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 52-year-old woman on December 21, 2016 while police were outside her apartment.

Notification of the SIU

On December 21, 2016 at 5:45 a.m., Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of a custody death.

TPS reported that on December 21, 2016, between 4:00 a.m. and 4:30 a.m., Subject Officer (SO) #1 and SO #2 responded to a 10^th floor apartment in the area of Midland Avenue and Eglinton Avenue East, regarding a female going berserk. The police officers attended the 10^th floor along with Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) officers. The police officers knocked on the door to the apartment in question.While at the door, the police officers received information from TCHC officers that someone had jumped from a balcony.The female [now known to be the Complainant] was pronounced dead at the scene.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 5

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

Complainant

52-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 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed[1]

WO #3 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed[2]

WO #4 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed[3]

WO #6 Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed[4]

Subject officers

SO #1 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

The scene

The scene was a 10^th floor apartment in a residential building in the area of Midland Avenue and Eglinton Avenue East. The door had been forced and the door jamb and lock were destroyed. The doorway led into a small apartment with the washroom immediately to the right and a single bedroom straight ahead, to the left the hallway led into the living room and an adjoining kitchenette. There was a door in the north east corner of the living room that led out to the balcony. The door to the balcony was found open and not forced. The entire area of the apartment was in a state of disarray with few but large furnishings left inside. The balcony was in direct relation to the outside scene of discarded articles and the area of impact.

The backyard of the apartment building was completely littered with clothing, papers and personal belongings of the Complainant. The Complainant had been removed from the scene; however, a flattened area in the snow that appeared to be the landing area was measured and photographed. There were articles of clothing and other items that were still hanging on balconies below the tenth floor.

The scene was immediately secured and the SIU was notified. The scene was processed by SIU forensic investigators.

Scene diagram

Video/audio/photographic evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence. A closed circuit television (CCTV) camera situated at the back door/service bay area of the apartment building was operating at the time of this incident and captured the Complainant’s fall to the ground. The camera has a view to the west and captures the north wall of the building, first floor only. There are garbage dumpsters and a garbage storage building blocking much of the view. Numerous items are visible on the ground in the area directly below the Complainant’s apartment however the quality of the footage does not allow for the identity of the items.

At 4:17 a.m., the Complainant is seen falling to the ground. This causes two unknown men to run back to the sidewalk where they appear to be having a conversation. One man walked southbound out of the camera view. The second man remained on the sidewalk and appears to be speaking into a cellular phone. At 4:21 a.m., the second male walked away southbound. At 4:22 a.m., CW #3 exited the back of the building followed by SO #1 and SO #2. CW #3 led them between the dumpsters to where the Complainant landed on the ground. SO #1 can be seen commencing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Communications recordings

The communications recordings are consistent with the witnesses’ information.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) – the Complainant
• Event Details Reports
• Previous General Occurrence Reports
• Current General Occurrence Report
• notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5 and WO #6
• Parade Sheet
• RCMP Notification of Death
• Automated Dispatch System (ADS) - Summary of Conversation
• Communications recordings
• TPS Fingerprint Impression card
• TPS Palm Impression card, and
• TPS Prior Contact with the Complainant

During the early morning hours of December 21, 2016, TCHC officers received an anonymous call that items were being thrown from a 10^th floor unit at an apartment building in the area of Midland Avenue and Eglinton Avenue East. The TCHC called the TPS for assistance, and SO #1 and SO #2 responded.

Upon arrival, SO #1 and SO #2, as well as TCHC officers, went to the 10^th floor of the building and announced themselves at the Complainant’s door. Within minutes, the officers were informed that the Complainant had jumped from her 10^th floor balcony, and was unconscious on the ground below.

An ambulance was called and CPR was attempted, but the Complainant was declared dead at the scene. Her cause of death was determined to be due to blunt force injuries consistent with a descent from a height.

On December 21, 2016, at 3:52:49 a.m., TPS received a call from CW #3, a TCHC officer, requesting assistance at an apartment building in the area of Midland Avenue and Eglinton Avenue East in the City of Toronto. CW #3 advised that someone was throwing furniture from the 9^th or 12^th floor. At 3:52:55 a.m., a call went out to any available units and at 4:00:23 a.m., SO #1 and SO #2 were dispatched to the scene. Upon their arrival at 4:06:59 a.m., the police officers observed that two TCHC vehicles were already parked in front of the apartment building, but no TCHC officers were present in the lobby. Consequently, SO #1 and SO #2 took the elevator to the 9^th floor to investigate; finding nothing on the 9^th floor, they then returned to the lobby where they met with CW #3, and two other TCHC officers - CW #4 and CW #5.

CW #3, CW #4 and CW #5 had just returned from viewing the area below the balcony of the Complainant’s apartment, where they had observed clothing and a variety of other items in the snow, when they met SO #1 and SO #2 in the lobby. The TPS officers were informed about the TCHC officers’ observations. All five officers then entered the elevator and went up to the 10^th floor.

Upon arrival at the Complainant’s unit, buckets, towels and mops were observed to be strewn all over the hall outside of the unit. SO #2 tried the door handle, but it was locked. SO #1 and SO #2 then knocked on the door announcing that they were police officers and asking to speak with the Complainant, but received no response. The police officers continued to announce themselves and knock at the door more loudly, with SO #2 finally knocking four or five times with his police baton, in order to ensure that they were heard over a dog, inside the apartment, which was continually barking. SO #2 advised that he considered breaching the door, as he was concerned that anyone on the ground below could be struck and injured by the falling debris from the balcony, but did not do so; instead, CW #3 went to the management office to attempt to retrieve a key for the unit. The two police officers and the two TCHC special constables remained outside of the door of the unit, intermittently knocking to attempt to gain entry.

The TCHC officers then received a call over their radio indicating that someone from the apartment building had just jumped from a balcony and at 4:19:42 a.m., SO #1 and SO #2 immediately called for assistance, as well as an ambulance, and took the elevator back to the first floor, while the TCHC officers remained outside of the unit. SO #1 and SO #2 were then joined by CW #3, as is confirmed by the CCTV footage from the building which shows all three going to the rear of the building at 4:22 a.m., where they observed numerous items that had apparently been thrown from the balcony above, including pots, pans, electronics and clothing. Officers then located the Complainant on the ground, not breathing and apparently unconscious; officers immediately began CPR and within five to ten minutes, paramedics arrived on scene and took over the care of the Complainant. Resuscitation efforts continued until 4:49 a.m., when the Complainant was pronounced dead at the scene.

WO #1 responded to the call from SO #2 that someone had jumped from the balcony at the apartment building and, upon arrival, he requested the fire department attend and breach the door to the Complainant’s unit in order to determine if anyone else was inside the apartment. Once the fire department had breached the door, it was confirmed that only a dog was inside the apartment.

The post mortem report concluded that the Complainant’s cause of death was due to blunt force injuries consistent with a descent from a height.

On this evidence, I find that the Complainant’s death was caused by her own actions without any direct involvement by the police officers present; that SO #1 and SO #2 were carrying out their duties as required when they responded to the apartment building, to speak to the occupant of the 10^th floor unit and investigate a complaint about furniture and debris being discarded from a 10^th floor balcony; and that at no time did either officer have either any physical contact nor any significant verbal interaction with the Complainant that could in any way have been seen to initiate the actions of the Complainant. There were no indications, nor were police officers made aware of any information, that could have led them to suspect that the Complainant was contemplating taking her own life and the Complainant’s act in jumping from the balcony was without warning, without any obvious provocation, and completely unforeseeable. It was incumbent upon SO #1 and SO #2 to respond and investigate the call of debris being thrown to the balcony, as it posed an obvious risk to those who might be in attendance below; as such, SO #1 and SO #2 were justified in attending at the Complainant’s door and in knocking and requesting that she speak with them.

On all of the evidence, it is without dispute that when police officers arrived at the Complainant’s unit, they announced themselves as police, their only request was that the Complainant come out and speak with them and that they never breached the door or entered the apartment prior to the Complainant taking her own 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 SO #1 and SO #2, who were merely carrying out their duties as they are required to do. It is further notable that at no time were any allegations made against these police officers, by anyone, with respect to any inappropriate actions on their part and that they immediately responded when they received the information that the Complainant may have jumped, called for ambulance and police assistance, and initiated lifesaving efforts. On all of the evidence, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds that there is no causal connection between the actions of the responding police and TCHC officers and the death of the Complainant. I am further satisfied that the actions exercised by the officers fell within the limits prescribed by the criminal law and there are no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case.

Date: October 20, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] WO #2 and WO #4 attended the Complainant’s apartment after the fire department breached the door. The officers entered the apartment, but they did not locate anyone. [Back to text]
• 2) [2] WO #3 maintained the crime scene log. [Back to text]
• 3) [3] WO #5 escorted the ambulance carrying the body to the Coroner’s office. [Back to text]
• 4) [4] WO #6 relieved WO #3. [Back to text]