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 death of a 62-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On August 1, 2025, at 5:00 p.m., the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On August 1, 2025, at 7:32 a.m., a person in crisis – the Complainant – called the police saying he had attempted to kidnap his landlord, but his landlord was able to flee. The Complainant was upset regarding the number of drug dealers in his neighbourhood. He claimed to have explosive devices and demanded a negotiator come to his residence or else he would detonate the explosives. He also indicated he was well armed and had boobytrapped his residence with tripwires. The HPS Emergency Response Unit (ERU) and a negotiator were deployed, and the residence was contained. Negotiations with the Complainant took place through the day, until a single gunshot was heard at 3:58 p.m. ERU sent in a drone (RPAS[2]), which revealed the Complainant on the floor surrounded by blood.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/08/01 at 5:06 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/08/01 at 7:21 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

62-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between August 1, 2025, and August 7, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official were interviewed on August 19, 2025.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on August 8, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a residential structure situated in the area of Sherman Avenue North and Barton Street East, Hamilton.

Physical Evidence

On August 1, 2025, SIU forensic services were dispatched to the address in the area of Sherman Avenue North and Barton Street East, Hamilton, arriving at 8:26 p.m. SIU investigators were initially on scene at 7:21 p.m., but the residence had still not been rendered safe (there was still a large amount of gunpowder and an improvised explosive device (IED)). The coroner arrived shortly after and, once the residence had been made safe, she entered the scene to pronounce the Complainant deceased at 8:19 p.m.

SIU forensic services located an Ontario Health Card in the wallet of the Complainant and a suicide note in the residence. A firearm was located on the floor next to a bed - a green-coloured Black Creek Labs .308 calibre rifle with a scope. A magazine, containing an unknown number of cartridges, was next to the rifle in addition to one loose .308 calibre unfired cartridge. The HPS advised that HPS officers originally located the rifle underneath the Complainant upon their arrival but had moved the weapon to render it safe. The loose round had been in the chamber upon their clearing of the weapon. A shotgun in the residence had also been rendered safe by the police prior to SIU arrival.

A single fired and red-stained .308 calibre cartridge case was located on the floor on top of a blanket next to a chair that was in the room next to the bed. Also on the chair was a bulletproof vest with some additional red staining and two visible holes.

SIU forensic services photographed the scene and 3D scans of the scene were completed.

SIU forensic services recovered from the scene Hornady .308 calibre ammunition, tactical body armour, a fired cartridge case, bullet fragments, a wallet with identification (no money), the Complainant’s clothing, and the Black Creek Labs .308 calibre rifle and scope.

Forensic Evidence

On August 7, 2025, firearm-related items were submitted to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS). At the time of the preparation of this report, no results had been received from the CFS.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

HPS Robot Video Footage

On August 1, 2025, a HPS robot entered through the back door into a residence. No HPS officers were captured on video inside the unit. The Complainant was on the floor just beyond the hallway from the main entrance. He lay on his right side with his right arm outstretched in front of his body and the left arm bent and positioned across his chest. His left leg was slightly bent and positioned over top of the right leg.

The robot was subsequently engaged to disarm a bomb made from a crock pot. The robot tipped the crock pot and gunpowder spilled out. Shortly after, ERU officers made entry and inspected the IED.

HPS Communications Recordings - 911 Calls

On August 1, 2025, at 7:33 a.m., the Complainant called 911 and told the call-taker that he had a bomb at an address in the area of Sherman Avenue North and Barton Street East. He stated he was “armed to the teeth” and had set up tripwires. He was alone in the residence and had tried to kidnap his landlord. He said he had three assault rifles and a bomb, and asked to speak to a negotiator.

At 7:34 a.m., CW #2 called 911 indicating that the Complainant (his tenant) shot a gun at him but he got away. The two men had struggled and the Complainant discharged a shotgun, which did not hit anyone. CW #2 indicated the Complainant was alone in the residence and he would stay in the area to assist police when they arrived. CW #2 also indicated that the Complainant was known to him, and that the Complainant had a lot of weapons, as if he was preparing for war.

At 7:44 a.m., the Complainant called back, saying he was “the guy with the bomb”. He wanted police to evacuate the area as he had a bomb made of 1000 rifle shells in a crock pot surrounded by propane tanks and gas cans. When asked what happened that day, the Complainant stated, “I’ve just seen too much crap.” The police dispatcher stayed on the telephone with the Complainant until 10:10 a.m., when WO #2 took over as the negotiator.

HPS Communications Recordings – Dispatch and Negotiations

The communications recordings were over 12 hours in length.

On August 1, 2025, at 7:33 a.m., the police call-taker asked for anybody available for a person in crisis call at an address in the area of Sherman Avenue North and Barton Street East. A man [now known to be the Complainant] had called 911 to report he had assault rifles, a bomb and a shotgun. The Complainant wanted a negotiator. Numerous officers responded to the scene. A second call to 911 (CW #2) indicated that the Complainant had fired a shotgun at him. Details of the two 911 calls were broadcast.

Police officers began to stage around the Complainant’s residence, and the ERU, emergency medical services and the Hamilton Fire Department were called in. An open line of communication was maintained between the police call-taker and the Complainant. As events unfolded, containment was set up around the home and the call-taker updated conversations with the Complainant. He was said to have a bomb consisting of a crock pot with 1000 .308 calibre rifle shells. He had a rifle to his chest with his thumb on a stick, and he would shoot himself so no one else got hurt. The Complainant suggested that someone cut off the gas as a precaution in the event the bomb was detonated.

At 10:10 a.m., the call was transferred from the call-taker to WO #2, the police negotiator.

Towards 3:13 p.m., the Complainant sounded like he was going to surrender but wanted another cigarette. However, at 3:58 p.m., there was a broadcast of a single gunshot that had come from within the residence. At 4:29 p.m., a drone was sent in and captured images of multiple firearms and the Complainant, lying on the floor with no movement and a significant amount of blood around him.

At 5:16 p.m., the residence was breached, and the crock pot (bomb) was located at the front door. It was eventually dismantled to render the residence safe for further investigation.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the HPS between August 1, 2025, and September 9, 2025:

• Notes of all designated officials
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• General Occurrence Report
• Video recordings taken by an ERU robot
• Scene photographs taken by HPS Forensic Services Branch
• Fingerprints of the Complainant
• Copies of HPS policies and procedures related to the Emergency Response Unit, Hostages and/or Barricaded Persons, and Incident Command and Operations Planning

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service on August 3, 2025

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the SO and other police and non-police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the morning of August 1, 2025, the Complainant embarked on a destructive course involving firearms and explosives. Seemingly frustrated with the world around him, he called his landlord – CW #2 – to report that he had left his residence in the area of Sherman Avenue North and Barton Street East. When CW #2 attended at the unit later that morning, he was accosted by the Complainant armed with a shotgun. The two men fought and the Complainant discharged a single shot. The round missed CW #2 and he was able to escape the residence and call police.

Shortly after that encounter, HPS received 911 calls from the Complainant and CW #2, the latter reporting what had just happened to him. The Complainant told the call-taker he was heavily armed and that he had set up a bomb with tripwires in his residence. He acknowledged that he had tried to kidnap his landlord and asked to speak to a negotiator.

HPS police personnel began to arrive in the area of the residence. A command centre was established nearby. The SO was assigned as the critical incident commander. The HPS ERU was deployed to the scene and set up containment around the home. A negotiator – WO #2 – was engaged to speak to the Complainant. At about 10:10 a.m., about two-and-a-half hours after the first 911 call came in, the HPS call-taker, who had maintained communications with the Complainant to that point, transferred the call to WO #2.

Over the next five to six hours, WO #2 attempted to persuade the Complainant to surrender peacefully. The Complainant spoke of wanting to end his life but not harming others in the process. At one point, he asked that the gas be cut to the residence to avoid an even bigger explosion in the event the bomb he had inside with him was detonated. It seemed as if progress was being made and there was optimism on the part of the police that the Complainant would give himself up. At about 3:58 p.m., a single gunshot was heard by officers coming from within the residence. The Complainant had shot himself with a rifle.

Because of the risk of explosives that the Complainant had warned about, the ERU sent in a drone followed by a robot. The robot identified a homemade bomb and tipped it over, spilling gunpowder within it. Satisfied that the residence was safe, ERU officers made entry at about 5:16 p.m. The Complainant’s lifeless body was discovered lying on the floor beside a chair and bed. The rifle he had used to shoot himself was underneath the Complainant. The room contained additional firearms and remnants of the homemade bomb.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to a “perforating gunshot wound to the chest”.

Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Death

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

The Complainant passed away on August 1, 2025, the result of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the torso. As he and HPS officers outside his home had been engaged in an hours-long standoff prior to the shooting, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The officer in charge of the police operation – the SO – was identified as 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 Complainant’s death.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.

The SO and the officers under his command were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duty through the standoff that culminated in the Complainant’s self-inflicted death. An unstable Complainant had threatened CW #2 with a gun and set up an improvised explosive in his home. He constituted a clear threat to himself and the public. The officers were within their rights in attending to take the Complainant into custody and to do what they could to ensure his and the public’s safety.

It is also apparent that the police operation led by the SO was executed in a professional fashion. The SO acted quickly to secure resources to the scene, including the ERU, a trained negotiator and medical first responders. Negotiations were undertaken through the standoff in a concerted effort to achieve a peaceful resolution. Indeed, at times, it looked as though the Complainant was ready to give himself up. Regrettably, the police could not prevent the Complainant taking his own life, but that was not for a lack of best efforts on their part. I am also satisfied that the police delay in entering the residence after the shot was prudent in the circumstances. With good reason to believe that the Complainant had set up tripwires and an improvised explosive, they were right to take the time to first send in a drone and robot to ensure they could enter safely. On this record, there is no question of any want of care on the part of the police.

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

Date: November 28, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit