower and upper back, and head.

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.

On July 13, 2025, the OPP notified the SIU that one of their officers had discharged an ARWEN at a male – the Complainant – earlier that day in a small community on the north shore of the St. Lawrence River. The SIU initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident.

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.

SO #1 and SO #2 were engaged in the exercise of their duties through the sequence of events culminating in the discharge of their ARWENS. They were part of a lawful police operation that had been organized to contain a man of unsound mind, seemingly armed with a gun and threatening to use it on either himself or the officers.

I am satisfied that both subject officials fired their ARWENS to protect themselves and their fellow officers from a reasonably apprehended attack. Neither officer provided that evidence firsthand to the SIU in an interview, as was their legal right, but that is the import of their incident notes. The inference also arises naturally from the facts. Though the Complainant was only armed with a replica gun, incapable of firing real bullets, it gave every appearance of being an actual firearm and the officers were right to treat it as such. The Complainant had repeatedly threatened the officers with the gun, including when he inserted a hand into the backpack and gave the impression of pointing a firearm at the police just before SO #1 and SO #2 discharged their weapons.

I am also satisfied that the subject officials’ resort to their ARWENS constituted reasonable force. To reiterate, SO #1 and SO #2 had every reason to believe that their lives, and those of their colleagues, were at risk of death or grievous bodily harm because of the “gun” in the Complainant’s possession. That threat level remained extant through most if not all of the standoff with the Complainant, including at the time the subject officials fired their ARWENS. On this record, negotiations having been tried and failed to resolve the matter peacefully, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the use by the officers of their less-lethal weapons, in the face of an apparently lethal threat, was excessive. If the weapons worked as intended, the Complainant would be temporarily distracted or immobilized, allowing the officers a window to safely approach and take him into custody.

In the result, while I accept that the Complainant’s fractured left arm was the result of one or more of the ARWEN projectiles that struck him, there are no reasonable grounds to attribute the injury to any unlawful force on the part of the subject officials. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.[6]

Date: November 6, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit