Skip to main content

2 killed in mass shooting at Canada’s largest Latin street festival in Toronto, police say

(CNN) — Two people were killed and several others injured after at least two shooters exchanged gunfire amid crowds of roughly 13,000 people at Canada’s biggest Latin street festival in Toronto on Saturday, police said.

A total of six people were shot, and several suspects are believed to be at large after the shooting at the Salsa on St. Clair festival, Toronto Police Service Deputy Chief Frank Barredo said at a news conference late Saturday.

Both of the deceased victims were men, Barredo said, while the four injured victims were taken to hospitals with “serious injuries.” Investigators have cordoned off three crime scenes and recovered two firearms, but there is no ongoing threat to the public, he added.

“This seemed to be an exchange of gunfire between two individuals targeting each other,” Barredo said, adding the shooting “indiscriminately put vast numbers of people in danger.”

The festival will not resume for its second day on Sunday due to the ongoing police investigation, organizers said, and offered prayers to the victims’ families.

Police were back at the scene Sunday, City Councillor Josh Matlow said on X.

Festivalgoers ran down sidewalks from the scene, restricted by yellow tape, as scores of black police SUVs and patrol cars, heavy-duty armored vehicles and ambulances sped toward it, CTV footage showed.

Joanna Lavoie, a journalist with Canadian media outlet CP24 who was attending the festival, said “the mood instantly changed” after the gunshots rang out. Lavoie told CP24, a CNN affiliate, she saw a woman who appeared to have been shot and suffering from significant injuries.

“Everyone was just in disbelief and fear. It was a terrifying situation. We’re here to have fun … we didn’t expect anything like this to happen, and it was the last thing we expected.” Lavoie said.

Valerie Rodriguez told the Associated Press she was sitting outside a restaurant when she heard screams and saw people running. “A bunch of people … told us to lay down onto the floor,” she said.

Police said they secured the scene roughly an hour after the shooting began but continued to urge people to stay away from the area in the city’s midtown, where the multiday festival celebrating Latin culture has been held annually for 22 years, according to organizers.

Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow condemned the shooting as “a reckless, despicable act of violence at a crowded festival” and promised authorities would work tirelessly to identify the suspects.

“I will ensure Toronto Police have every resource they need to find those responsible, and they will keep working around the clock to get guns off our streets,” the mayor said in a statement on X.

Chow and police are urging any festival attendees with footage or information to contact police.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said in a statement he is “horrified” by the deadly shooting at the busy Toronto festival. “My prayers are with the families grieving their loved ones … and everyone who has been affected by this horrific event,” Carney wrote.

While deadly gun violence is less common in Canada than in the US, it still ravages communities.

Less than three weeks ago, the country was devastated by another mass shooting when a gunman opened fire in Montreal. A subsequent shootout with police killed two people in broad daylight and marked the first time a Montreal officer has been killed in the line of duty in two decades.

The shooting took place in a country with far stronger gun laws compared to the US and where mass shootings are infrequent. After Canada suffered its most deadly shooting in Nova Scotia in 2020, where 22 people were killed, the government put in place major reforms and bans on assault-style weapons.

This story has been updated with additional information.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Trump policy clears way for civil commitment of homeless in some states

▶ Watch Video: Advocates express concern about Trump's push to move homeless people from Washington, D.C. In the year since President Trump signed an executive order aimed at moving homeless people off the streets, federal agencies have given states a green light to expand the use of civil commitment for homeless individuals with mental illness or substance abuse problems.Pending a court challenge, the primary system of funding for organizations combating homelessness could be transformed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to comply with Mr. Trump's executive order. The president's order argues that past policies neglected "root causes" of homelessness and created a public safety risk. Opponents say that the administration would strain the limited number of state treatment centers, criminalize the homeless population and would be an unnecessary shift away from "Housing First" policies. Housing First is an approach that promotes non-conditional access to housing — that is, without requiring sobriety, compliance with treatment or making other demands of recipients. Civil commitmentsMr. Trump's order prompted the Justice and Health and Human Services Departments to prioritize funding for states that carry out involuntary psychiatric treatment — or "maximally flexible civil commitment" of individuals with mental illness who "pose a danger to others or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves."His order argued that "public order" would be restored by committing homeless people to "long-term institutional settings for humane treatment." It called on the Justice Department to reverse any consent decrees that would impede these civil commitments. The order also prioritized funding for states and cities that ban urban camping, urban squatting and open illicit drug use. About 30% of those experiencing chronic homelessness have a serious mental illness, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Meanwhile, two-thirds have a substance use disorder or other chronic health condition. The call for a tougher law-and-order approach has prompted multiple Republican states to pass laws that penalize homeless encampments or expand the facilitation of involuntary institutionalizations.Utah recently approved more than $43 million in spending earlier this year in part to target "high utilizers," those who repeatedly cycle through homeless shelters and jail. It is reinforced by a new law that allows these individuals to be put under the supervision of Utah's Division of Adult Probation and Parole.Both Indiana and Louisiana passed bills this year that make it a crime to sleep overnight or camp on public property. Louisiana's HB 211, called the "Streets to Success Act," punishes first-time violators with fines up to $500. To avoid spending up to six months in jail, eligible individuals may sign up for a new "Homelessness Court Program."The program would supervise participants for a year and give them access to substance abuse treatment, mental health services, job training and housing assistance. Those who complete the program could have their conviction erased. Those who don't risk a jail sentence. Participants "may be confined in a treatment facility" or released on a probationary basis, the state law says. The court could also impose rehabilitation conditions on participants. The National Homelessness Law Center called it "one of the cruelest, most extreme anti-homeless bills." Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry defended the homeless courts, arguing they'd help "start removing the homeless off of our streets and into the places that they belong."Shaina Bessonet, a dental hygienist in Louisiana who experienced homelessness from January 2022 to March 2026, testified against the bill before the state legislature. "Just because someone is homeless, because they don't have a place to sleep, doesn't give anybody the right to take them and punish them just for not having a place to go. It's not fixing the problem, it's making it worse," she told CBS News. Devon Kurtz, a policy director at the Cicero Institute, said the executive order and a June Justice Department legal opinion, gives states "considerably more discretion" on their psychiatric care. That opinion made it easier for states to keep those with mental illness institutionalized, rather than provide them with in-home or community-based care. The Cicero Institute, a conservative think tank that was established by Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, advised the White House on the crafting of the executive order."This executive order was really a signal to those agencies that they have to revisit all of these key touch points that are creating these unnecessary burdens and ceilings on state experimentation with policy," Kurtz said.He argued that the Housing First approach and similar ideas have "been rewarding the places that have done the worst."But Jennifer Mathis, deputy director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health, said civil commitment could be more expensive than providing long-term housing and should be "a last resort." Mathis, a Biden-era official in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, said the executive order "created an environment where states felt either pressured or permitted to focus on more coercive strategies, to focus less on housing as a solution.""The basic notion behind the executive order seems to be that these people who are unhoused don't deserve housing," she said.  "They're either criminals or they're problem people, and we should basically be forcing them into treatment because it's just their own fault." It's "just wrong at its core," she said. Funding changes stuck in the courtsAdministration officials claim Mr. Trump's order has resulted in $700 million in HHS funding aimed at helping people with addiction and mental illness, as well as homelessness, though there are limits on the funding being used on Housing First or "harm reduction" policies.But the administration's vision of how HUD can "increase accountability" in the over $4 billion in grants proposed for homelessness assistance has been stuck in litigation.Housing First policies have been used by HUD and other federal agencies to address homelessness since 2013. Housing First was initially adopted as a national federal strategy by President George W. Bush's administration in 2004.The department's report on homelessness in 2025 claimed there's been a roughly 27% increase in homelessness since 2013. HUD's 2026 budget cut the available funds for permanent, supportive housing funding from about $3 billion to $2.4 billion, compared to 2024. And the 2026 HUD budget shifts a greater portion of funding — $1.3 billion — to new transitional, temporary housing programs, compared to the approximately $600,000 allocated in the 2024 budget.A recent lawsuit cites a claim by the National Alliance to End Homelessness that the shift towards temporary, transitional housing could kick 97,000 people out of permanent supportive housing.Attorneys general from 21 states and the National Alliance to End Homelessness sued HUD in July over the latest plan for funding. A legal challenge to stop HUD's 2025 plan for funding was successful in April.HUD Secretary Scott Turner said the 97,000 figure was "fear-mongering" and said it was "absurd" that litigation was blocking "long-overdue changes.""No one is being kicked out on the streets," Turner said, arguing in a statement that the HUD plan would provide "more funding than ever before" and give homeless advocates and groups "greater flexibility to invest in the housing and services their neighborhoods need." Ann Oliva, the CEO of NAEH, defended Housing First policies and called the administration's opposition "disingenuous" and lacking context regarding how the increase in housing costs over the last decade "funnel[ed] people into homelessness.""It's like they're saying the emergency room is causing cancer. So we should just get rid of emergency rooms? Because cancer is still happening? That's short-sighted," she said.
Read Next Story