SIU Director’s Report - Case # 22-TCD-326
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
Mandate of the SIU
The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.
Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.
Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.
Information Restrictions
Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019
Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:- The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
- Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
- Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
- Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
- Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
- Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
Pursuant to section 14 (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 that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding.
- The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
- 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
Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.Other proceedings, processes, and investigations
Information may also have 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.Mandate Engaged
Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.
A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.
In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.
This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the death of a 34-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.
In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.
This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the death of a 34-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On December 25, 2022, at 8:02 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the death of the Complainant.On December 25, 2022, at 5:09 a.m., the Complainant caused a disturbance at an apartment on Antibes Drive. The Complainant ultimately left a family member’s apartment and began knocking on neighbours’ doors. When one of the neighbours opened the door, he was pushed, and the Complainant entered the unit and proceeded to the balcony. The Complainant climbed the balcony, heading towards the balcony of his family’s unit. Emergency Task Force (ETF) officers attended and began negotiations with the Complainant from a neighbouring unit. At 6:51 a.m., the Complainant was observed to jump from the balcony towards Civilian Witness (CW) #1 and CW #3’s unit, and then to the ground below. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were contacted and responded. At 6:57 a.m., the Complainant was pronounced deceased.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 12/25/2022 at 8:11 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 12/25/2022 at 10:00 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
34-year-old male; deceasedCivilian Witnesses
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between December 25, 2022, and January 15, 2023.
Subject Official
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal rightWitness Officials
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary
WO #6 Notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary
WO #7 Notes reviewed; interview deemed not necessary
The witness officials were interviewed between December 25, 2022, and January 20, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired on and around the balcony of an apartment unit on Antibes Drive. The height of the balcony railing was one metre. The Complainant’s body was located on the ground. He laid on his back with his shirt extended up his chest, his left leg over his right leg, and his hands clenched into fists. There was a pool of blood and injuries to his face.
The distance between the top of the balcony, [2] to the ground was 43.1 metres. The distance between the Complainant’s feet to the side of the building was five metres. The distance from the Complainant’s head to the side of the building was 7.1 metres.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [3]
Record of Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD)
On December 28, 2022, the TPS provided the SIU the record of the CAD in connection with the incident under investigation.At 5:09 a.m., the CAD captured an incoming 911 call from CW #1, which was categorized as an ‘Unknown Trouble’ call for service, ‘Priority 1’. CW #1 requested that police attend their residence on Antibes Drive in relation to the Complainant.
The TPS ran a check on the Complainant, and broadcast a description of the Complainant and the fact that first responders should proceed with caution.
At 5:17 a.m., CW #2 called 911 reporting that the Complainant had knocked on his door. When he opened, the Complainant said, “Sorry sir, I need to use your balcony.”
At 5:27 a.m., WO #1 arrived at the scene. She reported that the Complainant was in front of CW #1 and CW #3’s unit. He was standing on the railings of the balcony, and he was screaming.
At 5:30 a.m., more police officers arrived.
At 5:32 a.m., WO #4 requested that ETF be dispatched.
At 5:38 a.m., WO #4 advised that TPS officers should access the balcony, “From the unit across the hall,” and they should not approach the Complainant as he was, “Now standing on the rail.”
At 6:08 a.m., ETF officers arrived at the scene.
At 6:29 a.m., a police officer inquired if the ETF was talking to the Complainant from the balcony below. WO #1 replied that an ETF officer was currently speaking to the Complainant.
At 6:51 a.m., a police officer announced, “Male has jumped.”
At 6:52 a.m., WO #4 announced that paramedics were on their way to assist the Complainant.
At 6:57 a.m., a police officer announced that the Complainant had been pronounced deceased.
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage
On December 28, 2022, the TPS provided the SIU with BWC footage in connection with the incident under investigation.The Complainant was not seen in the BWC footage but could be heard screaming out repeatedly. A police officer said to CW #1, “Who is that?” She replied, indicating he was a family member.
The dispatcher was heard providing information that an officer was negotiating with the Complainant. A short time later, the Complainant suddenly appeared in view of the camera. He laid motionless and face down on the grass. He wore a black-hooded winter jacket and black pants. A police officer approached the Complainant and began to yell out for paramedics to attend his location.
Police officers began to conduct Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) on the Complainant. Shortly after, an ETF officer and paramedics arrived. While the paramedics set up equipment, police officers took turns conducting CPR.
The paramedic called off the CPR and police officers stopped administering CPR. The male was pronounced deceased.
Cellphone Video Footage
On January 5, 2023, the TPS provided the SIU a cellphone camera recording of the incident under investigation taken by one of their officers on scene.The Complainant was seen on the footage, apparently standing on a balcony railing. His hands were extended upwards, touching the balcony above him. He banged on a window while repeatedly screaming for a family member. Shortly thereafter, the Complainant disappeared from view, but he could still be heard screaming.
Video Footage – Antibes Drive
On December 25, 2022, the SIU requested camera footage from an address on Antibes Drive. On January 21, 2023, the video footage was provided to the SIU.The footage did not contain information relevant to the SIU investigation.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between December 25, 2022, and January 31, 2023:• General Occurrence;
• Record of CAD;
• Communications recordings;
• BWC footage;
• Cell phone video;
• Video footage – Antibes Drive;
• Witness List;
• Notes – WO #6;
• Notes – WO #1;
• Notes – WO #7;
• Notes – WO #2;
• Notes – WO #5;
• Notes – WO #3;
• Notes - WO #4;
• Prints-the Complainant;
• Policy - Person in Crisis;
• Policy - Arrest and Release; and
• Policy - Use of Force.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:• Preliminary Autopsy Report Findings from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized. As was his legal right, the SO declined an interview with the SIU or to authorize the release of his notes.
In the morning of December 25, 2022, at about 5:10 a.m., TPS officers were dispatched to an apartment unit on Antibes Drive, Toronto, following a call from one of the residents. The caller – CW #1 – reported that the Complainant was breaking into their apartment. The Complainant had knocked on the apartment door, and been refused entry by its occupants – CW #1 and CW #3.
Determined to access his family’s apartment, the Complainant forced his way into a neighbouring apartment. From that unit’s balcony, the Complainant climbed over the barrier separating it from the balcony to CW #1 and CW #3’s unit. Observing the Complainant on their balcony, CW #1 left the apartment and called the police. CW #3 also left the apartment.
Uniformed officers began arriving at the scene at about 5:20 a.m. A number of them, including WO #2 and WO #1, spoke with the Complainant on the balcony. By this time, the Complainant was standing on the balcony railing facing outward away from the building, his hands over his head touching the balcony above. The officers attempted to calm the Complainant and talk him down off the railing, but he was largely unresponsive to their efforts. He repeatedly shouted words to his family, asking forgiveness.
WO #4 arrived on scene at about 5:30 a.m. He heard talk of deploying a TPS Mobile Crisis Intervention Team unit to the address, but realized that none would be available given the time of day. Instead, the sergeant made arrangements to have the ETF sent to the address.
ETF officers began arriving at about 6:00 a.m. Among their ranks was the SO, who took the lead in the negotiations that followed. From a position on the balcony, the officer attempted to de-escalate the situation. He encouraged the Complainant to step into the apartment where it was warmer and he could speak with his family, if he wanted. Still mostly unresponsive, the Complainant remained precariously perched on the balcony railing. At one point, the Complainant travelled along the railing onto the balcony railing of an adjacent apartment. The SO made his way onto that balcony and continued with his efforts.
At about 6:51 a.m., the Complainant crouched down and jumped from the railing. He fell several stories, a distance of about 43 metres.
Officers and first responders rushed to the Complainant, but he could not be resuscitated. He was pronounced deceased at 6:57 a.m.
In the morning of December 25, 2022, at about 5:10 a.m., TPS officers were dispatched to an apartment unit on Antibes Drive, Toronto, following a call from one of the residents. The caller – CW #1 – reported that the Complainant was breaking into their apartment. The Complainant had knocked on the apartment door, and been refused entry by its occupants – CW #1 and CW #3.
Determined to access his family’s apartment, the Complainant forced his way into a neighbouring apartment. From that unit’s balcony, the Complainant climbed over the barrier separating it from the balcony to CW #1 and CW #3’s unit. Observing the Complainant on their balcony, CW #1 left the apartment and called the police. CW #3 also left the apartment.
Uniformed officers began arriving at the scene at about 5:20 a.m. A number of them, including WO #2 and WO #1, spoke with the Complainant on the balcony. By this time, the Complainant was standing on the balcony railing facing outward away from the building, his hands over his head touching the balcony above. The officers attempted to calm the Complainant and talk him down off the railing, but he was largely unresponsive to their efforts. He repeatedly shouted words to his family, asking forgiveness.
WO #4 arrived on scene at about 5:30 a.m. He heard talk of deploying a TPS Mobile Crisis Intervention Team unit to the address, but realized that none would be available given the time of day. Instead, the sergeant made arrangements to have the ETF sent to the address.
ETF officers began arriving at about 6:00 a.m. Among their ranks was the SO, who took the lead in the negotiations that followed. From a position on the balcony, the officer attempted to de-escalate the situation. He encouraged the Complainant to step into the apartment where it was warmer and he could speak with his family, if he wanted. Still mostly unresponsive, the Complainant remained precariously perched on the balcony railing. At one point, the Complainant travelled along the railing onto the balcony railing of an adjacent apartment. The SO made his way onto that balcony and continued with his efforts.
At about 6:51 a.m., the Complainant crouched down and jumped from the railing. He fell several stories, a distance of about 43 metres.
Officers and first responders rushed to the Complainant, but he could not be resuscitated. He was pronounced deceased at 6:57 a.m.
Relevant Legislation
Section 220, Criminal Code -- Criminal Negligence Causing Death
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.
Analysis and Director's Decision
On December 25, 2022, the Complainant passed away following a fall from the balcony of a high-rise apartment building. As TPS officers were present and engaged with the Complainant at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO was identified as the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s death.
The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.
The SO was lawfully placed and in the execution of his duty when he attended at the scene as a member of the ETF team. The officer was aware that the Complainant had caused a disturbance at his family’s apartment and had then taken a dangerous position atop the railing of the balcony. He was duty bound in the circumstances to do what he reasonably could to prevent harm coming to the Complainant.
I am further satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and wellbeing throughout their engagement. The officer – trained in dealing with persons in mental health crisis and negotiations – spoke with the Complainant. He did so on the balcony but from a distance so as not to pressure the Complainant. The Complainant was offered tea and an opportunity to speak with his family in the apartment if he would step down from the balcony. Regrettably, the Complainant remained steadfast on top of the railing, mostly unengaged with the SO’s overtures. When the Complainant jumped from the railing, he left the SO little time, if any, to intervene to prevent his fall.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law throughout his engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.
Date: April 24, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.
The SO was lawfully placed and in the execution of his duty when he attended at the scene as a member of the ETF team. The officer was aware that the Complainant had caused a disturbance at his family’s apartment and had then taken a dangerous position atop the railing of the balcony. He was duty bound in the circumstances to do what he reasonably could to prevent harm coming to the Complainant.
I am further satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and wellbeing throughout their engagement. The officer – trained in dealing with persons in mental health crisis and negotiations – spoke with the Complainant. He did so on the balcony but from a distance so as not to pressure the Complainant. The Complainant was offered tea and an opportunity to speak with his family in the apartment if he would step down from the balcony. Regrettably, the Complainant remained steadfast on top of the railing, mostly unengaged with the SO’s overtures. When the Complainant jumped from the railing, he left the SO little time, if any, to intervene to prevent his fall.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law throughout his engagement with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges. The file is closed.
Date: April 24, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
Endnotes
- 1) The information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [Back to text]
- 2) The location from where the Complainant reportedly jumped. [Back to text]
- 3) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
Note:
The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.