A landlord in Canada shot and killed a young, engaged couple residing in his building following a housing dispute on Saturday.
He was subsequently fatally shot by the police.
The incident occurred on Saturday, May 27, in Stoney Creek, Ontario, when the 57-year-old landlord, whose identity has not yet been disclosed, fatally shot his tenants, Carissa MacDonald, 27, and Aaron Stone, 28, outside their residence at 322 Jones Road. Hamilton police responded to the scene after receiving reports of the shooting around 5:40 pm.
Upon arrival, authorities discovered MacDonald and Stone had already succumbed to their injuries. Hamilton Detective Sergeant Steve Bereziuk informed the media on Sunday morning that the couple had been trying to flee the premises when they were mercilessly gunned down. He emphasized that the victims were blameless, referring to the incident as an immensely tragic occurrence.
Following the shooting, the landlord barricaded himself inside the house and armed himself with multiple firearms, all legally registered under his name. Negotiators engaged in hours of phone conversations, striving to persuade him to surrender peacefully. However, their efforts were in vain. Around 10 pm, the suspect opened fire on an armored police vehicle and targeted the officers at the scene. In response, the officers returned fire, striking the assailant, who was pronounced dead at the scene.
The Special Investigations Unit of Ontario is currently examining the circumstances surrounding the shooting, as is standard procedure for cases involving police intervention. The unit has assigned six investigators and four forensic specialists to the case. The victims had recently become engaged and were preparing for their upcoming wedding.
MacDonald was employed as an educational assistant, while Stone was pursuing a career as an electrician. Although specific details regarding the events leading up to the tragic shooting remain scarce, Detective Sgt. Bereziuk clarified that the landlord-tenant dispute was not about a missed rental payment. Instead, it appeared to stem from a disagreement concerning the condition of the property.
