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 31-year-old man on March 21, 2017.

Notification of the SIU

On March 21, 2017, at 4:16 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s death.

The TPS reported that they had received a call indicating that the Complainant had posted on Facebook that he was going to end his life andwas saying his final goodbyes. This call was followed by additional calls from neighbours reporting that the Complainant was on his balcony and appeared to be preparing to commit suicide. The TPS Mobile Crisis Intervention Team (MCIT) responded to the residence, arriving at 3:15 p.m. The MCIT unit had two constables, the Subject Officer (SO) and a second officer unknown at this time, along with a nurse. The MCIT team entered the apartment with a key and heard screams from the balcony area. Witness Officer (WO) #3 was on scene and witnessed the fall from the ground.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 7

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, video, sketches and measurements. The Forensic Investigators attended and recorded the post-mortem examination and assisted in making submissions to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS).

Complainant

31-year-old male, 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

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

Subject officers

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed.

The scene

The scene was located in front of the apartment building located in downtown Toronto. The Complainant’s body was located on the pavement in front of the variety store located on the street level of his apartment building.

Scene diagram

Below is a diagram of the Complainant’s apartment.

Expert evidence

On March 22, 2017, a post-mortem examination of the Complainant was conducted at CFS. The cause of death was indicated as blunt force trauma consistent with descent from a height.

Video/audio/photographic evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence. CW #4 provided a video taken on his cellular phone.

Cellular video recordings from CW #4

The SIU investigators obtained and reviewed the cellular video recordings from CW #4. CW #4 was situated across from the Complainant’s apartment building at the time of the Complainant’s fall.

The video recording was four minutes and 36 seconds long and did not have a time stamp. The video recording depicted the following:

00:00 to 00:09 seconds

The Complainant sat on the railing of his balcony facing his apartment with his back towards the street.

00:10 to 00:18 seconds

The Complainant fell backwards. There was no one else visible on the balcony. There was a sound when the Complainant hit the ground.

00:19 seconds to 01 minute 04 seconds

The Complainant lay on the ground in front of a store. A police officer [later identified as WO #3] approached the Complainant’s body.

Communications recordings

Summary of 911 calls

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

3:13:58 p.m. CW #6 contacted 911 and reported that the Complainant wanted to kill himself. An ambulance was dispatched.

3:14:43 p.m. Dispatcher requested police officers nearby to attend.

3:18:14 p.m. CW #4 contacted 911 and reported that the Complainant was sitting on the edge of his balcony and was about to jump off of the balcony.

3:19:49 p.m. The dispatcher transmitted that the Complainant wrote on his Facebook page that he was going to kill himself. WO #3 and the SO transmitted that they were on their way.

3:21:12 p.m. A woman contacted 911 and reported that the Complainant bid farewell to all his friends and family on his Facebook post. The Complainant indicated on his Facebook post that he had been a victim of being bullied and was sad about his mother passing away.

3:24:51 p.m. The SO and Fire Services arrived at the scene.

3:25:24 p.m. WO #3 arrived at the scene and transmitted that the Complainant was sitting on top of the railing of his balcony and was facing towards his apartment.

3:27:44 p.m. WO #3 transmitted that the Complainant had jumped.

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 I Chronology Report
• Notes of WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3, and
• Automated Dispatch - Summary of Conversation

During the afternoon on March 21, 2017, the Complainant posted on his Facebook page that he intended to commit suicide. Two viewers of his Facebook page called 911, hoping to prevent the Complainant from going through with his intentions. A third person who saw the Complainant sitting on his balcony railing also called 911.

The TPS MCIT, (including the SO, WO #2 and CW #10) and WO #1 responded to the call, and arrived at the Complainant’s apartment just before 3:30 p.m. As soon as the SO opened the apartment door, however, the Complainant jumped from his balcony, falling to his death.

On March 21, 2017, three 911 calls were received by the TPS; the first, at 3:13:58 p.m. was from CW #6, advising that the Complainant wanted to kill himself and that he had indicated such on his Facebook page; the second, at 3:18:14 p.m., from CW #4, who was in an apartment building across from the Complainant’s, reporting that he had observed a male person sitting on the edge of his balcony and believed that he was going to jump off; and the third, from another woman, advising that the Complainant had bid farewell to all of his friends and family on his Facebook page and had indicated that he was a victim of bullying and was grieving over the loss of his mother.

Contemporaneous with the first 911 call, Emergency Medical Services were dispatched, immediately followed by a dispatch at 3:14:43 p.m. for any available police units to attend at the building in response to the 911 calls; Fire Services were also dispatched.

At 3:24:51 p.m., the SO and WO #2 arrived at the scene with CW #10, a mental health nurse. The SO, WO #2 and CW #10 formed the MCIT which was tasked with dealing with persons in mental health crises in the community. WO #1 and WO #3 also arrived at the scene in a separate unit. While the MCIT and WO #1 went upstairs to the Complainant’s floor with fire personnel, WO #3 stayed below and at 3:25:24 p.m. transmitted over the radio that he had observed the Complainant on the balcony of his apartment.

Upon arriving at the Complainant’s apartment unit, CW #5 provided a number of master keys to WO #1 to allow him to unlock the door. When the key would not work, CW #5 took the key back from WO #1 and unlocked the door and the SO then opened it until it was ajar. Before anyone had the opportunity to enter, the SO, WO #1 and WO #2 heard a scream from the balcony and simultaneously heard a radio transmission from WO #3. This version of events is confirmed by CW #10 as well as CW #7 and CW #8. The radio communications recordings confirm a transmission from WO #3 at 3:27:44 p.m. indicating that the Complainant had just jumped from his balcony.

A cell phone video taken from an adjacent building revealed the Complainant sitting on the railing of his balcony facing in towards his apartment, with his back to the street, and then falling backwards from his balcony. The video confirms that no one else was on the balcony at the time that the Complainant fell or jumped.

The post-mortem examination carried out on the Complainant’s body confirmed cause of death as blunt force trauma consistent with a descent from height.

On a review of the evidence, it is clear that as soon as the first 911 call was received, officers were dispatched to the scene in an attempt to prevent the suicide of the Complainant. Within 14 minutes of the first 911 call, and within five minutes of the first police officer’s arrival on scene, the Complainant had jumped to his death.

On a review of all of the evidence, I find that the Complainant’s death was caused by his own actions without any involvement by police officers. The SO, WO #1 and WO #2 were lawfully carrying out their duties as required when they responded to the 911 calls reporting a possible suicide and attempted, if possible, to prevent a death from occurring. At no time did any police officer have any physical contact nor any verbal interaction with the Complainant that could in any way havtl been seen to initiate the actions of the Complainant. The intentions of the Complainant were clearly indicated by him in his Facebook post to family and friends and leaves no doubt that he was intent on ending his own life.

On this evidence it is clear that nothing that the SO, WO #1 or WO #2 said or did provoked the Complainant to jump to his death, on the contrary, it appears from all of the evidence that the Complainant was intent on ending his life and no amount of police intervention was going to change his mind. We will, of course, never know what was going on in the Complainant’s mind at the moment that he fell or jumped from his balcony, but there can be no doubt that no fault lies with the police officers who were merely carrying out their duties as they are required to do and were unfortunately unable to intercede to prevent the death of the Complainant. It appears from the Complainant’s actions, in leaving the balcony as soon as the door of his apartment opened but before the police officers could say or do anything, that the Complainant had decided he needed to immediately jump to his death before anyone could prevent him from doing so. On this basis, despite the tragic outcome for the Complainant, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds that the actions exercised by the SO, WO #1 and WO #2 fell within the limits prescribed by the criminal law and there are no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case.

Date: November 22, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit