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 interaction between the Toronto Police Service (TPS) and a 21-year-old male who fell from the 27^th floor of a residential building on May 26, 2016, in the City of Toronto. The Complainant survived and sustained multiple serious injuries as a result.

Notification of the SIU

On May 26, 2016, at 12:50 p.m., TPS notified the SIU that a male had jumped to his death while TPS police officers were attempting to negotiate with him.[1]

According to TPS, police officers responded to a residential apartment building on Huntley Street for a report of a male threatening suicide. Police officers found the male, later identified as the Complainant, sitting on a ledge on the 25^th floor of the building. At 12:05 p.m., the Emergency Task Force (ETF) responded and members of the ETF attempted to negotiate with the Complainant. At 12:20 p.m., the Complainant fell from the building to a rooftop below.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 9

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, and measurements. The area of the intersection was canvassed for surveillance cameras and potential witnesses.

Complainant

21-year-old male, interviewed, medical records obtained

Civilian witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

CW #8 Interviewed

CW #9 Interviewed

CW #10 Interviewed

CW #11 Interviewed

CW #12 Interviewed

CW #13 Interviewed

CW #14 Not Interviewed[2]

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

WO #6 Interviewed

Subject officers

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right.

SO #2 Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

The scene

The residence is an apartment building on the southwest corner of Huntley Street and Bloor Street. The building has 27 floors of apartments. On the rooftop there is an enclosed swimming pool and the rooftop is open to tenants as a sunbathing area. The perimeter of the rooftop is protected by a concrete wall, with a glass and steel railing on top of the wall. The perimeter wall surrounding the rooftop was measured to be 1.5 metres tall.

On the perimeter wall at the east side of the rooftop, a piece of PVC piping was attached to the wall as a conduit for wires. This PVC pipe was broken and there were footwear impressions found on the pipe, indicating someone had used the pipe as a foothold to climb over the railing. The steel railing of the perimeter wall was examined for fingerprints. Two areas of ridge detail were located on the outer edge of the round railing.

To the east of the apartment building is the Postmedia office building. The Postmedia building is not as high as the apartment building, and anyone observing this incident from the Postmedia building would not have had a view of the rooftop of the apartment building.

Between the two buildings there is a retail plaza that has a two storey rooftop. It was that two storey rooftop upon which the Complainant landed. An area of the gravel on the rooftop had been disturbed. A broken cellular telephone was located nearby. The plaza rooftop was measured to be 70 metres (230 feet) below the top railing of the apartment building rooftop perimeter wall. While walking on the roof to examine the scene, the SIU lead investigator found there was a noticeable sponginess to the roof surface.

Video/audio/photographic evidence

The rooftop of the apartment building is well equipped with numerous video surveillance cameras.

ETF police officers were on the rooftop at 11:56 a.m.[3] Members of the ETF looked up toward the rooftop of the swimming pool. There appeared to be dialogue between police officers on the building rooftop and police officers who were believed to be on the swimming pool rooftop.

WO #6, who had been negotiating with the Complainant, was seen speaking to the ETF members. At 12:04 p.m., the ETF took over negotiation efforts with the Complainant. One of the ETF members moved toward the south end of the rooftop. He was joined by a second ETF member. Those two police officers, SO #1 and SO #2, stood along the south perimeter wall of the rooftop. At 12:16 p.m., they both sat down on the rooftop. At 12:18 p.m., both police officers jumped up and called out to their colleagues.

A number of TPS, Toronto Fire Services (TPS) and Toronto Paramedic Services (TPaS) personnel were standing on the west side of the rooftop, out of view of the Complainant. At 12:18 p.m., they all started to move about and the paramedics ran toward the elevator.

CW #6’s video recording showed the Complainant perched on the outside of the rooftop perimeter wall, holding onto the railing. The Complainant was crouched and he started moving in a manner indicating he was preparing to leap. He then leapt from the building, and fell in a flat fall toward the roof of the retail mall. He landed face first flat on that rooftop.

Nobody could be seen in the vicinity of the Complainant when he leapt from the building, although the rooftop of the apartment building was out of view.

Communications recordings

911 call

On May 26, 2016 at 11:15 a.m., the Complainant telephoned 911. He was transferred to the TPaS dispatcher, after stating he needed an ambulance. The Complainant provided his name to the TPaS dispatcher and he stated he was on the rooftop of a building and he intended to jump.

The TPaS dispatcher then engaged the Complainant in a 14 minute effort to convince the Complainant to not end his life. The dispatcher told the Complainant he was calling for help, so he should let her help him.

The TPaS dispatcher said they were going to be there soon. The Complainant said he was facing Sherbourne Street. The dispatcher asked the Complainant if he was on the ledge and he confirmed he was sitting on the ledge. The dispatcher asked him to get off the ledge and the Complainant responded no, he did not want to do so.

While the TPaS dispatcher was on the telephone with the Complainant, another voice could be heard in the background on the Complainant’s telephone. The Complainant started to address that person and he told the TPaS dispatcher he was talking to a police officer.

The Complainant told the nearby person “No.” It sounded as though he was refusing to come back onto the rooftop. A conversation could be heard between the Complainant and the person nearby. He told the nearby person he did not want to do this anymore. At 11:29 a.m. the telephone contact ended.

TPS recordings

At 11:29 a.m., WO #1 and WO #2 stated they were in an elevator on their way up to the building rooftop.

At 11:34 a.m., a dispatcher from TPaS called the TPS dispatcher and asked if a Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) unit was available. At 11:36 a.m., the TPS dispatcher broadcast a request for any available CIT unit.

At 11:38 a.m., CW #5 called 911 and reported the Complainant had just dropped something, perhaps a telephone. CW #5 reported the Complainant was on the outside of the roof ledge. The Complainant was putting his head into his arm, as though wiping away tears. The Complainant then stood up facing toward the building and he was leaning backward. The Complainant then kneeled down and was holding onto the railing, facing the building.

At 11:39 a.m., callers to 911 described the Complainant standing on the outside of the rooftop perimeter wall, facing in toward the rooftop.

At 11:43 a.m., WO #4 requested the ETF attend. At 11:46 a.m., CIT-05 was dispatched. The police officer of CIT-05 said he was just picking up his nurse and would head up.

WO #1 and WO #2 reported they were on the roof and were in negotiation with the Complainant. At 11:47 a.m., the ETF reported all ETF units were on scene. WO #3 directed SO #1 and SO #2 to take the lead positions for negotiations. The ETF reported arriving at the rooftop at 12:01 p.m.

At 12:18 p.m., WO #5 reported the Complainant had jumped but was alive.

Materials obtained from police service

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

• the 911 telephone communications
• radio communications
• a contact sheet of TPS scene photos
• the computer aided dispatch (CAD) Event Details Report
• the notebook entries of WO #1, WO #2, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5, and WO #6, and
• the parade sheets (duty rosters) for TPS 51 Division and the ETF

On May 26, 2016 at 11:15 a.m., the Complainant was on the ledge of a rooftop at Huntley Street and Bloor Street in downtown Toronto. He called 911 initially stating that he required an ambulance but, after being transferred to the Toronto Paramedic Services (TPaS) dispatcher, advised that he intended to jump.

As a result of the Complainant’s 911 call, WO #6 from TPS 51 Division, attended the apartment building and found the Complainant on the 27^th floor roof. WO #6 spoke to the Complainant at length. Members of the TPS ETF and a CIT arrived.

ETF crisis negotiators, SO #1 and SO #2, were assigned to attempt to talk the Complainant down from the rooftop and ensure a safe result. At 12:01 p.m., WO #6 introduced SO #1 to the Complainant. Both SO #1 and SO #2 attempted to engage the Complainant and convince him to come away from the building ledge. At 12:20 p.m., however, the Complainant jumped from the ledge and fell 25 floors, landing on the roof of a two story adjacent building. The Complainant survived the fall and was transported to the hospital. The Complainant sustained a fractured wrist, a fractured arm and had to have his spleen and gallbladder surgically removed.

On May 26^th, 2016 at 11:15 a.m., the Complainant called 911 initially stating that he required an ambulance but, after being transferred to the TPaS dispatcher, he advised that he was on the rooftop of a building and intended to jump. As a result, police officers from TPS 51 Division attended the apartment building on Huntley Street, in the City of Toronto, followed by members of the TPS ETF and a CIT. Crisis negotiators, SO #1 and SO #2 were assigned to attempt to talk the Complainant down from the rooftop and ensure a safe result. At 12:20 p.m., the Complainant fell 25 floors and landed on the roof of a two story adjacent building. Miraculously, the Complainant survived the fall and was transported to the hospital where he was put into an induced coma for several weeks. The Complainant sustained a fractured wrist, a fractured arm and had to have his spleen and gallbladder surgically removed.

The Complainant had poor recall of the incident. He had no recollection of any involvement by the two subject officers.

During the course of the SIU investigation, in addition to the Complainant, 14 civilian witnesses and seven police witnesses, including one of the subject officers (SO #2), were interviewed. Additionally, investigators had access to the communications tapes from TPS and TPaS dispatchers, officers’ notes, videos recorded by witnesses as well as CCTV footage. In order to come to a finding in this particular matter, it is unnecessary to go into depth with respect to the observations of all of the civilian witnesses; suffice it to say that all of the civilians observed the Complainant on the ledge of the apartment building; all observed that he was alone and did not observe any other person on the rooftop with him nor did they observe any person have physical contact with the Complainant, although many were of the view that he was speaking with someone who was out of view; of those who observed the Complainant jump from the rooftop, all were of the view that he did so voluntarily and that he deliberately jumped rather than fell. The remaining witnesses looked away prior to the Complainant leaving the rooftop.

The video recorded by CW #6 leaves absolutely no doubt that the Complainant deliberately launched himself from the ledge on the 27^th floor of the apartment building. The video also makes it clear that no other person was in the direct vicinity at the time and no person had any physical contact with the Complainant.

From a compilation of the statements of police officers involved, as well as the 911 communications tapes and radio communications, the following sequence of events can be determined:

The Complainant called 911 at 11:15 a.m. and spoke to the dispatcher for almost 14 minutes. The dispatcher was both kind and patient with the Complainant and did all she could to attempt to dissuade him from jumping. From the recording, it appears that once police arrived on the scene, the Complainant ended his call with 911;

WO #6 arrived at 11:21 a.m. and attended the roof top and engaged the Complainant in conversation. WO #6 had a lengthy conversation with the Complainant.

At 11:57 a.m., SO #2 and SO #1 arrived on the roof top and relieved WO #6. Although WO #6 appeared to be engaging the Complainant, the decision was made that trained crisis negotiators might be more effective and, as such, at 12:01 p.m., WO #6 introduced SO #1 to the Complainant and he began to speak with the Complainant while SO #2 took notes and was also later introduced to the Complainant and had some limited conversation with him;

At 12:20 p.m., the Complainant looked back with tears in his eyes and pushed off from the building. The Complainant leapt from the building of his own volition, unaided by any other person, in a bid to end his own life.

On this evidence, I find that: The Complainant’s injuries were caused by his own actions, without any direct involvement by the police officers present; SO #1 and SO #2 as well as WO #6, were carrying out their duties as required when they attended the rooftop of the apartment building on Huntley Street to attempt to dissuade the Complainant from his stated course of action; and that at no time did any officer have either any physical contact nor any verbal interaction with the Complainant that could in any way have been seen to initiate the actions of the Complainant. The actions of the Complainant were described by all witnesses as deliberate and carried out without any provocation by police but apparently as a result of the sad state of affairs of the Complainant’s personal life.

In the final analysis, I find absolutely no grounds upon which to find any basis for any criminal conduct by any of the many emergency personnel who attended the apartment building to attempt to assist the Complainant. On the contrary, by all accounts, the efforts of police and ambulance personnel, with specific recognition of the efforts of WO #6 and the 911 dispatcher, were commendable and in the finest traditions of the police and other emergency resources.

Date: August 15, 2017

Original signed by

Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

• 1) [1] The Complainant survived his injuries. [Back to text]
• 2) [2] CW #14 is the Complainant’s next of kin. [Back to text]
• 3) [3] The time data from the building security system was not necessarily in agreement with TPS times. [Back to text]