SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TCI-309
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 58-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On July 19, 2024, at 1:40 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.
According to the TPS, on July 19, 2024, at 12:08 a.m., Witness #1 was at an apartment in the area of Shuter Street and Sherbourne Street visiting the Complainant. Sometime later, Witness #1 ran to the building security office and spoke to a security guard. She reported that the Complainant had pushed her against a wall, assaulting and choking her. The security guard called 911. At 12:12 a.m., police officers arrived at the building and engaged with the Complainant through the door to his apartment. At 12:33 a.m., the officers requested the attendance of a supervisor. At 12:47 a.m., police officers reported that a witness had told them that the Complainant had jumped from his balcony. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called, and the Complainant was transported to St. Michael’s Hospital. TPS believed the Complainant had suffered a broken wrist and a fractured ankle.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/19 at 2:00 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/19 at 3:38 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
58-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed
The Complainant was interviewed on September 5, 2024.
Civilian Witness (CW)
CW Interviewed
The civilian witness was interviewed on July 19, 2024.
Subject Official (SO)
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
Witness Official (WO)
WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed
The witness official was interviewed on July 19, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in and around an apartment in the area of Shuter Street and Sherbourne Street, Toronto.
Physical Evidence
On July 19, 2024, at 4:00 a.m., a SIU forensic investigator arrived at the Complainant’s apartment building. The scene was cordoned-off with police vehicles and yellow crime scene tape around the front entrance of the apartment building. The scene was supervised by a TPS sergeant. From the outside ground floor, a light was visible in an apartment [now known to be the Complainant’s apartment]. This apartment had no balcony. On the concrete sidewalk directly below the apartment there were two small spots that resembled a red blood-like substance. General scene photographs were taken.
At 4:45 a.m., the SIU forensic investigator was given access to the Complainant’s apartment by a Toronto Community Housing (TCH) special constable. There was a window in the apartment. The screen was missing. Photographs of the open window were taken.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - The SO, Officer #1 and the WO
On July 19, 2024, at 12:15 a.m., the WO’s BWC video captured a view inside an elevator [now known to be located in the Complainant’s apartment building]. Another police officer [now known to be Officer #1], and two TCH special constables, were also in the elevator. The elevator door was open and a woman [now known to be Witness #1] walked towards the police officers and shouted. Witness #1 cried and dropped three large books. Officer #1 and the WO asked Witness #1 to tell them what happened. Witness #1 shouted, “Nothing!” and continued to cry. She shouted, “You don’t have to be a bully!” Officer #1 asked Witness #1 what he [now known to be the Complainant] did to bully her, and Officer #1 asked her if the Complainant had hit her head on the wall. Witness #1 said, “No, he kicked me out.” Officer #1 asked Witness #1 if the Complainant was in the apartment and Witness #1 said, “Yeah.” Officer #1 asked if she had taken any illegal substances and Witness #1 said the Complainant did not use illegal substances. Officer #1 confirmed with Witness #1 that the Complainant was on the lease, and it was his apartment. Officer #1 told Witness #1 she could not leave until they confirmed if she had conditions. Officer #1 informed Witness #1 she was not supposed to be around the Complainant and Witness #1 said, “No.” Witness #1 told the special constables not to hurt the Complainant because he did nothing wrong.
At 12:19 a.m., Officer #1 and the WO were captured standing in front of the Complainant’s apartment. Officer #1 made a phone call. The WO walked back to the elevators and asked Witness #1 if she went to security to report the Complainant banged her against the wall and choked her. Witness #1 reported she fell.
At 12:20 a.m., Officer #1 knocked on the door, and the WO said, “[The Complainant’s first name], it’s Toronto Police.” Officer #1 told the Complainant she only wanted to get his side of what happened. The Complainant spoke through the door and said, “I want nothing to do with this.” It was difficult to hear the Complainant attempt to communicate with Officer #1 as Witness #1 kept shouting. The WO attempted to engage the Complainant in conversation through the door. Officer #1 told the WO they would get a statement from security and confer with the Criminal Investigation Bureau to decide the next steps.
The WO told the Complainant they could not leave until they knew his side of the story. Officer #1 attended the apartment door and asked the Complainant if he wanted to be seen by paramedics. The Complainant said, “No.” Officer #1 tried to have the Complainant open the door to give his side of the story, and the Complainant refused. The WO walked down the hall and said he would check with the neighbours.
The WO knocked on the door of another apartment on the floor, and Witness #2 opened the door. Witness #2 told the police officer Witness #1 frequently banged or kicked the Complainant’s door at all hours of the night.
The WO turned and walked back to the Complainant’s apartment door where Officer #1 continued her attempts to convince the Complainant to open the door. Officer #1 and a special constable escorted Witness #1 to the elevator, and the WO remained on the floor with four special constables.
At 12:40 a.m., the SO arrived and the WO informed him that the Complainant remained in his locked apartment, and refused to come out.
At 12:45 a.m., the SO knocked on the door and said, “[The Complainant’s first name]! It is not going to change anything, okay? They are going to get a warrant, they are going to call the ETF like they did last time, and they are going to taser you if you are violent. What we are offering, is if you just come out, like a man, and speak to us about what happened tonight. So, nobody has to get hurt, all right?”
At 12:46 a.m., the SO said, “Can you hear me? [The Complainant’s first name], I know you can hear me. Like the… officer said, we are not going anywhere, we will sit here all night until the warrant is signed.” A voice from the left [now known to be Witness #2] said, “He jumped out the window, he’s on the ground.” The WO entered a neighbouring apartment and looked outside. The Complainant was on the pavement at the front of the building. He rested on his back with his arms out from his sides. The WO requested a rush on an ambulance, and then went outside with the SO and the special constables. The SO asked, “Is there anybody on the door? We gotta protect the scene.” The WO said, “Okay, I’ll go up,” and he turned and entered the building.
At 1:17 a.m., Officer #2 recorded a video statement from Witness #2, in which Witness #2 told Officer #2 that the Complainant jumped out the window. Witness #2 was watching what was happening outside and he saw the Complainant jump. The Complainant was alone and said, “Bullshit,” before he jumped.
Video Footage from the Apartment Building Elevator Lobby
On July 18, 2024, at 11:53 p.m., Witness #1 exited an elevator into the lobby. A man wearing a vest that said ‘Security’ approached and appeared to speak with Witness #1. She rubbed the back of her head as she walked around the lobby. Witness #1 leaned on the walls, sat on the floor at one point, and stumbled in her footing.
At 11:55 p.m., Witness #1 grabbed her neck in a choking fashion with her right hand.
At 11:57 p.m., Witness #1 got in an elevator and the security officer walked out of camera view.
On July 19, 2024, starting at 12:08 a.m., Witness #1 exited an elevator again and was approached by the security officer. They walked past the elevators and mostly out of camera view.
At 12:10 a.m., they walked back to the elevators.
At 12:11 a.m., Witness #1 lifted her right arm and the security officer pointed towards her arm.
At 12:12 a.m., Witness #1 got back in an elevator and the security officer stood in the elevator door, preventing it from closing.
At 12:13 a.m., Witness #1 exited the same elevator and went through another door in the lobby. The security officer remained in the lobby.
At 12:14 a.m., a police officer [now known to be Officer #1], a second police officer [now known to be the WO], and four special constables entered the elevator lobby. Officer #1 and the WO got on an elevator with a special constable.
At 12:38 a.m., a police officer [now known to be the SO] entered the elevator lobby and got on an elevator.
Video Footage from the Apartment Building Parking
At 12:46 a.m., a man [now known to the Complainant] fell past the camera view through the air and landed on the sidewalk. His positioning at the time he contacted the ground was not visible. The Complainant was on his back and a portion of his lower body was out of camera view. He remained still on the ground.
At 12:47 a.m., Officer #3 and Officer #4, and a special constable, approached the Complainant. The SO and another special constable also approached and stood nearby on the sidewalk. Officer #3 knelt on the ground near the Complainant’s upper right side and Officer #4 was on his left side.
At 12:51 a.m., an ambulance stopped on the roadway next to the Complainant. A paramedic approached the Complainant and appeared to assess him. A second paramedic took a stretcher out of the rear of the ambulance.
At 12:54 a.m., a yellow board was brought to the Complainant’s right side, and it was slid underneath him. Three firefighters arrived on scene. The Complainant was lifted on the board to a stretcher and placed in the rear of an ambulance.
At 1:06 a.m., the ambulance drove out of the camera view.
TPS Communications Recordings
On July 19, 2024, at 12:02 a.m., a security guard for the TCH called the TPS and reported that he had been approached five minutes prior by Witness #1, reporting that her boyfriend, the Complainant, from an apartment in the building, had assaulted her, banged her head against a wall and choked her. Witness #1 was hysterical and had gone back up to the apartment. The security guard advised that both Witness #1 and the Complainant drank alcohol frequently. No weapons were seen; however, the Complainant had threatened another resident in the past with a firearm.
At 12:07 a.m., the WO and Officer #1 were dispatched.
At 12:12 a.m., the police officers were on scene and, at 12:17 a.m., they had made verbal contact with the Complainant.
At 12:37 a.m., the SO was on scene.
At 12:47 a.m., the WO advised the male had jumped and was on the ground on his back. The WO asked for a rush on the ambulance.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between July 19, 2024, and July 25, 2024:
- BWC footage;
- Communications recordings;
- Civilian Witness List;
- Intimate Partner Violence Policy;
- Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
- General Occurrence Report;
- Notes - the WO; and
- Police History - the Complainant.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between July 23, 2024, and July 25, 2024:
- Ambulance Call Report, received from the Toronto EMS; and
- Video footage from the apartment building.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the events in question, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.
Just after midnight of July 19, 2024, TPS officers made their way to an apartment building in the area of Shuter Street and Sherbourne Street. A security guard at the building had contacted police to report that a woman – Witness #1 – had approached and told him that the Complainant had just assaulted her in his apartment.
Together with several special constables of TCH, the WO and Officer #1 arrived at the building at about 12:15 a.m. and took the elevator up to the Complainant’s floor. The officers knocked on the door and attempted to have the Complainant exit so they could speak to him. The Complainant refused to do so. He told the officers he had done nothing wrong and asked that they leave. The officers made it clear they would not leave.
The SO arrived on scene at about 12:40 a.m. He too knocked on the door. By that time, it had been decided that the Complainant was subject to arrest for having assaulted Witness #1. The SO prevailed on the Complainant to exit and told him they would wait there all night to secure a warrant to enter the apartment, if necessary. Shortly after that pronouncement, a neighbour exited his apartment and advised the officers that the Complainant had jumped out the window.
The officers rushed outside and found the Complainant resting on his back. He had sustained multiple injuries, including fractures to his spine, legs, pelvis and ribs.
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 suffered serious injuries in a fall from his upper-level apartment on July 19, 2024. As TPS officers were outside his door attempting to negotiate his arrest at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The SO, the senior officer on scene, 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 injuries. In my view, there was not.
The SO and the other officers on scene were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties through the series of events leading to the Complainant’s fall from height. They had information to believe that the Complainant had perpetrated a serious assault on Witness #1, and were within their rights in attending at his residence to seek his arrest.
I am also satisfied that the officers, including the SO, comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and well-being. To no avail, they attempted to persuade the Complainant to exit his apartment peacefully. They initially explained that they merely wanted to speak to him to further their investigation. Later, when it became clear he was to be arrested, they were straight with him on that score, telling him they would wait to enter his apartment legally once a Feeney warrant[3] was obtained. The police outside the door were only present for about a half-hour before the Complainant decided to jump out his window. On this record, it is apparent that none of the officers transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: October 23, 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) Obtained via the scheme set out in section 529 and 529.1 of the Criminal Code, and named after the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Feeney, [1997] 2 SCR 13, a Feeney warrant authorizes the forcible entry by police officers into a dwelling-house to effect an arrest. [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.