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.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the death of a 30-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU

On October 26, 2020, at 10:58 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the death of the Complainant.

The TPS advised that on October 26, 2020, the Complainant called police stating persons unknown were trying to break into her apartment. Subject Officer (SO) #1 and SO #2 were dispatched to the Complainant’s apartment located at Bellamy Road, Scarborough. The Complainant barricaded herself inside the apartment; however, the police officers were given access to the apartment. While conversing with the Complainant, the police officers noted that she was suffering from some sort of mental disorder or distress. SO #1 and SO #2 apprehended the Complainant under the Mental Health Act.

The Witness Officer (WO) also attended at Bellamy Road but was not involved in the apprehension.

The Complainant’s apprehension was unremarkable, and she was transported to Scarborough Centenary Hospital (SCH). The Complainant was placed in a room and in the care of hospital staff when she suddenly experienced a cardiac arrest. Hospital staff attempted to revive the Complainant for about 15 minutes, but were unsuccessful and the Complainant passed away.

The Team
 

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Complainant:

30-year-old female, deceased

Witness Officers
 

WO Interviewed

Subject Officers
 

SO #1 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

The Scene
 

On October 26, 2020, at 1:45 p.m., an SIU Forensic Investigator attended the residence of the deceased at Bellamy Road. The location was a high-rise multi-unit apartment building. The Complainant’s apartment was guarded by a TPS special constable.

The scene was a one-bedroom apartment. The apartment was messy but there was no indication of a struggle. The scene was photographed. No measurements were taken and, therefore, no diagram was produced.

Forensic Evidence

TPS Global Positioning System (GPS) / Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) Data

The GPS data showed that SO #1 and SO #1’s police cruiser arrived at the apartment building on Bellamy Road at 7:42:09 a.m. The cruiser remained stationary until 8:19:49 a.m. when it left the apartment building taking the most direct route to SCH. The cruiser travelled north on Bellamy Road. At the intersection of Bellamy Road North and Ellesmere Road, the cruiser turned right and headed east on Ellesmere Road. The cruiser continued east on Ellesmere Road until it arrived at SCH. The cruiser arrived at SCH at 8:31:25 a.m. The cruiser drove directly to SCH without making any detours. The cruiser did not have its roof lights or siren on.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

TPS Communications Recordings

At about 6:56 a.m., a 911 call was received by TPS, which was subsequently disconnected. The call-taker contacted the cell phone associated with the number that had called-in, and reached the Complainant. She was crying, and indicated that an unknown person at her door was trying to get into the residence.

TPS In-Car Camera System (ICCS) Microphone Audio Recordings

TPS provided SO #1 and SO #2’s ICCS microphone audio recordings made on October 26, 2020, which captured the following.

7:45:10 a.m. – 8:02:45 a.m.

Starting at 7:45:44 a.m., [The Complainant’s name], how are you buddy? Not good? What’s going on man? [The Complainant’s name], right? I’m SO #2, this is SO #1.

You by yourself? Yeh? Anyone live here with you? Your mom? Where’s your mom? Did she just leave for work or is she coming back?

What do you suffer from? Tell me what’s happening. Tried to get in from the balcony? Want us to check it? Yeh? OK.

Did you see anyone on the balcony? Were the curtains open or closed? See anyone? No. OK.

What can we do for you? Do you need an ambulance or anything?

I’m going to check all the closets. All the doors, OK? We are here to help you.

I’m sorry? There is nobody here, we’ve already checked. When is the last time your mom was here? This morning, OK.

I noticed a couple of rubber bands, does anyone use intravenous drugs here? Do you take injections of some sort? If you do, you can tell us, we are not going to arrest you for it. We just need to know your background. Pardon? Your brother? But he doesn’t live here? There is mail here for him.

There isn’t anyone here, just me and my partner.

The door is open a little bit so we can hear people in the hallway. If you aren’t comfortable here, we can run you to the hospital.

Where you going? ]The Complainant’s name], listen to me, you are safe, do you understand that? Do you trust me? You are safe, we aren’t going to let anything happen to you, alright? Do you have some shoes, can you put your shoes on for me?

We are watching, don’t worry, OK, we got you. Are you having problems walking? Which shoes are yours? [The Complainant’s name], do you have a key for the door, where’s the key?

Relax, relax, we checked all in there, OK. Do you want us to go through it with you again?
[The Complainant’s name], listen, why don’t we run you up to the hospital OK. We will be with you so we can keep you safe. Does that sound fair to you? Yeh.

Medication, but you haven’t felt like this for a while you said right? [The Complainant’s name], come on, you are sweating like crazy. What other drugs did you take this morning? Did you take any (inaudible)? [The Complainant’s name], are you going to let us help you, run you to the hospital? You are not in trouble, but we need to take you to the hospital.

Will you come with us? We will be with you the whole time, OK? [The Complainant’s name], OK? Trust me (inaudible). Come on [the Complainant’s name], we are going to take you to the hospital, come on (inaudible). I can see everything here, there’s nobody in here. [The Complainant’s name], we want you to come with us, can you do that? (Inaudible) Want me to look in the hall? There is nobody there brother (inaudible). Just going to check here again, OK? Is there anywhere else you would like us to check? In the closet? [The Complainant’s name], I’m going to open the closet door, OK? Look t[he Complainant’s name], there is nothing there. I just checked the bedroom. I’m going to check down the hallway, nobody there either brother (inaudible).

Do you want to go with us to the hospital? [The Complainant’s name], when was the last time you were outside? This morning? Where did you go? When you opened the door for us?

TPS ICCS Recordings

The ICCS recordings were made on October 26, 2020, from 8:18:33 a.m. to 8:41:51 a.m., and captured the following:

The front view of the apartment was visible.

At 8:18:42 a.m., the Complainant was seated behind the driver’s seat of the police cruiser, sitting up, hands behind her back. She wore a toque, button-up shirt, and pants.

At 8:18:53 a.m., a police officer walked away in front of the police cruiser.

At 8:19:04 a.m., the police cruiser doors opened, police officers’ voices were heard, and the police cruiser doors shut.

At 8:19:24 a.m., the police cruiser left the apartment building. The Complainant appeared calm, looking around. There was no obvious distress visible. She remained quiet, closed her eyes, made an inaudible mumble, and then put her head down.

At 8:24:19 a.m., the Complainant began to look around a lot in the rear seat and made an inaudible comment about the “back door”. A police officer told her she was safe.

At 8:25:18 a.m., the Complainant moved to the middle of the rear seat, and continued to look around. Her speech was inaudible as she moved around in the rear seat and appeared frightened. A police officer told the Complainant that they checked it (the backseat). The Complainant slid across the seat, now directly behind the passenger seat, her legs up on the rear seat, leaning back, slumped down on the passenger side rear door. The Complainant stated, “Come back here, pull over,” and a police officer replied, “You’re safe.” A police officer responded, “I’m looking, OK, you are safe.” The Complainant remained on the passenger side of the cruiser.

At 8:28:41 a.m., the police cruiser pulled into the SCH emergency bay area.

At 8:29:41 a.m., the Complainant exited the police cruiser via the rear passenger door on her own. A police officer told the Complainant to relax and slow down - “Take it easy, OK.”

At 8:29:51 a.m., the Complainant stood calmly beside the police cruiser at the open door. One police officer stated, “OK, come on, [the Complainant’s name].”

At 8:30:12 a.m., the Complainant walked down the sidewalk toward the hospital emergency entrance. SO #1 and SO #2 each held one of the Complainant’s handcuffed arms, and walked slightly behind her.

At 8:30:48 a.m., SO #1 and SO #2, along with the Complainant, entered the hospital emergency area doors out of sight.

There was no indication of any conflict or animosity between the Complainant and the police officers during the interaction. Police drove directly to the hospital, stopping only to obey the rules of the road. At one point, the Complainant asked police to stop the police cruiser. The police officers assured the Complainant she was safe. The Complainant anxiously exited the police cruiser upon arriving at hospital. There was no struggle between the Complainant and the police officers.

Materials obtained from Police Service
 

The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from the TPS:

• Email from TPS regarding Next of Kin Information-October 27, 2020;
• TPS Communications Recordings;
• General Occurrence;
• Intergraph Computer-assisted Dispatch (ICAD);
• GPS / AVL data;
• Notes of WO and SOs;
• Procedure-Arrest;
• TPS Policy-Emotionally Disturbed persons;
• TPS Policy-Use of Force;
• TPS Policy-Search Procedure; and
• TPS-ICCS recordings.

Materials obtained from Other Sources

The SIU also received the following records form non-police sources:

• Report of Post-mortem Examination dated April 12, 2021, received by the SIU on October 7, 2021, from the Coroner’s Office.

The following scenario emerges from the evidence collected by the SIU, which included interviews with SO #1 and SO #2, and a review of video and audio recordings from the officers’ ICCS that captured much of the incident.

At about 7:00 a.m. of October 26, 2020, a TPS call-taker contacted the Complainant to find out if she was okay after a 911 call from her cell phone had been disconnected. A crying and seemingly confused Complainant provided little information other than that unknown persons were at her door trying to break in. Officers were dispatched to check on the Complainant’s well-being.

SO #1 and SO #2, traveling together in a cruiser, arrived at the Complainant’s address on Bellamy Road at about 7:45 a.m. As the officers made their way down the hallway, the Complainant stuck her head out the door, looked at the officers, and then re-entered her apartment, leaving the door open as she did so. The officers entered the residence.

The Complainant was alone in the apartment and in a state of elevated paranoia. She told the officers there were persons throughout the residence. SO #2 took the lead in speaking with the Complainant and SO #1 looked around to ensure no one else was there. The officers repeatedly assured the Complainant that she was safe and that nobody else was present, even taking the Complainant to different parts of the apartment so she could see for herself. The Complainant began to sweat profusely and continued to point to people – “They’re here, they’re here” – who were not present. Suspecting she was in an altered state precipitated by mental illness or drugs, the officers decided it would be best to take the Complainant to hospital to be assessed. The Complainant agreed to go. The Complainant was taken into custody, placed in the officers’ cruiser, and transported to SCH.

SO #1 and SO #2 remained with the Complainant as she was triaged and placed in a room for further examination. It was apparent to hospital staff that the Complainant’s condition was deteriorating. Her heart was racing, and the results of an ECG were quickly brought to the attention of a physician. Plans to take the Complainant to an acute care room were pre-empted because no beds were available, and she was returned to the room. The officers assisted in putting the Complainant on her bed, and then watched as her agitation seemed to escalate – she yelled, pulled at her chest, said her arm hurt, and darted her head. A doctor entered to speak with the Complainant and then exited to complete some paperwork. The officers, both positioned outside the room’s open door, saw the Complainant try to get up. She was weak in the knees and lowered herself onto the floor in front of the bed, after which she screamed and slumped over onto her side. Concerned that the Complainant may not be breathing, SO #1 entered the room and was unable to rouse her with a sternum rub. Medical personnel rushed into the room and the Complainant was taken into an acute care room where CPR and other resuscitative measures were undertaken over a lengthy period, tragically, without success.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy attributed the Complainant’s death to methamphetamine toxicity.

Section 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,

Section 17, Mental Health Act -- Action by police officer

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

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.

The Complainant passed away in hospital on October 26, 2020 following her apprehension by TPS officers. The TPS officers – SO #1 and SO #2 – were identified as subject officers for purposes of the SIU investigation. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either officer committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s death.

The offences that arise for consideration are failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing death contrary to sections 215 and 220 of the Criminal Code, respectively. The former is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have observed in the circumstances. The latter is a more serious offence and reserved for behaviour that establishes a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is not made out unless the departure from a reasonable standard of care is marked and substantial. In the instant case, the issue is whether there was any want of care in the manner in which SO #1 and SO #2 dealt with the Complainant that caused or contributed to her death and/or was sufficiently egregious as to attract criminal sanction. In my view, there was not.

SO #1 and SO #2 were lawfully placed and clearly in the discharge of their lawful duties as they entered into the Complainant’s apartment to ensure her well-being and subsequently took her into custody. There is no question regarding the lawfulness off the officers’ entry into the residence. The Complainant’s 911 call had disconnected, and the police were duty bound to check on her welfare, particularly as she had complained of unknown persons at her residence and seemed to be of unsound mind. Once inside, the evidence indicates the officers acted professionally and with compassion as they satisfied themselves there were no intruders and then attempted to assure the Complainant that she was safe. When it became clear that the Complainant’s paranoia could not be alleviated, and that she was actively experiencing hallucinations, the officers decided to apprehend the Complainant so she could be taken to hospital for assessment. Given the Complainant’s state at the time, there were lawful grounds to do so pursuant to section 17 of the Mental Health Act. The Complainant was receptive to the idea, and her arrest was effected without incident.

Having assumed custody over the Complainant, I am satisfied that SO #1 and SO #2 conducted themselves with due care and regard for her health and safety. The record indicates that the officers drove the Complainant straight to hospital, arriving at about 8:30 a.m., and promptly placed her in the care of medical staff. Though they were largely observers from that point forward, SO #1 and SO #2 continued to exercise a level of vigilance with the Complainant and were the first to notice that she had stopped breathing, after which acute medical care was administered by hospital personnel. Regrettably, the Complainant could not be saved, and she died away later that morning of a drug overdose.

On the aforementioned-record, and for the foregoing reasons, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either of SO #1 and SO #2 transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law throughout their interactions with the Complainant. Accordingly, there is no basis to proceed with criminal charges against the officers, and the file is closed.


Date: October 26, 2021


Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit