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 26-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 13, 2025, at 11:36 p.m., the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On December 13, 2025, the NRPS received information from the Peel Regional Police (PRP) of an investigation they were conducting into a wanted man – the Complainant - for an intimate partner violence and firearms discharge incident on December 12, 2025. PRP had sought the assistance of the Repeat Offender Parole Enforcement (ROPE) team for surveillance purposes, while PRP prepared a search warrant and a Feeney warrant.[2] At 5:45 p.m., ROPE officers advised NRPS of their presence at an address in the area of Ontario Road and King Street, Welland, where they confirmed the presence of the Complainant at an apartment. At 9:15 p.m., NRPS Emergency Task Unit (ETU) officers responded to the area and set up containment. At 10:11 p.m., the Complainant became aware of the officers’ presence and began discharging a handgun at them. ETU officers returned fire and deployed a form of gas into the apartment in an effort to incapacitate the Complainant. The Complainant subsequently jumped out of a second-floor window onto the street, and ETU officers discharged multiple C8 rifle rounds at the Complainant while he was on the sidewalk. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) arrived and rendered care. The Complainant was pronounced deceased.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/12/14 at 12:06 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/12/14 at 12:20 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

26-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

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between December 14, 2025, and January 23, 2026.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and did not authorize release of notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 Declined interview and did not authorize release of notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #3 Declined interview and did not authorize release of notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #4 Declined interview and did not authorize release of notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #5 Declined interview and did not authorize release of notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #6 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SO #6 was interviewed on April 7, 2026.

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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #7 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #8 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #9 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #10 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #11 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #12 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between December 17, 2025, and January 29, 2026.

Investigative Delay

Delay was incurred owing to resource pressures in the Director’s Office.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around an address in the area of Ontario Road and King Street, Welland.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

On December 14, 2025, at 12:28 a.m., SIU forensic services arrived at the scene - a detached building with multiple apartment units. The building was on a two-way roadway with additional residences and commercial properties. There was an access lane along the north side of the building to parking at the rear (west) of the address. The upper floor units had a stairway that was accessed by a door on the side of the building.

The attending coroner had arrived on scene and pronounced the Complainant deceased at 2:43 a.m. Noted were numerous visible injuries that appeared to be gunshot wounds.

The Complainant lay on the west sidewalk at a drive entrance to a parking area south of the building. North of his location, on the sidewalk, was a damaged black handgun. Further north along the sidewalk were cartridge cases, a pistol magazine and shards of broken glass.

The upper windows of the unit at the side of the building were broken. On the roadway facing south was an armed response vehicle (ARV). Anti-riot Weapon ENfield (ARWEN) cartridge cases were at the rear and east side of the ARV. On the north side of the address, near the side access door, were additional ARWEN cartridge cases as well as rifle cartridge cases.

The side access door of the building showed damage consistent with being forced open. The door gave access to a set of stairs that travelled up to a landing. The walls and ceiling of the stairwell had defects that appeared to be from firearm impacts. The entry door to the unit showed damage at the latch and lock area. A single shotgun shell was on the floor to the southeast of the doorway. It appeared that a shotgun slug was used to breach the door to the apartment. A strong chemical residue was present inside the apartment, apparently from the deployment of CS[3] gas to the interior.

Damage was noted to the windows of the apartment. Several ARWEN CS projectiles and a .22 cartridge case were observed within the interior of the unit.

Digital images, video and a scan were completed to document the incident scene.

In the rear compartment of the ARV was a single shot ARWEN launcher. The device, also referred to as an ARWEN “ACE”, was reportedly used to launch CS gas projectiles into the apartment from the front of the building. The weapon was found to be in proper functioning condition.

The following five police-issued firearms were documented and collected from NRPS Headquarters:

C8 Carbine used by SO #5

C8 Carbine used by SO #3

C8 Carbine used by SO #2

C8 Carbine used by SO #4

C8 Carbine used by SO #1

The affixed magazines and ammunition for each rifle were also collected. Because of uncertainty in the number of rounds initially contained in the magazines, an accurate round count for the number of shots discharged was not possible. It was confirmed that only C8 rifles had been discharged during the gunfire exchange with the Complainant.

A total of 18 5.56mm cartridge cases were located and collected from the front and side of the building. Ten 37mm ARWEN cartridge cases and eight ARWEN projectiles were located and collected.

A total of six .22 calibre cartridge cases were located and collected from the side stairwell and interior of the apartment. A total of five live .22 calibre rounds were located at the scene (four rounds in magazine and one loose round). A Taurus TX .22 calibre semi-automatic handgun was also collected.

Image taken by SIU forensic services of one of the five C8 rifles involved in the event

Based on the collection of cartridge cases, at least 18 shots were fired from the five C8 rifles carried by the NRPS subject officials. Of these 18 discharges, 15 projectiles and fragments were recovered from the Complainant during the postmortem in badly deformed or damaged condition.

The five NRPS C8 carbine rifles were collected by the SIU. As it was believed initially that at least one of the rifles made physical contact with the Complainant, swabs were taken from the muzzle areas.

Forensic Evidence

On January 2, 2026, the six fired .22 calibre cartridge cases collected at the scene were delivered to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) and accepted for testing. The results of the testing identified the cases, within the limits of practical certainty, as having been fired by the Taurus TX pistol

In discussions with the CFS, the five C8 rifles were not submitted for examination as it was unlikely that the individual projectiles recovered at the scene could be matched to the individual firearms.

Expert Evidence

Biology Report from CFS

On March 25, 2026, the CFS Biology Report was received by the SIU. Of the five C8 rifle swabs tested, three came back as having the blood or DNA of the Complainant on the barrels. These were submitted in an effort to determine which of the subject officials might have been involved in the use of the gun butt to the Complainant’s head, after he was shot.[4]

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[5]

Communications Recordings – 911

At 10:11 p.m., December 13, 2025, EMS were requested to attend at an address in the area of Ontario Road and King Street. Approximately two minutes later, CW #1 called 911 reporting the sound of three gunshots. She indicated that someone was hurting her neighbour.

At 10:14 p.m., WO #2 called and requested that the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) be contacted and asked for their ARV and the attendance of their tactical personnel. The fire department was subsequently called and asked to stage in the area.[6]

At 10:17 p.m., CW #2 reported a shooting outside her door. EMS were told to make their way to a staging area.

At 11:01 p.m., Child and Family Services were contacted and told to call an involved sergeant.

Communications Recordings – Radio

At 9:58 p.m., December 13, 2025, WO #2 broadcast that the NRPS were lawfully positioned under section 82 and 118 of the Criminal Code. He noted that a Feeney warrant had been issued, and that the Complainant had an outstanding warrant for weapons.

At 10:00 p.m., the mission statement was broadcast indicating that the objective was to isolate, contain and negotiate the surrender of the Complainant.

At 10:07 p.m., lights were seen on in the residence. The outside door to the stairwell was breached.

At 10:08 p.m., a remote camera was operational on the apartment door. As the ARV was moving into position, CW #4 was seen in the window. Negotiators were preparing to call the residence.

At 10:11 p.m., movement was reported at the door. Eight seconds later, it was reported that shots were fired and, another eight seconds later, that ETU officers had returned fire.

At 10:12 p.m., permission to deploy CS gas was granted, but additional shots were fired at the ARV first.

At 10:14 p.m., the first gas round was fired, followed by further gas deployments. The Complainant fired rounds at the ARV. Direction was given to shoot the Complainant if possible, as he was firing on police officers.

At 10:15 p.m., the Complainant was on the ground with his handgun in hand. Ten seconds later, and ambulance was requested for the Complainant.

At 10:34 p.m., the Complainant was deceased and had been covered in a blanket.

Video Footage from Nearby Building #1[7]

The video began at 10:14 p.m., December 13, 2025, with flashing lights and the sound of gunshots. The Complainant was captured falling to the sidewalk in front of the scene. The Complainant got to his knees and stumbled to his feet. A male voice was heard saying, “Police.” The Complainant turned towards the scene and raised his right hand. A male voice said, “Don’t move.” Numerous gunshots were heard. The Complainant fell to the sidewalk face first and the shooting stopped about three seconds later. Tactical officers approached the Complainant from behind. The first police officer to approach the Complainant on his left side - SO #6 - used his C8 rifle to strike downwards towards the Complainant’s head. Six police officers approached the Complainant.

