SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OCI-177

Warning:

This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.

Mandate of the SIU

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.

Information Restrictions

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:

  • The name of, and any information identifying, a subject official, witness official, civilian witness or affected person.
  • Information that may result in the identity of a person who reported that they were sexually assaulted being revealed in connection with the sexual assault.
  • Information that, in the opinion of the SIU Director, could lead to a risk of serious harm to a person.
  • Information that discloses investigative techniques or procedures.
  • Information, the release of which is prohibited or restricted by law.
  • Information in which a person’s privacy interest in not having the information published clearly outweighs the public interest in having the information published.

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act

Pursuant to section 14 (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 that 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 (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this report. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

  • The names of persons, including civilian witnesses, and subject and witness officials;
  • 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

Pursuant to this legislation, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may also have 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.

Mandate Engaged

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 30-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 23, 2024, at 2:42 a.m., the Peterborough Police Service (PPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 22, 2024, at 9:30 p.m., PPS officers attended an address in Peterborough for a domestic assault complaint. Upon their arrival, Witness Official (WO) #4 and Subject Official (SO) #2 spoke with a resident. He reported that his former spouse, the Complainant, had assaulted him and their child, and fled. WO #4 and SO #2 attended the Complainant’s apartment in the area of Barnardo Avenue. Upon knocking, and gaining entry, their attentions were drawn to a second-floor window. The Complainant had climbed out that window onto the roof. SO #2 had a short conversation with the Complainant, who agreed to climb down from the roof via a tree. When near the ground, she attempted to transition from that tree to a fence, stumbled, and fell feet first. WO #3, SO #1 and WO #2 [the latter two Emergency Response Team members] arrived, and the Complainant was arrested without incident. She was transported to the PPS station and complained of right foot pain during the booking process. Paramedics were called. The Complainant was transported to the Peterborough Regional Health Centre (PRHC) by ambulance where X-rays revealed the big toe on her right foot was fractured.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/04/23 at 5:52 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/04/23 at 8:30 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

30-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on April 23, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on April 23, 2024.

Subject Officials (SO)

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

SO #2 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between April 30, 2024, and May 7, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a building situated in the area of Barnardo Avenue, Peterborough.

Physical Evidence

Exterior and interior scene photographs of the building were taken by the SIU forensic investigator.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Police Radio and Telephone Communications Recordings

The recordings began with the initial call for service followed by the results of computerized police database checks conducted of the Complainant and her former spouse.

Broadcasts continued and included the fact that police officers had established grounds to arrest the Complainant, and she was at her apartment in the area of Barnardo Avenue.

WO #4 and WO #3 broadcast their arrival at the address in the area of Barnardo Avenue, and WO #4 relayed to SO #2 that the Complainant was in the apartment.

SO #2 broadcast the Complainant went out a window, climbed onto the roof and threatened to jump off. He then made a broadcast to the attention of a PPS staff sergeant asking him to inquire into the availability of a negotiator.

SO #2’s next broadcast was that the Complainant had jumped from the roof into a tree at the southwest corner of the building.

WO #2 requested paramedics, and the communications operator telephoned paramedics and told them the Complainant had threatened to jump off a roof and was now in a tree.

WO #4 broadcast that the Complainant was in custody and the ambulance was no longer required.

Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

The April 22, 2024, the CAD Report recorded a domestic dispute call as received at 2:11 p.m.[3] The Complainant had reportedly attended her former spouse’s residence where she attacked him and their daughter.

WO #4 and WO #3, and SO #2, arrived at that call at 8:36 p.m.

The next entry was a 9:45 p.m., indicating that the Complainant had exited a second-floor bedroom window.

At 9:46 p.m., the Complainant was reported to be on the single-storey roof, intoxicated, and attempting to climb to the second-storey roof. An entry was made that she had gained the second-storey, ran south on the roof, and was threatening to jump off.

At 9:47 p.m., an entry was made that the Complainant had jumped off the roof into a tree and paramedics were required.

At 9:49 p.m., the Complainant was said to have jumped a fence and paramedics were updated.

At 9:50 p.m., paramedics were cancelled.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the PPS between April 26, 2024, and May 8, 2024:

  • Police communications recordings;
  • In-car camera recordings;
  • CAD Report;
  • Policy - Incident Response Training (Use of Force);
  • Policy - Preliminary Perimeter Control and Containment;
  • Policy - Emergency Planning – Major Incident Plan;
  • Policy - Police Response to Persons with a Mental Health Crisis and or Chaotic Substance Use;
  • Notes – SO #2;
  • Notes – WO #1
  • Notes – WO #2;
  • Notes – WO #3; and
  • Notes – WO #4.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on April 25, 2024:

  • The Complainant’s medical records from the PRHC.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and other police and non-police witnesses to the events in question, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU. SO #2 did authorize the release of his notes.

In the evening of April 22, 2024, SO #2, with WO #4 and WO #3, attended at the Complainant’s residence – a second-floor apartment in the area of Barnardo Avenue, Peterborough – to arrest her for assault and probation violations. An intoxicated and belligerent Complainant agreed to leave with the officers but asked for a minute in order to get ready. As WO #4 and WO #3 waited, SO #2 left and exited the building. From outside, he observed the Complainant climbing out her bedroom window onto a roof. He alerted other officers to what was happening.

The Complainant stepped onto the roof from her window and then scaled to the second-floor roof. She paced for a period before climbing onto the branches of an adjacent tree beside the corner of the roof. Fences marked the border between the side of her apartment building and the back lots of adjacent residential properties. The Complainant maneuvered in the direction of the fence and leapt from the tree onto a neighbouring backyard, fracturing her right big toe in the process. Not more than about five minutes had elapsed from the moment the Complainant first exited her bedroom.

By the time of the Complainant’s fall, additional officers had arrived on scene. A call was made for paramedics and the attendance of negotiators. SO #2 and SO #1 took a lead role in communicating with the Complainant. They attempted to calm the Complainant and have her return to safety. When she jumped, WO #4 was the first to get to her. She was placed under arrest and taken to the station.

The Complainant complained of pain at the station and was transported to hospital where her injury was diagnosed and treated.

Relevant Legislation

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

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

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

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Analysis and Director’s Decision

The Complainant was seriously injured in a fall on April 22, 2024. As PPS officers were negotiating with the Complainant at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. SO #2 and SO #1 were identified as subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s injury.

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 injury. In my view, there was not.

SO #2, SO #1 and the other officers on scene were lawfully placed throughout the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s fall. The police had initially arrived on scene with cause to take the Complainant into custody. Officers had conducted an investigation of a domestic disturbance earlier that day involving the Complainant and had developed grounds to believe she had committed assault and contravened her probation conditions. With the Complainant in danger on the roof of her apartment building, the police were also duty bound to do what they reasonably could to prevent her injuring herself.

In the few minutes SO #2, SO #1 and the rest of the police contingent had to work with, I am satisfied they comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s wellbeing. The focus quickly shifted from law enforcement to public safety. Appropriate resources were called to the scene and reasonable efforts made to safely coax the Complainant off the roof. Though these efforts were regrettably to no avail, the Complainant jumping from the roof was not for want of reasonable efforts brought to bear by the police.

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

Date: August 20, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit

Endnotes

  • 1) Unless otherwise specified, the information in this section reflects the information received by the SIU at the time of notification and does not necessarily reflect the SIU’s finding of facts following its investigation. [Back to text]
  • 2) The following records contain sensitive personal information and are not being released pursuant to section 34(2) of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019. The material portions of the records are summarized below. [Back to text]
  • 3) Time stamps associated with CAD reports are often inaccurate. They can reflect the time the operator typed the CAD entry into the system, which is not always an accurate reflection of the time the operator received that information. [Back to text]

Note:

The signed English original report is authoritative, and any discrepancy between that report and the French and English online versions should be resolved in favour of the original English report.