Thunder Bay man faces charges after police allege an attempt to access an officer’s firearm
THUNDER BAY — A 34-year-old Thunder Bay man has been charged following a police investigation that began with a disturbance complaint and escalated when police allege the accused attempted to gain access to an officer’s firearm during an arrest.
Thunder Bay Police Service says the accused was taken into custody Aug. 20, 2026, after officers responded to incidents in the Red River Road, Regent Street and Algoma Street areas. He was later remanded into custody following a first court appearance.
The allegations have not been proven in court.
Investigation Began With Disturbance Call
Officers with the TBPS Primary Response Unit were dispatched to the Red River Road and Regent Street area on Aug. 20 after receiving a report of a disturbance.
Police say the individual involved had left before officers arrived.
While officers remained in the area, the TBPS Communications Centre received a second call reporting that a vehicle had been damaged.
Further investigation led officers to locate a suspect in the Algoma Street area, where an arrest was made.
Police allege that while officers were searching the accused at the scene, he attempted to gain access to an officer’s firearm.
“This is another example of the importance of our officers’ training and professionalism that helps keep every situation controlled and safe for all involved,” TBPS Chief Darcy Fleury said.
Police have not reported any injuries arising from the incident.
Charges Laid
Sydney Megan, 34, of Thunder Bay is charged with:
- mischief under $5,000;
- obstructing a peace officer;
- disarming a peace officer;
- three counts of failing to comply with a probation order.
The accused was remanded into custody following a first court appearance.
Being remanded means the accused remains in custody while the case proceeds. It is not a finding of guilt.
What Does “Disarming a Peace Officer” Mean?
The most serious and less commonly reported allegation in this case is disarming a peace officer.
Section 270.1 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence, without the officer’s consent, to take or attempt to take a weapon in the possession of a peace officer while that officer is carrying out their duties. The section defines a weapon for this purpose as something designed to cause injury or death or to temporarily incapacitate a person.
That means an accused does not have to successfully obtain the firearm or other weapon for the charge to be laid; an alleged attempt can fall within the section.
The offence is hybrid. If the Crown proceeds by indictment, the maximum sentence is five years in prison. It may alternatively be prosecuted by summary conviction.
The maximum penalty is not an indication of what sentence would be imposed in any particular case. Courts consider the circumstances of the offence, an offender’s background and record, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the principle of proportionality when sentencing.
Mischief Under $5,000
Section 430 of the Criminal Code defines mischief to include deliberately destroying or damaging property, making property dangerous, useless or inoperative, or interfering with its lawful use or enjoyment.
For ordinary property valued at $5,000 or less, mischief is a hybrid offence. If prosecuted by indictment, the maximum sentence is two years imprisonment. The Crown can also proceed summarily.
Police allege a vehicle was damaged in the incident. The release does not specify the nature or dollar value of the alleged damage beyond the charge being listed as mischief under $5,000.
Obstructing a Peace Officer
Section 129 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to resist or wilfully obstruct a peace officer or public officer while that person is carrying out lawful duties.
The offence can be prosecuted by indictment, carrying a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment, or by summary conviction.
The police release does not provide further details about the conduct underlying the obstruction charge.
Three Alleged Probation Breaches
Megan is also charged with three counts of failing to comply with a probation order.
Under section 733.1 of the Criminal Code, a person bound by a probation order commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, they fail or refuse to comply with the order.
If prosecuted by indictment, the offence carries a maximum sentence of four years imprisonment. It can also be dealt with summarily.
TBPS did not specify which probation conditions are alleged to have been breached.
For Criminal Code offences prosecuted summarily where another penalty is not specifically set out, the general maximum is a $5,000 fine, imprisonment for up to two years less a day, or both.
These are statutory sentencing limits, not predictions of the outcome in this case.
Presumption of Innocence
All charges remain allegations.
Sydney Megan is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law. The Crown bears the burden of proving the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case remains before the courts.
Police occurrence: TB26033289
