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 20-year-old woman on March 6, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

The SIU was notified of the incident on March 6, 2017 at 5:10 p.m. by Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS).

HRPS reported that on March 6, 2017 at about 3:35 p.m., citizens called the police to report a female standing on the overpass bridge for Dundas St and Hwy 407, Burlington. When officers arrived, the female saw them and she eventually jumped. The female was taken to the hospital where she was pronounced dead. The name of female is unknown at this time [now known to be the Complainant].

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

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

Complainant

20-year-old female, deceased

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

CW #8 Interviewed

CW #9 Interviewed

CW #10 Interviewed

CW #11 Interviewed

CW #12 Interviewed

CW #13 Interviewed

CW #14 Interviewed

CW #15 Interviewed

CW #16 Interviewed

CW #17 Interviewed

CW #18 Interviewed

CW #19 Interviewed

CW #20 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

WO #6 Interviewed[1]

WO #7 Interviewed[2]

Subject Officers

SO Declined interview, as is the subject officer’s legal right. Notes received and reviewed.

The Scene

On the north edge of the Dundas Street overpass bridge above the westbound lanes of Highway 407, there were three traffic cones placed near physical evidence. At the first cone there was a small liquor bottle on the concrete barrier, at the second cone there was a damaged pair of sunglasses and at the third cone were scuff marks in the sand on the shoulder near the Jersey barrier. This area near the barrier coincided with the lower scene on the highway where the impact area was located.

There were two police cruisers stopped to the east of the suspected jump area. The first police cruiser was a Ford Police Interceptor Taurus. This vehicle was running with the driver’s door open. The police cruiser was equipped with emergency lighting with the rear lights on. The police cruiser was orientated in a southwesterly direction east of the traffic cones and evidence. The second police cruiser was a Ford Police Interceptor Explorer. The police cruiser was running and was equipped with emergency lighting with the rear amber lights on. This police cruiser was orientated in a northwesterly direction east of the traffic cones and evidence.

The height of the Jersey barrier running parallel to the roadway on both the north and south side of Dundas Street overpass was one metre. The distance from the top of the barrier to the impact site on Highway 407 was 9.325 metres. The width of the concrete barrier ledge top was 0.19 metres.

The impact site was located in the left shoulder area of the westbound lanes directly beneath the area located on the overpass. The shoulder width was measured as 3.0 metres. The Complainant’s personal effects and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) medical waste and biological evidence were located approximately 1.974 metres from the Jersey barrier.

Expert evidence

On March 7, 2017, a post-mortem examination was conducted on the Complainant. The immediate cause of death was given as blunt force injuries due to a fall from a height.

Video/audio/photographic evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence. Video from CW #8, taken from his vehicle, was received, as was video from a Metrolinx GO Transit bus. A dash cam video recording from a company vehicle in the area was also received.

Dash Cam Video Recording

On March 8, 2017, a company representative provided a dash cam recording from a company vehicle to the SIU. The date and time stamp of the video recording was March 7, 2017, beginning at 1:40 p.m.[3] and showed the following:

• The company vehicle was travelling in the centre lane of three southbound traffic lanes on Highway 407
• An unmarked police cruiser passed the company vehicle on the right and then left Highway 407 via the Dundas Street off ramp
• As the company vehicle approached the Dundas Street overpass, emergency flashing lights from two police vehicles stopped on the bridge were visible
• As the company vehicle got closer to the overpass, a dark figure [now known to be the Complainant] was seen to fall from the bridge and strike the southbound shoulder of Highway 407 at the centre median. Three dark figures [now known to be the SO, WO #1 and WO #3] rushed towards the Complainant as she left the concrete barrier of the overpass
• WO #1 and WO #3 ran east on the overpass while the SO got into a police cruiser and drove east on the overpass
• An unmarked police cruiser travelling in the southbound centre median shoulder of Highway 407 stopped north of the Complainant’s body
• The SO’s marked police cruiser travelled northbound in the southbound lanes of Highway 407 and stopped at an angle blocking the far left southbound lane of Highway 407, and
• The SO and a second unidentified uniform police officer ran to the Complainant

Communications recordings

The Communications recordings provided by HRPS were made on March 6, 2017, from 3:34:14 p.m. to 8:00:00 p.m., and revealed the following:

• At 3:34:14 p.m., the dispatcher dispatched a radio call to Dundas Street and Highway 407 regarding a woman [now known to be the Complainant] standing on the north side of the overpass looking onto the highway below
• At 3:34:43 p.m., the dispatcher provided a description of the Complainant
• At 3:34:54 p.m., the dispatcher advised that police units were en route and that the Complainant kept pacing back and forth on the overpass
• At 3:36:26 p.m., the dispatcher reported that a second 911 caller saw the Complainant standing on the overpass leaning over the concrete barrier
• At 3:38:27 p.m., the SO reported to the dispatcher that he was on scene. He advised that the Complainant was not communicating and was backing away from him
• At 3:40:56 p.m., WO #2 told the SO that once the Complainant had left the overpass, he was to ensure she could not find another way back on
• At 3:42:06 p.m., the eastbound lanes on Dundas Street were shut down and shortly thereafter so were the westbound lanes
• At 3:43:19 p.m., it was reported the Complainant had jumped off the overpass
• At 3:43:25 p.m., the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) were advised and their units were en route
• At 3:45:48 p.m., the OPP were shutting down the westbound lanes of Highway 407, and
• After 3:45:48 p.m. there was no further relevant information to this investigation.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Arrest Report
• Background Event Chronology
• Civilian Witness List
• Communications recordings
• General Occurrence Report (Suicide)
• General Occurrence Report
• GPS Automatic Vehicle Location Data Tables - March 6^th 2017
• Halton Crisis Intervention Team Training Schedule (May 2016)
• HRPS Forensic Identification Report
• Notes Report
• Notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5 and WO #6
• Notes of a non-designated officer
• Occurrence Details
• Occurrence Summary (Sudden Death)
• Person In Crisis - Field Observation Report
• Procedure - Use of Force
• Scene photos and videos
• Sudden Death Report
• Supplementary Occurrence Report
• Training Record – the SO, and
• Will State / prepared statement – WO #7

During the afternoon of March 6, 2017, the Complainant was standing on the Dundas Street overpass of Highway 407, looking down on the highway below. Passing motorists were concerned that the Complainant intended to jump, and called 911.

Within minutes, the SO arrived on scene and attempted to engage the Complainant, and draw her away from the overpass barrier. However, the Complainant would not speak to the SO, other than shaking her head to imply “no” to his offer of assistance. She then climbed over the barrier and jumped. The SO lunged for the Complainant, but could not get a grip on her arm and she fell to the roadway below. The SO, WO #1 and WO #3 rushed to the Complainant, and she was taken by ambulance to hospital but was pronounced dead at 4:30 p.m.

On March 6, 2017, at approximately 3:35 p.m., several civilian motorists observed the Complainant standing on the Dundas Street overpass of Highway 407 in the City of Burlington. Two of those motorists called the 911 dispatcher. A number of units responded to the scene and the SO attempted to engage the Complainant in conversation in an effort to deter her from taking her own life. Shortly thereafter, the Complainant jumped from the overpass and was transported to hospital where she was pronounced dead.

During the course of this investigation, SIU investigators interviewed twenty civilian and seven police witnesses; the SO declined to make himself available for an interview but did provide his notes for review. Investigators also reviewed the communications tape, a dash cam video of the incident and the notes of the witness officers. There is no dispute as to the facts.

Between approximately 3:20 and 3:46 p.m. on March 6, 2017, nineteen civilian witnesses and two off duty police officers observed the Complainant standing on the Dundas Street overpass of Highway 407 in the City of Burlington. Four of those witnesses described the Complainant as being present alone on the overpass, prior to police arrival, and either pacing back and forth or leaning over the concrete Jersey barrier staring intently down at the traffic below; a number of those witnesses immediately became concerned that the Complainant was going to jump from the overpass. Thereafter, numerous witnesses observed the arrival of police officers and observed the SO attempting to engage the Complainant in conversation. Each of the witnesses observed the Complainant at various points either going over the barrier, straddling the barrier, kneeling on top of the barrier, putting one leg and then the other over the barrier and falling off the overpass, throwing herself over the barrier or diving over the barrier. Of all the witnesses who observed the Complainant prior to her fall from the overpass, none saw any police officer closer than ten feet [3.05 metres] of her location when she went over the barrier.

The SO, according to his notes, received a radio call at 3:35 p.m. for a woman on the Dundas Street overpass of Highway 407 behaving in an odd manner and responded to the scene, arriving at approximately 3:38 p.m. where he observed the Complainant standing on the north side of the overpass, looking down at the traffic. The SO stopped his police cruiser within 15 metres of the Complainant and observed the Complainant watching his police cruiser intently as he exited and called out to her. He then walked within ten metres of the Complainant, who he described as appearing frightened and shuffling to the west staying very close to the Jersey barrier, and attempted to engage her in conversation, asking for her name and offering his own and that he was there to help. The Complainant did not respond to the SO and he took a few steps back, as he did not wish to force the Complainant into a decision. The SO told the Complainant that the police were there to help her and asked her if she would allow him to do so, in response to which the Complainant slowly shook her head. The SO pleaded with the Complainant to speak to him. At 3:43 p.m., the SO saw the Complainant reach over the barrier with her left arm and then raise her left leg up to the lip of the barrier and he shouted at her to stop and “no!”, while rushing towards her. The SO tried to grab at the Complainant’s arm but he couldn’t get a good grip and she slipped through his hands and fell to the pavement below. The SO, WO #1 and WO #3 then all ran to the location where the Complainant had landed and commenced first aid until the arrival of paramedics and an ambulance. The Complainant was later pronounced dead at the hospital.

All of the witnesses, both civilian and police, as well as the dash cam video recording from a company vehicle and the communications recordings, confirm the evidence of the SO.

A post-mortem examination was conducted on the body of the Complainant and the determined cause of death was blunt force trauma due to a fall from height.

On a review of the evidence, it is clear that as soon as the first 911 call was received, police officers were dispatched to the scene in an attempt to prevent the Complainant from taking her own life. The first 911 call was received at 3:34:14 p.m.; at 3:38:27 p.m., the SO was the first police officer to arrive on scene, and, within minutes, at 3:43:19 p.m., 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, and that the SO was carrying out his duties when he attended at the overpass to discourage the Complainant from jumping when, only a few minutes after his arrival, and despite his efforts to engage and discourage the Complainant from taking her life, the Complainant chose to jump 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 the SO, or any of the police officers who responded to the call, who were merely carrying out their duties as they were required to do. It is notable that two of the independent civilian witnesses who observed the Complainant while she was alone on the overpass, were both of the view that the Complainant was preparing to jump prior to any police involvement.

On the evidence, it is clear that nothing that the SO 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 intent on ending her life and no amount of police intervention was going to change her mind. On the evidence of the SO, when he tried to engage the Complainant and asked her if she would allow him to help her, she responded in the negative. It also appears that as soon as the police officers began to make active efforts to try and get the Complainant away from the dangerous edge of the overpass, the Complainant decided she needed to immediately jump to her death before anyone could prevent her doing so. It is also clear on the evidence that when it became clear that the Complainant had made up her mind to jump, that all three police officers in the vicinity ran to her to try and prevent her doing so, and both the SO and WO #1 tried to grab onto her before she fell, but were unsuccessful.[4] According to two of the civilian witnesses who observed the interaction between police and the Complainant, the police officers did nothing wrong and did all they could to attempt to save the Complainant’s life.

On this basis, despite the tragic outcome for the Complainant, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds that the actions exercised by the SO, and all of the police officers who attended to attempt to prevent the suicide of the Complainant, fell within the limits prescribed by the criminal law and there are no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case.

Date: November 24, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] WO #6 was a serving police officer with Hamilton Police Service. He was off duty at the time of this incident. [Back to text]
• 2) [2] WO #7 was a serving police officer with Peel Regional Police. He was off duty at the time of this incident. [Back to text]
• 3) [3] This incident took place on March 6, 2017 at 3:42 p.m. The date and time stamp of the company dash cam video recording was incorrect. [Back to text]
• 4) [4] In fact, WO #1 injured himself in the attempt. [Back to text]