Video Footage from Nearby Building #2

On December 13, 2025, at 10:15 p.m., the video began with shouting and the sound of multiple gunshots. The Complainant fell to the sidewalk in the snow behind a white van. The Complainant was approached by tactical police officers walking from the area of the scene along the same sidewalk where the Complainant had fallen. SO #6 appeared to use his C8 rifle to strike downwards towards the Complainant, three times. A plainclothes officer arrived next and appeared to swing the butt of his rifle towards the Complainant’s upper body.

Video Footage from Surveillance Camera – 1

On December 13, 2025, at 3:39 p.m., an Uber arrived at the driveway of the residence. CW #4 exited. At 3:46 p.m., the driver’s side back door opened and the Complainant exited. He too went into the side door of the residence. The Uber driver exited and assisted in unloading some bags and boxes, and left them near the side door before leaving

Video Footage from Surveillance Camera – 2

At 10:07 p.m., December 13, 2026, several ETU officers approached the side entrance door. A door ram was used to gain entry, and four ETU officers entered the building.

At 10:11 p.m., muzzle flashes were seen from a rifle directed into the building. ETU officers took positions along the side of the building, their firearms pointed in the direction of the building.

At 10:14 p.m., an ETU officer pointed his rifle towards the building, and four shot flashes could be seen.

At 10:15 p.m., six ETU officers ran away from the front door and went out of sight. Moments later, ETU officers returned to the side entrance and CW #4 came out of the building and was escorted away from the area.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the NRPS between December 15, 2025, and January 20, 2026:

• Initial Report 1
• Fingerprints – the Complainant
• Civilian witness statements – CW #6, CW #5, Witness #1 and Witness #2
• Surveillance camera video footage
• Notes – WO #1, WO #3, WO #4, WO #6, WO #7, WO #8, WO #9, WO #10, WO #11, SO #6, WO #5 and WO #12
• Scribe notes - WO #2
• In-car camera footage – Officer #1 and
• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• NRPS policies - Use of Force; Emergency Task Unit; Special Investigations Unit

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between December 16, 2025, and April 8, 2026:

• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• PRP Occurrence Report - December 12, 2025
• PRP - search warrant, arrest warrant, and Feeney warrant
• Biology Report #1 from CFS
• CFS Firearms Report
• Video footage from
• Note – the Complainant
• Report of Postmortem Examination (with CFS Toxicology Report) from Coroner’s Office

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with one of the subject officials (SO #6) and other police and non-police witnesses, and audio and video footage that captured significant portions of the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, SO #1, SO #2, SO #3, SO #4 and SO #5 did not agree interviews with the SIU or the release of their notes.

On December 12, 2025, the Complainant was reportedly involved in an incident of intimate partner violence at a residence in Mississauga with his girlfriend. Thereafter, the parties moved into the back yard of the residence where, at approximately 8:55 p.m., the Complainant discharged a firearm in the air before fleeing the area. This incident precipitated the PRP and ROPE squad officers attempting to locate the Complainant.

The following day, December 13, 2025, the Complainant was located at an address in the area of Ontario Road and King Street, Welland, by ROPE officers. The Complainant was observed arriving at the residence in an Uber accompanied by CW #4. PRP officers subsequently obtained a Feeney warrant authorizing police to enter the residence to arrest the Complainant. ROPE squad officers notified NRPS. Given the Complainant’s violent history, as well as the recent reported use of a firearm, the ETU was dispatched to deal with the Complainant’s arrest.

The operational plan - to isolate, contain and negotiate the surrender of the Complainant - was broadcast over the radio to involved officers.

CW #4 resided at the address, located on the second floor of the building. The apartment was accessible via a rear exterior door leading to a stairway. At the time police attended the residence, CW #4 was present in the residence with her child and the Complainant.

NRPS ETU officers and an ARV arrived at the residence at approximately 10:00 p.m. The officers breached the exterior door to the rear of the residence and deployed a robot equipped with cameras on the landing outside the apartment. Efforts to contact CW #4 via her phone were not successful.

CW #4 heard a noise outside her apartment and went to investigate. Looking down the stairwell, she observed a light bulb suddenly extinguish. A short time later, she saw what she believed to be a police officer dressed in tactical gear through her kitchen window. She told the Complainant that police were outside and moved to the bedroom with her child. The Complainant went to another room in the apartment and returned with a handgun [later identified as a .22 calibre Taurus TX). The Complainant pulled CW #4 to the apartment door and into the hallway at the top of the stairs.

ETU officers armed with rifles were positioned at the bottom of the stairway outside the open exterior door. They identified themselves as police and directed the Complainant to put his hands in the air and drop his weapon. The Complainant’s firearm was initially pointed at CW #4; however, he subsequently turned and pointed it down the stairway towards the officers before firing multiple shots in their direction. Officers returned fire. As this occurred, CW #4 yelled at police not to shoot, advising that her child was present with her. The rounds impacted the drywall within the stairwell and the ballistic shield being carried by WO #6, who was positioned at the bottom of the stairs.

Following the exchange of gunfire, the Complainant retreated into the apartment, pulling CW #4 with him. Police maintained a presence at the base of the stairwell. After obtaining the necessary authorization, officers began to deploy CS gas into the apartment via windows on the side of the residence at approximately 10:14 p.m.

WO #1, who was positioned at the front of the residence in the ARV, exited the vehicle to deploy tear gas. He reported hearing what he believed was a gunshot and the sound of a round passing by his head. A contemporaneous radio communication indicated that the Complainant was firing towards the ARV.

At approximately 10:15 p.m., the Complainant was observed climbing out of a second-floor window at the front of the building. He dropped to the ground and rolled towards the roadway, coming to rest just short of the street. At about the same time, multiple officers positioned to the east, north and south of the residence began to track the Complainant’s movements.

The Complainant rose to his feet and ran away from the ARV and the officers positioned in its vicinity. Police issued verbal commands for him not to move. As the Complainant took several steps, he turned or twisted his upper body to the left and raised his right arm in the direction of the ARV and the officers while continuing to move away from them. Although not clear on the video, which is too far removed from the scene to capture this level of detail, officers reported that the Complainant was holding a handgun in his hand and pointing it towards the officers as he ran away from them. Multiple gunshots were fired, striking the Complainant and causing him to fall forward onto his stomach. He slid a short distance after falling and then remained prone on his stomach as shots continued to ring out for about three seconds.

At approximately the same time, a radio transmission was broadcast indicating that the Complainant was on the ground and had a gun in his hand.

SO #6 was the first officer to reach the Complainant, seconds after the gunfire concluded. At that time, the Complainant’s hands were concealed underneath his body, and officers did not know the location of his firearm or whether he was alive or deceased. In an effort to address the perceived threat, SO #6 struck him once to the head and twice to the shoulder area with his firearm. Additional officers then approached and converged on the Complainant. His handgun was observed to still be in his hand and was subsequently kicked away from him. The gun appeared to have sustained damage consistent with having been struck by a bullet.

Police secured the Complainant in handcuffs behind the back before turning him over and commencing first aid.

A .22 calibre handgun was recovered at the scene in close proximity to where the Complainant fell. Subsequent examination of the firearm indicated that it had sustained damage, which appeared to have occurred at some point during the Complainant’s interaction with the police.

A spent projectile was recovered from the door frame at the bottom of the stairwell, just inside the exterior door, and a second spent projectile was located on the landing floor at the base of the stairs. Five .22 calibre cartridge cases were recovered from the stairwell area and one additional .22 calibre cartridge case from within the apartment.

Three cartridge cases associated with police ETU rifles were located at the bottom of the stairs. A further 15 cartridge cases associated with ETU rifles were found around the front of the residence and near the ARV.

Cause of Death

The pathologist who conducted the autopsy concluded that the Complainant’s death was attributable to multiple gunshot wounds.

During the postmortem examination a handwritten note was recovered from the Complainant’s sock. The note, apparently written by the Complainant, stated that he wrote the note because “the chase was up”. He exonerated CW #4 of any involvement in his possession of firearms and indicated he had threatened her and her children.

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 passed away on December 13, 2025, the result of gunshot wounds inflicted by NRPS officers. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming SO #1, SO #2, SO #3, SO #4, SO #5 and SO #6 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 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 at all points during the incident the involved police officers were positioned lawfully. The Complainant was wanted for an incident the day before where he had reportedly discharged a firearm at another residence in the course of intimate partner violence. On this basis, it was reasonable to believe that the Complainant possessed a weapon and that he was prepared to use it. The police had reliable information that the Complainant and CW #4 were located at the residence in Welland. Police sought and obtained judicial authorization to enter the residence where they believed the Complainant was located. Police formulated and disseminated a plan to take the Complainant into custody peacefully. In light of the background, including the discharge of a firearm, police opted to deploy the ETU team along with the ARV. When the Complainant initiated the exchange of gunfire, by firing down the stairway towards police officers, he committed a further criminal offence.

I am also satisfied that SO #1, SO #2, SO #3, SO #4 and SO #5 fired their weapons in the course of the incident to defend themselves and other officers from a reasonably apprehended attack.

The Complainant shot repeatedly at officers who had attended at the bottom of the stairs. He decided to shoot at them despite their instructions to him to put his hands in the air and to put his weapon down. The only tool at the disposal of the officers present with the stopping power capable of ending the threat posed by the Complainant were their firearms. With respect to the number of shots fired from the bottom of the stairs, about three in total from SO #4 and SO #5, there is no reason in the evidence to believe these were more than were warranted. This level of force was a measured response to the shots fired at the officers by the Complainant.

Officers then opted to deploy CS gas, a less-lethal use of force, presumably, to encourage the Complainant to surrender, thereby ending the threat he posed. There is evidence to suggest that the Complainant was not dissuaded by this force and continued to fire at police present in front of the residence after CS gas had been deployed and before he climbed out of the window and dropped to the street.

As it relates to the final volley of gunshots fired by police, the evidence is that after having fired at officers multiple times down the stairwell and from within the residence at the ARV, once on the street the Complainant turned and pointed his firearm at officers as he was moving away from the group of officers positioned at the front of the residence. At this point the threat posed by the Complainant was changing and, should he have escaped, he would have posed a significant danger to the public and police beyond those present in the immediate area of the residence. Based on the audio track on the video capturing the Complainant’s movements on the street, it appears that police opened fire only after the Complainant turned and pointed a firearm in the direction of officers. Additionally, and based on the same audio, it appears that the officers ceased shooting seconds after the Complainant fell to the ground. Consequently, and despite uncertainty as to who fired their rifles and how many rounds any given officer fired, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the shots were disproportionate to the threat the Complainant posed to the officers present at the scene and to the public at large should he have been successful in evading apprehension. In this regard, it is worth reiterating that only moments prior, the Complainant had used CW #4 as a type of human shield, placing her in the line of fire as he shot at officers at the bottom of the staircase.

I pause here to deal with the issue of the damage observed to the Complainant’s weapon after he was shot and to deal with the possibility that it was inoperative by this point in the incident. In my view, even if the Complainant’s handgun was inoperative by the time he landed on the ground, this is not something that could have been readily discerned by the involved officers. Additionally, the Complainant continued to handle the firearm as if it were operative, by pointing it at police. In all of the circumstances, even if the Complainant’s gun was inoperative by the time he was on the ground outside the residence, I am satisfied that the officers had no way to know this and had good reason to think that he continued to pose a lethal threat to them and to the public.

As it relates to SO #6’s strikes as he approached a prone Complainant, I am satisfied with his explanation and believe that his use of force was reasonable. SO #6 was aware that the Complainant had fired his gun at police from the top of the stairwell. Additionally, he took cover when he received information over his radio that the Complainant had fired shots out of a window at the ARV. When SO #6 heard over his radio that the Complainant had jumped out the front window of his residence and was holding his firearm, he commenced his movement to the front of the residence and heard a volley of shots but did not know who was firing. The officer would not have known where the firearm was as he arrived at the Complainant’s location. In the circumstances, and out of a stated concern that the Complainant may be concealing the firearm and “playing possum”, SO #6 opted to strike the Complainant with the suppressor at the end of the barrel of his rifle in the head and shoulder. As noted above, I accept SO #6’s account. I am satisfied with his explanation for the reason that much of what he observed, and acted on, can be seen on video, heard on radio transmissions and is consistent with the observations of other similarly situated officers. The situation was dynamic and brief, and the Complainant had repeatedly fired at police. When he approached the prone Complainant, SO #6 could not have known whether the Complainant continued to pose a threat. Using the suppressor and barrel end of his rifle to strike the Complainant in his head and shoulder made sense in the circumstances.

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

Before closing the file, I note for the record evidence of a possible contravention by SO #6 of section 12 of the Police Code of Conduct in relation to language he is alleged to have used in speaking with CW #4 in the aftermath of the shooting. I will refer this matter to the police service for their review. Further to section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring the matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: October 16, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit