SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TCI-230

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 injuries of a 37-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 1, 2024, at 1:23 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 10:27 a.m., TPS received a call from a man reporting his neighbour was in crisis at an apartment building in the area of King Street West and Spencer Avenue. The caller advised that the neighbour in crisis had previously been admitted to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). Two constables arrived to find the man - the Complainant - hanging from a window. They went to the apartment and held the man from falling. At around 11:00 a.m., Toronto Fire Services (TFS) were called to assist. The man ultimately fell to the ground below. He was conscious and injured, and taken by ambulance to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) where he was diagnosed with a fractured pelvis. He refused treatment and was formed under the Mental Health Act.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/01 at 2:31 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/06/01 at 4:40 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

37-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on June 12, 2024.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

CW #7 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 4 and June 20, 2024.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject officials were interviewed between June 27 and June 28, 2024.

Witness Official (WO)

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on June 3, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired in an apartment in the area of King Street West and Spencer Avenue, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

The apartment building was a mid-rise, multi-unit building.

The relevant apartment had two windows overtop a small grassy area. The Complainant fell on the grassy area.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Police Communications Recordings

On June 1, 2024, at 10:27 a.m.,[3] CW #6 reported the Complainant was mentally unwell. He had been banging on the walls and destroying his apartment for the last two hours. About one month prior, the Complainant had been taken to CAMH by the police.

At 10:42 a.m., SO #1 and SO #2 were sent to the apartment building.

At 10:59:59 a.m., SO #1 made a radio transmission requesting help. He said the Complainant was hanging out the window and being held by his ankles. A rush was requested on an ambulance.

At 11:03 a.m., it was reported the Complainant had fallen. About 15 seconds later, the WO said the Complainant had fallen and requested a rush on the ambulance. The WO said the Complainant was breathing but not talking.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – SO #1

At 10:57:11 a.m., June 1, 2024, SO #1 entered the elevator of an apartment building.

At 10:58:07 a.m., SO #2 knocked on the door of the Complainant’s apartment. The Complainant answered the door with two bags in his hand. He asked the police officers to enter his apartment. SO #1 asked why he wanted them to come into the apartment. The Complainant said, “I need to show you what is going on.” He walked over to the window and parted the curtains.

SO #1 tried to turn on the light switch, but it did not work. The Complainant pulled the curtains, opened the small window on the right side, and said, “Okay, guess what? Now the show has really begun.” The Complainant gestured to two bags in his hand and said, “I have two doxycycline and please let me tell you… oh, please take that.” SO #1 moved a carpenter’s hammer and a knife into the sink. The Complainant started to say, “So, there has been…,” before he put his left leg outside the open window, and ducked his head and upper body through the window. SO #2 rushed towards him and grabbed his right leg inside the apartment. SO #1 grabbed the Complainant’s right ankle. The Complainant’s entire body above the right knee was hanging outside the window.

At 10:59:57 a.m., SO #1 requested additional units as the Complainant was hanging out the window. The police officers tried to lift him back up to the window but were unable to.

At 11:00:30 a.m., the BWC was blocked. SO #2 yelled to someone [now known to be CW #1] outside and said, “The police is here. Call Fire. Call someone, we need help!” The Complainant shrieked, “Help me!” several times.

At 11:01:06 a.m., both police officers struggled to maintain a hold of the Complainant. SO #2 asked SO #1 to, “Keep his leg down. You better keep his foot down.”

At 11:01:17 a.m., SO #1 asked that TFS go to the courtyard because they were only holding the Complainant’s ankle. SO #1 said, “[SO #2], don’t give up!” and, “Don’t lose him, [SO #2]!”

At 11:02:42 a.m., SO #2 repeated breathlessly, “We’re losing him!”

At 11:02:49 a.m., SO #2 yelled, “Sergeant! He’s about to go down! We’re losing him, sir! We’re about to let go! Oh, fuck!”

At 11:03:00 a.m., SO #1 reported to dispatch that the Complainant had fallen. Both SO #1 and SO #2 pulled themselves back into the window.

At 11:03:13 a.m., SO #2’s face and neck were captured with scratches. He bent over to catch his breath.

SO #2 said, “Fuck, I took so many shots to the face there.” In the struggle, SO #2 said he was kicked and scratched in the face and neck, and his watch and left epaulet were gone. SO #1 lost his watch and one latex glove, and he had blood on his arm.

At 11:04:08 a.m., SO #1 told an officer that the Complainant moved to jump out the window after he moved a hammer, scissors, and knife into the kitchen sink. SO #2 caught him before he was fully out the window.

At 11:05:34 a.m., SO #1 and SO #2 left the apartment and entered the elevator. SO #2 said the Complainant tried to poke him in the eyes, so he closed them and turned away. SO #1 told him he did a good job and said, “He was motivated to go, right?”

At 11:21:25 a.m., the WO told SO #1 to get checked by Emergency Medical Services and then return to the police station.

At 11:24:31 a.m., SO #1’s BWC was deactivated.

BWC Footage – the WO

At 11:02:43 a.m., June 1, 2024, the WO arrived in the courtyard of the apartment. A man was recording on his cellular telephone and several objects were on the ground under the window. The WO instructed two police officers to get upstairs immediately.

At 11:02:58 a.m., the Complainant fell to the ground and landed on his right-side hip area. He was conscious and moaned. The WO and another police officer made sure to keep the Complainant’s head still and not move his body. The Complainant was encouraged to keep breathing.

At 11:07:04 a.m., TFS installed a neck brace.

Video Footage - Cellular Telephone

The Complainant was captured hanging upside-down from the window. Two police officers - SO #2 and SO #1 - were holding onto his right leg to prevent him falling. The Complainant was struggling and resisting SO #2’s grip. The Complainant used his left foot to brace and push himself away from the wall. The Complainant bent upwards in a sit-up motion to strike and scratch SO #2’s hands and head. He ripped off the latex gloves of SO #1, and SO #1 used his hands to deflect the Complainant’s hands. The officer attempted to grab whatever limb he could reach. The Complainant said, “Help me! Help me!” He kicked at SO #2’s face and head with his left foot, and SO #1 briefly grabbed his leg. The Complainant clawed and ripped at SO #2’s head and neck area, and at the hands he was using to grip the Complainant’s leg. SO #1 was able to grab the Complainant’s right ankle briefly. The Complainant continued to twist to break free of SO #2’s grip. He used the wall to arch his back to push away. A third police officer arrived at the window, and the video ended.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between June 1, 2024, and September 11, 2024:

  • Notes - the WO;
  • Notes - SO #2;
  • Notes - SO #1;
  • List of involved officers;
  • List of civilian witnesses;
  • Communications recordings;
  • Footage from BWCs of SO #1, SO #2, the WO and four other officers;
  • TPS Injury/Illness Report;
  • The Complainant’s Previous History;
  • Event Details Report;
  • TPS Procedure – Incident Response – Use of Force – De-Escalation; and
  • TPS Procedure – Person in Crisis.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on July 4, 2024:

  • The Complainant’s medical records from St. Michael’s Hospital.

Incident Narrative

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized.

At about 10:30 a.m. of June 1, 2024, TPS officers were called to an apartment near King Street West and Spencer Avenue. A neighbour had contacted police to report that the resident of the apartment, the Complainant, was in mental health crisis – he had been banging on the walls and destroying the apartment for the previous two hours.

SO #1 and SO #2 arrived on scene shortly before 11:00 a.m. They made their way up to the apartment and were invited inside by the Complainant. Within moments, the Complainant made his way to a window in the apartment and opened it. With the officers watching, he placed his left leg and torso out the window. The officers rushed forward and were able to grab onto his right leg before the Complainant was fully out the window.

There followed a struggle at the window in which the Complainant, now hanging upside down, his back against the building’s exterior, fought against the officers’ efforts to prevent him falling. The Complainant kicked at the officers with his left leg, and scratched and clawed at them with his hands. SO #2 held onto the Complainant’s right leg despite being on the receiving end of this violence, suffering injuries in the process. SO #1 at times held onto the Complainant’s right foot, and his partner to prevent him falling out the window. They eventually tired and lost their grip. The time was about 11:02 a.m.

The Complainant fell multiple floors. He was transported to hospital and diagnosed with multiple pelvic fractures.

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 from a height in Toronto on June 1, 2024. As TPS officers were present and attempting to prevent the fall, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. SO #1 and SO #2 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 fall and 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. There was not.

SO #2 and SO #1 were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties through their brief engagement with the Complainant. Having been dispatched regarding a person in distress, the officers were duty bound to attend at the scene to do what they reasonably could to render assistance. Once at the apartment, they were allowed inside by the Complainant.

I am also satisfied that both subject officials comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s wellbeing. They promptly ascertained that the Complainant was intending to jump out the window, and acted quickly to prevent that from happening. They also battled with all their strength to keep the Complainant from falling, even as he struck them and did all he could to free himself of their grip. Though the officers were unable to prevent the fall, it was not from a want of any effort on their part.

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

Date: September 19, 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 findings of fact 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) The times are derived from the Event Details Report and, therefore, are approximations. [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.