Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”)

Pursuant to section 14 of FIPPA (i.e., law enforcement), certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by law enforcement agencies; and
• Information whose release could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding. 

Pursuant to section 21 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Subject Officer name(s);
• Witness Officer name(s);
• Civilian Witness name(s);
• Location information; 
• Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence; and 
• Other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation.

Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (“PHIPA”)

Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may have also been excluded from this report because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.

The Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.

“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.

Notification of the SIU

On November 13, 2020 at 8:50 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the death of the 29-year-old Complainant.

According to TPS, at 6:15 a.m. that morning, TPS officers responded to 4033 Old Dundas Street for assistance regarding a man who was running around. At 6:23 a.m., police officers arrived and located the Complainant, who was then arrested and handcuffed. The Complainant went into medical distress, the handcuffs were removed, and firefighters performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

At 7:45 a.m., the Complainant was pronounced deceased at St. Joseph’s Hospital.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Complainant

The Scene

The apartment building at 4033 Old Dundas Street is situated on a hillside, giving the building an unusual interior layout. Entering the front of the building from Old Dundas Street, a person enters the second floor of the building. Descending the stairwell leads to the first floor, and further descending leads to the basement apartments. A parking lot at the rear of the building is at the basement level. It is confusing to orient oneself inside the building.

Inside the building in one of the hallways, medical debris was found outside the door of an apartment. A fire alarm pull station was mounted on the doorframe of the stairwell access door, just outside the same apartment door.

The building was equipped with surveillance cameras, but only on the exterior of the building.

Physical Evidence

Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

On November 13, 2020, at 6:15 a.m., CW #3 called 911 to report the fire alarm in the building had been activated and there was a man running up and down the hallways. CW #3 did not know whether the man [the Complainant] was the person who had activated the fire alarm. She reported the Complainant was fighting with people in the hallway after they had tried to encourage him to leave the building. CW #3 reported the Complainant had torn his shirt off and he appeared to be under the influence of some type of substance. CW #3 then reported the Complainant had removed his pants. She further reported tenants were trying to calm the Complainant and they were holding him down.

Other tenants of the apartment building also called 911. Callers believed the Complainant was under the influence of a substance and they reported he was fighting people.

A caller reported the Complainant was tearing at peoples’ clothing and was punching people and pushing them against the wall.

At 6:38 a.m., a police officer [known to be Officer #3] requested a rush on the ambulance.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

Surveillance Camera Recordings - 4033 Old Dundas Street

On November 12, 2020 at 8:39 p.m., the Complainant was recorded standing at the backdoor of the apartment building. He appeared to be awaiting the arrival of someone. He held the door open for people who approached the door and he eventually re-entered the building.

Body-worn Camera Recordings

The SIU obtained body-worn camera recordings from three responding police officers. Those police officers were:

• Officer #1;
• Officer #2; and
• Officer #3.

On November 13, 2020, at 6:35 a.m., Officer #1 arrived at 4033 Old Dundas Street and he and Officer #2 entered the apartment building. They walked inside and their body-worn cameras showed three Toronto Fire Service (TFS) firefighters standing in a hallway outside the door to an apartment. The Complainant was at the feet of the firefighters, lying on his left side and dressed only in his underwear. There were several building tenants standing in the hallway.

One of the firefighters explained the Complainant did not live in the building and the residents did not know him.

At 6:37 a.m., Officer #1 kneeled and applied handcuffs to the Complainant’s hands, with his hands in front of his body. The Complainant’s eyes were open, and his head was moving slightly to the side, but there was no response from him to being handcuffed. He appeared to be in the throes of agonal breathing. Officer #3 arrived at that point.

A firefighter reported the Complainant was foaming at the mouth when they found him.

Officer #2 searched through the Complainant’s wallet.

There were no apparent chest movements from the Complainant, although his head continued to move slightly. At 6:38 a.m., someone commented, “Yah, it looks like he’s OD’ing on something.” One of the police officers asked if paramedics were on the way. At 6:38:45 a.m., Officer #3 asked that a rush be placed on the ambulance, and reported, “29-year-old male, conscious and breathing.”

By 6:39:33 a.m., the firefighters and police officers realized the Complainant was in distress. A firefighter suggested they pull the Complainant further into the hallway. The handcuffs were removed, and the Complainant was rolled into the recovery position. At 6:40:12 a.m., a police officer commented the Complainant might not be breathing. At 6:41:02 a.m., a firefighter checked for a pulse and the Complainant was then rolled onto his back, and CPR was initiated by firefighters.

A resident in the building commented that the Complainant had a friend residing in the building, and Officer #3 went with that resident to the apartment of the Complainant’s friend [CW #1].

The firefighters applied an automated external defibrillator (AED) to the Complainant and, at 6:43:59 a.m., the AED instructed that no shock was advised, and CPR was to be continued.

Someone noted that none of the first responders were wearing masks and, given the chest compressions, there was a COVID hazard.

