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 39-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 17, 2025, at 3:42 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of a firearm discharge at a person.

According to TPS, at 2:03 p.m., the TPS received a 911 call reporting a woman had assaulted an individual in the area of Leslie Street and Queen Street East and was wielding a knife. At 2:28 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) and Witness Official (WO) #2 responded to the address and determined that the woman, the Complainant, had retreated into an apartment. After she declined to comply with demands made by police, WO #2 deployed his conducted energy weapon (CEW), but it was ineffective. The Complainant continued to disobey commands and the SO discharged a less-lethal shotgun four times, striking the Complainant. She was apprehended at 2:59 p.m. and transported by officers to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH), where she was undergoing a mental health assessment at the time of the notification. She was not believed to have sustained any injuries as a result of the deployment of either weapon.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/07/17 at 4:05 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/07/17 at 6:25 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

39-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on July 22, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on September 12, 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 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

The witness officials were interviewed on August 15, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in an apartment in the area of Leslie Street and Queen Street East, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic services examined the scene.

The residence was a small studio apartment. A grey and white-handled knife was found on a small table.

Figure 1- Knife wielded by Complainant

CEW wire and a CEW probe were located stuck in the seat cushion of a chair. Some wire was also noted on the floor. A second probe was located stuck in a garment hanging above a table. A yellow plastic CEW component was noted on the carpet to the west of the chair. On the carpet near the chair was a green powdery stain, believed to be from a less-lethal projectile.

From a locked police vehicle parked at TPS 55 Division, SIU forensic services collected an evidence bag containing two spent CEW cartridges, some CEW wire and a bandage. Another evidence bag contained two spent less-lethal shotgun shells and four less-lethal projectiles.

Figure 2 - Evidence bag with less-lethal shotgun shells and projectiles

The Remington R-870 less-lethal shotgun was in a secure holder between the two front seats of the SO’s cruiser. The weapon had six live less-lethal shells in a holder on the stock of the weapon, but the weapon was found to be unloaded. Photographs were taken of the police vehicle, the items in the evidence bags and the less-lethal weapon.

Figure 3- Remington R-870 less-lethal shotgun used by SO

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On July 17, 2025, starting at about 2:15 p.m., WO #4 was captured speaking to an arborist working at a building in the area of Leslie Street and Queen Street East. The arborist reported that he and his colleagues were working in the rear yard of the building when a female [the Complainant] approached him and pushed him out of the way while he was feeding material into a woodchipper. The Complainant then went to her rear patio and started throwing items around. The arborist stated the Complainant threatened him and his coworkers, and then rode away on her electric bicycle.

While WO #4 was speaking to the arborist, another police officer reported over the police radio that the description of the involved female matched the description of a woman who had threatened suicide earlier that day.

WO #2 arrived and asked the arborist if the Complainant tried to push him into the woodchipper. The arborist responded he did not think so; she just pushed him out of the way. WO #2 asked if the arborist wished for the Complainant to be arrested, and the arborist responded that he simply wished to leave. An employee from the apartment building (Employee #1) advised WO #2 and WO #4 that the Complainant was inside her apartment. WO #2 advised the arborist that police would simply caution the Complainant that her actions would have resulted in her arrest but for the grace of the arborist.

WO #2 and WO #4 entered the building and attended the Complainant’s apartment. A female employee of the building (Employee #2) was at the Complainant’s apartment door, holding the door ajar. Employee #2 reported that the Complainant was waiting for the police to show up and intended to do something that would cause the police to kill her.

The Complainant was seated in a chair in the far corner of her apartment, with her back towards the apartment door. Employee #1 attempted to speak to the Complainant but she seemed disinterested in speaking to him.

WO #2 spoke to the Complainant, who stated she had a bipolar condition, suffered mood swings and was “borderline”. WO #2 asked Employee #1 if the Complainant was in possession of weapons and he responded she had no weapons of which they were aware. Employee #2 told WO #2 the police had interacted with the Complainant at 11:30 a.m. that morning. WO #4 asked the Complainant what was going on, but her responses were difficult to understand. At 2:30 p.m., WO #1 and WO #3 appeared at the closed rear patio door. Employee #2 asked the Complainant if she would permit them to open the patio door and the Complainant denied permission. WO #1 and WO #3 were waved away by officers inside the apartment.

Starting at about 2:31:17 p.m., WO #2 asked the Complainant how they could help her. She responded they could shoot her and end it. WO #2 responded they would not do so and they wanted her to feel better. As the Complainant spoke, she frequently waved around her empty hands.

WO #2 asked the Complainant if she would like to speak to their mental health nurse. The Complainant declined and stated she thought about suicide every day. WO #4 then verbally engaged with the Complainant, while WO #2 stepped away to update the police dispatcher.

Starting at about 2:33:57 p.m., WO #2 advised the dispatcher that the Complainant had stated there was no way to help her and she was seeking to die at the hands of the police.

The SO was in the lobby of the building when WO #2 reported the Complainant wished to die at the hands of the police. The SO returned to his vehicle and retrieved a less-lethal shotgun.

Starting at about 2:35:54 p.m., additional police officers arrived in the hallway and WO #2 cautioned WO #3 that the Complainant said she wished to die by police action. WO #3 called out from the apartment doorway and reminded the Complainant he had spoken to her earlier that day. He asked the Complainant what had transpired since speaking to her on Danforth Avenue, as she had earlier in the day reported she was fine.

Starting at about 2:37:10 p.m., the Complainant stated she had been taught that committing suicide would cause a person to go to hell, but it was not so if someone else caused the death.

Starting at about 2:37:33 p.m., WO #3 called out “[the Complainant’s first name]” and the Complainant responded that was not her name. WO #3 asked her how she wished to be addressed, and she responded, “Suicidal trash.” WO #3 responded he would not address her as such. He stated officers were concerned for their safety as well, given her comments. He suggested she go to hospital to speak to someone, but she replied, “Fuck that shit.” WO #3 asked whether she possessed any weapons and she denied having anything. WO #3 expressed his concern she might have a weapon, based on her comments.

Starting at about 2:39:42 p.m., WO #3 asked the Complainant, “Do you want to harm us?” and she responded, “No, I want you guys just to kill me. No one else.” WO #3 again suggested she go to the hospital, but she again declined.

WO #7 told the assembly of police officers they would have to make a decision.

Starting at about 2:43:31 p.m., the group of police officers at her door entered the Complainant’s apartment and moved towards her, with WO #4 in the lead. As WO #4 was halfway across the room, the Complainant stood. As WO #4 approached her, the Complainant bent down and picked up a large kitchen knife from the floor in front of the chair she had occupied. Her small breed dog, unseen up to that moment, leapt from the chair and jumped onto the nearby bed.

At 2:43:38 p.m., the aiming lasers of a CEW appeared on the Complainant and, at 2:43:42 p.m., WO #1 deployed his CEW. A CEW dart was apparent in the abdomen area of the Complainant’s shirt. At 2:43:47 p.m., WO #2 deployed his CEW. A CEW dart entered the front of the Complainant’s T-shirt in the chest area. There was no reaction from the Complainant. WO #4 approached the Complainant and she raised the knife in her right hand to the right side of her neck. WO #4 retreated.

At 2:43:49 p.m., WO #2 deployed his CEW again, and a CEW probe could be seen in the upper chest area of the Complainant’s T-shirt.

An officer called out, “Taser, taser, taser,” and the Complainant turned to her right, exposing her back to the officers. At 2:43:51 p.m., the SO deployed the less-lethal shotgun, striking the Complainant in her left buttock. Police officers yelled for the Complainant to get down on the floor. At 2:43:55 p.m., the SO deployed the less-lethal weapon again, striking the Complainant in the upper buttocks. The Complainant turned towards the officers, with the knife held against her right neck. At 2:44:11 p.m., the SO called out, “Sock round,” and deployed the less-lethal weapon a third time, striking the Complainant in the abdomen. The Complainant lowered the knife and sat back down in the chair she had earlier occupied, with her back once again towards the police officers. At 2:44:15 p.m., the SO deployed the less-lethal weapon a fourth time, striking the Complainant in the left upper back. The Complainant tossed the knife away and WO #4 ran to her and grabbed hold of her. The Complainant was moved onto the floor and handcuffed. She was taken out into the hallway, searched, and then taken outside. She was bleeding heavily from her hand.

Once all parties exited the Complainant’s apartment, WO #2 was observed holding a handful of CEW remnants (wiring and cartridges). There was discussion among the officers, including WO #7, regarding the need to re-enter the apartment to collect the debris from the less-lethal weapon and the CEW deployments.

Starting at about 2:53 p.m., the SO spoke to WO #7 and asked what was to transpire, as he believed the incident would be investigated by the SIU. WO #7 responded he did not believe the incident fell within the SIU mandate, as there were no broken bones sustained. WO #7, unsure of the situation, stated he would inquire about the SO’s concerns. WO #7 muted his BWC and placed two telephone calls, one to 55 Division and one to the Toronto Police Operations Centre (TPOC). At 3:01 p.m., he re-activated the sound on his BWC and reported he had spoken to the officer-in-charge at 55 Division and to the TPOC, and was awaiting a call from the TPOC.

Video Footage – Apartment Building

A camera recorded the Complainant walking down the driveway and pushing an arborist aside as he was feeding wood into a large woodchipper, positioned in the driveway.

Another camera captured the Complainant walking down the driveway. She grabbed a garbage receptacle and threw it across the driveway. She then walked over to her patio and started throwing items around.

Two arborists were in the backyard and one of them started to record the Complainant’s behaviour as she approached them. The Complainant acted aggressively towards the arborists and then departed down the driveway.

A third camera documented the police officers at the Complainant’s door and then captured their entry into the apartment.

TPS Communications Recordings

An arborist called 911 to report he had been assaulted and threatened by a woman who referred to returning with a weapon.

While police officers were at the Complainant’s door, the TPS dispatcher cautioned officers that the involved woman, who had earlier been involved in an incident in which she threatened suicide, was known to carry knives.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between July 17, 2025, and August 18, 2025:

• A list of involved police officers
• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Training records for the SO
• BWC recordings from WO #4, WO #2, an undesignated TPS officer, WO #5, WO #6, the SO, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #7
• In-car camera recordings from vehicles operated by the undesignated TPS officer, WO #6 and WO #5
• Notes - the SO, WO #6, WO #4, WO #2, WO #1, WO #5, and WO #3 and WO #7
• Person Hardcopy Report – history of the Complainant’s interactions with TPS
• CEW deployment data – WO #1
• CEW deployment data – WO #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained records from the following other sources between July 23, 2025, and August 6, 2025:

• Video footage from an apartment building
• The Complainant’s medical records from SMH

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized.

In the afternoon of July 17, 2025, TPS officers were dispatched to an apartment complex in the area of Leslie Street and Queen Street East. An arborist working at the address had called police to report he had been assaulted and threatened by a woman. Police officers, including the SO, arrived at the address, spoke to the arborist, and learned that the woman was a resident of the building.

The woman was the Complainant. Earlier that day, having threatened to commit suicide, officers had located her riding her bike. They spoke to the Complainant and, satisfied that she was not a threat to herself or others, departed. On this occasion, the Complainant had returned to her apartment after her interaction with the arborist. She was seated in a chair, her back to the front door, when officers arrived.

WO #2 and WO #4 were the first to the scene, followed shortly by the SO, WO #1 and WO #3. They were joined at the front door by Employee #1 and Employee #2. Employee #2 opened the front door to the Complainant’s apartment and told the officers that the Complainant wanted to die at the hands of police officers. Led by WO #2 and WO #3, the officers attempted to speak to the Complainant to understand what was troubling her. The Complainant responded that she wanted the officers to kill her, and she refused their offers to go with them to hospital for help. Efforts were made to have a TPS Mobile Crisis Intervention Team dispatched to the scene, but none were readily available.

When about 15 to 20 minutes had elapsed and the parties were still at an impasse, the sergeant on scene – WO #7 – ordered the officers to apprehend the Complainant. Soon after officers entered the apartment, the Complainant stood from her chair with a knife in hand. WO #1 and WO #2 fired their CEWs at the Complainant with no apparent effect. The SO fired his less-lethal shotgun four times. The Complainant was struck by the sock rounds, and released the knife after the fourth shot. Officers quickly approached the Complainant and took her into custody.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and treated for a laceration to her left hand, the result of her handling of the knife during the incident.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code - Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

Section 17, Mental Health Act - Action by Police Officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

The Complainant was struck by several rounds from a less-lethal shotgun in the course of her apprehension by TPS officers on July 17, 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 incident.

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 consumed illicit substances and might have been suffering from drug-induced psychosis at the time of the incident. She was clearly of unsound mind and a threat to her own wellbeing. In the circumstances, the officers were within their rights in seeking to apprehend the Complainant under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

I am also satisfied that the officers, including the SO, used only lawful force in their dealings with the Complainant. The officers attempted to de-escalate the situation through conversation from the front door. They were reluctant to enter the apartment at first for fear of provoking rash behaviour by the Complainant. They also had reason to believe that the Complainant might be armed; she was on file with the police as a person known to carry knives. The decision to enter the residence when they did, after about 15 minutes, is owed a measure of deference. Having made no progress by that time, it did not appear likely that further conversation would prove effective. Once inside, now confronted by the Complainant with a knife in hand, WO #2 and WO #1 acted reasonably in firing their CEWs. The Complainant was threatening to self-harm, and it was imperative that she be incapacitated as soon as possible. For the same reasons, when the CEW discharges did not work, the SO reasonably resorted to his less-lethal shotgun. The use of the weapon worked as intended – the Complainant let go of the knife without the infliction of serious injury because of the less-lethal rounds, providing the officers an opportunity to move in and safely take her into custody. On this record, it is apparent that the force used by the SO was commensurate with the exigencies of the moment.

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

Before closing the file, I note that the investigation revealed conduct on the part of WO #7, in the aftermath of the less-lethal shotgun discharges, in apparent contravention of the lead investigative status of the SIU. I will be raising this matter in my reporting letter to the chief of police. Further to this office’s legal obligation under section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring the matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: November 14, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit