Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act (“FIPPA”)

Pursuant to section 14 of FIPPA (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 whose release 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 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• subject officer name(s)
• witness officer name(s)
• civilian witness name(s)
• 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 (“PHIPA”)

Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may have also 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 Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.

“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injuries sustained by a 34-year-old man on February 4, 2017 when he fell from his fourth floor balcony.

Notification of the SIU

On February 5, 2017, at 1:05 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s custody injury.

TPS reported that on Saturday, February 4, 2017, at 11:00 p.m., TPS police officers responded to an “unknown trouble” call for service regarding a man and woman on a balcony of an apartment building in Toronto. Six police officers arrived at the apartment building. Two police officers, [now known to be Subject Officer (SO) #1 and Witness Officer (WO) #4] entered the fourth floor apartment and saw the Complainant and a woman, [now known to be Civilian Witness (CW) #3] struggling on the balcony. Before SO #1 and WO #4 could reach the balcony, the Complainant fell to the ground below. The Complainant was transported to the hospital and diagnosed with fractured wrists, forearms, elbows, and spine, and internal bleeding.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

SIU Forensic Investigators responded to the scene and identified and preserved evidence. They documented the relevant scenes associated with the incident by way of notes, photography, sketches and measurements. The Forensic Investigators also made submissions to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS).

Complainant

34-year-old male, not interviewed and medical records not obtained[1]

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

WO #6 Interviewed

Subject officers

SO #1 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed.

SO #2 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed.

SO #3 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed.

During the late evening of February 4, 2017, the Complainant and CW #3 were on their fourth floor balcony. The Complainant was trying to throw CW #3 over the railing. CW #6 was watching from a neighbouring unit and called 911. Several TPS officers, including SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3, responded.

SO #1 and WO #4 were the first officers to arrive. At the time they arrived, the Complainant and CW #3 (who the officers knew to be blind) were struggling on the balcony. The Complainant was grabbing at CW #3. CW #3 shouted for help and stated that the Complainant was going to throw her off the balcony. The Complainant was very agitated, and was known to the officers to have significant mental health issues. SO #1 yelled at the Complainant to stop, and then ran into the building.

Several moments later, SO #1 and WO #4 entered the apartment unit where they found CW #3 on the floor inside the balcony doors pleading for help, and the Complainant mounting the balcony railing. SO #2 and SO #3 had arrived and were on the ground below, urging the Complainant to get off the balcony and re-enter the apartment. The Complainant was crouched on top of the railing. Before SO #1 was able to reach the balcony, the Complainant let go of the railing and fell to the ground. No one else was on the balcony at the time.

The Complainant was taken to hospital by ambulance, where it was determined that he had sustained numerous life threatening injuries, including significant spinal canal injuries, fractures in the lower thoracic and upper lumbar spines, bilateral elbow dislocations and forearm fractures bilaterally, chest injuries including a fractured breast bone, liver, spleen and bowel injuries, and pelvic injuries including a pelvic fracture.

The scene

There were two scenes associated with the incident: the outside scene where the Complainant had been located, and his fourth floor apartment.

The apartment building is a six-storey building. There is a driveway on the west side of the building that leads to the parking area and the back of the building. The driveway has a steep descending grade leading to the back of the building. There are balconies on the west side above part of the driveway leading to the back.

On the concrete ground-cover under the most southerly balcony was a small area of what appeared to be blood.

The second associated scene incorporated the Complainant’s apartment and its balcony. The apartment unit was sparsely decorated.

There was an L-shaped couch in the living room that appeared to be used as a bed. There was a TV sitting on a small TV stand. The adjoining dining area included a small, circular table and three chairs. The bedroom had a metal futon frame and the cushion for the futon was on the floor. There was men’s clothing in this room.

There was a hinged door leading to the balcony. The balcony consisted of glass panels and a tubular top metal rail. The balcony panels, including the railing, were 1.07 metres high. The south end of the balcony was directly over the blood stain located on the concrete below. The distance from the top of the railing to the ground was 13.32 metres (approximately 43.7 feet).

The glass panels of the balcony were dirty and dusty. On the south end of the balcony the dirt and dust on the panels were disturbed on the outer and inner surfaces. This area was examined for fingerprints, with no fingerprints found.

Scene diagram

Forensic Evidence

Specimens of the Complainant’s pre-transfusion blood were submitted to the CFS for analysis to determine whether the Complainant had been drinking alcoholic beverages or using any drugs containing amphetamine.

The CFS Toxicology Report dated April 19, 2017 for the Complainant’s blood and urine specimens collected at the time of his admission to hospital indicated traces of cocaine and haloperidol, with the latter being an anti-psychotic drug.

There were also benzoylecgonine, which is a pharmacologically and toxicologically inactive breakdown product of cocaine that can form in vivo or in vitro. Accordingly, the cocaine blood concentration could have been higher at the moment the Complainant descended from the balcony.

Video/audio/photographic evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence. TPS provided in-car camera (ICC) video recordings from four marked cruisers.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from TPS

• Communications recordings
• TPS video interview of CW #5
• Event Details Report
• General Occurrence
• ICC recordings
• Scenes of Crime Officer photos
• Injury Report
• Notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5 and WO #6
• Parade Sheet Report
• Person Search
• Procedure - Emotionally Disturbed Persons
• Procedure - Use of Force
• Procedure - In-Car Camera System, and
• Automated Dispatch System (ADS) Summary Sheet - Summary of Conversation

On February 4^th, 2017, a 911 call was received by TPS requesting assistance as a man and a woman were observed on the balcony of a fourth floor unit of an apartment building in the City of Toronto. The caller advised that he was located outside of the building and heard the woman screaming that the male was trying to throw her off the balcony.

SO #1, SO #2, SO #3, WO #4, WO #5 and WO #6 were all dispatched to the scene, with SO #1 and WO #4 arriving first.

SO #1 advised that upon arrival at the building, at 9:51 p.m., he and WO #4 parked their cruiser and were able to hear CW #3 screaming before they had even exited their vehicle. SO #1 went to the outside north side of the building and observed a struggle on the balcony with the Complainant grabbing CW #3; CW #3 was resisting and shouting “please help!” and saying that the Complainant was going to throw her off the balcony. SO #1 yelled at the Complainant to stop what he was doing.

At 9:54 p.m., SO #1 and WO #4 entered the building and immediately went to the superintendent’s apartment in order to gain access to the Complainant’s apartment. The superintendent accompanied them to the fourth floor unit and unlocked the door. Prior to entering, SO #1 announced “Police” and, due to the urgency of the matter, they entered at approximately 9:55 p.m. While standing outside of the apartment, officers were still able to hear CW #3 screaming. As soon as the door was unlocked, SO #1 entered and saw CW #3, in obvious distress, lying against a wall facing the balcony. CW #3 stated that the Complainant was trying to kill her by throwing her off the balcony. SO #1 headed for the balcony and observed that the door was closed, but not locked, and he opened the door and observed the Complainant on top of the balcony railing. The Complainant’s legs were over the railing and he was hanging onto the railing with both hands with his buttocks above the railing, but not making contact. The Complainant was balancing himself above the railing with one foot on the ledge outside of the railing and with both hands on the railing. Before SO #1 had the opportunity to say anything to the Complainant, the Complainant turned to his right, looked at SO #1 and then immediately fell off the railing. The Complainant did not say anything before he fell. SO #1 advised that the Complainant then appeared to try to turn and grab onto the ledge of the balcony but either missed or slipped and fell. SO #1 then heard the Complainant’s body make contact with the pavement below and stepped out, observing him to have landed face up.

SO #2 and WO #5 were in the second cruiser to arrive at the scene, at approximately 9:56 p.m., and observed the fourth floor unit balcony from below. Upon arrival, SO #2 initially saw two persons on the balcony but as he came closer, one of them disappeared from view, leaving only the Complainant. SO #2 called out several times to the Complainant to get back inside the apartment. The Complainant did not respond but mounted the balcony railing and then stood up on the railing and placed both hands on top of the railing between his feet. SO #2 again called out to the Complainant to get down off the railing and the Complainant appeared to teeter and then suddenly slipped off the railing and fell to the ground. SO #2 observed that at the time that he fell, the Complainant was alone on the balcony and he advised that he was in a position that he would have seen if anyone else was on the balcony. SO #2 advised that he observed the Complainant turn and grab the railing with his right hand and hold on for a very short period of time, before he let go and fell to the parking lot five stories below.

SO #3 and WO #6 also arrived at the apartment building following SO #1 and WO #4 and, at the request of SO #1 who had entered the building, went to the north side of the building to observe the balconies on that side. SO #3 observed the Complainant on the balcony and heard yelling and screaming from the balcony. She also observed the Complainant lift his left leg over the railing and she shouted for him to leave the balcony and go back inside his apartment. She then observed the Complainant to place his right leg over the railing, at which point he was sitting on the railing and hanging on to the railing. SO #3 advised that she again yelled for the Complainant to stop and go inside, and that she heard SO #2, as well as other tenants on their balconies, yelling to the Complainant to go back into his apartment. SO #3 advised that the Complainant then suddenly fell from the balcony to the ground below. SO #3 advised that less than one minute had elapsed from the time she exited her cruiser until the Complainant fell.

As a result of the Complainant’s fall from the balcony, he suffered numerous broken bones, spinal injuries and internal injuries which were life threatening in nature. The Toxicology Report dated April 19, 2017, indicated that the Complainant had cocaine, haloperidol and benzoylecgonine (a breakdown product of cocaine) in his system.

On a review of all of the evidence, I find that the Complainant’s injuries were caused by his own actions without any involvement by the police. All of the police officers who responded to CW #6’s 911 call indicating that the Complainant was attempting to throw CW #3 from the fourth floor balcony were lawfully carrying out their duties as required when they attended and attempted, if possible, to prevent any injury to either of CW #3 or the Complainant from occurring. At no time did any officer have any physical contact with the Complainant and any verbal interaction, according to all civilian witnesses present, was of the nature to discourage the Complainant from jumping and to encourage him to go back inside his apartment. None of the communications between the Complainant and police as overheard by witnesses could in any way have been seen to initiate the actions of the Complainant. Although the intentions of the Complainant, in climbing over the balcony railing, are unknown, it is clear that he fell or jumped as a result of his own actions without any assistance or encouragement from any of the police officers present. The actions of the Complainant were described by all present as being voluntary and without any obvious provocation. We will, of course, never know what was going on in the Complainant’s mind that would lead him to take the action that he did, but there can be no doubt that no fault lies with any of the police officers responding, who were merely carrying out their duties as they are required to do. It is notable that at no time were any allegations made against these officers by anyone, with respect to any inappropriate actions on their part, and I am satisfied on reasonable grounds on this record that the actions exercised by the officers fell within the limits prescribed by the criminal law and there are no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case.

Date: January 10, 2018

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] Efforts were made to interview the Complainant, however, due to his injuries and mental illness, the Complainant was unable to provide any information to advance the investigation of the incident. At the time of the submission of the investigative report to the SIU Director for decision, the Complainant remained in the hospital. Since his treatment was continuing as an “in-patient”, medical records for the Complainant relevant to the incident were not available. [Back to text]