At 6:46:04 a.m., and again at 6:48:11 a.m., the AED instructed that no shock was advised. At 6:46:20 a.m., a firefighter on the street reported an ambulance had just arrived.

Officer #1 spoke to residents and asked which of them the Complainant was chasing. A man [CW #4] explained that as tenants exited their apartments, the Complainant was grabbing onto them. Another tenant [CW #3] said the Complainant had been running back and forth in the hallway. She reported the Complainant was saying, “They’re coming for me.”

CW #4 stated he had observed the Complainant outside the building at 11:00 p.m. that evening, and the Complainant was speaking to someone through an apartment window at the time. He identified the apartment as the apartment number of CW #1. CW #4 reported that in the morning the Complainant was grabbing people and moving behind them as though using them as shields.

Paramedics arrived at the Complainant’s side and, at 6:53:50 a.m., a police officer told the paramedics, “Yah, he was breathing.” Firefighters continued performing CPR as the paramedics set up their equipment.

At 6:58 a.m., Officer #2 exited the building and queried the Complainant on his police cruiser computer.

At 7:10:13 a.m., a second paramedic crew arrived in the hallway. The Complainant was removed from the building at 7:17 a.m.

At 7:24 a.m., CW #4 returned to the hallway and spoke to Officer #1. CW #4 commented, “He was all wide-eyed. I thought I smelled booze.” He commented the Complainant was displaying paranoia and was grabbing onto people, saying, “You gotta help me,” and, “Don’t let them.” CW #4 told Officer #1 the fire alarm sounded at 6:00 a.m., and CW #4 went to the fire alarm panel to see which pull station had been activated. The fire panel indicated it was the floor where the Complainant was located in the hallway. When CW #4 first found the Complainant, the Complainant was not acting very unusual, but he did refer to the fire alarm pull station as a camera.

At 7:31 a.m., Officer #1 received a telephone call from someone looking for information about the event. Officer #1 opined it was likely an overdose. He explained that when the police arrived, firefighters were already on scene and the man [the Complainant] was still alive and still breathing. Officer #1 reported that he had asked for one of the other officers to call for an ambulance and, as soon as they did so, the Complainant stopped breathing, and CPR was started. Officer #1 completed the call.

Officer #1 telephoned someone [likely from the Criminal Investigations Bureau (CIB)] and explained the situation. He stated the Complainant was still breathing until they called for an ambulance. He reported the Complainant had been transported to hospital, but paramedics were still performing CPR on him, so Officer #1 did not believe the Complainant was going to survive. Officer #1 explained he was looking for direction from CIB investigators. He stated a sergeant, Officer #4, had suggested the matter would become an SIU matter because [the Complainant] was alive and then he died.

CW #2 spoke to Officer #1 and reported he had found the Complainant mumbling and messing around with the fire alarm pull station. CW #2 explained that shortly after he found the Complainant speaking about cameras watching them. CW #2 stepped outside for a cigarette and when he returned, he saw the Complainant trying to enter one of the apartments, and he was running up and down the hallway. The Complainant had asked CW #2 to call for a taxicab, and CW #2 told the Complainant he could simply exit the building.

Officer #1 and Officer #2 discussed the likelihood the situation would be investigated by the SIU.

At 7:52 a.m., the building Superintendent unlocked the door to CW #1’s apartment and Officer #2 entered the apartment. Officer #2 searched the apartment to ensure there were no occupants in need of medical attention.

At 8:04 a.m., Officer #4 arrived at the scene. He asked Officer #1 and Officer #2 whether the TFD were working on the man when they arrived. Officer #1 and Officer #2 explained the firefighters were just monitoring the Complainant when police arrived. They reported the firefighters were speaking to the Complainant, who was breathing, and the Complainant was making noises but not really talking.

Officer #1 told Officer #4 that when they arrived, they did not know much about the Complainant, so they handcuffed him right away, for officer safety. Officer #1 stated the Complainant was “breathing, but not fantastically” so Officer #1 repositioned the Complainant’s head and removed the handcuffs. It appeared the Complainant stopped breathing at some point, Officer #1 explained. He confirmed the Complainant was wearing only underwear when they found him.

Officer #1 then spoke to CW #3. When she saw the Complainant, he was concerned the fire alarm pull station was a camera. He said he had just unplugged the camera and he pointed at the fire alarm pull station. She also saw the Complainant trying to hide from people. The fire alarm was sounding at the time, so the situation was very hectic. The Complainant started to knock on an apartment door. He then started to remove his clothing and talked about someone getting to him. The Complainant alternated between being calm and then going after somebody. The tenants formed a circle around him. The Complainant asked CW #3 to call him a taxicab. She responded she would do so if he went upstairs. The Complainant did not want to leave the floor, repeatedly saying, “They’re coming for me.” He said he felt safe on that floor. CW #3 called the police.

CW #3 explained that after the Complainant removed his clothes, he was sitting calmly on the hallway floor and was reaching out to grab onto people’s pant legs and trying to pull their pants down.

At 8:43 a.m., Officer #1 left the building, after being relieved by other police officers.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from TPS:

• Three body-worn camera recordings;
• CAD Event Details Report;
• Communication recordings; and
• Property Report.

Materials obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from non-police sources:

• Video recordings from a surveillance camera at 4033 Old Dundas Street; and
• Photographs taken by CW #3.

The material events in question are clear thanks to the accounts of several civilian witnesses and body-worn camera footage that largely captured the incident in its entirety. The Complainant had been staying with a friend, CW #1, at his apartment at 4033 Old Dundas Street, Toronto. While there, the Complainant consumed alcohol to excess and illicit drugs. By Friday morning (November 13, 2020), the Complainant’s behaviour while under the influence had become so unruly that CW #1 asked him to leave.

The Complainant did leave but never made it out to the Uber car that CW #1 had arranged for him. Instead, his strange behaviour continued unabated as he wandered the corridors of the apartment building. He mistook a fire alarm pull station for a camera and believed that unseen entities were after him. The commotion he was creating caught the attention of residents, who emerged from their apartments to try and calm him. The Complainant could not be placated. Instead, he became physical with a number of the residents, fighting with them and tugging at their clothing. The Complainant was clearly of unsound mind at the time.

Beginning at 6:15 a.m., multiple 911 calls were made by the residents of the building expressing concern about the Complainant’s behaviour. Officer #1, Officer #2 and Officer #3 were dispatched to the scene. As the Complainant had pulled the fire alarm, firefighters had also been dispatched to the address.

Officer #1 and Officer #2 were the first to arrive at the building at about 6:35 a.m. They made their way inside and located the Complainant in a hallway. He was lying on his left side in front of an apartment door dressed only in underwear. Three firefighters were standing nearby. Officer #1 handcuffed the Complainant’s hands to the front. His eyes were open and his head moved slightly to the side, but his breathing was laboured. One of the firefighters reported that the Complainant was foaming at the mouth when they found him.

At about 6:38 a.m., Officer #3 contacted the police dispatcher and asked that a rush be placed on the ambulance; the firefighters on scene had minutes earlier requested that an ambulance be sent. Shortly thereafter, the firefighters and officers pulled the Complainant further into the hallway, removed his handcuffs and placed him in the recovery position. One of the police officers commented that the Complainant might no longer be breathing. A firefighter checked for a pulse and found none, whereupon the Complainant was rolled on his back and the firefighters initiated CPR.

The firefighters worked on the Complainant over the course of the next ten minutes or so. During that time, an automated external defibrillator was applied which, on three separate occasions, directed that “no shock” was advisable.

Paramedics arrived on scene and took over from the firefighters in providing principal care. The Complainant was removed from the building at about 7:17 a.m. and taken to hospital where he subsequently was pronounced deceased.

Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing death

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

Section 215, Criminal Code - Failure to Provide Necessaries

(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person

(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and

(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.

On November 13, 2020, the Complainant was taken to hospital and subsequently declared deceased. As TPS officers had responded to several 911 calls relating to the Complainant and were present with him in the moments before paramedics attended the scene and took him to hospital, the SIU was notified of the incident and commenced an investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the TPS officers committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s death.

The offences that arise for consideration are failure to provide necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing death contrary to sections 215 and 220 of the Criminal Code, respectively. The former is premised, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from a reasonable level of care in the circumstances. The latter is a more serious offence requiring conduct that demonstrates a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others. It is not made out unless the departure from a reasonable level of care is both marked and substantial. In the instant case, can it be said that any one or more of the officers who attended the scene exhibited a want of care that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death and/or was so egregious as to attract criminal sanction? The answer, in my view, is in the negative.

Officer #1, Officer #2 and Officer #3 were in the discharge of their duty when they arrived at 4033 Old Dundas Street in response to 911 calls expressing concerns about the Complainant’s strange and belligerent behaviour.

Thereafter, in the three minutes they were on scene before a rush was asked for the ambulance and steps taken to commence CPR, I am satisfied the officers comported themselves with due regard for the Complainant’s well-being. They consulted with the firefighters, observed for themselves that the Complainant was breathing, albeit with difficulty, and deferred, reasonably in my view, to the firefighters’ assessment of the Complainant’s condition. Even then, when it appeared that the Complainant was no longer breathing and had lapsed into acute medical distress, they played their part in providing care. To reiterate, Officer #3 asked that a rush be placed on the ambulance and they assisted in re-positioning the Complainant on the corridor where CPR could more readily be performed. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that any one or more of the officers transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

The cause of the Complainant’s death is pending the results of toxicological analyses, which have yet to come in. Be that as it may, given the nature and extent of the officers’ involvement in this matter, there is no indication in the evidence that they acted other than lawfully throughout their limited engagement with the Complainant. Accordingly, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges and the file is closed.


Date: March 29, 2021

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit