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 58-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 18, 2025, at 4:09 p.m., the Windsor Police Service (WPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On September 18, 2025, at 2:47 p.m., the Complainant called 911 to report that he was suicidal; he threatened to kill himself and police. He was intoxicated and indicated he had consumed ten beers. Police officers attended an address in the area of Stanley Street and Lillian Avenue, Windsor, and were met by the Complainant exiting the residence holding the gun. The Complainant subsequently went to the backyard of the property where he pointed his gun at an officer. The officer fired one round from his gun and missed the Complainant, who re-entered the residence. Police officers attempted to negotiate with the Complainant for about 15 to 20 minutes when the Complainant came out of the residence and pointed his gun at officers. At 3:12 p.m., officers shot the Complainant on his porch. Emergency Medical Services (EMS), which had staged in the area, transported the Complainant to Windsor Regional Hospital – Ouellette Campus (WRHOC).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/09/18 at 4:20 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/09/18 at 5:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 6

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 4

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

58-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

CW #8 Interviewed

CW #9 Interviewed

CW #10 Interviewed

CW #11 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between September 19, 2025, and October 2, 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

SO #3 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

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

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 between September 23, 2025, and October 1, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a residence in the area of Stanley Street and Lillian Avenue, Windsor.

Physical Evidence

On September 18, 2025, SIU forensic services attended the scene at 9:30 p.m. WPS advised the SIU that they would be seeking a search warrant to get inside the residence. The Complainant had been taken to WRHOC. An agreement was made to examine the scene in daylight hours.

On September 19, 2025, at 8:10 a.m., SIU forensic services returned to photograph and scan the scene to produce a diagram, and to collect cartridge cases and plot trajectories of the firearm discharges. Three WPS Colt C8 rifles were collected for submission to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS). Ten projectile impact sites were located. In total, 13 shots were determined to have been fired. There were nine cartridge cases near SO #1’s reported position on the roadway; three cartridge cases located near SO #2’s reported position; and one cartridge case located in the backyard near SO #3’s reported position. All cartridge cases were identified as 5.56 NATO calibre. The Complainant’s firearm (pictured below) was a replica firearm, specifically, a “Colt” Defender Calibre .177.

Image 1 – The Complainant’s Colt Defender

Image 2 – SO #1’s C8 rifle and magazine

Image 3 – SO #2’s C8 rifle and magazine

Image 4 – SO #3’s C8 rifle and magazine

SIU forensic investigators completed animation and a trajectory report, showing the angles from the C8 discharges by SO #2 and SO #1.

SIU forensic investigators collected the Colt pellet gun, five cellular telephones, a laptop computer and two external hard drives.

Forensic Evidence

On October 10, 2025, SIU submitted items for ballistics analysis to the CFS, which were accepted on October 14, 2025. The items for analysis were the 13 fired cartridge cases collected from the scene and the three Colt C8 rifles discharged by the three subject officials.

On December 29, 2025, CFS issued a Firearms Report with the following findings. The C8 rifles functioned as designed as semi-automatic rifles. Each of their respective manual safeties also functioned as designed. Cartridge cases one to nine could neither be identified nor eliminated as coming from SO #1’s rifle. Cartridge cases 10 to 12 could neither be identified nor eliminated as coming from SO #2’s rifle. Cartridge case 16 could neither be identified nor eliminated as coming from SO #3’s rifle.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

WPS Communications Recordings – 911

On September 18, 2025, at 2:46 p.m., CW #8 called 911 to request assistance for the Complainant. It was his belief that the Complainant would commit suicide. The Complainant had told him that he was going to “pick up his .45 and shoot himself”. The Complainant had been drinking, and was recently separated from his wife and in financial distress. CW #8 was afraid to attend the Complainant’s residence as he stated he would shoot anyone who came over.

On September 18, 2025, at 2:46 p.m., the Complainant called 911 indicating he would take his own life, had a .45 calibre gun, was alone in his home, except for his dogs, and had consumed ten beers. The Complainant was an alcoholic. He regretted calling 911 and was going to hang-up, but the call-taker kept him talking. The call-taker ascertained his name and address, and that his family members were not home. The Complainant said he would shoot police officers if they attempted to enter his property and he did not want police to check on him. The Complainant said he was armed. The call ended abruptly after the Complainant began yelling at someone, followed by shouts of “put that gun down right now”.

Communications Recordings – Radio

At 2:48 p.m., September 18, 2025, police dispatched WO #5 and WO #2 to an address in the area of Stanley Street and Lillian Avenue. Dispatch advised officers that the Complainant said he would shoot police if they attempted to enter the residence, and that he would not be taken alive.

At 2:52 p.m., a sergeant requested Emergency Services Unit (ESU) attendance and instructed responding officers to contain the residence. SO #1 advised he had taken a position to the east.

At 2:56 p.m., WO #2 broadcast that the front door was open and, a minute later, the Complainant was said to be pointing his gun at police officers.

At 3:00 p.m., SO #1 broadcast that shots had been fired by the Complainant. Dispatch relayed this information.

At 3:01 p.m., SO #3 clarified that he had fired the shot.

SO #1 provided updates as the police officers moved into containment positions. ESU SO #2 moved towards the rear to support SO #3.

At 3:02 p.m., dispatch instructed officers to hold their positions and noted that the front door of the residence was ajar.

At 3:10 p.m., a sergeant requested a drone be deployed to monitor the residence from above.

At 3:12 p.m., multiple shots were fired.

ESU officers were directed to stage and, at 3:19 p.m., there was a broadcast that the Complainant lay face down in the doorway with his feet outside the residence and his upper body inside. No movement was detected.

The remainder of the communications dealt with scene security and EMS providing medical attention to the Complainant.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

On September 18, 2025, at 2:55 p.m., SO #1, WO #5 and WO #2 arrived on scene in their cruisers. SO #1 parked on the roadway east of the address. WO #5 and WO #2 parked to the west. SO #1 exited his vehicle with a C8 rifle, walked around the front of the cruiser, and leaned over the hood, facing towards the address. He directed CW #10 to take shelter behind his vehicle.

At 2:57 p.m., SO #1 broadcast that he had observed movement at the front door and that the Complainant was holding a firearm. The Complainant yelled, “Get the fuck away right now.” SO #1 responded, “Drop the gun now.” WO #5, armed with a C8 rifle, ran towards a residence where he took cover behind a vehicle and the building. WO #2, positioned behind the passenger rear corner of her cruiser, east of the address, radioed that the Complainant was threatening to shoot officers.

At 2:58 p.m., SO #3 broadcast, “I’m just pulling up [a nearby location], I’m trying to get eyes on the property.” The Complainant appeared on his porch and refused to drop the gun at SO #1’s repeated direction. Moments later, the Complainant came off the porch and walked south down a pathway towards SO #1’s vehicle on the street. His right arm was raised, holding an object resembling a handgun. SO #1 and the Complainant appeared focused on each other before the Complainant’s attention was drawn away from SO #1 to where WO #2 was positioned. The Complainant brought his hands together and raised the gun briefly to the west, after which he retreated behind an obstruction on his driveway. WO #2 told the Complainant, “Drop the gun.” The sergeant arrived on scene and was behind WO #2’s position. Seconds later, a single gunshot was heard. SO #1 broadcast, “Shot fired, not by us, by [the Complainant’s first name].” The sergeant broadcast, “Stand down. Everyone off the radio. We have one shot fired. Looks like it is at the rear of the residence.” Shortly after, ESU officers arrived along with their armoured vehicle.

At 3:02 p.m., SO #3 broadcast, “Shots fired after [the Complainant’s first name] pointed a firearm at me. He’s still up. He has the firearm in the back. He’s trying to barricade himself in the back shed here.”

At 3:05 p.m., SO #3 radioed, “I’m talking to him right now. I’m trying to hold a conversation with him. He’s not being cooperative. Says he has more guns in the shed. He’s kind of barricading himself in the shed right now.”

At 3:07 p.m., SO #1 radioed, “He’s pointing the firearm towards [SO #3] right now.”

At 3:08 p.m., the sergeant provided an update to an ESU officer and then returned to where WO #5 and WO #2 were positioned.

At 3:09 p.m., an officer broadcast, “He just went back into the house, firearm in hand.”

At 3:12 p.m., the Complainant exited his residence onto the front porch with his right arm extended forward, appearing to hold a firearm. He held his position before seemingly turning and moving westward on the porch. SO #1 yelled, “[Complainant’s first name], drop it,” and fired multiple rounds from his C8 rifle, some striking the windshield of his police vehicle. SO #1 broadcast, “Saw him go inside the house. Do not know if any shots hit. Hit him.” A short time later, the officer said, “I saw him enter the residence. I cannot see properly in the windows because of the glare. All I can see is through front door, but he is inside the residence.”

At 3:17 p.m., an ESU multi-purpose vehicle arrived on scene.

At 3:19 p.m., there was a broadcast: “Male is on the front porch not moving. His feet are outside the door and his upper half is inside the residence.”

The remainder of the footage dealt with EMS attendance and scene security.

Video Footage – Private Residence

The footage was not time-stamped.

The footage captured two officers positioned between the Complainant’s residence and the residence immediately east of it. The officers moved in a single-file formation, and the lead officer held a C8 rifle in a high-ready position. Verbal exchanges were audible between the officers and the Complainant, though the specific words were indistinct. Multiple gunshots were then heard.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the WPS between September 19, 2025, and January 19, 2026:

• ICC footage
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5, WO #6 and WO #7
• Police communications recordings
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Video footage from various residences
• WPS policies – Carbine; Firearms; Arrest
• Initial Officer Report
• Supplementary Reports

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between September 19, 2025, and January 7, 2026:

• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• Report of Postmortem Examination from Coroner’s Office
• The Complainant’s medical records from WRHOC

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, none of the subject officials agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the afternoon of September 18, 2025, WPS were dispatched to a house in the area of Stanley Street and Lillian Avenue. The Complainant had called police to report that he had a .45 calibre gun and planned to kill himself. He said that he had consumed ten beers and had struggled with sobriety for most of his life. In further conversation with the police call-taker, the Complainant warned that he would kill police officers who attempted to enter his property. A second 911 call was received by police at about the same time. CW #8, a friend of the Complainant’s, reported that the Complainant was going through a difficult period and was suicidal. CW #8 added that the Complainant had indicated he would shoot anyone who went to his house.

SO #1 was the first officer on scene. With him was CW #10, a registered nurse partnered with SO #1 in a nurse-police officer team. The officer stopped his cruiser on the roadway facing northeast towards the home immediately east of the Complainant’s home. He exited with a C8 rifle and took cover behind the front passenger side of the cruiser. CW #10 lowered herself behind the passenger side of the vehicle.[3] Additional officers arrived on scene shortly, including WO #2 and WO #5, who parked their cruisers west of SO #1’s location, closer to the roadway’s intersection with Lillian Avenue. They too armed themselves with C8 rifles and took positions of cover. The time was about 2:45 p.m.

The Complainant emerged from the front door of his home onto the porch at about 2:57 p.m. He was holding what appeared to be a handgun. Unknown to the officers at the time, the handgun was, in fact, a pellet gun. The Complainant brandished the gun at SO #1, approximately 25 metres southeast of his location, and yelled at him to leave. SO #1, his C8 trained on the Complainant, repeatedly told him to drop the gun. The Complainant refused. He stepped off his porch and walked down a pathway towards the roadway. Parked on either side of the pathway were vehicles. When the Complainant had cleared the vehicle parked to his left, he turned to SO #1 and pointed the gun in his direction. The parties were about 10 to 12 metres apart at this time. Moments later, he quickly turned westward and pointed the gun at the officers gathered in that direction before retreating back up the path, onto the porch and into the home.

A gunshot was subsequently heard coming from the rear of the home. SO #1 radioed that a shot had been fired by the Complainant. Moments later, SO #3 came on the air to clarify that he had fired the shot and that he did so after the Complainant had pointed a gun at him. The officer had approached the scene from Stanley Street, the roadway north of the Complainant’s property, from where he made his way to the back of the Complainant’s residence and was confronted by the Complainant. Following the shot, SO #3 broadcast that he was trying to talk to the Complainant, who said he had more guns in the rear shed. The time was about 3:05 p.m.

The standoff continued as the Complainant re-entered his home from the back at about 3:09 p.m. An acting sergeant was on scene by this time and busy organizing the police response. He asked for the deployment of the police tactical squad, who would arrive with an armoured vehicle, and other resources, including a negotiator and a drone. Arrangements were made to contact the nearby residents and have them shelter in place. An ambulance was staged at the scene.

The Complainant exited his home again onto the front porch at about 3:12 p.m. He extended his right arm forward and pointed the gun in SO #1’s direction. Moments later, SO #1 yelled at the Complainant to drop the gun and fired two volleys of shots (two and seven, respectively). At about the same time, SO #2, a member of the ESU, fired three shots from a position east of the Complainant. The officer had approached the porch travelling south along the east side of the neighbour’s driveway.

The Complainant was felled by the shots, his body landing half in and half out the front door of the home. He had sustained four and, possibly, six gunshot wounds, the most serious of which was the result of a bullet entering the right lateral abdomen.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy attributed the cause of the Complainant’s death to complications of multiple gunshot wounds.

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 wounded by gunshots fired by WPS officers on September 18, 2025.[4] The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3 the subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials 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 WPS officers involved in the standoff with the Complainant, including SO #1, SO #3 and SO #2, were lawfully placed and engaged in the execution of their duties through the series of events culminating in gunfire. Aware of an intoxicated individual armed with a gun and intent on taking his own life, the police were duty bound to attend at the scene to do what they reasonably could to prevent harm coming to the Complainant and ensure public safety.

The evidence in relation to the shooting in the rear yard of the Complainant’s residence comes principally from SO #3’s radio transmissions. That evidence, coupled with the location from which the officer’s spent cartridge case was collected, suggests SO #3 was in or around the area of the gate in the fence that separated the Complainant’s property from the property to the north when he fired a single round after the Complainant pointed his gun in the officer’s direction. The shot did not strike the Complainant. On this evidence, I am satisfied that SO #3 acted to defend himself from a reasonably apprehended threat, and that he did so reasonably when he chose to meet a lethal threat with a resort to lethal force of his own. The gun in the Complainant’s hands gave the appearance of an actual firearm and SO #3 would have had no reason to think otherwise.

The same, I am satisfied, can essentially be said of the rounds discharged by SO #1 and SO #2. By that time, the Complainant had threatened the officers with death and repeatedly pointed the gun in the direction, at least, of SO #1 and SO #3. As to what might have specifically happened to cause SO #1 to discharge his weapon, where he had previously refrained from firing, is unknown. Similarly, the Complainant’s movements on the porch around the time of the shooting are not entirely clear. The video footage available was taken from a distance and partially obstructed. It does appear that the Complainant had turned and might have been walking back to the front door when at least some of the shots were fired by SO #1 and/or SO #2. Be that as it may, the evidence indicates that the Complainant was armed with what the officers would have believed was a gun that could be fired in their direction at any moment. The evidence further suggests that the Complainant had pointed the gun for a period in SO #1’s direction before the gunfire started. On this record, giving due weight to the highly charged atmosphere that prevailed at the time and the delay inherent in reaction times, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the Complainant did not represent an imminent risk of grievous bodily harm or death to either officer through the entirety of their gunfire.

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

Date: January 27, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit