SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OCI-001
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 serious injuries of a 57-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 serious injuries of a 57-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On January 1, 2023, at 5:21 p.m., the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.According to the HPS, on January 1, 2023, at 4:03 p.m., HPS police officers responded to 911 calls about a male, the Complainant, threatening to jump off a bridge located on King Street East, above Kenilworth Avenue South, in Hamilton. Upon their arrival, Witness Official (WO) #1 and WO #4 engaged in dialogue with the Complainant and a Mobile Crisis Rapid Response Team (MCRRT) was dispatched. At 4:10 p.m., as the MCRRT was arriving, the Complainant jumped from the bridge to the road below, breaking both his ankles. Emergency Medical Services transported him to the Hamilton General Hospital (HGH). It was anticipated that the Complainant would be apprehended under the Mental Health Act. The scene was being secured by the HPS.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 01/01/2023 at 6:36 p.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 01/01/2023 at 6:40 p.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
57-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on January 2, 2023.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between January 2 and 12, 2023.
Witness Officials
WO #1 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewedWO #2 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #4 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #5 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #6 Not interviewed; notes received and reviewed
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired on the north sidewalk of the King Street East bridge over Kenilworth Avenue South. The overpass had a railing attached measuring 1.25 metres in height. The distance from the top of the railing to the roadway on Kenilworth Avenue South was approximately 6.35 metres.
The scene was photographed and measured by the HPS Forensic Identification Services.
Figure 1 - HPS photograph taken from Kenilworth Avenue South and facing south towards the King Street East overpass
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
911 Calls
The 911 caller – the Complainant – contacted 911 and requested that traffic be stopped below the bridge on King Street East. The call-taker asked why he wanted traffic stopped and the Complainant replied he did not want anyone running over his body. The call-taker asked what was going on, and the Complainant replied he was going to jump over the bridge. The call-taker asked for his name, and the Complainant hung-up.
Audio 2
The 911 call-taker called the Complainant back on his cell phone and informed him it was the police calling. The Complainant asked what the police wanted. The call-taker said they were concerned as he had told them he was going to jump off a bridge and then hung-up. The Complainant informed the call-taker that he was going to jump off the bridge but did not want to land on anybody’s vehicle and did not want them to run over his body. The call-taker told him they did not want him to jump. The Complainant replied, “I’m sure you don’t, but that’s just the way it is, okay. I appreciate your thoughts, I’m fine, thank you very much. Either they close it, or I will wait for a clear space.” The call-taker asked the Complainant to stay on the phone and talk as they were going to send people over to help him. He replied that they were not going to stop him; he was going to jump and they had no clue what was going on in his life. The call-taker asked what had happened in his life and the Complainant said he could not discuss it.
Radio Transmissions
Starting at about 00:01 minutes into the recording, WO #1 was dispatched to the call. WO #5 and WO #2 were subsequently also dispatched. The dispatcher conveyed the information that had been received in the 911 calls and directed the officers to the King Street East bridge over Kenilworth Avenue South.Starting at about 02:33 minutes, the dispatcher inquired if there was a MCRRT in the area. An officer with the MCRRT confirmed that he was available and would attend.
Starting at about 06:21 minutes, WO #1 indicated that the Complainant was trying to climb over the railing. WO #2 advised that Kenilworth Avenue South was shut down. WO #5 indicated that westbound traffic was blocked off on King Street East at Kenilworth Avenue South.
Starting at about 08:42 minutes, WO #2 indicated the Complainant was on the other side of the ledge.
Starting at about 10:25 minutes, WO #6 of the MCRRT advised that the MCRRT Unit was en route. WO #2 confirmed that the Complainant was still talking. WO #2 further noted that the Complainant had said he was not going to jump if people were watching, so it might be advisable to keep the cars where they were until the MCRRT arrived.
Starting at about 11:30 minutes, WO #6 of the MCRRT directed that the officers on scene continue to engage with the Complainant and keep him talking, even if he did not want to. WO #1 confirmed that they would do so.
Starting at about 16:49 minutes, WO #2 noted that the Complainant had moved positions, and was then in a seated position on the opposite side of the railing.
Starting at about 18:13 minutes, WO #2 indicated that the Complainant had jumped.
Video Footage from 1745 King Street East
The camera captured the sidewalk just east of the King Street East bridge. There was both pedestrian and vehicular traffic on King Street East.Starting at about 3:53:20 p.m., the Complainant walked eastbound on the north sidewalk and continued eastbound on the sidewalk of the bridge on King Street East. He looked over the side of the bridge to Kenilworth Avenue South, below. The Complainant reached for something. It appeared that he held an article, possibly, a cell phone, in one of his hands.
Starting at about 3:59:34 p.m., a marked SUV police cruiser arrived. It was operated by WO #1, who travelled westbound on King Street East. He parked the police cruiser in the curb lane, just east of the bridge. The HPS cruiser had its overhead emergency lighting activated and faced westbound. The Complainant climbed over the railing on the north side of the bridge onto the outer ledge and held on to the railings behind him. WO #1 stepped out of his police cruiser and stood at the left front corner of the vehicle.
Starting at about 4:00:30 p.m., two additional police cruisers with their overhead emergency lighting activated approached the King Street East bridge, travelling eastbound on King Street East. The first of the two police cruisers de-activated its emergency lighting as it arrived on the bridge, and travelled across the bridge. WO #1 moved and stood at the right front corner of his HPS cruiser, after which he moved onto the sidewalk at the far northeast end of the bridge close to a bus shelter.
Starting at about 4:01:42 p.m., WO #2 appeared. She walked westbound, slowly, on the north sidewalk of King Street East, and approached the area where WO #1 had positioned himself. She joined WO #1 as the Complainant stood on the outer ledge of the bridge.
Starting at about 4:02:03 p.m., WO #5 walked from his HPS cruiser to the north sidewalk at the far west end of the bridge. CW #2 leaned against the building, and observed the ongoing interaction. WO #5 appeared to move a few steps closer to where the Complainant stood and the Complainant, while maintaining his position, made gestures with one of his hands. WO #2 turned and walked eastbound on the sidewalk to CW #2, and two others who had joined, and conversed with them. She then returned to her original location, on the sidewalk at the far northeast end of the bridge.
Starting at about 4:06:51 p.m., the Complainant, while still maintaining his position, made gestures with one of his hands. Still standing, he leaned forward briefly and then straightened himself.
Starting at about 4:10:10 p.m., the Complainant sat down on the outer ledge of the bridge, his feet hanging in the air below, his right arm hanging onto the railing behind him.
Starting at about 4:11:34 p.m., the Complainant let go, falling from the ledge of the bridge, out of video camera view, to the roadway below. There were no police officers near him at the time. WO #2 ran to her right, northbound, out of camera view, on a sidewalk that led to Kenilworth Avenue South. WO #1 entered his police cruiser and drove westbound on the bridge at King Street East.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the HPS between January 3 and 19, 2023:- General Report;
- Communications recordings;
- Event Chronology;
- Forensic Identification Services (FIS) Supplementary Report;
- FIS scene photographs;
- Policy-Responding to Persons in Crisis;
- Notes-WO #4;
- Notes-WO #6;
- Notes-WO #2;
- Notes-WO #1;
- Notes-WO #5; and
- Notes-WO #3.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained and reviewed the following records from other sources:- The Complainant’s medical records from HGH; and
- Video Footage from 1745 King Street East.
Incident Narrative
The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.
In the afternoon of January 1, 2023, the HPS received a 911 call from the Complainant asking that traffic be stopped below the King Street East bridge over Kenilworth Avenue South. The Complainant had decided to end his life. He told the police that it was his intention to jump from the bridge, and that he did not want to be struck by a passing vehicle or have motorists traumatized by the event. Officers were dispatched to the scene as the 911 call-taker implored the Complainant not to jump.
Within minutes of the call, officers began arriving on and below the bridge. The Complainant was located on the north sidewalk of the bridge, over the southbound lanes of Kenilworth Avenue South. Traffic across the westbound lanes of the bridge was blocked, as was southbound traffic on Kenilworth Avenue South. WO #1, WO #2 and WO #5 took up positions on the overpass and attempted to speak with the Complainant, the first two officers from the east end of the bridge, the third from its west end. Shortly after the officers’ arrival, the Complainant climbed over the bridge railing on the north sidewalk and stood on the outer ledge, facing north over the southbound lanes. A MCRRT unit was asked to attend at the scene to take carriage of the matter.
While waiting for the MCRRT to arrive, the officers on the bridge attempted to keep the Complainant talking. They encouraged him not to jump and explained that whatever problems he had could be fixed. The Complainant told them he was determined to end his life, and warned them not to come any closer. He sat on the outer ledge and, after a short period, pushed himself off the bridge. The MCRRT was still en route at the time.
Officers on scene quickly rushed to his location. The Complainant was conscious but in pain. The officers kept him stabilized while waiting for paramedics.
The Complainant was transported to hospital where he was diagnosed with fractures of the right femur, right pelvis bone and left hip bone, and a tear to the bladder.
In the afternoon of January 1, 2023, the HPS received a 911 call from the Complainant asking that traffic be stopped below the King Street East bridge over Kenilworth Avenue South. The Complainant had decided to end his life. He told the police that it was his intention to jump from the bridge, and that he did not want to be struck by a passing vehicle or have motorists traumatized by the event. Officers were dispatched to the scene as the 911 call-taker implored the Complainant not to jump.
Within minutes of the call, officers began arriving on and below the bridge. The Complainant was located on the north sidewalk of the bridge, over the southbound lanes of Kenilworth Avenue South. Traffic across the westbound lanes of the bridge was blocked, as was southbound traffic on Kenilworth Avenue South. WO #1, WO #2 and WO #5 took up positions on the overpass and attempted to speak with the Complainant, the first two officers from the east end of the bridge, the third from its west end. Shortly after the officers’ arrival, the Complainant climbed over the bridge railing on the north sidewalk and stood on the outer ledge, facing north over the southbound lanes. A MCRRT unit was asked to attend at the scene to take carriage of the matter.
While waiting for the MCRRT to arrive, the officers on the bridge attempted to keep the Complainant talking. They encouraged him not to jump and explained that whatever problems he had could be fixed. The Complainant told them he was determined to end his life, and warned them not to come any closer. He sat on the outer ledge and, after a short period, pushed himself off the bridge. The MCRRT was still en route at the time.
Officers on scene quickly rushed to his location. The Complainant was conscious but in pain. The officers kept him stabilized while waiting for paramedics.
The Complainant was transported to hospital where he was diagnosed with fractures of the right femur, right pelvis bone and left hip bone, and a tear to the bladder.
Relevant Legislation
Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing bodily harm
219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.
Analysis and Director's Decision
The Complainant was seriously injured in a fall from a bridge in Hamilton on January 1, 2023. As HPS officers were present on and below the bridge at the time of the incident, the SIU was notified and initiated an investigation. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any HPS officer committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s fall and injuries.
The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 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 officers who engaged with the Complainant, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant injuries. In my view, there was not.
There is no evidence to suggest that any of the HPS officers who responded to the situation on the King Street East bridge failed to comport themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s well-being and public safety. They quickly halted traffic in the area, called for the deployment of the MCRRT, and did what they could to convince the Complainant to not hurt himself, all the while maintaining a comfortable distance so as not to precipitate any rash conduct by the Complainant. Regrettably, the Complainant could not be deterred, but that was through no want of trying on the part of the officers on the bridge.
For the foregoing reasons, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the involved HPS officers transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in connection with their dealings with the Complainant. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: April 28, 2023
Electronically approved by
Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit
The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 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 officers who engaged with the Complainant, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant injuries. In my view, there was not.
There is no evidence to suggest that any of the HPS officers who responded to the situation on the King Street East bridge failed to comport themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s well-being and public safety. They quickly halted traffic in the area, called for the deployment of the MCRRT, and did what they could to convince the Complainant to not hurt himself, all the while maintaining a comfortable distance so as not to precipitate any rash conduct by the Complainant. Regrettably, the Complainant could not be deterred, but that was through no want of trying on the part of the officers on the bridge.
For the foregoing reasons, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the involved HPS officers transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in connection with their dealings with the Complainant. As such, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: April 28, 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 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.