Nearly six months after the death of the teenager Nooran Rezayi, the investigation has just reached a new stage. On 11 March 2026, the Bureau of Independent Investigations (BEI) announced that it had submitted its report to the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP), who is responsible for determining whether criminal charges should be brought.
But beyond this judicial stage, the story of events remains partially fragmented: a tight chronology of the intervention, parallel investigation, recent searches and persistent questions in the community that is still trying to understand what happened that day.
The EIB press release marks the end of the investigation into the police intervention and the start of a waiting period for the family, which hopes to get answers. “The family has learned that the BEI investigation has been completed and that its report has been transmitted to the DPCP, with the exception of two expert reports that will be sent later. For the family, many questions remain, both about the sequence of events and the reason given to justify the fatal shooting and about the investigations that followed,” said the legal team representing the Rezayi family. At this stage, the evidence to understand what the officer says he perceived to be an immediate threat at the time of the shooting is not public.
One intervention, one death, prosecutions
The tragedy of September 21 began with a 911 call reporting the presence of a group of young people in a residential neighborhood in the Saint-Hubert borough of Longueuil. We describe 15 to 20 young people, wearing surgical masks, armed with baseball bats and cayenne pepper. The call, which lasts about 10 minutes, according to the Written transcript of the 911 station obtained by Radio-Canada, also alleges the presence of a firearm. Information denied two days later by the director of the BEI, Brigitte Bishop, according to which the only firearm found on the scene was that of the police officer who shot the child.
When patrols from the Service de police de l'agglomération de Longueuil (SPAL) arrive on site, a police officer opens fire. Nooran Rezayi, aged 15, was shot dead by two bullets. A video of the scene, filmed by a surveillance camera, was made public during a press briefing held on December 9 by the Rezayi family and their lawyers, Mr.E Virginie Dufresne-Lemire and ME Fernando Belton. It shows that barely 10 seconds elapsed between the arrival of the police and the two fatal shootings.
This is why the Rezayi family accuses SPAL agents of having made an unreasonable and disproportionate use of force by opening fire on Nooran so quickly and twice. In the process, the family announced that they were filing a civil lawsuit against the City of Longueuil and the police officers involved in the intervention. She is seeking $2.2 million in damages.
A chronology that extends over several months
As provided for by law in Quebec, when a police intervention results in a death, the file is immediately referred to the BEI. The agency is responsible for determining whether the use of force by the police officer was justified in the circumstances.
In the days that followed, the case aroused a great deal of emotion in the community. Public rallies and speeches are taking place to ask for answers.. Doubts about the system's ability to deliver justice are beginning to be heard, especially as similar cases, especially that of the young person. Fredy Villanueva, have had controversial epilogues. Just three days after Nooran died, an online petition is launched to demand an independent investigation of an impartial legal firm, the determination of responsibilities and sanctions against those responsible.
Suspicions grew when Catherine Fournier, the mayor of Longueuil, learned in November that 90 minutes had passed between the gunshots and the call made by SPAL agents to inform the BEI of the event. Based on these” alleged breaches of SPAL's legal and regulatory obligations”, the mayor addresses the Minister of Public Security, Ian Lafrenière, so that an investigation be opened into the police of his city.
At the time, the minister said he wanted to wait for the report of the BEI to be tabled. This week, Mr. Lafrenière said, in a statement sent by his office, that “everything is ready to [...] trigger [the investigation]”. However, he specified that this will only take place once the usual checks have been completed in order to “ensure that the file [is] complete for the DPCP”.
Two separate investigations
To understand what is at stake in this case, it is necessary to distinguish between two different investigations. The first is that of the BEI, which reviews the legality of the use of force by the police officer. The second aims to reconstruct the events that preceded the intervention: who was present? Why were the police called? What happened before they arrived? The Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) was commissioned by the BEI to conduct this parallel investigation.
For André Boisjoly, a former detective lieutenant at the SPVM and now a lecturer at the University of Montreal's School of Criminology, these two components are complementary.
“The BEI investigation focuses on a specific moment: the moment when the police officer decides to shoot. The question is whether, with the information he had at the time, the use of force was justified,” he explains.
The police then speak of a “continuum of the use of force”, a gradation of the means that can be used in the face of a threat. “Drawing is one thing, shooting is another. We have to see if other intermediate means could have been used,” he adds.
Searches in February
On February 26, more than five months after the events, several searches were carried out on the South Shore of Montreal by the SPVM, which is responsible for investigating the circumstances that preceded the police intervention. This step brings renewed attention to the case. The reasons behind these searches and their results remain a secret. The SPVM indicated that, “as the investigation remains ongoing, no report can be presented at this time concerning the searches.”
But according to André Boisjoly, “the key word is 'corroboration'.” According to him, the investigators aim to gather evidence to confirm or disprove certain information obtained previously. And it can be various types of items: clothing, objects, or even electronic devices. “If someone says, for example, that a text message has been sent or a call has been made, the police may want to retrieve the phones to verify this information,” he says.
Before conducting a search, however, police must obtain a warrant authorized by a judge. “You must convince the judge of the relevance of the approach and demonstrate that the items sought could be admissible in evidence. It's not a fishing trip,” insists the former policeman.
A deadline that raises questions
The searches were carried out more than five months after the events. However, this is not unusual in a criminal investigation, according to André Boisjoly. “It is never too late to do a search. But the sooner it's done, the better,” he said. In some cases, evidence can be found several years after the fact. “As long as the evidence has not been altered, it may remain relevant,” he said.
However, these deadlines can also become a legal issue. Moreover, concludes Mr. Boisjoly, “a defence lawyer could challenge the relevance of evidence collected late.”
For his part, Alexandre Popovic, spokesperson for the Coalition Against Police Repression and Abuse (CRAP), believes that these searches are a diversionary maneuver. “To make people forget this tragedy, he declares, we are trying to manipulate public opinion and make people believe that the real danger does not come from a police officer who uses lethal force against an unarmed teenager, but that the danger comes from Nooran's friends.”
The decision is now in the hands of the DPCP
With the transmission of the BEI report, the case is now entering a phase of analysis by the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP).
The role of the prosecutor is to review the findings of the investigation and to determine whether the evidence gathered allows criminal charges to be laid.
“The report essentially establishes whether or not there are elements of negligence and makes recommendations. But the final decision is up to the prosecutor,” explains André Boisjoly.
The DPCP may also request a further investigation if it considers that certain information needs to be clarified before deciding. Moreover, the investigation conducted by the SPVM into the events preceding the police intervention is still ongoing.
However, the EIB report will not be made public. The organization states that it contains sensitive information, including statements from witnesses and police officers as well as evidence gathered during the investigation. This means that the detailed findings of the investigation will remain confidential, a situation that is fuelling some questions in the community.
Transparency or mandate limits?
Questioned by The Converse, the Bureau of Independent Investigations (BEI) explains that its investigation reports cannot be made public in their current form. The organization states that these documents contain statements from witnesses and persons involved, as well as physical evidence and expertise that could be used in possible criminal proceedings.
According to the EIB, redacting these reports would also not allow them to be disseminated. “A large majority of the information would be removed”, says the institution, which would run counter to the objective of transparency. However, the organization says it is open to a change in the law that would eventually allow it to publish an adapted version of its reports.
The data published on the EIB website also shows that the information made public varies according to the nature of the interventions. In cases involving injuries, some details about the investigation are sometimes released. On the other hand, when a police intervention with a firearm leads to the death of a civilian, the BEI press releases use almost word for word the same explanation. The organization indicates that the report sent to the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions contains “the statements of the witnesses and the police officers involved, the physical evidence collected as well as the related expertise”. Since these elements are considered sensitive and protected by confidentiality rules, the BEI states that “no additional information extracted from the investigation will be disclosed”.
For some observers, this situation is fuelling a feeling of uncertainty. “There is total fog. The institution refuses to provide information,” says Alexandre Popovic.
Voices still little heard
Beyond the legal proceedings, nearly six months after the events, several elements of the story are still difficult to reconstruct publicly. In the eyes of the community, several questions remain unanswered. Indeed, behind the procedures and the expert reports, there are still voices that are still little heard. Young friends of Nooran, whom we tried to talk to, fell silent after the tragedy. Some friends and family describe a climate of fear and caution as the investigation continues. In the field, several residents that La Converse tried to approach also declined interview requests, citing their fatigue with a case that continues to mark the neighborhood.
The wound remains open for an entire community. In a context where public reports suggest an increase in violence among young people in Longueuil, some residents also say they perceive a weakening of trust between some of the youth and the police.
Beyond the judicial investigation, these silences and concerns outline the portrait of a local society still in search of answers, and perhaps also of a dialogue that remains to be rebuilt.
Since the creation of the Bureau of Independent Investigations (BEI) in June 2016, 68 people have died during police interventions in Quebec. In 54 of these fatal situations, police officers fired their firearms. In these cases involving fatal police shootings, 18 reports were sent to the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP). Forty-two cases have been closed without any criminal charges being laid, while eight decisions are still pending and two investigations are ongoing.
