SIU Director’s Report - Case # 23-TCI-289
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 injury of a 48-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 injury of a 48-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU [1]
On July 26, 2023, at 3:57 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant. According to the TPS, on July 25, 2023, at 8:51 p.m., TPS officers in 32 Division responded to a residence in the area of Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue following a report of a male in crisis. Officers spoke with the Complainant upon arrival and observed as he drank a quantity of brake fluid. The Complainant was apprehended and transported to the North York General Hospital. On July 26, 2023, at 12:34 a.m., the Complainant was admitted to hospital. The Complainant was in critical condition in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at the time of notification.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 07/26/2023 at 4:52 a.m.Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 07/26/2023 at 11:58 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
48-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewedThe Complainant was interviewed on August 9, 2023.
Civilian Witnesses (CW)
CW #1 InterviewedCW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed on July 27, 2023.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 InterviewedWO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
The witness officials were interviewed between August 3 and 8, 2023.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in a bedroom of a residence near Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue, Toronto.Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - WO #2
On July 25, 2023, starting at about 9:21 p.m., WO #1 was approached by CW #1. He informed WO #1 he believed the Complainant was “out of his mind”. The Complainant was walking around bothering other residents. Starting at about 9:22 p.m., WO #1 informed CW #1 the Mobile Crisis Intervention Team (MCIT) nurse was on the way.
Starting at about 9:23 p.m., WO #1 and WO #2 entered the residence and attended the Complainant’s room. The Complainant exited the room and spoke with the police officers. WO #1 informed the Complainant the other residents were concerned for his mental health. The Complainant informed WO #1 he was okay.
Starting at about 9:24 p.m., the Complainant and WO #1 entered the room to speak privately. WO #2 stood by the doorway. The Complainant reported he did not take medications, did not hear voices, and was not emotional. He denied feeling suicidal. CW #2 informed WO #1 that the Complainant had not been well the past month. WO #2 asked the Complainant if he wanted to go to the hospital to be checked by a doctor. The Complainant declined, and reported he was “fine”. WO #1 asked if the Complainant wanted to see a psychiatrist, and he declined. WO #1 informed the Complainant a mental health nurse was coming, and the Complainant declined to speak to her.
Starting at about 9:29 p.m., WO #1 asked the Complainant if he was in an accident, had a fight, or sustained a head injury a month ago. Both the Complainant and CW #2 said no.
Starting at about 9:31 p.m., WO #3 and the mental health nurse, CW #3, arrived. WO #1 updated WO #3 about the Complainant’s behaviour. CW #3 asked the Complainant questions about his employment and the Complainant reported he had not been working since he was in a car accident a month ago. The Complainant did not answer questions to the satisfaction of CW #3, and she asked CW #2 questions about the Complainant’s behaviour.
Starting at about 9:51 p.m., CW #3 informed the Complainant she and the police officers were concerned about the collision he was in. The Complainant objected and said he was fine.
Starting at about 9:55 p.m., CW #2 informed CW #3 he was concerned for everyone’s safety in the house because of the strange things the Complainant was doing.
Starting at about 9:57 p.m., WO #1 offered to drive the Complainant and CW #2 to the hospital, and the Complainant declined.
Starting at about 9:59 p.m., WO #1 asked the Complainant if he thought of, “Ending it all,” and the Complainant nodded his head but admitted he did not have a plan. The Complainant reported he had only thought about ending his life this month. Due to the Complainant’s vagueness, inconsistencies, and general odd behaviour, CW #3 concluded there were grounds to apprehend the Complainant. WO #1 informed the Complainant he would be escorted to the hospital and that CW #2 would accompany him.
Starting at about 10:02 p.m., WO #1 informed the Complainant he was apprehended under the MHA. WO #1 placed both hands on the Complainant’s right elbow and began to guide him forward. The Complainant used his left hand to grab WO #1’s right hand. WO #1 informed the Complainant he did not want to handcuff him and asked him to come outside with him on his own. WO #2 entered the room and WO #1 released the Complainant and used arm movements to prompt the Complainant forward.
Starting at about 10:05 p.m., WO #2 lifted a grey opaque bottle with a blue cap off a table and found it to be STP brake fluid. WO #1 said the Complainant had drunk from the bottle. CW #3 instructed the police officers to call an ambulance.
Starting at about 10:06 p.m., WO #1 called for an ambulance over the radio. The Complainant did not answer the police officers when asked if he drank from the bottle. The Complainant wandered from the room, pulled away from police officers to return to the room, and staggered around.
Starting at about 10:11 p.m., the Complainant was pushed onto the bed on his stomach in a controlled manner. The Complainant attempted to keep his hands under his stomach, and WO #1 and WO #2 removed his hands and handcuffed the Complainant behind his back.
Starting at about 10:14 p.m., the Complainant was led from the room into the hallway and out to the front steps. WO #1 and WO #2 each lifted a leg, held the Complainant by the arm, and helped him down the three front steps.
Starting at about 10:18 p.m., WO #1 removed the Complainant’s handcuffs, and the Complainant was placed onto a stretcher, his right hand handcuffed to the stretcher. WO #2 held the Complainant’s left hand across his body while the paramedics strapped the Complainant to the stretcher. WO #2 handcuffed the Complainant’s left hand to the stretcher.
Starting at about 10:21 p.m., WO #1 handed the bottle of brake fluid to the paramedics. The Complainant was loaded into the ambulance and tended to by the paramedics. The ambulance made its way to the hospital.
BWC Footage - WO #1
Starting at about 10:01 p.m., the Complainant tilted his head back and consumed the contents of a grey bottle.Police Communications Recordings
On July 25, 2023, starting at about 8:44 p.m., CW #1 contacted 911 to report a mental health crisis involving his roommate, the Complainant. The Complainant was walking around the house at night and watching his (CW #1’s) mother while she slept. The Complainant was not violent, had no weapons, and was afraid of the police. The Complainant’s behaviour had changed in the last two to three weeks after his driver’s licence was taken away from him. At 8:51 p.m., WO #1 and WO #2 were dispatched, and the MCIT was requested to attend.
At 9:01 p.m., WO #3 and a mental health nurse, CW #3, were dispatched.
Starting at about 10:06 p.m., WO #2 and WO #1 requested an ambulance over the police radio for a man, conscious and breathing, who had consumed brake fluid in front of them.
Starting at about 10:14 p.m., WO #3 requested an estimated time of arrival for the ambulance. The Complainant was reported to be experiencing an altered level of consciousness.
Starting at about 10:28 p.m., WO #1 reported he was taking the Complainant’s family member, CW #2, to the North York General Hospital, and WO #2 was in the back of the ambulance.
Starting at about 11:00 p.m., the Complainant was in the Emergency Room with a decreasing heart rate.
Starting at about 11:02 p.m., WO #1 said, “The male consumed DOT3 brake fluid prior to being transported, currently still breathing but is unconscious.”
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between July 26, 2023, and August 10, 2023:- BWC footage;
- Communications recordings;
- General Occurrence;
- Event Details Report;
- Involved Officer List;
- Notes – WO #2, WO #1 and WO #3;
- Policy - MCIT; and
- Policy - Persons in Crisis.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources:- Ambulance Call Report and Incident Reports from the Toronto Paramedic Services, received July 26, 2023; and
- The Complainant’s medical record, received August 3, 2023.
Incident Narrative
The events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.
In the evening of July 25, 2023, officers were called to a residence near Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue, Toronto. An occupant had called expressing concern about the behaviour of a tenant – the Complainant. The Complainant was acting strangely and the occupant was worried for the safety of others in the home.
WO #1 and WO #2 were allowed into the home and made their way to a bedroom where WO #1 took the lead in speaking with the Complainant. Also present was a family member of the Complainant. The Complainant indicated he felt fine and denied wanting to hurt himself. Asked if he wanted to go to hospital, the Complainant declined.
About ten minutes later, at about 9:30 p.m., WO #3 and a nurse, CW #3, both of the MCIT, arrived at the residence. CW #3 engaged the Complainant in conversation. She was told by CW #2 that he was concerned for the safety of persons in the home because of the Complainant’s behaviour. The Complainant was again asked, and declined, to go to the hospital. Shortly thereafter, he admitted having thoughts of suicide. CW #3 concluded there were grounds for an apprehension under the Mental Health Act, and WO #1 advised the Complainant he was under arrest. At about the same time, the Complainant lifted a bottle from a nearby table and drank from it. The time was about 10:00 p.m.
CW #3 and the officers would quickly come to learn that the bottle contained automobile brake fluid. An ambulance was called.
Paramedics attended at the residence and took the Complainant to hospital. He would receive treatment in the ICU.
In the evening of July 25, 2023, officers were called to a residence near Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue, Toronto. An occupant had called expressing concern about the behaviour of a tenant – the Complainant. The Complainant was acting strangely and the occupant was worried for the safety of others in the home.
WO #1 and WO #2 were allowed into the home and made their way to a bedroom where WO #1 took the lead in speaking with the Complainant. Also present was a family member of the Complainant. The Complainant indicated he felt fine and denied wanting to hurt himself. Asked if he wanted to go to hospital, the Complainant declined.
About ten minutes later, at about 9:30 p.m., WO #3 and a nurse, CW #3, both of the MCIT, arrived at the residence. CW #3 engaged the Complainant in conversation. She was told by CW #2 that he was concerned for the safety of persons in the home because of the Complainant’s behaviour. The Complainant was again asked, and declined, to go to the hospital. Shortly thereafter, he admitted having thoughts of suicide. CW #3 concluded there were grounds for an apprehension under the Mental Health Act, and WO #1 advised the Complainant he was under arrest. At about the same time, the Complainant lifted a bottle from a nearby table and drank from it. The time was about 10:00 p.m.
CW #3 and the officers would quickly come to learn that the bottle contained automobile brake fluid. An ambulance was called.
Paramedics attended at the residence and took the Complainant to hospital. He would receive treatment in the ICU.
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.
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Analysis and Director's Decision
On July 26, 2023, the TPS contacted the SIU to report that a male whom officers had apprehended the day before under the Mental Health Act – the Complainant – was in critical condition at hospital. The SIU initiated an investigation of the incident, which has since concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the officers involved in the Complainant’s apprehension committed a criminal offence in connection with the matter.
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 police, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s medical event. In my view, there was not.
WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3 were lawfully placed throughout their engagement with the Complainant. They had been called to the scene to check on the welfare of the Complainant, who had been exhibiting odd and disturbing behaviour, including walking around at night and watching people while they slept.
It is also apparent that the officers comported themselves at all times with due care and regard for the Complainant’s well-being. WO #1 and WO #2 asked the right questions and were empathetic in their dealings with the Complainant. They tried to encourage him to attend the hospital, and then waited for a mental health professional to arrive to decide whether there were grounds to force his attendance. They had no idea that the bottle on the table contained brake fluid, and therefore had no opportunity to prevent the Complainant imbibing the substance when he did. However, they acted quickly to ascertain exactly that the substance was when the Complainant’s condition started to deteriorate, and promptly summoned an ambulance to the scene.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: November 23, 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 police, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s medical event. In my view, there was not.
WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3 were lawfully placed throughout their engagement with the Complainant. They had been called to the scene to check on the welfare of the Complainant, who had been exhibiting odd and disturbing behaviour, including walking around at night and watching people while they slept.
It is also apparent that the officers comported themselves at all times with due care and regard for the Complainant’s well-being. WO #1 and WO #2 asked the right questions and were empathetic in their dealings with the Complainant. They tried to encourage him to attend the hospital, and then waited for a mental health professional to arrive to decide whether there were grounds to force his attendance. They had no idea that the bottle on the table contained brake fluid, and therefore had no opportunity to prevent the Complainant imbibing the substance when he did. However, they acted quickly to ascertain exactly that the substance was when the Complainant’s condition started to deteriorate, and promptly summoned an ambulance to the scene.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: November 23, 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.