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 man, during his interaction with the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) on September 24, 2016 at approximately 12:45 p.m.

Notification of the SIU

The SIU was notified of the incident by OPS on September 24, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. OPS reported that on September 24, 2016, at approximately 12:45 p.m., the Complainant jumped from his apartment balcony during his interaction with the OPS and was pronounced dead at the scene.

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, sketches and measurements. 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 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

Additionally, statements from 8 other civilian witnesses were obtained.

Witness Officers

WO #1  Interviewed

WO #2  Interviewed

WO #3  Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed[1]

WO #4  Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #5  Not interviewed, but notes received and reviewed

WO #6  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 scene was a 20-story apartment building located on a residential street in Ottawa. It is surrounded by other apartment buildings, single family residences, a school, and some commercial properties. The Complainant’s apartment was on the 12^th floor. The distance from the top of that balcony’s railing to the ground was 30.04 metres.

Below is a photo of the balcony of the Complainant’s apartment:

Scene Diagram

The following is an SIU forensic investigator (FI) generated scale drawing of the interior of the apartment for the Complainant as well as the exterior of the residential building of the Complainant.

Physical Evidence

The SIU canvassed the scene of the incident and located a steak knife on a table on the balcony. Below is a photo of the knife:

Video/Audio Evidence

The SIU canvassed the area and secured a cell phone video recording of the incident made by CW #5.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• Business Card - Health Care Worker
• Civilian Witness Contact Information
• Event Chronology Call
• General Occurrence Reports
• Investigative Actions – WO #1, #2 and #3
• Notes of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5 and WO#6
• Policy - Hostage and Barricaded Persons
• Policy - Mental Health Incidents
• Preliminary Autopsy Findings
• SIU Investigations Sign-out Sheet
• Witness Statements - CW #2, #4 and #5, and
• Witness Statements – eight other civilian witnesses

On September 24, 2016, the Complainant contacted AlarmForce and told them he was suicidal and that he had stabbed himself. At 12:37 p.m., AlarmForce called 911, and within minutes, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and the police were dispatched to the Complainant’s apartment.

The SO reached the Complainant’s residence before any other officers, and was advised by CW #5 that the Complainant had entered the apartment building when he heard the ambulance sirens approach. CW #5 advised the SO that he saw the Complainant outside the building pressing a knife into his abdomen, but he did not stab himself. The SO gained access to the lobby and entered the building with two EMS paramedics.

The SO decided to wait in the building lobby for WO #1 to arrive before engaging with the Complainant. CW #3, the complainant’s mother, arrived at the Complainant’s residence and insisted on going upstairs to the Complainant’s unit, to which she had a key. Concerned for CW #3’s safety, the SO accompanied CW #3 upstairs to the Complainant’s apartment, and entered through the unlocked door. Once inside the apartment, the SO located the Complainant on his balcony, standing on the outside railing. The SO engaged in a conversation with the Complainant, repeatedly asking him to come off the balcony. The Complainant refused.

The Complainant apologized, then let go of the railing and jumped. The Complainant fell 12 stories to the ground below. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

On September 24, 2016, AlarmForce was notified by the Complainant, one of its clients, that he was suicidal and had stabbed himself; consequently, police and EMS were notified. The SO responded to the call and attended the address in the City of Ottawa and interacted with the Complainant. The Complainant was later pronounced dead.

During the course of this investigation, seven civilian witnesses and two police officers were interviewed by investigators. The SO also made himself available for an interview. Additionally, investigators reviewed the notebook entries of six police officers, a cell phone video made of the incident, 11 prepared witness statements, and the communications recordings. There is no dispute as to the facts, a summary of which follows.

According to the communications log, AlarmForce contacted 911 for the OPS at 12:37 p.m. on September 24, 2016.

At 12:44 p.m., the communication recording confirms two units were dispatched; the SO and WO #1, and were on the way.

En route, the SO reviewed past reports and discovered that the Complainant had made a suicide call in each of the two weeks prior. Upon arrival, the SO observed that ambulance and paramedic crews were already present. The SO was approached by a witness, CW #5, who advised that the man they were looking for had entered the apartment building with a knife when he heard ambulance sirens approaching. CW #5 also advised the SO that he saw the Complainant pull his shirt up, expose his stomach and press the knife against his abdomen; CW #5 noted however that the Complainant did not stab himself. As the partner of the SO, WO #1, was still en route, the SO decided to await her arrival before going up to the Complainant’s apartment.

At 12:52 p.m., the communication recording confirms a call from the SO indicating they are in the building waiting for WO #1 to show up.

At that point, CW #3 arrived and entered the lobby indicating her intention to go up and see the Complainant; the SO tried to dissuade her, but CW #3 was determined and was in possession of the Complainant’s apartment key which she refused to provide to the SO. CW #3 advised that she was the only one who could help the Complainant. As a result, the SO agreed to attend the apartment with CW #3 and radioed his partner to advise her of this fact.

At 12:53 p.m., the communication recording confirms a call from the SO advising “[CW #3] is here, she is going to force her way in”.

Due to concerns related to the Complainant’s possession of a knife, the SO advised that he held onto CW #3 with his right hand while he entered the unit; the door was found to be unlocked and the SO opened it, called out to the Complainant “Ottawa Police” and asked the Complainant to tell him where he was. The Complainant called back from the living room area words to the effect that he was going to jump. The SO made his way to the living room where he observed the sliding door to the balcony was open and the Complainant was outside and had gone over the railing and was standing on the ledge outside of the railing. The SO then keyed his police radio so his communication could be heard by other officers.

At 12:54 p.m., the communications recording confirms the SO saying, in a calm voice, “Come off the balcony. Come back over. Get off the balcony”; while a woman (presumably CW #3) is heard screaming in the background.

At 12:54 p.m., WO #1 is heard to say “He is on the edge of the balcony. I’m just on my way up now”.

The SO advised that he continued to keep CW #3 under control on his right side as he was concerned that she could walk through the kitchen into the living room, which would allow her direct access to the Complainant, which the SO wanted to prevent, due to the report of a knife.

The SO advised that he then began to slowly work his way closer to the balcony while continuously speaking with the Complainant and encouraging him to come back over the railing. The SO described the Complainant as looking away from the apartment, as he stood on the far side of the railing with his back to the SO, and holding on to the railing with both hands. The SO advised that he and the Complainant had a brief conversation wherein the Complainant stated “It has to end”. When the SO made it as far as the balcony door, the Complainant looked directly at the SO and warned “No further” and the SO responded “That’s fine. I’m just here to talk to you”. The SO observed a steak knife on the table. The SO then asked what he could do for the Complainant and the Complainant responded that he could watch him jump. The SO advised that he continued in his attempts to encourage the Complainant to come in off of the balcony.

At 12:55 p.m., the communications recording confirms the SO say “Get off the balcony. Come inside and talk to me for a minute. Sir, come back off the balcony. Come and talk to me”.

The Complainant was then observed by the SO to change his posture, stand up straight, look directly at the SO and say “I’m sorry”, whereupon he let go of the railing, buckled his knees and launched himself off of the balcony.

The cell video showed the Complainant standing on the outside of the railing of his balcony and, within seconds, he let go of the railing and fell to his death. The video confirms that no one else was on the balcony at the time and that the Complainant jumped to his death unassisted.

At 12:55 p.m., the communication recording confirms the SO advised “he’s jumped”.

At 12:56 p.m., the Complainant was reported as lying on the south lawn, and at 1:03 p.m., he was pronounced dead.

On a review of the evidence, it is clear that as soon as the 911 call was received, officers were dispatched to the scene in an attempt to prevent the suicide of the Complainant. Within minutes of the SO’s arrival at the Complainant’s apartment, however, the Complainant jumped to his death.

It is clear on the evidence that CW #3, in her insistence upon entering the Complainant’s apartment, forced the hand of the SO in that he either had to allow CW #3 to enter the apartment alone and risk her coming to harm from the knife that had been reported in the possession of the Complainant, or he would be forced to attend with her, without his partner or any other officer to back him up. It is clear on the information in the possession of the SO at the time, that he was aware that the Complainant had been in possession of a knife earlier and was still believed to be in possession of that same knife when he returned to his apartment and, as such, he would have been derelict in his duties had he not accompanied CW #3 up to the Complainant’s apartment. Having done so, the SO proceeded with caution in the interests of safety for both CW #3 and himself. Despite the fact that CW #3 was adamant that she was the only one who could help the Complainant, the SO was duty bound to protect CW #3 and, as such, could not allow her to enter the apartment and speak with the Complainant before the SO ensured that it would be safe for her to do so.

On the evidence, it appears that the Complainant had not yet climbed over the railing of his balcony until after the arrival of CW #3 and the SO, and it may well be that their arrival hastened the jump to his death, however, this circumstance was not one of the SO’s making, and he accompanied CW #3 up to the apartment despite his better judgment to wait for the arrival of WO #1 and a possible better plan to attempt to save the Complainant’s life.

It is clear on this record that the Complainant’s death was caused by his own actions without any direct involvement by any police officer; that the SO was carrying out his duties when he attended at the Complainant’s residence to discourage the Complainant from jumping when, only a scant few moments after the officer’s arrival, the Complainant chose to jump and end his life. We will, of course, never know what was going on in the Complainant’s mind that would lead him to take such a drastic and fatal action, but there can be no doubt that no fault lies with the SO, who was merely carrying out his duties as he was required to do. It is notable that all of the independent civilian witnesses who were in a position to see, observed that the Complainant had climbed over the railing of his own accord and purposely released his grip on the railing to facilitate the fall to his death.

On the evidence, it is clear that nothing that the SO 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. Despite the best efforts of the SO to dissuade the Complainant from taking the fatal step which he did, it appears that the Complainant was intent on his course of action which is confirmed when, in response to the SO’s question asking what he could do for the Complainant, the Complainant responded that the SO could watch him jump. It is clear on the evidence of all of the civilian witnesses that the Complainant was alone on the balcony when he jumped and that he alone was responsible for taking his life. Within two minutes of the SO’s arrival in the Complainant’s unit, before he had the opportunity to do anything more than engage the Complainant in brief conversation in an attempt to dissuade the Complainant from his course of action, the Complainant decided he needed to immediately jump to his death before anyone could prevent him doing so. On this basis, despite the tragic outcome for the Complainant, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds that there are no grounds for proceeding with charges in this case.

Date: September 28, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] A review of WO #3, #4, #5 and #6’s notes revealed their involvement to have been strictly post interaction and have no substantive evidence to offer to the investigation. These officers did not witness the interaction between the Subject Officer (SO) and the Complainant. [Back to text]