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 32-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 5, 2025, at 2:04 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On December 5, 2025, at 1:40 a.m., the TPS received a 911 call regarding a man with a firearm at the Danforth GO Station, 213 Main Street, Toronto. At 1:47 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) and Witness Official (WO) #1 arrived in the area and located a man [later identified to be the Complainant] in possession of a firearm. He was in a stairwell, which led to Track Three, on the south side of the station. There was an interaction between the Complainant and the officers, in the course of which the SO discharged his firearm striking the Complainant. Toronto Emergency Medical Services (EMS) transported the Complainant to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH), where he was pronounced deceased at 2:06 a.m.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/12/06 at 2:25 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/12/06 at 4:09 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

32-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witness

CW #1 Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on December 9, 2025.

Subject Official

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between December 7, 2025, and December 19, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the underground tunnel of the Danforth GO Station, 213 Main Street, Toronto.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On December 6, 2025, at 5:05 a.m., SIU forensic services arrived at the Danforth GO Station, 213 Main Street, Toronto. The scene was cordoned off and protected by TPS uniformed police officers. The Danforth GO Station was located on the east side of Main Street, approximately 200 metres south of Danforth Avenue. There were three entrances into the station, with the main entrance on the west side of the station, north of the three train tracks and on Platform 1. This entrance was accessed via a walkway that started on Main Street, north of the station, and continued south, parallel to Main Street, and then onto Platform 1. From the main entrance were stairs down to an underground pedestrian tunnel area where there were stairs leading up to Platforms 2 and 3, as well as a set of stairs leading up to an exit.

The shooting incident occurred on the stairs that accessed the exit at the southern end of the underground pedestrian tunnel. The scene was photographed, and a cursory search was conducted for a wallet (with negative results). A quantity of money was on the stairs above the middle landing. There were two piles of clothing, one on the southeast corner of the middle landing and the first step above the landing, and the second on the northwest corner of the middle landing. Both piles were searched for a wallet with negative results.

SIU forensic services attended SMH to fingerprint the deceased and liaise with the TPS to check the fingerprints for identification purposes.

SIU forensic services attended TPS 55 Division and collected the subject official’s use of force equipment.

The scene was measured with a 3D scanner, and all identified exhibits were collected. Three bullet impact strikes were identified on the northeast area of the stairwell. Two impacts were on a steel post on the north side at the top of the stairs and the third was on a steel post on the northeast corner of the pedestrian walkway at the east end of the hall.

The following exhibits were identified, photographed and collected by SIU forensic services:

• A
• A black “Glock” CO2 powered BB gun (in pieces – frame, slide, grip cover, spring, two loose BBs), located on the middle landing area of the stairs
• $425 in assorted bills, three baggies containing suspected drugs, two lighters, an empty black cannabis container, assorted medical debris and a pen
• Seven silver .40 calibre cartridge cases located at various areas of the lower stairs and the pedestrian walkway at the bottom of the stairs
• Lead projectile fragments, which were in various areas of the lower set of stairs
• Copper projectiles located at various areas of the lower set of stairs

Photograph of the Weapon Recovered:

Image taken by SIU forensic services of black “Glock” CO2 powered BB gun located on the middle landing area of the staircase

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

BWC Footage

On December 6, 2025, starting at about 1:13:12 a.m., the SO entered a building [now known to be the Danforth GO Station, 213 Main Street East, Toronto]. En route, he was radioed a description of a person reported to have a gun.

Starting at about 1:13:32 a.m., the SO descended a set of stairs, followed by WO #1. No one was visible in the station. The SO advised the dispatcher that he heard people conversing in the area of the tunnel under the tracks. At the bottom of the stairs, a long hallway ran straight ahead, with three hallways running from the right side and two hallways running from the left side of the hallway.

Starting at about 1:14:21 a.m., the SO walked across the first set of hallways that intersected the hallway he was on. A man dressed in a grey boxer-style track suit [now known to be the Complainant] came around the corner from the right side of the second hallway. The Complainant held something in his hands, which he looked at, and the SO said, “Hey, hands up.” The SO lifted his arms to show the Complainant what he wanted. The Complainant placed the item he had in his right hand into the right side of the pouch of his hoodie. The Complainant momentarily placed both hands up in the air, started to walk towards the SO, and said, “No.”

Starting at about 1:14:26 a.m., the Complainant backed up two steps and then ran towards the last hallway, that is, the hallway that ran off the left side of the main hallway [now known to be the staircase to an exit on the south side of the tracks]. As the Complainant turned to his left to run up the staircase, he appeared to remove an item from his hoodie pouch. The SO said, “Drop it.” The Complainant ran up the first flight of stairs.

Starting at about 1:14:29 a.m., before the Complainant reached a landing, he was captured with something in his right hand [now known to be a Glock replica BB gun]. The Complainant pointed out and backwards towards the SO. The SO fired three shots before the Complainant reached the first landing. The SO could be heard to fire a total of seven shots. The SO broadcast, “Shots fired.” The Complainant landed face down at the bottom of the second flight of stairs. Before the Complainant fell to the stairs, an item fell to the floor [now known to be a Glock replica BB gun].

Starting at about 1:14:46 a.m., the SO kicked the BB gun to the side, and said, “Don’t move.” The SO told WO #1 to put gloves on, after which he gave detailed directions to dispatch on how police officers could get to the shooting scene. The SO kept his service weapon pointed at the Complainant, and he instructed WO #1 to check the Complainant and make sure he did not have any other weapons.

Starting at about 1:16 a.m., the SO put on a pair of gloves, and WO #1 and the SO moved the Complainant onto his back. The Complainant was unconscious and not breathing and his torso was covered in blood. The SO started to perform chest compressions.

Starting at about 1:17:38 a.m., another police officer [now known to be WO #4] took over the chest compressions from the SO. The SO gave directions for the protection of the cartridge cases and told the police officers he did not want too many police officers in the scene.

Starting at about 1:20 a.m., WO #2 arrived on scene, and he requested that the SO and WO #1 go with him. WO #2 asked if the police officers were okay, and he advised dispatch he was taking the two officers back to his police vehicle. The SO requested to go to the hospital, and WO #2 arranged for a police officer to drive WO #1 back to the police station.

Starting at about 1:27 a.m., WO #3 arrived and managed the scene.

Starting at about 1:38 a.m., WO #4 rode in the ambulance to the hospital.

Still image from BWC footage depicting the SO, the Complainant and the Glock replica BB gun in the Complainant’s right hand.

Video Footage from Danforth GO Station - Camera 10

Camera 10 was located at the top of a staircase, which led from the underground tunnel to an exit on the south side of the tracks.

On December 6, 2025, starting at about 1:14:27 a.m., a man wearing a grey hoodie [now known to be the Complainant] ran up the stairs towards a landing halfway up the staircase. Two police officers [now known to be the SO and WO #1] ran behind the Complainant. The SO, several steps behind the Complainant, drew his firearm and pointed it at the Complainant in a two-handed shooting stance. WO #1 was a few steps behind the SO.

Starting at about 1:14:29 a.m., the Complainant extended his right arm, with a black object in his right hand, behind him towards the SO, twisting his upper torso in the process. The SO ascended the first few stairs and appeared to discharge his firearm multiple times. The Complainant dropped the black object [now known to be a Glock-type replica BB gun] in his right hand, which broke into separate pieces on impact with the floor. The Complainant fell across the landing onto the next set of stairs. The SO kicked away the BB gun at the Complainant’s feet. WO #1 searched the Complainant’s body as the SO kept his firearm pointed at the Complainant. The Complainant shifted subtly.

Starting at about 1:16:41 a.m., the SO and WO #1 lifted the Complainant’s limp body to the landing face-up. A pool of blood was visible on the steps. The SO began chest compressions.

Starting at about 1:21 a.m., Toronto Fire Services arrived on scene.

Starting at about 1:23 a.m., EMS arrived on scene. The Complainant was transferred to a stretcher, and chest compressions continued.

Starting at about 1:32 a.m., the Complainant was transported through the passenger tunnel and out of view.

Communications Recordings

On December 6, 2025, at 1:08 a.m., the CW called the TPS 911 line and advised the call-taker that there was a man wearing a white hoodie and holding a black handgun inside the Danforth GO Station. The communications supervisor and Emergency Task Force were notified.

Starting at about 1:09:29 a.m., the SO and WO #1 were dispatched along with WO #2.

