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 34-year-old male who died in the city of Brampton in the evening of September 17, 2016.

Notification of the SIU

On September 17, 2016, at 7:58 p.m., Peel Regional Police (PRP) notified the SIU of the male’s death about an hour earlier. Reportedly, at 6:39 p.m. that date, police officers responded to a 16^th floor apartment unit in the city of Brampton following a report from a woman concerned that the male wanted to kill her and her husband. Responding police officers spoke with the caller in the building corridor outside the apartment. When officers entered the apartment, they saw the male on the balcony before he jumped to his death to the ground below.

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

Complainant

34-year-old male, deceased, medical records obtained and reviewed

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

Subject officer

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right.

The scene

The apartment was examined by the SIU. The apartment was found to be clean and orderly, except for indications that an altercation or struggle of some extent occurred in the dining room area. There, consistent with evidence that there had been an altercation inside the apartment before the officers’ arrival, three chairs were strewn about, lying on their sides on the floor.

The top of the 16^th floor balcony railing to the asphalt paved driveway below, where the complainant came to rest, was measured at 42 metres.

Expert evidence

The complainant was pronounced deceased at the scene by a coroner.

A post-mortem examination was conducted on September 19, 2016, at the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario. The pathologist determined the cause of death to be multiple blunt force trauma. He opined that the injuries were consistent with a descent from a great height and that no other suspicious injuries were observed.

The post-mortem report, received by the SIU on February 13, 2017, indicated that the complainant “suffered massive blunt force injuries consistent with decent [sic] from a great height, and to which death is attributed.” The report further noted that the toxicological screening was negative for drugs and alcohol.

Video/audio/photographic evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings and photographic evidence, and located a surveillance camera oriented to monitor the entrance and exit to the apartment building’s parking garage. A video recorded from this camera captured images of the complainant striking the ground at 6:51 p.m. of the date in question.

Communications Recordings

911 Call Recordings

• CW #2 called for police to attend her home because the complainant was “mental” and was going to kill CW #1. CW #2 told the call-taker she did not know what the complainant’s disorder was as he did not want to go to a doctor
• After the call was disconnected, the call-taker made numerous repeated attempts to contact CW #2 but all attempts went to voice mail, and
• In a later call, a male reported that police were already on the scene and that someone committed suicide at the apartment location

Radio transmission recordings

The radio recordings captured details of police officers being dispatched to the address for a priority one domestic call. The dispatcher detailed that the complainant is “MHA,” referring, presumably, to the Mental Health Act, and “wanting to kill them”.

In a subsequent transmission, a police officer reported that the complainant was apparently on the balcony and the police officers were going to enter and make contact with him. In the next transmission, a police officer reported that the complainant jumped.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from PRP

• audio copy report - 911
• audio copy report - divisional radio
• continuity record
• directive - mental health policy
• disclosure log - 2016-10-11
• disclosure log - Sept 19, 2016
• disclosure log - sept 21, 2016
• event chronology
• notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4
• occurrence details, and
• procedure 1-B-713(F) - domestic and family disputes

The evidence in this case is clear and uncontroverted. Tragically, the complainant intentionally jumped off the balcony of a 16^th floor apartment unit belonging to CWs #1 and 2 of his own volition to his death. The recorded 911 call received at 1839 hrs depicted a distraught and frantic CW #2 seeking police assistance for fear the complainant with mental health issues was going to kill CW #1. The SO and WOs #1 and 2 immediately responded and spoke with both CWs 1 and 2 in the hallway outside their apartment. Both were very emotional and distressed. They informed the PRP officers that the complainant had undiagnosed mental health issues, had threatened to commit suicide in the past, and had just attacked CW #1 inside the apartment and threatened to kill him. CW #1 appeared to the officers to have been in a physical confrontation as he was upset, breathing heavily and wearing a visibly torn shirt, and had a flushed redness on his face from being assaulted.

At 1851 hrs, the SO advised the dispatcher that the police officers were entering the apartment and asked for radio silence. The SO briefly discussed the plan of approach, and directed WOs # 1 and 2 that whoever saw the complainant first was to call out immediately and then to calmly communicate with him. It was the SO’s intention from the start to attempt to remove the complainant from the balcony prior to determining a course of action. All three PRP officers then entered the apartment and commenced a search in an attempt to locate the complainant. WO #2 entered a bedroom in the apartment, walked towards a balcony door, observed the complainant on the right side of the balcony looking over the railing and noted a surprised look on his face when he saw WO #2. Immediately, the complainant moved a chair on the balcony towards the railing, stood on the chair, and within one to two seconds jumped over the railing from a height of 42 metres to the ground below. WO #2 yelled loudly to inform the SO that the complainant had jumped. Both CWs #1 and 2 believed that it was only a matter of seconds after the police officers entered the apartment that the complainant jumped off the balcony.

WO #2 slid open the balcony door, looked over the balcony railing and observed the complainant lying on the ground below bleeding from his head. The SO and WO #1 immediately ran downstairs and found that the complainant was without vital signs. The communications log indicates that at 1852 hrs the dispatcher was notified by the police officers to have an ambulance attend the scene. At 1854 hrs, the dispatcher was further notified to place a rush on the ambulance. The ambulance arrived on scene at 1906 hrs.

The complainant was pronounced deceased at the scene by the coroner.

Without any doubt the death of the complainant was tragic. However, after reviewing the complete evidentiary record, I have concluded that the actions of all the attending PRP officers were appropriate under all the circumstances. I can find no evidence to suggest that any of the actions taken by the involved PRP officers bore any criminal responsibility for the demise of the complainant. Unfortunately, the reaction of the complainant, upon seeing WO #2, a police officer, present in the bedroom adjacent to the balcony, was to jump over the balcony railing. Regrettably, none of the PRP officers had the opportunity to communicate with the complainant given that the events unfolded so quickly. In addition, at no point were any of the PRP officers near enough to the complainant to prevent him from jumping from the balcony. In short, there was no physical contact with the complainant by the PRP officers.

In the final analysis, I have no hesitancy in concluding that the actions of the involved PRP officers were conducted throughout in a manner that was professional, responsive and reasoned. In this respect, it is significant to note that it was the opinion of CW #1 that the PRP officers only entered the apartment to speak with the complainant, that they had no chance to communicate with the complainant before he jumped and that they did nothing that he considered to be wrong. Accordingly, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any offence has been committed by the SO and no charges will issue.

Date: October 23, 2017

Original signed by

Joseph Martino
Acting Director
Special Investigations Unit