The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) has determined that an Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) officer who discharged his weapon during an incident in Camden East earlier this year did not commit a criminal offence in doing so.
In his report dated Monday, May 5, 2025, SIU Director Joseph Martino describes how on Friday, Jan. 17, 2025, at 6:58 p.m., the OPP (East Region) contacted the SIU to inform them that, at about 6:30 p.m. that same night, OPP officers from Lennox & Addington County had responded to an address in Camden East. In the course of subsequent events, a male was reportedly shot by one or more officers and transported to Kingston General Hospital (KGH) in serious condition. The report concludes that the man was shot by an officer who was protecting himself and others from a knife attack.
According to the report, in the late afternoon of January 17, OPP officers were dispatched to a house in Camden East. At 5:06 p.m., the OPP received a 911 call from a man, referred to in the report as the Civilian Witness (CW), saying he had been threatened with a knife and that a 41-year-old male was "going nuts" and trying to hurt him. In the report, the 41-year-old man is referred to as the Complainant.
At 5:13 p.m., another witness called 911, reporting a strange phone call with the Complainant. The caller mentioned a history of conflict between the Complainant and the CW, and said they had been drinking. This witness also shared a concerning text from the Complainant saying he might harm the CW. The caller was not sure if the threat was serious.
Dispatch relayed the information to responding units, noting the presence of firearms at the residence and prior incidents, including the Complainant attempting self-harm.
Body-worn camera footage was submitted to the SIU from seven of the responding officers. The footage showed that when an officer knocked on the door, the Complainant greeted the officers at the door holding two knives, one in each hand, and told them they were not allowed inside, according to Martino's report. The officers tried to de-escalate the situation, but the Complainant continued to back them out of the house.
One officer communicated with the Complainant for the next hour trying to convince him to surrender peacefully. During this time, the Complainant could be seen expressing a mix of anger and sadness, according to the report. He was visibly intoxicated and continued to hold the knives. At one point, the Complainant showed the officers a BB gun, claiming it was harmless, before retreating into the house.
As the standoff continued, the report notes that officers attempted to negotiate with the Complainant, who repeatedly threatened to confront them with the knives.
At 6:22 p.m., Emergency Response Team (ERT) officers arrived on the scene. The Complainant became increasingly hostile, making aggressive remarks towards the officers and the ERT members. He openly taunted them and threatened to rush them. Officers established an action line in front of the entrance to the residence, making it clear that force would be used if the Complainant stepped towards them.
At 6:26 p.m., according to the report, the Complainant opened the door and walked outside with both knives in hand, moving towards the officers. A series of gunshots and ARWEN (Anti-Riot Weapon ENfield) shots were fired. The Complainant collapsed. The ERT immediately approached him, providing first aid after discovering the man had gunshot wounds to his leg and back, with the wound to his back passing through the chest cavity. He was stabilized, and at that time, he was “responsive and talking,” Martino's report notes. The Complainant was placed on a stretcher and transported by ambulance with a police escort to Kingston General Hospital (KGH).
The report indicates that the SIU dispatched a team at 7:13 p.m. that same night, Friday, Jan. 17, 2025; they arrived on scene at 9:49 p.m. The six-member squad --- three SIU investigators and three SIU forensic investigators --- investigated the scene.
The report notes that the CW was interviewed on January 20, 2025. Seven "Witness Officials" (police officers) were also interviewed between January 23 and 24, 2025. The Complainant was interviewed on March 10, 2025, and his medical records were obtained and reviewed as part of the investigation.
The report notes, “SO declined [to provide an] interview and notes, as is the subject official’s legal right.” The SO is the “Subject Official” or officer under investigation.
According to the report, the SIU recovered two 9 mm cartridge cases at the scene.
In addition, six ARWEN cartridge cases were “dispersed across the driveway and leading up to a house entrance door.” The report notes that the distribution of these less-lethal rounds suggested that officers discharged them while positioned on the driveway.
Two knives were identified and marked at the scene: a wood-handled knife near the entrance door, and a red-handled knife found nearby. A damaged Crosman CO2 pistol (airgun) was outside the entrance door.
According to the report, the SIU also collected the SO’s Glock 17M pistol for further analysis.
On his assessment of the evidence, SIU Director Martino determined there were no reasonable grounds to believe that an officer committed a criminal offence in connection with the shooting. Section 34 of the Criminal Code provides that conduct that would otherwise constitute an offence is legally justified if it was intended to deter a reasonably apprehended assault, actual or threatened, and was itself reasonable.
The report establishes that when the SO arrived with other officers at about 5:20 p.m., he knocked on a door and observed the Complainant inside. The Complainant held a knife in each hand, was inebriated at the time, and was mentally unwell. Over the next hour or so, the SO repeatedly implored the Complainant to drop the knives and come outside. Knowing a little about the Complainant from prior dealings, the officer attempted to develop a rapport and de-escalate the situation.
“I am also satisfied that the defensive force used by the SO was reasonable in the circumstances. Having tried in vain over about an hour to de-escalate the situation, the SO would have been rightly concerned that the Complainant would not be appeased and that a confrontation was a distinct possibility,” writes Martino. “That confrontation, when and if it occurred, might well involve the use of a knife or knives by the Complainant, putting the lives of the officers around him directly at risk."
Martino concludes, “The Complainant was advancing on the officers quickly and was within striking distance of the officers when the SO fired his weapon… given the speed with which events unfolded, the SO did not have the luxury of time… In the final analysis, the evidence establishes that the SO acted in a fashion commensurate with the exigencies of the moment when he chose to meet a real and present danger of grievous bodily harm or death with a resort to lethal force of his own.”
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.
Kingstonist inquired with the SIU as to the status of the Complainant in this case, as Martino's report does not include a definitive conclusion on the Complainant's condition after being taken to KGH. According to the SIU, the man survived his injuries.
https://www.pentictonherald.ca/spare_ne ... ebd5a.html