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 serious injury of a 42-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 2, 2026, at 10:15 p.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On July 2, 2026, at approximately 7:00 a.m., Civilian Witness (CW) #1 called 911 to report that his girlfriend, CW #2, had contacted him indicating that she was being held hostage at a residence in the area of Old Second Line Road and Old Carp Road, Ottawa. CW #2 said that the Complainant was holding her at knifepoint. The Complainant had reportedly been holding CW #2 hostage since June 29, 2026, refusing to allow her to leave the residence. OPS officers attended the residence at the address and negotiated with the Complainant from the bottom of a staircase on the main floor. The Complainant and CW #2 were in an upstairs bedroom. At 9:00 p.m., after negotiations reached an impasse, OPS officers were authorized to engage the Complainant. An explosive forced-entry device and a distraction device were deployed to gain access to the bedroom. Officers freed CW #2 without injury. The Subject Official (SO) discharged his rifle, striking the Complainant in the right foot. He was transported to the Ottawa Civic Hospital (OCH), where he remained in stable, non-life-threatening condition.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/07/02 at 10:38 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/07/03 at 3:00 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

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

The Complainant was interviewed on July 3, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between July 3, 2026, and July 20, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

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

The witness officials were interviewed between July 20, 2026, and August 12, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a bedroom on the second-floor of a residence in the area of Old Second Line Road and Old Carp Road, Ottawa.

Physical Evidence

SIU forensic services attended the scene on July 3, 2026. The front of the residence had ground-floor windows to the right of the front door, providing access to a living room, with two sets of three windows directly above serving the front bedrooms. The centre window above the living room had been shattered. Debris and what appeared to be foam insulation were scattered across the front lawn below, apparently resulting from the deployment of an explosive breaching device. The front door had been forcibly opened.

The physical evidence inside the house indicated that there had been a shooting at or near the threshold between the hallway and a bedroom on the second-floor. Two .223-calibre cartridge cases were located on the carpeted floor at the corner formed by two doorframes.

SIU forensic services identified projectile damage to the closet wall opposite the bedroom doorway. Three defects were observed in the drywall, with the upper and lower defects determined to be consistent with projectile impacts. The trajectory indicated that the upper defect was likely caused by a projectile that passed through the drywall and inner wall space on a forward and downward trajectory from the doorway. The projectile then passed through the inner closet drywall and continued downward into the closet floor. This impact aligned with a defect in the living room ceiling directly below the bedroom closet. The projectile continued downward and forward across the living room, striking the upper edge of a couch back before impacting the living room wall. The lower projectile penetrated the drywall and became lodged in a wall stud. Both projectiles entered the closet wall at a downward angle from the direction of the doorway, indicating that the firearm was discharged from the hallway or doorway area into the bedroom. The trajectory evidence suggested that the firearm was pointed downward when the shots were fired.

Against the right wall of the hallway extension, investigators located a black, plastic-handled, extendable-blade utility knife, commonly referred to as a box cutter. The blade was partially extended but appeared to have broken off at the handle.

Image 1 - C8 rifle cartridge cases (Source: SIU)

Image 2 - Box Cutter (Source: SIU)

SIU forensic services located two 30-round polymer magazines on the bed, each containing 28 live .223-calibre cartridges.

Forensic Evidence

The carbine and cartridge cases were submitted to Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) for testing. The report confirmed that the firearm functioned as designed in semi-automatic mode and that its safety mechanism also functioned as designed. The cartridge cases could neither be identified nor eliminated as having been fired from the same firearm or the submitted carbine.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Police Communications Recordings

On July 2, 2026, at 7:05 a.m., CW #1 contacted 911 and reported that CW #2 was being held hostage by the Complainant, who was armed with a knife.

At 9:05 a.m., CW #2 contacted police directly but indicated that she was unable to come downstairs.

At 11:27 a.m., police negotiators assumed communications with the Complainant and continued negotiations through the day.

At 7:16 p.m., it was reported that the Complainant had threatened to shoot police and challenged officers to come upstairs.

At about 9:00 p.m., the Tactical Unit (TU) initiated a rescue operation. At that time, reports indicated that shots had been fired.

By 9:02 p.m., dispatch advised that the Complainant had been shot and taken into custody.

The Complainant was reported to have sustained a gunshot wound and was transported to hospital at approximately 9:16 p.m.

OPS Drone Footage

The drone footage showed an aerial recording of the residence. Approximately 29 seconds into the recording, smoke was observed exiting the upper-floor windows of the residence and three uniform officers quickly exited the front door and took positions in front of the neighbouring garage. Movement from flashlights was visible in the upper windows.

Approximately 12 minutes into the recording, TU officers carried the Complainant from the residence on a stretcher. He appeared to be handcuffed behind the back and remained seated upright as he was transferred onto a stretcher and loaded into an ambulance.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPS between July 8, 2026, and August 5, 2026:

• Police communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• General Occurrence Report
• Arrest Report
• Bail Release
• Notes – the SO, WO #8, WO #3, WO #6, WO #2, WO #7, WO #5, WO #1, WO #4, Officer #1 and Officer #2
• Body-worn camera footage – Officer #3
• In-car camera footage
• Drone footage
• Door camera footage – residence
• Forensic Identification Report – Officer #4 and Officer #5
• OPS witness statements – the Complainant, CW #2, Civilian #1 and CW #1
• WhatsApp audio messages – the Complainant
• OPS policies – Arrest; Use of Force; Firearms Discharge

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between July 16, 2026, and August 4, 2026.

• The Complainant’s medical records from OCH
• Ottawa Paramedic Service Incident Report

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the morning of July 2, 2026, OPS officers were dispatched to a residence in the area of Old Second Line Road and Old Carp Road, Ottawa. CW #1 had contacted police to report that his girlfriend – CW #2 – was being held hostage at the residence by a family member’s ex-husband – the Complainant. CW #2 had managed to contact CW #1 with her predicament, noting that the Complainant was in possession of a knife.

Arriving officers set up containment around the house and attempted to communicate with the Complainant. From a second-floor bedroom, the Complainant refused to surrender and indicated police would have to kill him. An officer at the base of the staircase to the second-floor observed the Complainant with his arm around CW #2’s neck.

Under the command of WO #4, OPS TU officers were deployed to take charge of police operations at the residence. Negotiations continued over a period of hours to no avail. From upstairs, the Complainant threatened to shoot officers. CW #2 was heard crying and pleading to be release.

At about 8:45 p.m., a plan was developed by the TU and agreed by WO #4. TU officers would deploy distraction devices in the area of the bedroom in which the Complainant and CW #2 were thought to be, after which they would storm upstairs to rescue the hostage and take the Complainant into custody.

At about 9:00 p.m., an explosive device was set off from outside a second-floor bedroom window, causing the glass to shatter. TU officers began to make their way up the staircase, led by the SO, at which time a distraction device was set off in the upstairs hallway. The Complainant emerged from a bedroom doorway and advanced on the SO, grabbing him in a type of bear hug around the upper legs. The officer aimed the C8 rifle he was holding downward and fired twice at the Complainant, striking him once in the lower right leg. The Complainant released his hold of the SO and was physically engaged by several TU officers. The ensuing struggle moved through the doorway into the bedroom. The Complainant resisted arrest and was struck several times by multiple officers, including twice in the face by WO #3 with the use of his pistol.

The Complainant was handcuffed behind the back and treated on scene by a tactical paramedic. He was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a comminuted fracture of the right distal tibia caused by a bullet.

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 seriously injured on July 2, 2026, the result of police gunfire. 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 injuries.

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 SO was lawfully placed and engaged in the exercise of his duties through the series of events at the residence culminating in the shooting. The deployment of TU officers at the scene made sense. The Complainant was holding a woman hostage and had given the police every reason to believe he was armed with a knife and firearm. The TU decision to storm the upstairs when they did also made sense. Negotiations had been ongoing for most of the day without any progress and with no end in sight, and the hostage’s condition was becoming an acute concern.

I am satisfied that the SO fired his weapon believing it was necessary to protect himself from a reasonably apprehended attack. The officer did not provide that evidence firsthand in an interview with the SIU, as was his legal right, but the inference is safely drawn from the circumstantial evidence. With the Complainant’s arms wrapped around his body, not knowing whether he was still in possession of the knife and/or firearm he claimed to have, any reasonable person would have feared for their life and taken steps to defend themselves.

I am also satisfied that the manner in which the SO chose to defend himself, namely, two shots fired from his C8 rifle, was reasonable in the circumstances. It is unclear whether the Complainant was actually armed with a weapon when he took hold of the officer. The SO says that he saw the Complainant with a black object in his right hand as he wrapped his arms around the officer’s legs, but was unsure whether it was a gun or knife. Believing his life to be in immediate peril, he fired twice in a downward direction towards the Complainant. No firearm was recovered at the scene, but the “object” the SO says he saw could have been a knife. A box cutter was found on the floor of the bedroom in which the Complainant was arrested. Be that as it may, until the SO could be sure that the Complainant, who had claimed to have a knife and firearm, was not in fact armed with a weapon that could inflict grievous bodily harm or death, he was within his rights in repelling what was a reasonably apprehended lethal threat with a resort to lethal force of his own. As for the strikes to the Complainant following the gunfire, delivered by the SO, WO #8, WO #1, and (with his pistol) WO #3, I am unable to reasonably conclude they constituted unlawful force based on evidence that the Complainant resisted arrest and even grabbed at officers’ firearms during the struggle to secure him in handcuffs. There was a need to use sharp force to quickly subdue the Complainant given the continuing concern about his access to weapons.

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

Date: October 30, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit