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 59-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On October 25, at 8:02 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 25, 2025, at approximately 6:00 a.m., TPS officers received an “unknown trouble” call at a residence in the area of Victoria Park Avenue and Lawrence Avenue East, North York. Upon arrival, officers determined the incident involved a violent altercation inside the home in which a man [the Complainant] had stabbed two persons. The TPS officers were confronted by the man inside the residence. He was armed with a machete and a hatchet. One of the TPS officers discharged his firearm, while another discharged a conducted energy weapon (CEW). The projectile from the discharged firearm did not strike the man, who was subsequently arrested without injury.

The two persons who had been stabbed were transported to the North York General Hospital (NYGH) with stab wounds. Their condition was unknown at the time of intake. The man was transported to TPS 33 Division, where he awaited a bail hearing.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/10/25 at 8:08 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/10/25 at 10:16 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on October 25, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on October 25, 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

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on November 4, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the second-floor master bedroom of a residence in the area of Victoria Park Avenue and Lawrence Avenue East, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

The scene was located on the second floor of a semi-detached dwelling located in the area of Victoria Park Avenue and Lawrence Avenue East, Toronto. The exterior door had footwear impressions near the doorknob. The door was splintered as if it had been kicked open and there were pieces of the lock mechanism on the floor. There was an overturned chair just inside the front entryway. The front door appeared to have been secured with a security bar.

In the kitchen, there was an overturned knife block. Some of the knives appeared to be absent from the knife block.

The living room window was smashed and there was glass on the floor at the base of the window frame.

From the living room was a set of stairs which led to the second floor. At the base of the stairs were scattered clothing items and a kitchen knife. One of the halves of a broken pair of garden shears was at the base of the stairs. There was a broken security door bar among the scattered clothing. There were two CEW cartridges cases next to the staircase. There was CEW debris and two probes at the base of the stairs. The CEW wires extended up the staircase.

At the top of the stairs, there was additional CEW debris and a security camera. Outside the master bedroom was a metal bar, which measured 94 centimetres in length, and a wooden axe handle 84 centimetres in length located on the floor. There was also a kitchen knife, a meat cleaver on the floor and a .40 calibre cartridge case on the floor.

The master bedroom door frame was damaged. There was a bullet defect in the door frame located just above the strike plate of the door handle. There was a kitchen knife on the ground just inside the doorway next to an overturned nightstand.

Inside the master bedroom, there were two knives located on a nightstand in the far corner of the room. One of the knives was a folding-style knife in the open position and the other was a kitchen knife with blood on the handle and blade. There was a fired projectile, which had penetrated a suitcase that sat in an upright position on the floor against the wall opposite the bedroom entrance.

The SIU collected the following items of evidence:

? Two CEW cartridges located at the base of the stairs

? CEW debris, wires and probes located at the base of the stairs

? An additional probe was collected on the second floor along with CEW wires and debris

? A .40 calibre cartridge case from outside the master bedroom

? A fired projectile located inside a suitcase in the master bedroom

? A Glock 22 .40 calibre pistol collected from SO #2’s duty belt

? A Glock magazine with 15 round capacity[2]

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – WO #1

On October 25, 2025, at 6:42:00 a.m., WO #1’s CEW was armed. There were two live cartridges seated in their respective bays.

At 6:42:37 a.m., the cartridge seated in Bay 1 was deployed. Electricity was discharged for 3.28 seconds.

At 6:42:41 a.m., the CEW was disarmed.

CEW Deployment Data - WO #2

On October 25, 2025, at 6:40:00 a.m.,[3] WO #2’s CEW was armed. There were two live cartridges seated in their respective bays.

At 6:42:29 a.m., the cartridge seated in Bay 1 was discharged. Electricity was conducted for 4.94 seconds.

At 6:42:47 a.m., the cartridge seated in Bay 2 was discharged. Electricity was conducted for 4.93 seconds.

At 6:43:41 a.m., the right arc button was pressed, and electricity was discharged for 10.45 seconds.

At 6:45:16 a.m., the CEW was disarmed.

Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) Submission

With the entirety of the incident captured on body-worn camera (BWC) and CCTV video, it was abundantly clear the only person to discharge a firearm was SO #2 and it was deemed a ballistics analysis was unnecessary.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[4]

BWC Footage - SO #2, WO #3, WO #2, and WO #1

On October 25, 2025, at 6:39:40 a.m., WO #2, WO #3 and SO #1 approached the front door of a residence in the area of Victoria Park Avenue and Lawrence Avenue East. SO #1 attempted to kick open the front door but was unsuccessful. The TPS officers walked around to the backyard. WO #2 had his CEW drawn. A rear window on the residence was broken. There was a siren alarm emanating from within the residence. SO #1 had his firearm drawn and pointed into the broken window. He yelled through the rear window but there was no response. WO #1 and SO #2 arrived in the backyard and attempted to open the storm door. The storm door was locked. WO #1 attempted to kick it open and damaged the bottom panel of the door.

At 6:41:03 a.m., SO #2 arrived at the front door of the house. He opened the unlocked storm door and tried the handle of the front door but found it locked. SO #2 kicked the front door multiple times near the handle. Eventually, the door opened. He knocked over a chair just inside the door. He drew his firearm and carried a flashlight, as he entered the residence. He walked to the back of the residence and unlocked the rear door.

At 6:42:25 a.m., SO #2 started to walk upstairs. A man’s voice [the Complainant] was heard from upstairs, and he said he wanted to die. SO #2 was about halfway up the stairs with his firearm drawn. WO #2 stood to the right of SO #2 with his CEW drawn. The Complainant leaned over the banister at the top of the stairs and yelled at the TPS officers to shoot him.

At 6:42:39 a.m., WO #2 yelled, “Taser, taser, taser,” and discharged his CEW probes at the Complainant. The Complainant winced and threw a white pole down the stairs towards the TPS officers. The TPS officers retreated down the stairs and yelled at the Complainant to drop the knife.

At 6:42:58 a.m., WO #2 deployed a second round of CEW probes at the Complainant. The Complainant threw a knife and clothing at the TPS officers. The TPS officers called for the TPS Emergency Task Force (ETF).

At 6:43:19 a.m., CW #1 screamed from upstairs. The TPS officers rushed up the stairs. WO #1 deployed a set of probes from his CEW, which did not make contact with the Complainant who had retreated into the master bedroom with the door closed. WO #1 kicked the bedroom door. SO #2 stood directly across from the closed door.

At 6:43:35 a.m., SO #2 kicked open the bedroom door. He had his firearm pointed into the bedroom. The Complainant suddenly appeared from behind the door and had a cleaver raised up in his left hand and a knife raised up in his right hand. He slashed towards SO #2 with the cleaver. Within a second, SO #2 discharged a single round from his firearm into the bedroom as he took a step back from the cleaver. The Complainant retreated further into the master bedroom and threw a knife through the open doorway at the TPS officers.

The Complainant ran around the foot of the bed and towards the other side, where CW #1 cowered against a nightstand. CW #2 stood on the bed and jumped on the back of the Complainant, who was on CW #1 on the floor. WO #1 entered the bedroom first, followed by SO #2, and they both ran around the foot of the bed and tried to pull the Complainant off CW #1. CW #2 struck the Complainant’ back repeatedly with a closed fist and yelled obscenities at him. SO #1 entered the room and holstered his firearm. WO #2 entered the room and climbed over top of the bed to the far side. He kneeled down on the bed and applied his CEW to the Complainant’s back and discharged it in drive-stun mode.[5]

WO #1 lifted the Complainant’s right hand off the ground and rested it on the bed. SO #1 applied a handcuff to the right wrist. WO #1 let go of the arm and stood upright. SO #1 continued to hold the arm and called out for someone to give him the Complainant’s other arm. SO #2 controlled the left arm somewhere below the level of the bed. WO #1 dragged CW #1 around the foot of the bed on the floor and gave her to WO #3, who dragged her into hallway and into another bedroom. SO #2 brought the left arm behind the Complainant’s back. SO #1 brought the right arm behind the back and handcuffed the hands together. SO #1 rested his right knee on the Complainant’s right elbow. SO #1 and SO #2 brought the Complainant to an upright position and subsequently searched him.

At 6:47:51 a.m., as he was escorted from the residence, the Complainant yelled about how his wrist was broken.

At 6:49:45 a.m., SO #1 held on to the Complainant’s right elbow and he was placed into the rear prisoner compartment of a police vehicle. The Complainant cried out in pain and said, “It is broken”.

At 6:51:19 a.m., SO #1 said to WO #3, “Fuck man, I was just about to shoot that guy man. That was fucking close.”

At 6:51:01 a.m., SO #2 confirmed to WO #1 that he had fired a single shot.

At 6:52:12 a.m., paramedic services arrived and assessed the Complainant. He complained about his right hand. When asked what had happened to his wrist, he said, “They twist…they twist very hard.” The paramedics searched his body for CEW probes and found none.

In-car Camera System (ICCS) Footage – WO #2’s Cruiser

On October 25, 2025, at 7:03:28 a.m., as the Complainant was driven away from the scene in the rear prisoner compartment, there was a loud continuous beep sound. [Now known to be the Complainant’s global positioning system (GPS) ankle monitor.]

At 7:17:38 a.m., the Complainant arrived at TPS 33 Division.

At 7:38:02 a.m., the Complainant was placed into the rear prisoner compartment again and transported to NYGH.

At 7:51:55 a.m., the Complainant arrived at NYGH.

Video Footage – The Scene

The video recordings were from interior and exterior security cameras at the scene. Some of the videos did not contain time and date stamps.

The Complainant was captured breaking the living room window at the rear of the house and climbing through the window. He walked up and down the stairs in the house with a white door security bar. He hammered the bar against a door [to the master bedroom]. He returned downstairs, entered the kitchen and then walked past the living room camera with knives in his hand. An upstairs camera showed the Complainant sliding knives under the door to the master bedroom.

TPS Communications Recordings

On October 25, 2025, at 6:32:54 a.m., a woman [CW #1] called 911. She reported [the Complainant] had broken into her residence at a residence in the area of Victoria Park Avenue and Lawrence Avenue East. He was outside her bedroom door and attempting to enter the bedroom. A male [CW #2] yelled incoherently in the background of the phone call.

At 6:33:26 a.m., a male [CW #2] called 911. He reported that the Complainant had broken into the residence through the backyard. He said the Complainant was on conditions to not contact him or CW #1. The Complainant had slid a knife under the door. He tried to force his way into the room and break the door.

At 6:40:54 a.m., CW #2 advised that the Complainant was on the second floor. CW #2 called out to the police and told them to enter the residence.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from TPS between October 28, 2025, and November 7, 2025:

? General Occurrence Report

? Computer-aided Dispatch Report

? Use of Force training records – SO #1 and SO #2

? TPS policy - Use of Force

? CEW deployment data – WO #1 and WO #2

? Notes – WO #3 and WO #2, and WO #1

? Scene photographs

? BWC footage

? Video footage from the scene

? Communications recordings

? ICCS footage

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from NYGH on November 5, 2025.

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

In the morning of October 25, 2025, TPS officers were dispatched to a priority call involving a disturbance at a residence in the area of Victoria Park Avenue and Lawrence Avenue East, Toronto. CW #1 and CW #2, had called police to report that the Complainant had broken into the home. The Complainant, was on release conditions stemming from a previous occurrence of violence prohibiting his presence at the house.

The Complainant had broken a window at the rear of the residence through which he entered the living room. He retrieved several knives from the kitchen and made his way upstairs where CW #1 and CW #2 had sought refuge behind the locked door of the master bedroom. He threatened CW #1 and attempted to force his way into the bedroom, at times shoving knives underneath the bottom of the door.

SO #2 and SO #1, joined by WO #2, WO #3, and WO #1, arrived at the address, eventually forcing open the locked front door. They moved to the rear of the main floor where the staircase to the second floor was located. The Complainant, still on the second floor, confronted the officers at the top of the stairs with knives in his hands. He refused to drop them at the officers’ directions. From a position partway up the stairs, WO #2 discharged his CEW twice at the Complainant with no effect. The Complainant threw a knife and a pole down at the officers, who momentarily retreated before regrouping and beginning another ascent up the stairs. Near the top, WO #1 fired his CEW over a staircase railing at the Complainant but that too was ineffective. The Complainant managed to force his way into the bedroom, closing the door behind him.

His firearm in his right hand, SO #2 kicked open the bedroom door and was confronted by the Complainant. The Complainant, a knife in each hand, made a slashing motion towards the officer. SO #2 fired once through the open door, missing the Complainant. The Complainant turned his attention towards CW #1, who was in a corner of the bedroom. He attacked her with knives and inflicted wounds to her left arm and right leg. The officers rushed in behind the Complainant and quickly subdued him with their greater numbers. WO #2, from on top of the bed, used his CEW to deliver a stun-drive to the Complainant’s back. The Complainant was handcuffed behind the back and taken into custody.

At hospital following his arrest, the Complainant was diagnosed with a fractured right elbow.

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 25(3), Criminal Code - Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

25 (3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection (1) in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservations of any one under that person’s protection from death or grievous bodily harm.

On October 25, 2025, the TPS notified the SIU that a TPS officer had discharged his firearm at a male – the Complainant – in the course of the Complainant’s arrest earlier that day. The round had missed the Complainant. The officer who had fired his gun at the Complainant – SO #2 – was named a subject official. SO #1 was also identified as a subject official when the SIU subsequently learned that the Complainant had suffered a serious injury, albeit not the result of the firearm discharge. 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 Complainant’s arrest.

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.

Section 25(3) of the Criminal Code qualifies section 25(1) in the case of force intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm. This type of force is not justified unless the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservation of any one under that person’s protection from death or grievous bodily harm.

SO #2 and SO #1 were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties through the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s arrest. With information at their disposal that the Complainant was present at an address in violation of a release order and confronted by the Complainant brandishing knives in their direction and threatening harm to his family, I am satisfied the officers were within their rights in moving to take the Complainant into custody.

I am also satisfied that the less-lethal force used by the officers, namely, a series of CEW discharges and manual force to control and handcuff the Complainant, were legally justified. The use of the CEW discharges from the stairs made sense. A hands-on interdiction was prohibitive given the knives in the Complainant’s possession and therefore the risk of serious injury and even death in a close-quarters engagement. If the CEW worked as intended, the Complainant’s momentary incapacitation from a distance would provide the officers a safe opportunity to disarm and arrest him. With respect to the drive-stun and the manpower used by the officers inside the bedroom, including several strikes by WO #1 to the Complainant’s right wrist and the placement of SO #1’s knee on top of the Complainant’s right elbow, these too were commensurate with the exigencies of the moment. It was absolutely imperative that the Complainant be subdued as quickly as possible given his attack on CW #1 and the knife he had been wielding in his right hand. No strikes were delivered after he was handcuffed.

Turning to the single shot fired by SO #2, though the officer did not provide firsthand evidence to the SIU about his mindset at the time of the shooting, as was his legal right, the circumstances give rise to a strong inference that SO #2 fired his weapon to protect himself from a reasonably apprehended knife attack on the part of the Complainant. Given what he had seen of the Complainant’s behaviour with the knives in his possession, the officer would have had every reason to believe that his life was in imminent danger when he opened the bedroom door and was confronted by the Complainant at close range with knives in hand. Retreat or withdrawal were not viable options. CW #1 and CW #2 were themselves in great peril and dire need of police protection. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officer acted unreasonably when he chose to meet a lethal threat with a resort to lethal force of his own.

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

Date: February 13, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit