SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-OCD-194
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 59-year-old woman (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 59-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On May 24, 2023, at 8:30 a.m., the Kingston Police (KP) contacted the SIU with the following information.On May 23, 2023, at 5:20 p.m., Civilian Witness (CW) #1 had called KP to report that the Complainant was thinking of suicide. Police officers attended a residential building on Bath Road, Kingston, met with CW #1 and went up to the Complainant’s apartment. The Complainant refused to open the door. At 6:00 p.m., KP received several 911 calls reporting that a female had jumped from a balcony at the building on Bath Road. The body was identified as the Complainant.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 05/24/2023 at 9:16 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 05/24/2023 at 9:45 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
59-year-old female, deceasedCivilian Witnesses
CW #1 Interviewed CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed on May 24, 2023, and May 25, 2023.
Witness Officials
WO #1 Interviewed WO #2 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed on May 30, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in and around a multi-storey apartment building on Bath Road, Kingston. The apartments had balconies connected to the interior of the unit via a lockable door. On May 24, 2023, the scene - the interior of an apartment and the outside vicinity immediately below the balcony of the apartment - was examined by a SIU forensic investigator. The forensic investigator took photographs that revealed a scrawled note indicating a possible will from the Complainant.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Video Footage – Nearby Residence
The camera that recorded the footage captured the sides of the Complainant’s apartment building on Bath Road. Starting at about 5:54:28 p.m., the Complainant was captured falling from a balcony and landing on the grass below.
Video Footage – The Complainant’s Apartment Building
The camera that recorded the footage was situated in the lobby of the building.The footage captured WO #1 and WO #2 arriving in the lobby with CW #1, and walking to the left side of the screen. [Though not captured in the footage, it is presumed the officers and CW #1 entered the elevators.] The footage captured WO #2 and WO #1 re-entering the lobby area from the direction of the elevators and running out of the front doors of the building, turning left.
Police Communications Recordings
CW #1 called 911 at 5:22 p.m., May 23, 2023, and reported her mother was thinking about death by suicide.WO #2 and WO #1 were dispatched at 5:28 p.m. and arrived at the apartment building on Bath Road, Kingston, at 5:40 p.m.
At 5:57 p.m., WO #2 and WO #1 requested details of the apartment superintendent to obtain a key to the Complainant’s apartment. They were informed by the communications officer that there were several calls to 911 reporting that someone had jumped from the balcony.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
On May 25, 2023, the SIU obtained the following records from KP:- Communications recordings;
- Occurrence Synopsis;
- Occurrence Report;
- Arrest Report;
- Apprehension Report;
- Initial Missing Person Report;
- Occurrence Initial Report;
- Supplemental Report;
- Record of computer-assisted dispatch;
- Witness List;
- Video footage from two buildings on Bath Road, Kingston;
- Officer notes-WO #2; and
- Officer notes-WO #1.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources: - Preliminary Autopsy Findings from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service, received May 25, 2023.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with four civilian eyewitnesses and video footage that captured the incident in parts, gives rise to the following scenario.
In the afternoon of May 23, 2023, WO #1 and WO #2 were dispatched to an apartment on Bath Road, Kingston. CW #1 had contacted police to report that the Complainant was inside the apartment and thinking of suicide.
The officers arrived on scene and spoke with CW #1 outside briefly before making their way to an upper floor. They knocked on the door of the apartment, announced their presence as ‘police’, and explained that they were concerned for her safety and wanted to check on her. The Complainant told the officers to “fuck-off”. The officers noted that CW #1 was with them, but there was no further word from inside the apartment.
Soon after the arrival of the officers outside her door, the Complainant went onto her balcony, climbed over the railing, and fell.
WO #1 and WO #2 received word over their radios of 911 calls that were being received of a woman who had fallen from a balcony at the address. The officers made their way outside found the Complainant, deceased, lying below her balcony.
Cause of Death
The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to ‘multiple blunt force injuries’, noting that the injuries were compatible with impact following a descent from a great height.
In the afternoon of May 23, 2023, WO #1 and WO #2 were dispatched to an apartment on Bath Road, Kingston. CW #1 had contacted police to report that the Complainant was inside the apartment and thinking of suicide.
The officers arrived on scene and spoke with CW #1 outside briefly before making their way to an upper floor. They knocked on the door of the apartment, announced their presence as ‘police’, and explained that they were concerned for her safety and wanted to check on her. The Complainant told the officers to “fuck-off”. The officers noted that CW #1 was with them, but there was no further word from inside the apartment.
Soon after the arrival of the officers outside her door, the Complainant went onto her balcony, climbed over the railing, and fell.
WO #1 and WO #2 received word over their radios of 911 calls that were being received of a woman who had fallen from a balcony at the address. The officers made their way outside found the Complainant, deceased, lying below her balcony.
Cause of Death
The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to ‘multiple blunt force injuries’, noting that the injuries were compatible with impact following a descent from a great height.Relevant Legislation
Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code -- Criminal negligence causing death
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.
(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 fell to her death from an upper floor apartment in Kingston on May 23, 2023. As KP officers were present outside the apartment door moments before, and during, the fall, the SIU was notified of the incident by KP and initiated an investigation. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any KP officer 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 any KP officer, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. There was not.
WO #1 and WO #2 were lawfully placed and in the exercise of their duty when they attended outside the apartment on Bath Road, Kingston, to check on the Complainant’s welfare. They had reason to believe that the Complainant had designs on harming herself, and were duty bound to do what they reasonably could in the circumstances to prevent that from happening.
While on scene, the officers comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and well-being. They repeatedly called-out to the Complainant to unlock and open the door, assured her that they were there to help, and took steps to locate a key to the apartment. It is apparent that the Complainant was not receptive to their overtures. It is also apparent that the Complainant, within minutes of WO #1 and WO #2’s arrival, climbed her balcony railing and fell. In the circumstances, it is not at all clear that the officers had any real time to consider a more proactive posture, such as forcibly entering the apartment, or, if they had, that it would have made any difference given the speed with which events unfolded.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that any KP officer transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in their dealings with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: September 21, 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 any KP officer, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. There was not.
WO #1 and WO #2 were lawfully placed and in the exercise of their duty when they attended outside the apartment on Bath Road, Kingston, to check on the Complainant’s welfare. They had reason to believe that the Complainant had designs on harming herself, and were duty bound to do what they reasonably could in the circumstances to prevent that from happening.
While on scene, the officers comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and well-being. They repeatedly called-out to the Complainant to unlock and open the door, assured her that they were there to help, and took steps to locate a key to the apartment. It is apparent that the Complainant was not receptive to their overtures. It is also apparent that the Complainant, within minutes of WO #1 and WO #2’s arrival, climbed her balcony railing and fell. In the circumstances, it is not at all clear that the officers had any real time to consider a more proactive posture, such as forcibly entering the apartment, or, if they had, that it would have made any difference given the speed with which events unfolded.
In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to conclude that any KP officer transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in their dealings with the Complainant, there is no basis for proceeding with charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: September 21, 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.