Cop shot at hammer-wielding man but missed, striking civilian vehicle on busy GTA highway instead: SIU

A yellow-handled claw hammer (left) found at the scene of a police interaction in Mississauga and a White BMW with a bullet impact marked on the front passenger quarter panel. (Special Investigations Unit)

A Peel police officer who fired his gun in an attempt to subdue a hammer-wielding man but instead struck a civilian vehicle on a busy highway in Mississauga last summer has been cleared by the province’s police watchdog.

Joseph Martino, the director of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), released on Friday his findings into the June 24 incident that occurred on Highway 403 involving a plainclothes Peel police officer and a 36-year-old man.

Martino concluded that he found no reasonable grounds to believe that the officer committed a criminal offence when he fired a single shot at the man but missed, resulting in a private vehicle being hit.

The SIU director detailed what happened that summer evening using evidence collected by investigators, which included interviews with the 36-year-old man, eyewitnesses and police officers, alongside video footage that captured parts of the incident. The agency noted that the officer designated as the subject official (SO) in the report did not agree to be interviewed as his legal right but only authorized the release of his notes.

FULL REPORT: SIU Completes Investigation into Peel Police Officer’s Discharge of Firearm at Man in Mississauga

According to the SIU, the 36-year-old man, identified in the report as the complainant, was driving a Ford Fusion on the northbound lanes of Highway 403 while intoxicated. He was with another man who was in the front passenger seat.

The SIU said the complainant drove his vehicle into a barrier on the highway. As a result, the Ford, which sustained heavy front-end damage, came to a stop by the wall.

Around that time, two plainclothes officers in an unmarked Hyundai Tucson who were heading to the site of a surveillance detail had entered the northbound lanes of the highway and saw the collision.

The officers pulled over a short distance away from the collision scene. They exited and retrieved their police vests. “It was their intention to render assistance to the Ford’s occupants,” the SIU said.

Meanwhile, the complainant had gotten out of the Ford and was seen carrying a yellow-handled hammer. After collecting himself, he walked across lanes towards the officer’s Hyundai and was first confronted by the SO.

“Noticing the hammer in his hand, the SO drew his firearm and ordered the complainant to stop and drop the weapon. The complainant continued to advance, and the officer soon found himself backtracking along the passenger side of the Hyundai,” the SIU said.

When the complainant reached the front of the vehicle, he began to walk toward the driver’s side, where the other officer (identified as witness official, or WO, #1 In the report) was.

“The officer, his gun also drawn, retreated backwards while directing the complainant to drop the hammer. The complainant continued to walk forward and had reached the area of the open driver’s door when the SO fired a single shot,” the SIU said.

The bullet missed the complainant, who was entering the driver’s seat of the Hyundai, and instead travelled through the rear driver-side corner of the Hyundai and struck the front passenger side quarter panel of a stopped BMW, the SIU said. No person was hit by the shot.

Subsequently, the complainant restarted the police vehicle and began to drive it slowly. WO # 1 chased after the Hyundai and entered through the open window.

“As the two struggled inside the vehicle, the officer was able to remove the keys and the Hyundai coasted slowly towards the east shoulder of the highway, where it came to a rest,” the SIU said.

The SO shortly joined in the struggle, deploying his Taser. The SIU said the officers also used hand and knee strikes to remove the complainant from the vehicle and subdue him before putting him in handcuffs.

While no one was seriously injured in the police interaction, the SIU invoked its mandate as a firearm was discharged.

In the report, SIU Director Martino wrote that the nature and extent of the single shot fired by the SO was reasonable, saying that the complainant, armed with a hammer, kept advancing at the officers despite repeated orders that he drop it.

“He had been given a reasonable opportunity to drop the weapon and was within three to four metres of WO #1 when the SO fired his weapon. At that moment, the SO had a difficult decision to make,” he said.

Martino recognized that the scene was a highly congested highway with motorists who could be at risk of getting injured or dying from a gunshot.

“On the other hand, the complainant was within a step or two of launching a potentially lethal attack on WO #1. In the split-second in which he had to choose, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO was reckless in deciding to fire his weapon,” the director wrote.

“For his part, it is important to note that WO #1 was ad idem with the SO; he feared for his own life and was readying to fire his weapon when he heard the gunshot.”

Martino also considered the prospect of the officers continuing to retreat from the complainant instead of shooting at him.

“…that option was restricted by the nature of the scene. While some traffic had come to a stop, other vehicles were still travelling in the area,” he said.