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 38-year-old man on December 4, 2016 shortly after the police attended at his residence.

Notification of the SIU

On December 4, 2016, at 3:32 p.m., North Bay Police Service (NBPS) notified the SIU of the Complainant’s custody death.

NBPS reported that on December 4, 2016, at 12:55 p.m., Emergency Medical Service (EMS) personnel received a call to an address in North Bay, for a man with Mental Health Act (MHA) issues. The man [now known to be the Complainant] refused treatment. At 1:27 p.m., EMS personnel reported finding needles in the apartment. Police officers attended at the address at 1:43 p.m. The Subject Officer (SO) and Witness Officer (WO) #1 talked to the Complainant but he refused any assistance and the police officers left at 2:29 p.m. At 2:34 p.m., the NBPS received a telephone call that a man had jumped from the building. Police officers re-attended at 2:39 p.m., and found the Complainant dead on the ground.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

SIU Forensic Investigators (FIs) 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 FIs attended and recorded the post-mortem examination and assisted in making submissions to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS).

Complainant

38-year-old male, deceased

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Not interviewed[1]

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

Police Employee Witness

PEW Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed[2]

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed[3]

WO #5 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

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

Subject officers

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

The scene

The scene of the Complainant’s death was the paved sidewalk near the ground floor stairwell exit door on the northeast end of the apartment building. The paved sidewalk was clean and wet. The window screen for the stairwell window on the 8^th floor directly above the paved sidewalk was damaged and had been pushed outward from the bottom right corner. Drywall particulate was on the floor below the window. The distance from the bottom of the window to the paved sidewalk where the Complainant’s descent terminated was found to be 19.88 metres. The distance from the floor of the stairwell to the bottom of the window was measured and found to be 1.47 metres. The window’s dimensions were measured and found to be .81m high by .36m wide.

Physical evidence

Global Positioning System (GPS) - NBPS Vehicles

The GPS from the police vehicle driven by the SO revealed that he arrived in the area of the apartment building at 1:43 p.m. and left at 2:28 p.m. He drove away, but then turned around and returned to the area at 2:39 p.m.

The GPS from the police vehicle driven by WO #1 revealed that he arrived in the area of the apartment building at 1:42 p.m. and left at 2:25 p.m. He drove away and his vehicle did not return to the area (data received ended at 3:00 p.m.).

Forensic evidence

Blood and tissue specimens were collected during the post-mortem examination of the Complainant and submitted to the CFS for analyses. Toxicological analysis of post-mortem femoral blood showed the presence of bupropion, methadone, cocaine metabolite, fentanyl and morphine.

Expert evidence

A post-mortem examination was conducted on December 6, 2016. The cause of death was determined to be multiple trauma.

Video/audio/photographic evidence

Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Data – Apartment Building

The apartment complex was equipped with a motion activated CCTV data system. Cameras monitored the front entrance on the west side and the lobby elevators, the common and garbage rooms and the south stairway exit.

The recorded video revealed the following events:

At 1:08 p.m., the first ambulance arrived in relation to the initial call for the Complainant having suffered a seizure. The paramedics entered the lobby elevator equipped with the stretcher.

At 1:12 p.m., the paramedics returned to the lobby from the elevator with their stretcher. The stretcher was left in the lobby and the paramedics searched the south stairwell, the hallways, and the common areas and outside the south exit.

At 1:16 p.m., the paramedics returned to the lobby, retrieved their stretcher, and exited the front door.

At 1:19 p.m., the Complainant walked past the lobby elevators from the area of the common room. He looked out the front door as though he were avoiding the paramedics in the parking lot.

At 1:35 p.m., the paramedics entered the front door of the building toward the elevators without their stretcher. The paramedics exited the front door at 1:38 p.m.

At 1:45 p.m., the SO and WO #1 entered the front of the building and went into a lobby elevator. The paramedics remained outside in the parking lot.

At 1:50 p.m., the ambulance left the parking lot.

At 1:54 p.m., the Complainant entered the lobby from an elevator car. He went through the interior lobby door and attempted to prop the door open with his foot while he reached for the call-board but was unsuccessful and the door closed behind him. He spoke into the call-board and motioned for a woman seated in the lobby to open the door for him. The door was opened before the woman assisted him. He entered the lobby and went into an elevator. He was visible on the front lobby security camera for 43 seconds.

At 2:23 p.m., the SO and WO #1 exited an elevator car in the lobby and walked down the hallway toward the south exit. WO #1 held a yellow plastic bag.

At 2:27 p.m., a Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) - style police vehicle exited the parking lot.

At 2:40 p.m., a fire truck arrived in the parking lot.

At 2:47 p.m., the SO entered the front door of the building and went to the elevators.

At 2:49 p.m., the SO exited an elevator and left the building through the front door.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• communications recordings
• GPS Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) for the SO and WO #1’s vehicles
• photos of the scene taken by NBPS
• blank police contact report
• suicide awareness training record – the SO and WO #1
• dispatcher event details
• event details reports
• general occurrence report
• NBPS sudden death report
• communications summary reports
• notes of WO #1, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5 and WO #6
• notes of the PEW
• notes of one non-designated officer
• procedure - arrest
• procedure - police response to persons who are emotionally disturbed, have a mental illness or a developmental disability
• property evidence report
• summary of communication (assistance to ambulance service)
• summary of communication (sudden death)
• supplementary occurrence reports
• training records – the SO and WO #1, and
• witness statement – CW #3

During the early afternoon on December 4, 2016, CW #1 called 911 for an ambulance for the Complainant, who was known to have a history of drug use and seizures. Paramedics attended the address, as did the SO and WO #1. The Complainant had left his second floor apartment, however, by the time the SO and WO #1 attended.

The SO and WO #1 spoke to CW #1 who was adamant that the Complainant was no longer welcome to live with him. Multiple needles and other drug accessories belonging to the Complainant were located in the apartment. The SO and WO #1 located the Complainant nearby, and spoke to him about his drug use and the issues he was having with CW #1. The SO and WO #1 offered to take the Complainant to a shelter, hospital or detoxification centre. The Complainant indicated that he had somewhere else to stay, and refused all offers of assistance. The SO and WO #1 then left the apartment building.

Within minutes of the officers leaving, the Complainant fell to his death from an 8^th floor window in the building. He was pronounced deceased at the scene.

Section 17, Mental Health Act – Action by police officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

1. has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself
2. has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or
3. has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

4. serious bodily harm to the person
5. serious bodily harm to another person; or
6. serious physical impairment of the person

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

Sections 219-220, Criminal Code - Criminal negligence

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

1. in doing anything, or
2. in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

1. where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years, and
2. in any other case, to imprisonment for life

In the early afternoon on December 4, 2016, members of the NBPS were called to a residence in response to a 911 call for medical assistance for the Complainant. Subsequent to his interaction with police officers, the Complainant fell from the 8^th floor of the apartment building to his death. For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in relation to the death of the Complainant.

On December 4, 2016, the Complainant was living with CW #1, in a second floor apartment in North Bay. He was 38 years old at the time. It was known that the Complainant had a history of drug use and seizures. At 12:50 p.m., CW #1 called for an ambulance.

When the paramedics arrived, the Complainant had already left the apartment. As the police were delayed in arriving, the paramedics began to search for the Complainant but were unable to locate him. At about 1:47 p.m., the SO and WO #1 arrived at the apartment building. They spoke with the paramedics outside, who reported that they had not been able to find the Complainant. The SO and WO #1 went up to the 2^nd floor apartment and met with CW #1 who provided a history of the Complainant’s drug abuse and seizures. The Complainant was not present and his whereabouts were unknown. CW #4 and CW #5 were also home but did not interact with the officers. CW #1 told the SO and WO #1 that he wanted the Complainant removed from the premises because he could not live with him any longer.

About ten minutes later, the Complainant called and spoke with CW #1 from the lobby of the building. He threatened to hang himself if CW #1 did not allow him back in the building. CW #1 pressed the button to unlock the lobby door. The SO and WO #1 went into the hallway to locate the Complainant. They found him by the elevator and explained to the Complainant that they were only there to check on his well-being and to explore his comment about hanging himself. According to the officers, the Complainant was not aggressive or confrontational. He told the officers the reason he threatened to hang himself was because he was mad at CW #1 for not letting him in the apartment. He denied being suicidal. The Complainant admitted to a history of intravenous drug abuse, but told the officers he was injecting his own prescribed oral medication. Earlier, CW #1 had pointed to a grocery bag in the apartment that WO #1 discovered contained two syringes, a burnt spoon, scale and a prescription bottle.

The SO assessed the Complainant to be lucid, aware of his surroundings and not in need of medical attention. WO #1 described him as fidgety, but aware, clear-eyed, exhibiting appropriate behaviour and having no visible injuries. WO #1 offered to have the paramedics re-attend to assess the Complainant but he declined. According to WO #1, they spoke with the Complainant in the hallway for 7 to 10 minutes, while the SO recalled it being about 20 minutes.

The SO returned to the apartment and spoke briefly with CW #1, while WO #1 remained in the hallway with the Complainant. The SO explained that their offers to assist the Complainant had been declined. The SO also asked CW #1 if he would reconsider, but CW #1 maintained his position that he did not want the Complainant to live at his home anymore. He told the SO that the Complainant had threatened suicide in the past in an effort to get his own way but had never made any attempts. The SO re-entered the hallway and told the Complainant that according to CW #1, he could not continue to stay in his apartment. He and WO #1 offered to escort the Complainant to a shelter, hospital or detoxification centre. The SO contacted communications to inquire if there were vacancies.

Despite their urging, the Complainant steadfastly declined each offer of assistance. He advised the officers that he had a place he could stay. The SO did not believe that the Complainant was a threat to himself or others, and there was no indication he could not care for himself. The SO and WO #1 did not believe that he had committed a criminal offence or that they had grounds to apprehend the Complainant under the MHA. According to WO #1, none of the family members mentioned anything about the Complainant being suicidal or having mental health issues. The Complainant also indicated that he had no interest in retrieving his property from CW #1’s apartment. The SO returned to the apartment and briefly updated CW #1 that the Complainant was leaving. As the Complainant walked towards the south stairwell exit, CW #4 came into the hallway and he remarked, “See you later”. Hoping to make one last effort to try to convince the Complainant to allow them to take him to a detoxification centre, the SO and WO #1 searched the south stairwell on their way out, but neither encountered the Complainant. At around 2:26 p.m., the SO and WO #1 left the area.

About five minutes later, the NBPS received a number of 911 calls about a man falling from an apartment building. Units were dispatched. CW #3 reported that he saw the man fall from a top story window and noted the man was alone at the time. WO #1 had already been dispatched on another call, but the SO was available to respond. GPS records revealed that both officers’ vehicles first arrived at the apartment building around 1:42 p.m. and left between 2:25 p.m. and 2:28 p.m., but only the SO’s vehicle returned to the scene at 2:39 p.m.

When the SO arrived back at the apartment building, he found the Complainant deceased on a sidewalk at the south end of the building. Paramedics arrived within minutes. Responding officers observed that the screen was ripped on the window of the 8^th floor stairwell above where the Complainant’s body was found. At 3:32 p.m., NBPS notified the SIU. Subsequently at 5:10 p.m., the coroner pronounced the Complainant dead at the scene. The post-mortem examination was conducted and the cause of death determined to be multiple trauma.

On this record, it is evident that the Complainant’s death was caused by his own action, without any involvement by police officers. In fact, the police officers reported having left the area of his apartment building prior to the incident, which was supported by GPS data from their vehicles. Although the involved officers had no physical or verbal interaction with the Complainant at the time he fell, they were engaged in discussion with him within the half hour immediately prior. The first 911 call about a man falling from the apartment building was received only about five minutes after the last of the two officers left the area. The question to be addressed is whether their interactions or lack thereof with the Complainant proximate to his death during the course of their lawful duty displayed a wanton or reckless disregard for his life or safety, and were a marked and substantial departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent police officer in the circumstances, as such establishing the offence of criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code. Based on the evidence from this investigation, I do not believe this was the case.

In my view, there is no question that neither of the involved officers was in any way responsible for the death by either an act or omission. Early that afternoon, the SO and WO #1 were lawfully carrying out their duty when they arrived at the apartment building in response to a 911 call about a person in medical distress. They remained at the address for about 45 minutes attempting to assess and resolve the conflict between the Complainant and CW #1. The Complainant refused their efforts to have him assessed by paramedics. Furthermore, he declined the SO and WO #1 offers to transport him to a shelter, hospital or detoxification centre. Ultimately, the SO was unsuccessful in his attempts to persuade CW #1 to allow the Complainant to continue to reside in the apartment. The Complainant assured them that the threat he made to CW #1 was merely an angry response to not being allowed to reside with him and that he was not suicidal. CW #1 confirmed that his suicidal expressions in the past were employed as a means to get his way and no known attempts were ever made.

The SO and WO #1 assessed the situation and determined they had no grounds to either arrest or detain the Complainant. Communication recordings confirmed that the officers had information from the dispatcher that the Complainant was bound by a court imposed condition not to possess non-prescription medication or drug paraphernalia. The SO understood that NBPS policy directed that a stand-alone breach of probation was not acted on by police but rather dealt with by the submission of a contact sheet to the responsible probation officer. Furthermore, the SO reported to have only seen syringes and did not consider them to be drug paraphernalia, while WO #1 was aware of items in the apartment including a burnt spoon and scale to be possible drug paraphernalia and chose to take possession of them. Regardless, failing to arrest the Complainant does not equate to criminal responsibility for his suicide. After the Complainant walked away from the officers and disappeared into the stairwell, the SO and WO #1 briefly searched for him and then left the area.

The Complainant’s death was a tragedy. However, to attempt to determine the Complainant’s motivations at the time he jumped would be speculative. Moreover, there is no evidence to indicate that the SO or WO #1 bore any criminal responsibility for the Complainant’s ultimate decision. To the contrary, the Complainant was the author of his own ending when he jumped from an 8^th floor window and descended almost 20 metres to the ground below. Nothing from the investigation suggested that the involved officers were anything less than professional and attentive during the incident involving the Complainant. Accordingly, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and no charges will issue.

Date: October 20, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] CW #3’s witness statement was taken by the NBPS and provided to the SIU. [Back to text]
• 2) [2] The PEW was a civilian forensic investigator and attended the scene after the incident occurred. [Back to text]
• 3) [3] WO #4, WO #5 and WO #6 attended the scene after the incident occurred. [Back to text]