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 less-lethal firearm by the police at a 42-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 16, 2025, at 12:20 a.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) East Region contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 15, 2025, at approximately 4:15 p.m., Gananoque Police Service (GPS) responded to a disturbance call at a residence in the area of King Street West and Victoria Avenue, Gananoque. The Complainant was reportedly creating havoc at his residence, yelling and smashing things. The Complainant had barricaded himself inside the residence upon the arrival of GPS officers. Officers tried to engage with the Complainant to no avail. GPS contained the scene and reached out to the OPP for support at 4:34 p.m. OPP deployed an Emergency Response Team (ERT), a negotiator and a police service dog (PSD) unit. After seven hours of failed negotiations, the OPP consulted with an OPP psychologist, who suggested that the Complainant needed to be apprehended for his safety. At 11:50 p.m., ERT officers breached the front door of the residence. They were met by the Complainant armed with two large knives. Officers deployed two ARWEN[2] rounds and released the PSD, successfully apprehending the Complainant. The Complainant was transported to Kingston General Hospital (KGH) to clean out the puncture wounds from the PSD and to be assessed under the Mental Health Act (MHA).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/08/16 at 1:00 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/08/16 at 6:17 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on August 18, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between August 20, 2025, and August 26, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide 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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on August 27, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a residence in the area of King Street West and Victoria Avenue, Gananoque.

Physical Evidence

On April 16, 2025, at 6:17 a.m., SIU forensic services arrived at the scene. On the front lawn were several small household articles and clothing strewn about. A large screen television was also lying near the front sidewalk. The front living room window had been smashed out with furniture protruding out. Directly beneath the window was an ARWEN cartridge case.

The front door to the residence had a screen door that was torn off the door frame at the hinges and the inner door showed signs of forced entry with a large dent on the outer surface and the framing at the latch torn out. Directly beneath the front door, on the porch, was a second ARWEN cartridge case.

The SIU collected two ARWEN cartridge cases and two ARWEN projectiles, as well as a kitchen knife.

The scene was photographed.

Figure 1- SO #1’s ARWEN with four ARWEN cartridges

Figure 2- SO #2’s ARWEN with four ARWEN cartridges

Figure 3 - A recovered ARWEN projectile

Figure 4 - The knife.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

OPP Communications Recordings & Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

On August 15, 2025, at 4:34 p.m., GPS called the OPP to report a barricaded man at a residence in the area of King Street West and Victoria Avenue, Gananoque. The Complainant was described as a chronic mental health caller known to the GPS. The Complainant had made statements referencing suicide by police. GPS requested assistance from the OPP, including negotiators and an incident commander. The GPS sergeant on scene was identified. WO #1 of the OPP was engaged as the critical incident commander (CIC).

Between 6:34 p.m. and 6:41 p.m., ERT officers, a PSD unit, and negotiators were activated. EMS were placed on standby.

Negotiations were initiated and continued throughout the incident, with intermittent communication via telephone and loudhailer.

At 11:12 p.m., visual surveillance confirmed the Complainant’s location and behaviour, including his ingestion of pills and movement between rooms.

At 11:33 p.m., tactical plans were developed for a “breach and hold”, including the use of ERT officers equipped with ARWEN launchers and a PSD.

At 11:50 p.m., the Complainant was taken into custody.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – SO #1 and SO #2

On August 15, 2025, starting at about 11:33:00 p.m., ERT officers were captured discussing a plan for a “breach and hold” entry. The plan included two ARWEN launchers, a PSD and lethal force options. Officers agreed that two members would present at the broken front bay window, while the remaining officers would position at the front door for the breach. The breach team at the front door consisted of a breach officer, an officer equipped with lethal force, SO #2 with an ARWEN, and WO #2 with his PSD. WO #2 advised that his view would be limited due to his position at the rear of the stack. He stated he would release the PSD if an ARWEN was discharged or if he heard the word “knife”.

Starting at about 11:49:54 p.m., SO #1, equipped with an ARWEN, presented at the front bay window. To his right stood an ERT member with a rifle. SO #1 stated, “[Complainant’s first name], it’s the OPP, buddy.” The Complainant replied, “What do you want?” SO #1 said, “We need to get you some help. We want you to comply. Let me see your hands.” The Complainant was standing in the kitchen wearing a red hoodie and black shorts.

Starting at about 11:49:58 p.m., the front door was breached. The Complainant reached towards the ground and picked up a knife with his left hand.

SO #1 discharged a single ARWEN projectile, which struck the Complainant. At the same time, an officer issued a command for the Complainant to drop the knife. The knife remained in the Complainant’s hand. SO #2, positioned at the entry door, discharged an ARWEN round. The projectile struck the Complainant, who then dropped to the ground. WO #2 released the PSD, and the PSD bit the Complainant’s upper right leg while he lay in a prone position on the ground. SO #2 took control of the Complainant’s hands. WO #2 released the PSD from the Complainant. Another officer placed their left knee on the Complainant’s back while SO #2 placed the Complainant’s hands in handcuffs behind the back. The Complainant was informed that he was being apprehended under the MHA.

Starting at about 11:53:29 p.m., the Complainant was captured sitting on the ground while officers assessed his injuries. The Complainant told officers that his right leg was in pain.

Officers escorted the Complainant to a waiting ambulance.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPP between August 22, 2025, and September 15, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Notes - WO #1
• Notes - WO #2
• BWC footage

On September 12, 2025, the SIU also obtained the General Occurrence Report from the GPS.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from the KGH on September 2, 2025.

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

In the afternoon of August 15, 2025, GPS officers were dispatched to a residence in the area of King Street West and Victoria Avenue, Gananoque. Police had learned of a disturbance occurring at the address involving the Complainant, who was said to be yelling and throwing things out the front window. Officers arriving on scene attempted to calm the Complainant from the broken front window. The Complainant appeared in mental health crisis. He told officers they would have to kill him and displayed a knife at the officers. GPS officers set up a perimeter around the home and a request was made for OPP assistance.

Under WO #1, the OPP assumed command of the situation. ERT officers began arriving at the residence and relieved GPS officers from their positions around the home. Negotiations continued with the Complainant through the evening but without success. The Complainant asked that police kill him. The service contacted a psychologist who suggested that a physical intervention inside the home might be necessary to avoid the Complainant doing harm to himself. A police camera was inserted into the residence and captured the Complainant in possession of two knives. At about 11:45 p.m., WO #1 gave the ERT team authority to enter the residence.

ERT officers took up positions outside the door and the front window. The door was forced open at about 11:50 p.m. At the sight of ERT officers, the Complainant reached for a knife. Armed with an ARWEN, SO #1 fired his weapon through the window. The round struck the Complainant, who began to crumple to the floor still holding the knife. SO #2 followed with a single ARWEN round fired from the open doorway, also striking the Complainant. WO #2 released his police dog, and the dog ran towards the Complainant and bit him in the right leg. Officers approached the Complainant, the dog was removed, and he was handcuffed behind the back.

At hospital following his arrest, the Complainant was diagnosed with bruising (the result of the ARWEN impacts) and a minor dog bite (which did not require stitches).

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 twice by ARWEN rounds fired by OPP officers on August 15, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1 and SO #2 the 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.

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 presented as someone of unsound mind who was a threat to himself and others. In the circumstances, I am satisfied he was subject to apprehension under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

I am also satisfied that SO #1 and SO #2 used only lawful force in the Complainant’s apprehension. The police operation around the home had given the Complainant every opportunity to peacefully surrender. After more than a seven-hour standoff, and advice from a psychologist that a physical intervention might be necessary to prevent the Complainant harming himself, the police reasonably adopted a more proactive posture. Even then, the ERT provided the Complainant a final opportunity to surrender himself peacefully just before forcing entry into the home. With the door breached and the Complainant in possession of a knife, SO #1 and SO #2 acted reasonably in firing their ARWENs. A hand-to-hand engagement was effectively precluded given the risk of grievous bodily harm and death presented by the knife. In contrast, the use of the less-lethal weapons had the potential to temporarily disorient the Complainant without causing him serious injury, providing the officers a window of time within which to move in and safely effect an arrest. In effect, that is what happened.

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

Date: November 20, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit