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 serious injury suffered by a 24-year-old man on December 4, 2016 shortly before 6:00 a.m. when he jumped from a third floor window while police officers were present below.

Notification of the SIU

On December 4, 2016 at 9:00 a.m., Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the man’s injury. TPS reported that at 5:27 a.m., the man’s mother called Toronto Emergency Medical Service (EMS) to report that her son was depressed and not breathing. When EMS arrived, the man was conscious, had two knives and was acting out. EMS called TPS for assistance. Three officers responded to the residence. When the officers encountered the man in the hallway he had two knives, which he dropped when ordered to do so. He then ran into the apartment and locked the door. While trying to communicate with the man, the officers heard a thud and found him on the ground below. He was taken to the hospital and diagnosed with a fracture in his foot. He was admitted under the Mental Health Act (MHA).

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

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.

Complainant

24-year-old male, refused to be formally interviewed or to sign a release for his medical records[1]

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

Subject officers

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

The scene

The residence was a three story apartment building. The complainant lived on the third floor at the front of the building. Entry into the apartment building was via the door at the front of the building. This door led to a stairwell servicing the apartments at the front of the building.

Upon entering the front door to the building there was a knife lying on the floor to the right of the doorway. The door to the complainant’s apartment on the third floor was open. In the bedroom at the rear of the complainant’s apartment, the window was open with no screen in the window. The window opening was 53 centimetres (cm) wide by 42.5 cm high.

The distance from the window sill to the ground outside was 5.2 metres (m). There was evidence of finger marks on the exterior window ledge as if someone was hanging from the ledge on the outside of the building. The area below the window was a gravel covered alley between the apartment building and the fence for the property next door. There was no obvious disturbance in the gravel where the complainant landed but there was a disposable glove lying in the alley.

Video/audio/photographic evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, but was not able to locate any.

Communications recordings

TPS communications recordings (summary)

• A female voice [now determined to be the complainant’s mother] phoned the 911 dispatcher requesting an ambulance
• The caller was directed to Toronto Ambulance and reported needing an ambulance at the residence on the third floor. Her son [now determined to be the complainant] had taken prescription medication and was in and out of consciousness
• The Ambulance dispatcher informed the TPS dispatcher about the complainant possibly overdosing on prescription medication
• The Ambulance dispatcher advised the TPS dispatcher the complainant was armed with a knife
• The TPS dispatcher advised police units attending the residence that the complainant was armed with a knife
• A TPS unit on scene informed the dispatcher that the complainant was still armed with the knife
• Emergency Task Force (ETF) informed the dispatcher they were leaving the station
• A TPS unit on scene reported to the dispatcher that the complainant had dropped his knife in the lobby. The complainant had closed the front door to the apartment building and the police officers were locked out
• The dispatcher informed the TPS unit at scene that ETF was on their radio channel and asked if ETF was needed. The TPS unit informed the dispatcher to have ETF attend the address
• A TPS unit at scene advised the dispatcher to cancel ETF and that the complainant had been apprehended, and
• A TPS unit on scene reported to the dispatcher they were following the ambulance to the hospital. The recording stopped shortly after that

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• TPS Communications Recordings
• Audio and Data SystEMS Summary of Communications
• Event Details
• General Occurrence
• Notes of WO #1 and WO #2, and
• Parade Sheet Report

Around 5:30 a.m. on December 4, 2016, the complainant’s mother called 911 concerned that the complainant had possibly overdosed on prescription medication and was in possession of a knife.

Paramedics responded to the residence, and requested TPS send officers as well. The SO, WO #1 and WO #2 arrived at the three story apartment building within a few minutes. At the time, the complainant was inside the front stairwell of the building with a knife. The SO ordered the complainant to drop the knife, which he did. The complainant then locked the front doorway of the building and ran upstairs to his third floor apartment. Seconds later, he fell from the third floor window, and was found by the officers and CW #1 and CW #2 on the ground at the side of the building, smoking a cigarette. The complainant was transported to hospital by ambulance and found to have sustained a fracture right foot.

Section 17, Ontario 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.

In the early morning on December 4, 2016, the complainant was apprehended under the authority of the MHA by members of TPS. Just prior to his apprehension, the complainant fractured a bone in his right foot. 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 injury sustained by the complainant.

The facts of this incident are clear. On December 4, 2016, at 5:22 a.m., the complainant’s mother called 911 to report that her son may have overdosed on prescription medication and was in and out of consciousness. At 5:29 a.m., his mother called 911 again and advised that her son was now armed with a knife. At 5:37 a.m., the SO, WO #1 and WO #2 arrived at the address and met with two paramedics (CW #1 and CW #2) in front of the apartment building. CW #1 and CW #2 reported that the complainant’s mother told them her son was still holding a knife. The police officers were some distance from the entrance door and the complainant was inside the building on the second floor stairwell landing.

The SO began to speak to the complainant and explained that they were there to help him. The SO ordered the complainant to drop the knife, and the complainant complied by discarding the knife down the stairs. At the SO’s direction, the complainant came downstairs, but as he reached the front entrance door, the complainant slammed the door shut and ran back upstairs out of sight. The SO, WO #1 and WO #2 attempted to enter the building to follow the complainant, but found the doors were locked. The knife the complainant had been carrying was visible on the ground inside the building near the front door.

Suddenly, the police officers heard a loud thud. The officers and CW #1 and CW #2 all ran around to the west side of the building where the noise came from. The complainant was found lying on the ground smoking a cigarette. He lay on a gravel surface below his third floor apartment window in between the building and a fence. The complainant’s right foot was fractured as a result of his fall from the third floor window. For fear of causing further injury, the police officers asserted they did not handcuff the complainant. CW #1 and CW #2 placed the complainant on a stretcher. WO #2 accompanied the complainant in the back of the ambulance. The complainant was transported to the hospital, where he was assessed and diagnosed with the injury in question.

On this record, it is apparent that the involved police officers had the grounds to apprehend he complainant pursuant to section 17 of the MHA. As they responded to the call, the SO, WO #1 and WO #2 were aware that the complainant’s mother had called 911 because she believed the complainant may have overdosed and was carrying a knife. When the police officers arrived, they found the complainant still in possession of the knife. Following a successful verbal attempt by the SO to disarm the complainant, the complainant fled upstairs but the police officers were unable to gain access to the building to follow him. Subsequently, the complainant caused bodily harm to himself by intentionally falling from a third floor window. After the fall, the complainant was compliant and injured, so the police officers rightly used their discretion and did not handcuff him. Based on the circumstances, it appears reasonable for the police officers to have concluded they had grounds to apprehend the complainant as he was apparently suffering from a mental health disorder that made him a danger to himself and others, and his behaviour had caused others to reasonably fear bodily harm.

There is no ambiguity as to the cause of the complainant’s injury. The complainant fractured his foot when he intentionally went out a window in his third floor apartment and fell to the ground. By all accounts, the police officers were not in his apartment and had no influence on his decision to go out the window, other than merely being present in front of his apartment building at the time. Accordingly, there are no grounds for proceeding with criminal charges against the SO and this case will be closed.

Date: September 19, 2017

Original signed by

Joseph Martino
Acting Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] On December 4, 2016, at 12:40 p.m., SIU investigators attempted to interview the complainant. At the time, the complainant was a patient in the emergency room at the hospital. He refused to participate in an audio interview and refused to sign a medical release. When the complainant was first spoken to, however, he did provide information duly recorded by SIU investigators by way of notetaking. [Back to text]