Director's Report Details

• 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.

 

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 06/15/2023 at 5:11 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 06/15/2023 at 5:42 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

 

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

58-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Not interviewed; next-of-kin

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 15, 2023, and June 26, 2023.

 

Subject Officials (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on June 26, 2023.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO Interviewed

The witness official was interviewed on June 27, 2023.

 

Holiday Inn Express – Fourth-floor Room

The beds had been stripped of their coverings, the television and a mirror damaged. The ottoman was tipped on its side and positioned below the Jarvis Street facing window.




Figure 1 - Interior of the room with beds stripped of bedding

Scene Diagram

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

Communications Recordings

Radio

Starting at about 3:01 a.m., TPS officers were dispatched to the Holiday Inn Express on information provided by a passerby that the Complainant was shouting and throwing items from a fourth-floor broken window onto Jarvis Street.

Starting at about 3:02 a.m., police officers arrived and reported the Complainant in crisis and in a highly agitated state. He was throwing items out a broken window that was large enough to climb out.

Starting at about 3:06 a.m., the WO and other police officers entered the hotel.

Starting at about 3:11 a.m., the Complainant was agitated and wanted to be shot by police.

Starting at about 3:13 a.m., the door latch on the room was discovered engaged and the police officers were unable to enter. They would wait until ETF [Emergency Task Force] arrived.

Starting at about 3:21:30 a.m., the Complainant stepped onto the ledge outside the window.

Starting at about 3:21:51 a.m., the Complainant jumped.

Starting at about 3:23 a.m., police officers entered the room and found nobody inside.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

Multiple BWC videos were provided that captured the events from both inside and outside the Holiday Inn Express. To eliminate redundancy, only one video from each location was synopsized below.

Starting at about 3:10 a.m., police officers walked towards the hotel where pillows, blankets, shoes, broken glass and water bottles were observed on the street. The Complainant was at the window of his room when Officer #1 said, “Hello. Hey. Hi sir, can you look at me, sir?” Officer #1 and other police officers tried to engage the Complainant by repeatedly asking his name. The Complainant shouted back but did not provide his name.

 
Starting at about 3:12 a.m., police officers told the Complainant to step back from the window. The Complainant cried and screamed. Officer #1 told him it was going to be okay, not to be scared and to sit down. A man’s voice off-camera said to get inside the window. The Complainant was told repeatedly to sit down, that everything was okay and to go inside. The Complainant screamed and cursed.

Starting at about 3:13 a.m., Officer #1 told the Complainant they were there to help him, everything was going to be okay, and to have a seat and talk to them.

 
Starting at about 3:17 a.m., the Complainant shouted, “Shoot me,” repeatedly. Officer #1 replied that they did not want to do that.

Starting at about 3:21 a.m., the Complainant climbed out the window and sat on the edge of the window frame. Officer #1 and other police officers shouted at him to get down and to go back inside. The Complainant leapt from the windowsill. Officer #1 turned away. [Other BWCs captured the Complainant’s fall and impact on the ground.]

 
Starting at about 3:22 a.m., paramedics provided aid to the Complainant.

 
 
Interior of the Holiday Inn Express – the WO

Starting at about 3:05 a.m., the WO and five other police officers entered the hotel. A universal room access swipe card was obtained from the front desk and they were told the Complainant’s room number.

 
Starting at about 3:08 a.m., the police officers assembled outside the Complainant’s room. The WO placed a piece of black tape over the peephole.

 
Starting at about 3:09 a.m., the Complainant was banging and shouting. The WO asked what was happening and the Complainant replied, expressing apparent paranoid delusions.

 
The WO asked, “What’s going on with you tonight, buddy? Can we help you, it’s Toronto Police. What’s your name, buddy?” The Complainant rambled inaudibly.

 
The WO introduced himself by his first name, and the Complainant said, “You aren’t the police.” The WO repeated his name and offer of help.

 
Starting at about 3:10 a.m., the WO received a cellular telephone call from the SO and was told the Complainant was halfway out the window and they were not to enter the room. The WO told him they had a key and were at the door.

 
Starting at about 3:11 a.m., the SO told him that the Complainant was saying he wanted to be shot by the police and that he had a hostage. The WO was instructed not to open the door with the key and the call ended. The Complainant was rambling incoherently. The WO told the Complainant they were there to help him.

Starting at about 3:12 a.m., the WO asked the Complainant his name and was told he did not know because he had thrown his passport out the window. The WO directed a police officer to use the access card to open the door. It was unsuccessful.

 
Starting at about 3:13 a.m., police officers continued to swipe the door access and turn the door handle. The door opened partially; however, the interior door latch was engaged. The WO kicked the door but could not get it open. Police officers told the Complainant they wanted to help him.

There was a radio transmission that the Complainant was at the window.

 
The WO advised they had attempted to make entry while the Complainant was away from the window, but the latch prevented their entry. They were going to hold their position and wait for ETF.

Starting at about 3:14 a.m., the WO knocked on the door and told the Complainant they wanted to help him and asked what was going on.

 
Starting at about 3:17 a.m., a police officer in the hallway called the SO on the radio and asked for an update. He was told the Complainant was quiet.

 
A police officer asked dispatch if ETF were attending and was told they were.

 
Starting at about 3:18 a.m., a police officer radioed the SO that they had retrieved a latch remover from the front desk. He was told to remain in the hallway.

 
The WO was told other police officers had dealt with the Complainant days earlier for a wellness check. He asked the Complainant if he had spoken with family lately. The Complainant sounded angry, yelled, and rambled incoherently.

 
Starting at about 3:20 a.m., the WO told a police officer in the hallway that the sergeant told them to wait for ETF and that was what they were going to do.

 
Starting at about 3:21 a.m., a police officer knocked on the door and said, “[The Complainant]. Hey [the Complainant]. Can you come talk to us through the door? We’re just here to check up on you, we’re here to see if you’re okay. [The Complainant], [the Complainant] can you please talk to us?”

The police officers learned over the radio that the Complainant was outside the window.

 
Starting at about 3:22 a.m., the police officers learned the Complainant had jumped from the window and they made entry to the room using the latch remover.

The SO’s BWC

Starting at about 3:09 a.m., the SO arrived.

Starting at about 3:10 a.m., the SO stood on Jarvis Street and called the WO on his cellular telephone. He muted the BWC microphone, and the conversation was not captured.

Starting at about 3:19 a.m., the SO’s microphone was turned back on. He was speaking with the WO but due to background noise the conversation could not be captured.

Starting at about 3:21 a.m., the microphone was muted.

 

Cell Phone Video

An eight-second video clip provided by a civilian was taken from the east sidewalk of Jarvis Street. It captured paramedics providing aid to the Complainant after he had jumped and did not capture the interaction involving TPS officers.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

The SIU obtained the following records from the TPS, which were received between June 19, 2023, and July 11, 2023:

• Names and roles of involved police officers;
• Computer-aided dispatch summary;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Communications recordings;
• BWC footage;
• Duty Book Notes-the WO;
• Duty Book Notes-the SO; and
• Policy-Persons in Crisis.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources:

• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service, received June 16, 2023; and
• Cell phone video from civilian, received June 16, 2023.

Shortly after 3:00 a.m. of June 15, 2023, TPS officers began arriving at the Holiday Inn Express, 111 Lombard Street, Toronto, following 911 calls of an agitated male throwing items from the window of his hotel room. Among those officers was the SO, who essentially assumed a command role among the police presence. He was stationed on the street below the room in question. The WO was another of those officers. He and other officers assembled outside the hotel room.

The male was the Complainant. The Complainant was having a mental health crisis. He yelled, kicked at the room’s walls, broke a window, and threw items out onto the street below – Jarvis Street.

 
Officers from outside the Complainant’s door and those on Jarvis Street attempted to de-escalate the situation. They tried speaking with the Complainant to calm him down, assuring him that they were there to help. Efforts to enter the room failed as the Complainant had engaged the door latch. The ETF was contacted to attend the scene.

At about 3:20 a.m., the Complainant stepped outside the broken window onto a ledge, sat on the windowsill momentarily, then stood up, turned around, and jumped, falling to his death.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to blunt impact trauma of head and torso.

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

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.

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 and the other officers who responded to the Holiday Inn Express were lawfully placed throughout their engagement with the Complainant. An officer’s foremost obligation is the protection and preservation of life. Aware of the events unfolding at the hotel and the Complainant’s predicament, the officers were duty bound to attend to do what they reasonably could to assist the Complainant.

With respect to his conduct at the scene, I am satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for public safety and the Complainant’s welfare. In the few minutes the sergeant had to work with, he and officers under his command attempted to assuage the Complainant with words of support and care. He authorized an entry into the room when verbal exhortations were going nowhere, and it seemed as if the Complainant was away from the broken window, but then promptly and, reasonably, in my view, changed course to direct no further entry attempts when the initial foray failed and appeared to agitate the Complainant. He decided at that point that their best tactic was to wait for the ETF to deploy at the scene. That too was a prudent decision given the additional expertise and resources at the ETF’s disposal to deal with these types of situations. Regrettably, the Complainant climbed outside the window and jumped before the ETF arrived or there was any further opportunity at a forced entry.

In the result, as there are no reasonable grounds to believe 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: October 13, 2023

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit