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 36-year-old man who fell from a 15^th floor balcony of an apartment building on May 13, 2017 in the City of Toronto. Two police officers were present near the apartment building at the time of the fall.

Notification of the SIU

On May 13, 2017, at 10:55 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of a man’s death.

TPS reported that on that day, two police officers attended an apartment building on Weston Road looking for a wanted male party. The police officers attended the 15^th floor, knocked at a door, and were informed that the person they were looking for was not home. The police officers then returned to the ground floor and upon exiting the building, found a deceased male on the ground. It was believed the male was the party police officers were looking to arrest.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Complainant:

36-year-old male, deceased

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Not interviewed, report received and reviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

Additionally, the notes from one other officer was received and reviewed.

Subject Officers

No subject officers were designated in this case.

Forensic Evidence

On May 15, 2015, the Forensic Pathologist performed the post-mortem examination and determined the Complainant’s cause of death to be multiple blunt force trauma.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

The SIU canvassed the area for any video or audio recordings, and photographic evidence, and was able to locate the following:

Summary of the CCTV Video:

CW #1 exits the Complainant’s apartment and enters the elevator. A security officer exits the elevator followed by WO #2 and WO #4. The security officer directs the police officers to the Complainant’s apartment and then gets back on to the elevator. At different times both police officers enter the alcove at the Complainant’s apartment [presumably knocking on the door]. The officers leave after getting no response from the Complainant.

CW #1 returns. The Complainant exits the elevator and enters his apartment. CW #1 exits the apartment and enters the elevator.

WO #1 and WO #3 arrive and attend at the Complainant’s apartment door. Both police enter the alcove [presumably knocking on the door]. Then they walk away from the Complainant’s apartment and enter the elevator.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• criminal charges-complainant,
• event details reports,
• notes for WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4,
• notes for additional officer regarding civilian witness contact info,
• CW #3 report form,
• ambulance call reports, and
• incident summary report-Toronto Emergency Medical Services (EMS).

At approximately 6:27 p.m. on May 13, 2017, WO #2 and WO #4 attended a 15^th floor apartment building on Weston Road, in the City of Toronto, to execute an arrest warrant for the Complainant for the offence of breach of probation contrary to s. 733.1 of the Criminal Code. When there was no answer at the door, the officers left to resume other duties.

On that same day at approximately 9 p.m., WO #1 and WO #3 attended the same apartment building in a second attempt to execute the warrant upon the Complainant. Both officers knocked on the door of the apartment. WO #3 verbally announced that they were police officers and WO #1 held his badge up to the peep hole. WO #3 heard a voice which sounded like a man trying to disguise his voice to sound like a woman, say, “Hello,” and WO #3 identified himself again and asked for the Complainant. WO #1 heard a voice say, “Who’s there?” in response of which WO #1 asked for the Complainant and the voice responded, “He’s not here.” WO #1 held his identification up to the peephole, identifying himself as police.

The officers knocked a couple more times and then left and returned to their cruiser.

Upon return to their cruiser, WO #1 and WO #3 were advised by radio that a body had been seen lying to the rear of the building, and upon attending there, they located the body of the Complainant near a dumpster. The Complainant appeared vital signs absent at that time. Within two to three minutes, EMS and fire department personnel arrived and confirmed the Complainant was vital signs absent. The Complainant was later pronounced dead.

The post-mortem examination determined the cause of death to be multiple blunt force trauma.

s. 733.1, Criminal Code - Failure to comply with probation order

733.1 (1) An offender who is bound by a probation order and who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with that order is guilty of

1. an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than four years; or
2. an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months, or to a fine of not more than $5000, or to both.

On May 13^th, 2017, at approximately 9 p.m., WO #1 and WO #3 attended an apartment building on Weston Road in the City of Toronto to execute a warrant for the Complainant for the offence of breach of probation contrary to s.733.1 of the Criminal Code. Shortly thereafter, the Complainant’s body was located on the ground at the rear of the building and he was later pronounced dead.

WO #2 and WO #4 advised that on May 13^th, 2017, at approximately 6:27 p.m., they attended the 15^th floor of an apartment building on Weston Road, in the City of Toronto, to execute an arrest warrant for the Complainant for the offence of breach of probation contrary to s.733.1 of the Criminal Code. When there was no answer at the door, the officers left to resume other duties. Neither officer had any physical or verbal contact with the Complainant. Civilian witnesses indicated that they last saw the Complainant inside the apartment at 7:40 p.m.

During their SIU interview, WO #1 and WO #3 advised that they attended the apartment unit at approximately 9 p.m. in a second attempt to execute the warrant upon the Complainant on the breach probation charge. Both officers advised that they knocked on the door of the 15^th floor unit. WO #3 advised that he verbally announced that they were police officers and WO #1 held his badge up to the peep hole. WO #3 stated that he then heard a voice, which he believed was a man trying to disguise his voice to sound like a woman, say, “Hello,” and WO #3 identified himself again and asked for the Complainant. WO #3 advised that he did not hear any response from within and the officers knocked a couple more times and then left and returned to their cruiser.

WO #1, in his statement, corroborated the above but added that he believed he heard a disguised voice say, “Who’s there?” in response of which WO #1 asked for the Complainant and the voice responded, “He’s not here.” WO #1 confirmed that he identified himself as a Toronto police officer and held his badge to the peep hole and knocked two more times, but there was no further response and, though he believed that the Complainant was in the apartment, he and WO #3 left the building.

The evidence as provided by the four police officers who attended the 15^th floor unit on May 13^th is confirmed by the CCTV footage from the building.

Upon return to their cruiser, WO #1 and WO #3 were advised by radio that a body had been seen lying to the rear of the building, and upon attending there, they located the body of the Complainant near a dumpster in a large pool of blood with blood coming from his ears and nose. The Complainant appeared vital signs absent at that time and, WO #3 advised, EMS and fire department personnel arrived within two to three minutes and confirmed the Complainant was vital signs absent. WO #3 indicated that it appeared to him as if the Complainant had hit the corner of the dumpster. WO #3 spoke to an unidentified bystander from the building who advised that she had heard the impact of the Complainant hitting the ground and, when she looked down from her apartment, she observed his body.

Fortunately, the actions by police leading up to the death of the Complainant were recorded on the CCTV footage from the 15^th floor and confirmed that at no time was there any physical contact between the Complainant and any police officer. Furthermore, other than the brief comments made through the closed door of the apartment unit, there appears to have been no verbal interaction between the officers present and the Complainant before he decided to take the drastic action which he did.

WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4 attended the unit in order to execute an arrest warrant and were carrying out their duties as required by the Police Services Act. Rather than pursue the matter once there was an indication that someone was inside the apartment who could very well be the Complainant, officers left the residence, presumably to deal with the matter in some other fashion at some other time, as was appropriate in the circumstances, since, without a Feeney warrant to enter the residence, officers were left with no other options at that point.

It is, of course, pure speculation to attempt to determine what was in the mind of the Complainant when he chose to jump, or fell, out of a 15^th story window. Although there is evidence that the Complainant was wanted in connection with a breach of his probation order, it is beyond the scope of this investigation, nor is it necessary, to determine why, or even how, the Complainant jumped or fell from the 15^th floor or even if he had intended to cause his own death by doing so.

I find that the Complainant’s death was caused by his own actions without any direct involvement by the police officers present; that WO #1 and WO #3 were carrying out their duties as required when they attended the unit to execute an outstanding arrest warrant; 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. The fall or jump by the Complainant was carried out apparently without warning and without any obvious provocation and was completely unforeseeable. 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 lethal course of action, but there can be no doubt that no fault lies with the police officers who were merely carrying out their duties as they are required to do. I am satisfied on reasonable grounds on this record 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: September 5, 2017

Original signed by
Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit