SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TCI-249
Warning:
This page contains graphic content that can shock, offend and upset.
Contents:
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 35-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On June 13, 2024, at 8:06 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.
On June 13, 2024, at 12:58 a.m., TPS received a 911 call from a suicidal man, later identified as the Complainant, who was at an apartment in the area of Victoria Park Avenue and Dawes Road, Toronto. At 1:10 a.m., TPS police officers arrived on scene, and attempted to confirm the identity and location of the Complainant. Police officers went to the apartment. As they knocked on the door, the Complainant jumped off his balcony and landed on the balcony of the apartment below. The Complainant was transported to Michael Garron Hospital (MGH) [now known to be St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH)], where at 6:18 a.m., he was diagnosed with fractures to ribs six, seven and eight on his left side, as well as a left scapula fracture.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/06/13 at 11:05 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/06/17 at 8:30 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
35-year-old male; not interviewed (declined)
Subject Official (SO)
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
The witness officials were interviewed between June 21 and 26, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired on and around two balconies of an apartment building in the area of Victoria Park Avenue and Dawes Road, Toronto.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - WO #1
Starting at about 1:12 a.m., June 13, 2024, WO #1 and the SO arrived at the entrance door to the Complainant’s apartment. The SO knocked twice on the door and announced their presence, but no one responded. The SO spoke through the door and told the Complainant that they could hear him. The officers indicated they were there to make sure he was okay and to speak with him. They requested that the Complainant open the door. The SO brought out his baton and used it to knock on the door stating they had no intention of breaching the door but would have to, if need be. He further stated the Complainant was not in any trouble and they just wanted to make sure he was okay. No one responded.
Starting at about 1:21 a.m., WO #1 requested an additional police officer, and WO #2 agreed to attend. Following continuous unsuccessful attempts to get the Complainant to open the door, WO #1 asked the SO if they were ready to breach the door. The SO nodded and said WO #2 was downstairs containing the Complainant’s balcony.
Starting at about 1:35 a.m., WO #1 requested that WO #2 join them upstairs. WO #2 asked what direction the Complainant’s balcony faced. WO #1 told him they were trying to figure it out. WO #2 told him to let him know so he could park his car and have the in-car camera system (ICCS) face towards the balcony. WO #1 replied he did not know if the apartment had a balcony, but provided the direction the apartment faced.
Starting at about 1:40 a.m., the SO spoke through the door and stated they were going to breach the door since the Complainant had not responded to them. He warned it was the Complainant’s last chance to open the door and have a discussion with them. WO #1 advised WO #2 to stay back and watch the balcony in case the Complainant decided to escape.
Starting at about 1:46 a.m., a man came out of a neighbouring apartment, and WO #1 asked if the Complainant’s balcony was accessible via his balcony. The man said “no” and led WO #1 to his balcony. He showed the Complainant’s balcony to WO #1. WO #2 was seen to stand on the ground outside by a dumpster. WO #1 told him where the Complainant’s balcony was and that he was going to the nearby apartment from where he could climb into the Complainant’s balcony.
WO #1 returned to the SO at the Complainant’s door and told him of his plan to climb onto the Complainant’s balcony from the balcony of a nearby apartment. He went to the nearby apartment and knocked on the door. A TPS sergeant called and advised him he was attending the scene, and to wait. WO #1 returned to the SO, and told him of the sergeant’s advice.
Starting at about 1:55 a.m., the sergeant arrived with three Toronto Fire Service (TFS) firefighters. The SO knocked at the Complainant’s door and warned they were about to breach the door, and that it was his last chance to come out.
Starting at about 1:56 a.m., the TFS firefighters began to breach the door. One of the occupants from another apartment came out and informed them that the Complainant had fallen onto a balcony on the floor below. The SO asked if he jumped, and the occupant said he did. The SO conveyed the information to the TPS dispatcher, and then went down to the floor below with WO #1 and a firefighter. WO #1 began to knock on the door of an apartment on the floor below, while the SO went to knock at another apartment on that floor. They were joined by the sergeant and TFS firefighters.
Starting at about 2:01 a.m., WO #2 opened the entrance door to the apartment of the balcony onto which the Complainant had fallen and ran back to the balcony. WO #1 and the SO went onto the balcony and saw the Complainant on his side and leaning back against the railing wall. He was moaning in pain. WO #1 asked how he was feeling. He told WO #1 he hurt his back and shoulder. WO #1 requested a back board and advised the Complainant to stay still to avoid further injuries. He told him that paramedics were coming. WO #2 told WO #1 he had heard when the Complainant fell but thought it was racoons.
The Complainant reported he suffered from schizophrenia and was supposed to attend hospital for medication but never did. WO #1 asked the Complainant why he did not open the door. The Complainant replied he was scared and thought they were drug dealers. He had had a fight with drug dealers and thought they were coming to hurt him. WO #1 told him they announced they were the police several times, and the Complainant said he did not hear them.
Starting at about 2:06 a.m., TFS arrived with a neck brace and began to attend to the Complainant. He told a firefighter that he used to take medications for schizophrenia.
Starting at about 2:15 a.m., two paramedics arrived. WO #1 told the paramedics that the Complainant had jumped down from the balcony above them.
Starting at about 2:18 a.m., the Complainant was carried to a stretcher in the hallway. He told one of the paramedics he jumped from the balcony one floor up and struck the railing with his back. The paramedic asked if he was trying to kill himself. He replied he got scared when he started hearing noise while sleeping and thought it was from some drug dealers whom he had issues with. He further stated he always wanted to be a hero like “Batman”.
Starting at about 2:23 a.m., the Complainant was wheeled away in the stretcher.
BWC Footage - WO #2
Starting at about 1:58 a.m., WO #2 climbed onto the balcony of an apartment located below the Complainant’s and found the Complainant lying on his back amid several objects on the floor of the balcony. WO #2 asked him which balcony or apartment he was initially from. It appeared the Complainant told him the side balcony or apartment. WO #2 turned on his flashlight and began to check around the Complainant. Two individuals watched from the balcony of an apartment above. The Complainant remained motionless on the floor of the balcony. His eyes were closed, and he was breathing heavily. WO #2 asked if he could move, and he replied he could not. WO #2 requested an ambulance and noted the Complainant was conscious and breathing, but injured.
WO #2 knocked on the door to the balcony but did not get a response. He opened the door, which was unlocked, and announced he was going inside the apartment as he could not tell if anybody was home. As he prepared to enter the apartment, he heard officers - the SO and WO #1 - knock at the entrance door. He told the Complainant not to move and warned if he did, he could cause himself serious injury. WO #2 went over to open the entrance door and quickly returned to the Complainant. The Complainant lay on his side against the balcony railing wall and moaned in pain. The SO and WO #1 entered the apartment and went over to the Complainant. WO #1 asked the Complainant what part of his body hurt. The Complainant advised his back and shoulders.
Starting at about 2:02 a.m., a TPS inspector and some police officers arrived and stood at the entrance to the apartment. WO #2 told them they needed a wooden board. The Complainant stated he was sleeping on the balcony because of the mice in his apartment when he heard noise from outside. The Complainant’s family member arrived on the ground floor below the balcony and interrupted the Complainant’s conversation with the police officers. He confronted the TPS police officers and asked why they could not go over to the Complainant from his own apartment level. WO #1 told him they were at the Complainant’s apartment door trying to get in. The Complainant’s family member accused them of kicking down the Complainant’s door and making him jump off the balcony. WO #1 replied they did not get into the Complainant’s apartment.
The Complainant told the police officers the man was his relative. The Complainant told WO #1 he suffered from schizophrenia and was supposed to get his medication from the hospital, but he never did.
Starting at about 2:04 a.m., WO #2 reported that the Complainant had jumped one story from one balcony to another and seemed to have landed on his back. There was no obvious injury, but he had pain in his neck and back. He was looking to have the Complainant taken out of the apartment.
ICCS Footage – WO #2’s Cruiser
On June 13, 2024, at 1:39 a.m., the video opened with a view out of the front of WO #2’s police vehicle, which showed the parking lot of a residential building.
WO #2 stated they were not sure which side of the building the balcony was on, and that “we can’t pinpoint that right now, so I am leaving you recording because that’s the best I can do. So hopefully this is going to record something, if something happens, God forbid.”
Starting at about 1:40 a.m., WO #2 exited his police vehicle and ran towards the building.
Starting at about 1:41 a.m., a flashlight lit up the balconies for a couple seconds. WO #2 returned to his police vehicle, and then moved his police vehicle closer to the building.
Starting at about 1:56:55 a.m., the Complainant fell from his balcony and struck the wall of a balcony on the level below before he fell onto the balcony. There were no police officers on the balcony. WO #2 activated his search light and lit up the balconies.
Starting at about 1:57 a.m., WO #2 received a radio call to inform him the Complainant had fallen from the balcony and was on the floor below. WO #2 said, “Is that the noise that I heard?” and drove his police vehicle to the bottom of the building.
Starting at about 1:58 a.m., WO #2 parked his police vehicle and exited. WO #2 entered the upper right camera frame as he climbed over the balcony where the Complainant was located.
Starting at about 1:59 a.m., WO #2 announced over the radio that he had found the Complainant on a balcony of the floor below. WO #2 requested an ambulance. The Complainant was conscious and breathing, but injured. WO #2 entered the apartment, and then returned to the balcony.
Starting at about 2:04 a.m., WO #2 informed the dispatcher that the Complainant had jumped from one balcony to the other. He landed on his back, and was able to move around, but he complained of pain in his neck and back.
Starting at about 2:05 a.m., WO #2 informed the dispatcher his ICCS was pointed at the building and would have captured the incident.
Starting at about 2:07 a.m., WO #2 returned to his police vehicle.
Communications Recordings
Starting at about 12:58 a.m., June 13, 2024, a person, who worked at MGH, called 911 to request police assistance. The caller reported receiving a call from a man - the Complainant - who sounded suicidal. The Complainant had requested assistance because he wanted to kill himself. He declined a request to be transferred to 911. The caller provided the Complainant’s telephone number to the 911 dispatcher.
The TPS did a search on the telephone number and obtained the subscription details, which provided an address. The SO checked a police database and reported the Complainant’s apartment was in a building in the area of Victoria Park Avenue and Dawes Road.
Starting at about 1:21 a.m., the SO announced he was at the Complainant’s apartment. WO #2 reported he had unsuccessfully tried to locate the building superintendent. WO #2 asked WO #1 to find the balcony first so he could relocate his police vehicle and have his ICCS face towards the balcony.
Starting at about 1:40 a.m., the SO reported they could hear the Complainant inside his apartment, and he had refused to open the door. The SO requested the TFS attend to breach the door.
Starting at about 1:48 a.m., WO #2 advised he had contacted the occupants of a neighbouring apartment, who were on their balcony. The occupants had informed WO #2 they could see the Complainant’s balcony, and there was no one on it. The apartment was in darkness.
Starting at about 1:58 a.m., the SO announced the Complainant had possibly jumped off the balcony and was on the floor below.
Starting at about 1:59 a.m., WO #2 reported he was with the Complainant on the balcony of an apartment on the floor below. WO #2 requested an ambulance and stated the Complainant was conscious and breathing, but injured. WO #2 explained the Complainant had jumped one story from one balcony to another and seemed to have landed on his back. There was no obvious injury, but he had pain in his neck and back. He was looking to have the Complainant taken out of the apartment on a board. WO #2 also stated that his ICCS had recorded the incident.
Starting at about 2:28 a.m., the SO reported that the Complainant was in the ambulance. He would be accompanying the Complainant in the ambulance to SMH. Starting at about 2:42 a.m., they arrived at SMH.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from TPS between June 17, 2024, and June 28, 2024:
- BWC footage;
- ICCS footage;
- Communications recordings;
- Computer-assisted Dispatch Reports;
- Notes – WO #3;Notes – WO #2;
- Notes – WO #1;
- Procedure - Persons in Crisis;
- History – the Complainant;
- Photographs; and
- General Occurrence Report.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources on June 24, 2024:
- Ambulance Call Report from Toronto Emergency Medical Services.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police witnesses and video footage that largely captured the incident, 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 early morning of June 13, 2024, the SO and his partner, WO #1, were dispatched to an apartment building in the area of Victoria Park Avenue and Dawes Road to deal with a man threatening self-harm. The man – the Complainant – had called a hospital and reported suicidal ideations. The hospital, in turn, had contacted the police. Following a records check, the officers ascertained the Complainant’s apartment number.
The SO and WO #1 arrived on scene at about 1:10 a.m. They knocked on the apartment door and announced they were police officers. They explained that the Complainant was not in any trouble, and that they were there to ensure he was okay. They could hear noise from within the apartment, but no reply was forthcoming. Attempts to reach the Complainant by phone went to voice mail.
WO #2 arrived on scene to assist. He attended at the superintendent’s apartment to retrieve a key to the Complainant’s apartment, but no one answered. The officer then positioned his cruiser so that his ICCS was pointed at the balcony of the apartment in which the Complainant was thought to reside.
At about 2:00 a.m., WO #2 heard a thump and thought it was a dumpster lid that had closed because of a racoon. In fact, it was the sound of the Complainant falling from his balcony to a balcony on the floor below. The officer climbed onto a dumpster and, from there, onto the balcony where the Complainant was located. The Complainant was laying on the balcony floor complaining of pain.
The SO and WO #1, still outside the Complainant’s apartment, had been alerted to the Complainant’s fall from the residents of another apartment. They made their way downstairs and were let into the apartment by WO #2. Firefighters also attended and rendered aid to the Complainant.
The Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with fractures to three left-sided ribs, and a broken left scapula.
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 balcony on June 13, 2024. As TPS officers were at his apartment door attempting to enter the residence at the time of 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 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 SO, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s fall and injuries. In my view, there was not.
The SO and the other officers who responded to the scene were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties through the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s fall. Having been dispatched to a call for service involving a male threatening self-harm, the officers were bound to attend to do what they reasonably could to prevent injury coming to the Complainant.
I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself at all times with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and wellbeing. The officer knocked on the Complainant’s door, indicated they were police, and explained that he was not in trouble and that they were there to check on him. Not receiving a response, the SO eventually informed the Complainant that they could not leave without first ensuring his safety and, if need be, they would force their way in. That, in my view, was fair warning, which could have served to avert rash behaviour on the part of the Complainant when and if the forced entry occurred. In the meantime, steps had been taken to retrieve a key to the apartment (to no avail) and a police officer – WO #2 – was positioned at ground-level outside the apartment balcony. Regrettably, in the state of mind the Complainant was in, it appears he was unable to appreciate what was happening and thought the people at the door meant him harm. Whether or not the result of firefighters trying to breach the door, the Complainant attempted to scale down to the balcony below, fell, and seriously injured himself. On this record, though they were unable to prevent the Complainant hurting himself, it was not for want of reasonable efforts on the part of the SO and the other officers on scene.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: September 25, 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]
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.