SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-TCD-098

Warning:

This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

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.

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. 
Pursuant to section 21 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 
  • 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 56-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU [1]

On March 30, 2023, at 5:28 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the death of the Complainant.

According to the TPS, on March 30, 2023, at 4:30 p.m., TPS officers responded to a call at a high-rise apartment on Martha Eaton Way about a person contemplating death by suicide. A friend of the Complainant’s had called police for a wellness check. When police officers arrived, they found the Complainant on the balcony of his apartment. The Subject Official (SO) and Witness Official (WO) #1 attended an adjacent apartment and went out on the balcony. The SO was able to engage the Complainant in some conversation but, shortly after, the Complainant stepped off the balcony and fell to the ground.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 03/30/2023 at 6:35 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 03/30/2023 at 7:12 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
 
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

56-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between March 30, 2023, and April 4, 2023.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on April 27, 2023.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on April 3, 2023.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the balconies of two apartments on Martha Eaton Way.

On March 30, 2023, at 7:39 p.m., the SIU arrived at the scene of the incident at a high-rise apartment on Martha Eaton Way. The scene was well protected by uniformed members of TPS.

The Complainant was found deceased on the grass at the side of the apartment building. He was lying on his back with his head 3.4 metres from the nearest balcony and his feet 1.9 metres from the same balcony.

At 9:00 p.m., the SIU went to the Complainant’s apartment.

The balcony of the adjacent apartment was photographed. It was completely enclosed with a mesh fencing. This balcony was approximately ten metres from the Complainant’s balcony.

The Complainant’s balcony measured 4.2 metres by 2.5 metres. The balcony railing was one metre high. The distance from the top of the railing to the ground below was 53.7 metres.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

Video Footage – Martha Eaton Way

The video captured the side of the apartment. A portion of grassed yard between the camera and the building was in view. The view included the ground floor apartments up to the bottom of the fourth floor balcony.

At 4:13:52 p.m., March 30, 2023, a man [now known to be the Complainant] entered the top of the camera view in mid-air. The Complainant landed on the grass in front of a ground floor balcony.

At 4:13:59 p.m., police officers entered the video frame from the west and east sides and ran towards the Complainant. They began to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on the Complainant. The police officers continued CPR until paramedics arrived at 4:21:05 p.m.

Paramedics continued CPR and physical assessments until 4:29:36 p.m., when an orange blanket was placed over the Complainant. No further emergency services were provided to the Complainant and paramedics left the area at 4:35:19 p.m.

TPS Communications Recordings

At 3:38:52 p.m., March 30, 2023, CW #2 contacted 911 to report that the Complainant had threatened to die by suicide. Simultaneous police radio communications began at 3:42:39 p.m., as information continued to be relayed from the 911 call. The apartment’s address was provided. CW #2 was not certain of the apartment number. He indicated a friend, the Complainant, had called him upset and crying. The Complainant had told CW #2, “It was over.”

At 3:42:39 p.m., the police dispatcher requested that the SO re-route to the address for a “hotshot” unknown trouble. The 911 caller was unsure of the unit number.

At 3:43:44 p.m., a police unit asked over the police radio if there was a Mobile Crisis Intervention Team (MCIT) available. WO #1 indicated he could head over and was leaving the station.

At 3:48:39 p.m., the Complainant’ s cell phone number was requested to determine location.

At 3:52:17 p.m., the SO advised that he and other police officers were headed up to the Complainant’s apartment.

At 3:54:43 p.m., WO #1 stated he was in the adjacent apartment. The Complainant was on his balcony, and WO #1 was going to try to talk to him. WO #1 further advised the Complainant was clearly in distress.

At 3:56:02 p.m., WO #1 advised the Complainant had one leg over the balcony.

At 3:58:49 p.m., WO #1 advised he had a key to the Complainant’s unit but would hold off.

At 3:59:55 p.m., the dispatcher called paramedics and confirmed they were on their way.

At 4:09:36 p.m., WO #1 indicated the Complainant still had one leg over the railing, and the SO was talking to him and had built a rapport.

At 4:14:16 p.m., the SO stated, “Male jumped,” and that the Complainant was not moving.

At 4:15:27 p.m., police on the ground advised they were doing CPR.

At 4:23:47 p.m., it was reported paramedics were on scene.

At 4:33:00 p.m., it was noted that the Complainant had been pronounced deceased at 4:28 p.m. by paramedics.
 

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

WO #2’s BWC Footage

At 3:48 p.m., March 30, 2023, WO #2 attended a high-rise apartment on Martha Eaton Way.

At 3:53 p.m., WO #2 knocked at the Complainant’s apartment with no response. He remained outside the door in the hallway.

At 4:02 p.m., WO #2 was given a key for the apartment.

At 4:12 p.m., WO #2 unlocked the apartment, but did not open the door.

At 4:14 p.m., WO #2 entered the apartment after being advised that a man - the Complainant - had jumped from the balcony. There was a closed balcony door with a curtain at the rear left of the living room. WO #2 opened the door and went on the balcony where a bucket was on the ground, turned upside down near the concrete railing, and bird mesh had been removed and pulled to the left side. There was a wallet on the ground, which remained there undisturbed.

At 4:16 p.m., WO #2 walked back into the apartment, completed a search, exited into the hallway, and secured the apartment door.

The SO’s BWC Footage

On March 30, 2023, the SO was partnered with WO #2 in a marked police cruiser.

At 3:42 p.m., a service call was received for a person at risk of dying by suicide at a high-rise apartment on Martha Eaton Way.

At 3:46 p.m., the SO arrived on scene and entered the apartment building with WO #2 and WO #1. It had been reported that a third-party had indicated an individual who was thinking of suicide and provided two potential unit numbers.

At 3:55 p.m., the SO heard over the police radio that WO #1 had seen a man, the Complainant, on the balcony of his apartment from the balcony of the adjacent apartment.

The resident of the adjacent apartment was home and allowed WO #1 and the SO entry into the unit. The SO went to the balcony of the adjacent apartment and observed the Complainant distraught and upset, with his right leg over the balcony railing. The balcony of the adjacent apartment allowed for an unobstructed view of the Complainant. The SO immediately engaged the Complainant in communication.

The SO asked the Complainant why he was there, how they could help him, and if there was anyone they could call for him. The SO also asked the Complainant if he would be willing to speak with him from inside the apartment. The SO tried to keep the Complainant engaged and discussed personal background information and the Complainant’s prior work throughout their interaction. At one point, the Complainant said, “I know you’re stalling,” and told the SO he wanted them to know he was a good man and to tell his kids that he was sorry. The Complainant told the SO to check his phone that was in his apartment and shouted out the password, of which only the first number was audible. The Complainant took something out of his left jacket pocket, said it was his wallet, and threw it on the balcony floor.

When the SO tried to ask additional questions about whether he could help him, the Complainant stared blankly over the edge and continued to shift around on the balcony railing.

The SO’s interaction with the Complainant lasted about 20 minutes and he was the only police officer engaged in communications with the Complainant.

At 4:14 p.m., the Complainant lifted his other leg over the balcony railing and jumped off the balcony. The SO reported the Complainant had jumped over the police radio. Police officers stationed on the ground commenced CPR on the Complainant.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between March 30, 2023, and April 21, 2023:
  • The Complainant - Occurrence History;
  • General Occurrence Report;
  • Event Details Report;
  • BWC footage;
  • Communications recordings;
  • In-car camera system footage;
  • Policy – Persons in Crisis;
  • Policy – MCIT;
  • Notes – SO;
  • Notes – WO #1; and
  • Notes – WO #2.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on April 25, 2023:
  • Video footage from Martha Eaton Way; and
  • Cell phone video footage from CW #1.

Incident Narrative

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized.

In the afternoon of March 30, 2023, officers were dispatched to an apartment building on Martha Eaton Way, Toronto, following a report about a person contemplating suicide at the address. CW #2 had called police to report that he was concerned for the wellbeing of the Complainant. He had just received a call from the Complainant in which he was crying and had said that “it was over”.

The SO and his partner, WO #2, together with a member of the TPS MCIT, WO #1, attended at the building. Following some uncertainty about the location of his apartment, they eventually found the Complainant on the balcony of his apartment. Finding the apartment locked, the SO and WO #1 had entered the adjacent apartment, from which balcony they observed the Complainant. The time was about 3:55 p.m.

The Complainant was straddling the balcony railing, his right leg over the exterior side of the railing. He was clearly upset. The SO spoke with the Complainant and asked how they could help him. The officer broached a number of topics with the Complainant and appeared to develop some rapport with him. The Complainant refused, however, to return to safety, at one point telling the SO that he knew the officer was stalling. After about 20 minutes, the Complainant brought his left leg over the railing and jumped.

Officers at ground level rushed to the Complainant and CPR was provided. The Complainant was pronounced deceased at the scene at about 4:35 p.m.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to multiple blunt force injuries.

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

The Complainant passed away in Toronto on March 30, 2023, from a fall from height. As police officers had been present and engaged with the Complainant at the time, the SIU was notified and initiated an investigation of the incident. 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 fall. In my view, there was not.

The SO was lawfully placed and engaged in the exercise of his duty as he entered on the balcony of the adjacent apartment and spoke with the Complainant. An officer’s foremost obligation is the protection and preservation of life. Knowing that the Complainant was contemplating death by suicide, the SO was duty bound to do what he reasonably could to prevent that harm from materializing.

While on the balcony over the course of about 20 minutes, it is apparent that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and safety. He attempted, in caring and compassionate tones, to dissuade the Complainant from jumping. He did so in a variety of ways, asking about his job and personal background. Regrettably, though the officer achieved a level of engagement with the Complainant, he was unable to talk him to safety. The officers might have considered entering the Complainant’s apartment, which they were able to unlock, to deal with the Complainant at greater proximity. However, the Complainant was in a very precarious state, physically and mentally, and I am unable to fault the officers for not wanting to risk a possible escalation of the situation.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in his dealings with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: July 11, 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.