Starting at about 1:13:44 a.m., the SO advised that they were inside the building. He did not see anyone but could hear voices from the tunnel underneath. He advised he was heading down to the tunnel.

Starting at about 1:14:09 a.m., WO #2 asked for the location of the person who reported the incident as the police officers needed to speak to him.

Starting at about 1:14:43 a.m., the SO broadcast, “Shot fired.”

Starting at about 1:15.02 a.m., the SO said that he was in the stairs on the south side, and the suspect was down. A request was made for EMS.

Starting at about 1:16:26 a.m., the SO broadcast that no police officers were injured. He asked for a rush on the EMS as the person who was shot was unconscious and not breathing.

Starting at about 1:29:28 a.m., EMS was said to be on scene.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between December 6, 2025, and December 22, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• BWC footage
• Video footage from the Danforth Go Station
• Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report
• Civilian Witness List
• Civilian Witness Statement Summary
• General Occurrence Report
• Ontario Forensic Pathology Services Identification of the Complainant
• Notes – WO #1, WO #4, WO #2 and WO #3
• Next-of-kin information
• TPS Involvement / History with the Complainant
• TPS policies – Arrest; Use of Force
• Use of Force Qualifications – the SO

Materials Obtained from Other Sources.

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between December 8, 2025, and December 10, 2025:

• Ambulance Call Report from Toronto EMS
• Video footage from Danforth GO Station

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with a police eyewitness, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.

At about 1:10 a.m., December 6, 2025, the SO, accompanied by WO #1, arrived on the premises of the Danforth GO Station. A transit user – the CW – had contacted police to report a male inside the station with a gun. The CW had exited a train shortly after 1:00 a.m. and was in the underground tunnel of the station when he observed a male loading a magazine into what he believed was a handgun.

The male was the Complainant. He was wearing a grey hoodie and in possession of a BB gun. It is unclear what he was doing at the train station at the time.

The SO and WO #1 made their way to the entrance at the west side of the station and descended a set of stairs to the underground tunnel that provided access via other staircases to Platforms 2 and 3 of the station and an exit at the southern end of the tunnel. The officers were in the tunnel beside the stairs to Platforms 2 and 3 when the Complainant appeared from around a corner south of their location and took a few steps towards them. The Complainant was ordered to raise his hands and he did so, but only for a moment before he turned away and ran around a nearby corner to the exit stairs.

Led by the SO, the officers gave chase as the Complainant ran up the first flight of a staircase towards a midpoint landing. As he did so, the Complainant retrieved a BB gun with his right hand from the front pouch of his hoodie and swung his right arm to the side and backwards in the SO’s direction. At about this time, the officer, his firearm pointed at the Complainant and standing below him on the staircase, ordered the Complainant to drop the gun and fired seven times in his direction. The time was 1:14 a.m.

The Complainant was struck multiple times. He fell on the first steps that continued upwards past the landing, dropping the BB gun in the process.

The officers repositioned the Complainant on the landing and the SO administered chest compressions. Additional officers arrived on scene, followed by firefighters and paramedics, and assisted with emergency first aid.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and pronounced deceased at 2:02 a.m.

Cause of Death

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

Section 34, Criminal Code of Canada - 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 passed away on December 6, 2025, as a result of a gunshot wound inflicted by a TPS officer. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming the SO the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s death.

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.

I am satisfied that the SO fired his gun to protect himself from a reasonably apprehended attack by the Complainant. Though the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU to provide that evidence firsthand, as was his legal right, his mindset is safely inferred from the circumstances at the time, namely, an individual running from apprehension and pointing a “gun” in his direction. The “gun”, a BB gun, gave the appearance of an actual firearm and the SO would have had no reason to think otherwise.

The evidence also establishes that the SO’s act of self-defence, namely, the discharge of seven shots fired at the Complainant, constituted reasonable force. The shots, fired in rapid succession from a distance of no more than about three to four metres, occurred as the Complainant drew his BB gun and swung it in the SO’s direction. During that time, the officer would have believed that he was at imminent risk of death or grievous bodily harm from a firearm and that what was required was the Complainant’s immediate incapacitation. The option available to the SO with the best chance of doing just that was his gun. On this record, I am satisfied that the SO did not act with excess when he chose to meet a reasonably apprehended 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: April 2, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit