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.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the death of a 68-year-old man who fell to his death from the balcony of an apartment unit. Toronto Police Service officers were at the building when the man fell.

Notification of the SIU

The SIU was notified of the incident by the Toronto Police Service (TPS) on Sunday, August 28, 2016, at 8:20 a.m.

According to TPS, on Sunday, August 28, 2016, at 7:23 a.m., a man called police to say he was going to kill himself. TPS police went to the address and knocked on the door but no one responded. The police officers realized the door was unlocked so they entered. One of the police officers heard what he believed to be a rope unraveling. The police officers went to the balcony and saw a rope extending from the balcony about 10 to 12 storeys down. The police officers then saw a man on the ground outside the building.

The team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

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, videography, sketches and measurements. The Forensic Investigators attended and recorded the post-mortem examination.

The SIU obtained and reviewed the Toronto Emergency Medical Service Ambulance Call Report and diagrams made by civilian witnesses.

Complainant

68-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

CW #8 Interviewed

CW #9 Interviewed

CW #10 Not interviewed

CW #11 Not interviewed

CW #12 Not interviewed

CW #13 Interviewed

CW #14 Not interviewed

CW #15 Not interviewed

CW #16 Interviewed

CW #17 Interviewed

Witness officers

WO #1 Interviewed

WO #2 Interviewed

WO #3 Interviewed

WO #4 Interviewed

WO #5 Interviewed

WO #6 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary

Subject officer

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

The scene

The scene was at a high-rise apartment building on Rosehill Avenue.

There was a paper taped to the kitchen bi-fold door of the apartment unit in question with instructions and directions in the event of the complainant’s death.

The body of the deceased was on the ground next to the apartment building and was covered with a blanket.

The balcony of the apartment in question extended the entire width of the apartment. There were no chairs or furniture on the balcony. The sliding balcony door was open.

A yellow rope hung from the balcony in a U-shaped loop which extended to nine floors below. The rope when not looped was measured and found to be 60 metres long and 8.5 mm thick. The yellow rope was intertwined with the vertical railing stays of the balcony and the two ends of the rope were knotted together at the base of the railing forming a loop at its end, below the deck of the balcony.

Scene diagram

Forensic evidence

The post-mortem report indicated that the cause of death of the complainant was due to hanging and multiple blunt impact trauma. According to the forensic pathologist, all injuries observed on the complainant were attributed to ‘either hangings that involved “long drops” or blunt impact trauma acquired from landing on the ground following a descent from height’.

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.

Materials obtained from Police Service

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

• 911 and communications audio recordings
• communications centre summary of conversation
• General Occurrences
• Intergraph Computer Aided Dispatch
• WO notes, and
• Parade Sheet

At 7:18 a.m. on August 28, 2016, a 911 call was received by the dispatcher for the TPS. The caller, who identified himself as the complainant, politely gave his address and provided his telephone number. He indicated that he was calling for a ‘suicide in progress’ and, when pressed for details, indicated that “somebody is going to jump off his balcony” eventually indicating that he was that ‘somebody’. He would not provide any information as to why he was contemplating suicide despite numerous requests by the dispatcher who indicated she was there to help. The complainant further advised that he would leave the door unlocked but police would have to contact the superintendent in order to gain access to the building. The dispatcher attempted to prolong the conversation with the complainant, but he repeatedly indicated that it was very kind of the dispatcher to ask but he did not wish to talk and that he wanted police to attend. Sirens could already be heard in the background when the complainant suddenly disconnected the call at 7:23 a.m. During the entire course of the conversation with the 911 dispatcher, the complainant was calm and exceedingly polite but sounded very firm and determined. Attempts by the dispatcher to ring him back went unanswered.

While the call taker was still engaging the complainant on the telephone, an ambulance was dispatched and the information was broadcast to all available police units.

WO #4 arrived at the apartment building at 7:24 a.m., and the SO and WO #3 arrived at roughly the same time. The three officers quickly made their way to the apartment unit on the 26^th floor of the building. Upon arrival, officers knocked on the door calling out the complainant’s name a number of times. When there was no response, they entered the unlocked unit and searched both the interior and the balcony. WO #4 then heard the sound of a rope unravelling and the SO yelled, “He jumped”. The officers saw a yellow climber’s rope tied to the balcony close to the base of the railing, and when WO #4 looked over the balcony, he saw the complainant dangling and swaying from the rope approximately ten stories down. The SO and WO #4 grabbed the rope and pulled it slightly to stop it from swaying; however, they were unsuccessful and the officers released their hold on the rope. The SO and WO #3 ran down to try to gain access to an apartment adjacent to where the complainant was hanging to allow them to pull him in. Within five seconds, however, WO #4 heard a thud and looked over and saw that the complainant had fallen to the ground. WO #4 relayed this information to the dispatcher as well as to the other officers who then went down to the ground floor to check on the complainant. Upon arrival, officers located the complainant on the ground lying on his back with obvious signs of distress. When the SO was unable to get a pulse, he began CPR. EMS attended and took over CPR of the complainant, who was absent any vital signs.

The complainant was pronounced dead at 7:36 a.m.

On a review of all of the evidence, I find that the complainant’s death was caused by his own actions without any involvement by the police. The three officers who attended were lawfully carrying out their duties as required when they responded to a 911 call indicating that ‘a suicide was in progress’ and attempted to prevent a death from occurring. At no time did any officer have either physical contact or any verbal interaction with the complainant that could in any way have been seen to initiate the actions of the complainant. The intentions of the complainant were clearly indicated by him in his call to the 911 operator and the call leaves no doubt that he was intent on ending his own 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 lethal action, but there can be no doubt that no fault lies with the officers who were merely carrying out their duties as they are required to do and were unfortunately too late to prevent the complainant’s death, which was presumably his intention when he made the call to police and then immediately put his plan to cause his own death into action. For all of these reasons, 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: July 25, 2017

Original signed by

Joseph Martino
Acting Director
Special Investigations Unit