Director's Report Details

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving an official where there has been death, serious injury, the discharge of a firearm at a person or an allegation of sexual assault. Under the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019 (SIU Act), officials are defined as police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission and peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act. The SIU’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the SIU Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence was committed. If such grounds exist, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the official. Alternatively, in cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director cannot lay charges. Where no charges are laid, a report of the investigation is prepared and released publicly, except in the case of reports dealing with allegations of sexual assault, in which case the SIU Director may consult with the affected person and exercise a discretion to not publicly release the report having regard to the affected person’s privacy interests.

Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019

Pursuant to section 34, certain information may not be included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following: 

Pursuant to section 15 of the SIU Act, the SIU may investigate the conduct of officials, be they police officers, special constables of the Niagara Parks Commission or peace officers under the Legislative Assembly Act, that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault or the discharge of a firearm at a person.

A person sustains a “serious injury” for purposes of the SIU’s jurisdiction if they: sustain an injury as a result of which they are admitted to hospital; suffer a fracture to the skull, or to a limb, rib or vertebra; suffer burns to a significant proportion of their body; lose any portion of their body; or, as a result of an injury, experience a loss of vision or hearing.

In addition, a “serious injury” means any other injury sustained by a person that is likely to interfere with the person’s health or comfort and is not transient or trifling in nature.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the serious injury of a 21-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On October 28, 2023, at 9:59 p.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 28, 2023, at 7:05 p.m., LPS received a 911 call regarding a man - the Complainant - on the fifth-floor exterior ledge of the DoubleTree hotel, 300 King Street, London. The man appeared to be contemplating suicide. At 7:13 p.m., LPS officers arrived on scene, followed by four negotiators, a Critical Incident Commander (CIC), and the Emergency Response Unit (ERU). The officers observed the Complainant positioned on the exterior ledge of the hotel. At 7:18 p.m., negotiators attempted to communicate with the Complainant, but he would not engage them in conversation. The negotiators and the CIC researched the background of the Complainant and learned information about his personal circumstances, including stressors. The officers utilized a nearby hotel room and a London Fire Services aerial truck to communicate with the Complainant. An ERU negotiator was positioned in the bucket of the aerial truck, providing the Complainant the option of returning safely to the ground. The Complainant would not engage any of the involved officers and refused to enter the bucket. At 9:30 p.m., the Complainant leaned forward and fell from the fifth-floor ledge, landing on the ground. He was transported to London Health Sciences Centre Victoria Hospital in critical condition.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2023/10/28 at 10:37 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/10/28 at 11:57 p.m.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the easternmost part of the ledge underneath the south-facing fifth-floor windows of the Double Tree by Hilton Hotel, 300 King Street, London.

Physical Evidence

The scene had been secured and guarded by LPS. The building was situated on the north side of the street and faced south. East of the front entrance, nearing the entrance ramp to the underground parking, was an area of interest. Clothing was found on the sidewalk that had been cut off the Complainant by emergency medical services personnel. A window directly above a fifth-floor ledge appeared open. A firetruck was located within the confines of the scene.

Through an examination of a hotel room and the area of interest, it appeared that the Complainant had exited through a window and walked along the ledge to the corner of the building. The Complainant then fell to the area of impact.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [2]

911 Call

At 7:12 p.m., October 28, 2023, LPS communications received a 911 call from a concerned citizen, who had observed a man outside of a hotel window on a ledge, facing King Street. The hotel was the DoubleTree hotel, located at 300 King Street, London.

At about 7:10 p.m. of October 28, 2023, LPS received a 911 call about a male on the exterior ledge of a hotel – the Double Tree, 300 King Street, London. Officers, including the subject officials, were dispatched to the scene.

The male was the Complainant. The Complainant had been staying in a room of the hotel. Feeling suicidal, he had climbed out a window of his roof onto a sloped ledge, making his way to the easternmost part of the ledge beyond which was an open descent to ground level.

SO #1, a trained negotiator, arrived on scene within minutes. He was soon joined by another negotiator, WO #1. SO #2, the critical incident commander, was in charge of the overall police operations that would unfold. From ground level, SO #1 attempted to call up to the Complainant. He indicated the police were there to help and encouraged him to return to safety. The Complainant was unresponsive.

As SO #1 was not having any success from ground level, officers made their way to a hotel room which was adjacent to the Complainant’s room. From a window of that room, SO #1 continued to speak to the Complainant. An officer who was able to speak another language was also brought in to speak to him in the hope that familiarity would assist in engaging the Complainant. Still, the Complainant refused to respond.

As time wore on, a psychiatrist was brought to the scene to assist police. He provided advice to SO #2 regarding subjects of conversation that should and should not be pursued. SO #2 also enlisted the services of the fire department. Specifically, it was decided that an ERU officer – SO #3 – would be lifted towards the Complainant in a fire truck aerial bucket. The objective was to cautiously approach the Complainant and convince him to enter the bucket with the officer.

At about 8:20 p.m., SO #3 started to ascend towards the Complainant. From a distance of four to five metres, the officer called out to the Complainant and tried to initiate a conversation. He expressed empathy for whatever the circumstances were that had brought the Complainant there. With SO #2’s approval, SO #3 moved closer to the Complainant until he had reached a distance of about three metres, at which point the Complainant indicated he did not want the officer any closer. SO #3 asked if the Complainant would speak to the psychiatrist. The Complainant replied in the negative.

At about 9:25 p.m., the Complainant leaned forward and fell from the ledge.

Paramedics were on scene and tended to the Complainant. He was taken to hospital and treated for serious injuries. The precise nature and extent of his injuries remain unknown as he declined to sign a release for his medical records.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code -- Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of 

The Complainant suffered serious injuries in a fall from height in London on October 28, 2023. As police officers were present and attempting to prevent the Complainant falling, the SIU was notified and initiated an investigation. Three officers were identified as subject officials – SO #2, and SO #1 and SO #3. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s injuries.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 of the Criminal Code. The offence is reserved for serious cases of neglect that demonstrate a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is predicated, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked and substantial departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. In the instant case, the question is whether there was a want of care on the part of the subject officials, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s fall. In my view, there was not.

The subject officials were at all times lawfully placed and engaged in their duties throughout the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s fall. Their foremost responsibility being the protection and preservation of life, the officers were within their rights in attending at the scene to do what they reasonably could to avoid harm coming to the Complainant.

It is unfortunate that the police could not prevent the Complainant from falling, but that outcome was not for lack of reasonable efforts on the part of the subject officials. Trained negotiators were at the scene and speaking to the Complainant within minutes. A psychiatrist was consulted. An officer who spoke another language was employed. Throughout their efforts, it is clear that all parties gave the Complainant sufficient space and time so as to prevent him making a rash decision. The same is true of SO #3 and the use of the aerial bucket. That tactic was worth a shot given the futility of negotiations to that point. Nevertheless, SO #3 made sure to approach the Complainant slowly and cautiously. As soon as the Complainant told him to stop, the officer did just that. On this record, it is apparent that the subject officials did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the subject officials. The file is closed.


Date: February 22, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit