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 death of a 60-year-old woman on January 2, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

On January 2, 2017, at 8:40 a.m., Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s death.

TPS reported that TPS officers were dispatched to a rooming house in regards to a woman [later identified as the Complainant] after they received a call from her friend [later identified as Civilian Witness (CW) #4] stating that she was concerned for the safety of the Complainant who had mental health illness.

TPS officers arrived with Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel and located the Complainant in a critical condition in an alley between two houses.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

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 and photography. The Forensic Investigators attended and recorded the post-mortem examination.

Complainant:

60-year-old female, deceased

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

Additionally, the notes from one other, non-designated officer were received and reviewed.

Subject Officers

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed.

In the early morning hours of January 2, 2017, CW #4 called 911, concerned that her friend, the Complainant, was going to kill herself. Within minutes, five TPS officers responded to the call, including the SO, and arrived at the Complainant’s home with paramedics.

The officers were not able to locate the Complainant in the home, and began to look for her in the backyard. While the officers were looking for the Complainant, she jumped from a third floor terrace, landing in the narrow alley between the two homes. The Complainant was transported to hospital, but declared deceased. The cause of death was determined to be from a blunt impact head injury following a descent from a height.

The Scene

The scene was in an alleyway between the Complainant’s house and its neighbouring house.

Expert Evidence

On January 5, 2017, a post-mortem examination of the Complainant was conducted at the Centre of Forensic Sciences. The cause of death was provided as a blunt impact head injury following a descent from a height.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, but was not able to locate any.

Communications Recordings

The SIU investigators obtained and reviewed the audio communication recordings and the event chronology report from TPS. The audio communication recordings and the event chronology depicted the following:

4:34:03 a.m. CW #4 contacted 911 and reported that the Complainant wanted to kill herself. An ambulance was dispatched.

4:34:37 a.m. Dispatcher requested police officers nearby to attend.

4:36:17 a.m. WO #1 and WO #2 told the dispatcher that they were en route to the Complainant’s residence.

4:38:09 a.m. WO #3 and WO #4 asked the dispatcher to add them to the call.

4:42:39 a.m. The SO responded that he was going to attend the Complainant’s residence.

4:42:59 a.m. WO #1 and WO #2 arrived at scene.

4:46:47 a.m. WO #3 and WO #4 arrived at scene.

4:47:32 a.m. The SO arrived at scene.

4:54:54 a.m. WO #4 told the dispatcher that he had located the Complainant in an alleyway between two houses.

5:12:44 a.m. WO #4 told the dispatcher that he was following the ambulance to the hospital.

The event chronology report obtained from TPS was consistent with the audio communication recordings.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Communications recordings
• Event details report (complete) with log search
• Event details report
• Involved officers list
• Notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4
• Notes of one, non-designated officer
• Parade sheet report-day
• Parade sheet report-night, and
• Automated dispatch summary of conversation

On January 2^nd, 2017, a 911 call was received by TPS at 4:34:03 a.m. requesting assistance at a residence in the City of Toronto. The caller, CW #4, indicated that she had concerns that the Complainant was going to do harm to herself. As a result, at 4:34:37 a.m., a call went out over the radio for assistance, and at 4:36:33 a.m., the SO, WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4 were dispatched to the scene for a possible suicide, along with EMS paramedics. The first police cruiser arrived at the scene at 4:42:59 a.m., within eight minutes of the 911 call being received.

WO #1 advised that CW #3, a resident in the home, indicated that she heard the Complainant pass by her bedroom and then heard someone go to the basement, and, as such, WO #1 and CW #5 and CW #6 went to search the basement, but could not locate the Complainant; CW #3 then directed them to the Complainant’s second floor bedroom.

The SO arrived at the residence at approximately 4:47 a.m. and observed that two police cruisers and an ambulance were already on scene. CW #3 directed the SO to the Complainant’s bedroom and he attended there with WO #3 and WO #4 where he located the two paramedics and WO #1 and WO #2 already inside the Complainant’s bedroom. Officers searched for the Complainant’s identification and located her health card. The SO advised that it was his intention to obtain photo identification of the Complainant, in order that they could canvas the neighbourhood for her whereabouts. All police officers and paramedics then left the house in search of the Complainant.

WO #2 advised that he had not observed anyone matching the Complainant’s description on the street while en route to the scene, and he asked WO #3 and WO #4 to look for the Complainant on the street. WO #3 and WO #4 initially checked for the Complainant in the backyard, and when they were unable to locate her, they returned to their police cruiser and were just getting in when they heard a noise that appeared to originate from a small alley between the Complainant’s home and the adjacent house. WO #3 described the noise as a loud thump similar to someone throwing a garbage bag from a height.

WO #3 used his flashlight and shone it between the two houses, as the entrance to the alley was very small and he was unable to enter. WO #4 then ran to the backyard and heard a sound that he identified as someone breathing harshly; he walked in the direction of the sound and located the Complainant lying on her right side on the ground. At 4:55:22 a.m., WO #4 voiced out over the radio and notified dispatch that he had located the Complainant in the alleyway and the SO, WO #1 and WO #2 and the paramedics immediately rushed to his location. He tried to speak with the Complainant but she was unable to speak; he observed the Complainant bleeding from her mouth and nose. WO #3 then climbed over a chain link fence that separated the two homes, and approached the Complainant who was on the ground moaning in pain.

WO #3 surmised that the Complainant may have fallen from above and he looked up and saw that there was a patio on the third floor of the Complainant’s residence. WO #2 then went up to the third floor where he observed a set of stairs leading to a terrace; the door to the terrace was closed but not locked. WO #2 looked around the terrace and observed footprints in the snow and a single shoe near the railing. WO #1 estimated the terrace to be approximately 30 feet [9.14 metres] above ground level.

The paramedics attempted to treat the Complainant at the scene and then transported her to hospital, where she was later pronounced dead. The post mortem report attributed cause of death to blunt impact injury following a descent from height.

On a review of the evidence, it is clear that as soon as the first 911 call was received, a call for available units went out within 34 seconds and police officers were dispatched to the scene in an attempt to prevent the suicide of the Complainant. Upon police and paramedics arriving on scene, the Complainant ran off and then, before police could locate her, the Complainant had jumped to her death.

It is clear on this record that the Complainant’s death was caused by her own actions without any direct involvement by any police officer; that the SO and WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4 were carrying out their duties when they attended at the residence to attempt to assist the Complainant and that, within moments after the police officers’ arrival and before they were even able to locate the Complainant, the Complainant chose to jump from a third floor patio and end her life. We will, of course, never know what was going on in the Complainant’s mind that would lead her to take such a drastic and fatal action, but there can be no doubt that no fault lies with any of the responding police officers, who were merely carrying out their duties as they were required to do. It is unfortunate that officers were misdirected to a number of different locations in an attempt to locate the Complainant, and were never made aware of the presence of a third floor terrace, and, as such, did not locate the Complainant prior to her jumping some 30 feet [9.14 metres] in a bid to end her life. However, while extremely unfortunate, this was not surprising given that police had to wait to be allowed into the premises, were unfamiliar with the residence, and they had to rely on others to advise them of the Complainant’s possible whereabouts. It is clear, however, from the immediate actions of the Complainant in running and secreting herself immediately upon police and paramedic arrival at her residence, that she was intent on her course of action.

On this evidence, it is clear that nothing that any of the police officers said or did provoked the Complainant to jump to her death; on the contrary, it appears from all of the evidence that the Complainant was determined to end her life and no amount of police intervention was going to change her mind. It also appears that as soon as police and paramedics arrived, before they could really say or do anything to dissuade or assist the Complainant, the Complainant decided she needed to immediately run from police in order to thwart their attempts to intercede and to jump to her death before anyone could prevent her from doing so. On this basis, despite the tragic outcome for the Complainant, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds that there is no causal connection between the actions of police and the death of the Complainant and that police acted expeditiously and diligently in their efforts to respond to the 911 call and to attempt to locate the Complainant and prevent her death. As such, I find there is no basis here to establish any reasonable grounds to believe that any criminal offence was committed here and there are no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case.

Date: November 27, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit