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 injuries of a 32-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU [1]

On November 6, 2023, at 12:52 p.m., [2] the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On November 5, 2023, at 7:37 p.m., the OPP Dryden Detachment received a 911 call in which the male caller refused to identify himself. The telephone number was traced back to a room at the Chalet Inn Motel. Three officers, Witness Official (WO) #1, WO #2 and the Subject Official (SO), attended the address and observed a male [now known to be the Complainant] and female exiting a third-floor apartment onto a balcony. The officers knew the Complainant and the female, and were aware they were on conditions not to associate with each other. As WO #1, WO #2 and the SO moved towards the balcony, the Complainant was observed going over a railing and attempting to lower himself down to the second-floor. The Complainant either slipped or jumped, fell to the parking lot below and was arrested for bail violations. When the Complainant was stood up, he felt pain in his feet and legs. The Complainant was taken to the hospital and diagnosed with two fractured ankles. The OPP subsequently determined that the Complainant was allowed to associate with the female on her consent and he was released.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2023/11/07 at 9:51 a.m. [3]

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2023/11/07 at 10:00 a.m. [4]

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the third-floor balconies of the Chalet Inn Motel, 184 Government Street, Dryden.

Physical Evidence

On November 13, 2023, at 12:10 p.m., SIU investigators arrived at the Chalet Inn Motel in Dryden. The motel was observed to be an older-style motel. The motel had three floors of units and an unattached building beside the units which contained the manager’s office. There were black-coloured wrought iron railings running in front of the rooms and a divider of wrought iron railings between the rooms. The staircase was also wrought iron.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence [5]

Communication Recordings and Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

[6]

At 8:36:30 p.m., November 5, 2023, an OPP dispatcher had a man on the line who would not confirm whether he needed police, fire or ambulance to attend before he disconnected the call.

At 8:47:58 p.m., police officers started knocking on doors at the motel, including the room occupied by the Complainant.

At 8:50:12 p.m., the Complainant and a female were identified.
At 8:51:38 p.m., the Complainant was in custody.

At 8:52:34 p.m., police officers requested an ambulance.

At 8:52:47 p.m., the dispatcher noted that the Complainant might have broken his ankle and had jumped off a balcony.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following materials from the OPP between November 10, 2023, and December 28, 2023:

• CAD Report;
• General Occurrence Report;
• Communications recordings;
• Notes – WO #1; and
• Notes – WO #2.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police eyewitnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the evening of November 5, 2023, the OPP Dryden Detachment received a 911 call from a male who refused to identify himself and disconnected the line. The police traced the number to a room located at the Chalet Inn Motel, 184 Government Street, Dryden. Officers were dispatched to investigate.

The SO and WO #1 and WO #2 arrived on scene at about 7:44 p.m. The motel manager was consulted and the officers subsequently made their way to a room located on the third-floor via exterior staircases. They knocked on the door but received no response. WO #2 and the SO made their way to the rear of the room.

The Complainant was an occupant of the room together with his girlfriend and another couple. With the officers’ arrival, he decided to exit the rear door of the room, presumably to avoid apprehension. The Complainant was making his way across balcony divider railings when he noticed WO #2 advancing towards him. Turning to head in the other direction, the Complainant observed the SO and came to a stop before climbing over the railing. WO #2 yelled at him not to jump but to no avail. The Complainant lowered himself, hung temporarily by the hands from the bottom of the balcony and then either fell or jumped to the ground below.

Officers approached the Complainant and the SO arrested him for being in violation of a release order preventing him from being with his girlfriend. He was taken to hospital and diagnosed with fractures of both feet.

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 was seriously injured in a fall from a height in Dryden on November 5, 2023. As OPP officers were in the vicinity and took the Complainant into custody after the fall, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO was identified as the subject official. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO 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 SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s injuries. In my view, there was not.

The SO, WO #2 and WO #1 were lawfully present at the motel throughout the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s fall. They had responded to a disconnected 911 call and were in the execution of their duties when they knocked on the room to ensure everyone was okay.

It is also apparent that the officers comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and safety. In the brief time that they engaged with the Complainant at the rear of the motel, the officers mentioned they only wanted to talk to him and then yelled at him not to jump before he fell. There was simply no time or opportunity for the officers to have done anything to prevent the Complainant’s descent. Once on the ground, the officers acted promptly to arrange for medical care. On this record, aside from being the impetus for the Complainant’s ill-advised action, it is evident that the SO and his colleagues did nothing that caused or contributed to the fall that could attract criminal sanction.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.


Date: March 5, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino
Director
Special Investigations Unit