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:

• 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.

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 death of a 17-year-old youth (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 2, 2024, at 5:37 a.m., the Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 3:48 a.m. that morning, a passerby called the WRPS to report a man was standing on the railing of a bridge located at Concession Street and Water Street in Cambridge. WRPS officers responded to the area at 3:54 a.m., and negotiations were initiated with the individual, later identified as the Complainant (youth). The Complainant was in crisis and indicating his intent to end his life. Negotiations continued and response plans, including the use of a fire department rescue boat, were put in place. At 4:34 a.m., the Complainant jumped from the bridge and landed in the Grand River below. At 4:36 a.m., the fire department rescue boat and police personnel responded to the Complainant, who was struggling to swim. He was removed from the water with vital signs absent and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was initiated. Paramedics transported him to the Cambridge Memorial Hospital, where medical staff determined he required significant support.

At the time of the notification, the Complainant was on life support and being readied for transport to the McMaster Children’s Hospital for further examination. The WRPS was advised the preliminary reason for his pending death was drowning.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/02 at 5:54 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/02 at 7:41 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

17-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between July 5 and 30, 2024.

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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between July 2, 2024, and August 6, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the Concession Street Bridge and the waters of Grand River underneath the bridge, Cambridge.

Scene Diagram

Physical Evidence

Concession Street was a two-way roadway with two marked lanes for eastbound traffic and two marked lanes for westbound traffic. A bicycle lane ran along the curb in each direction and there were raised sidewalks on each side of the roadway. Concrete walls topped by metal railings crossed the span of the bridge on both sides. Also, a metal water main ran beside the south side of the bridge. Light standards were affixed at intervals along the outer edge on both sides of the bridge, providing artificial lighting at night.

Grand Avenue South was the intersecting street at the west side of the bridge, and Water Street intersected Concession Street at the east end of the bridge.

Photographs were taken to document the incident location.

Along the south railing, near one of the light standards, were surface scuff marks which might have resulted from someone climbing onto or over the railing.

Measurements of the bridge were collected from the south railing. The sidewalk was 1.89 metres in width, the bicycle lane was 1.09 metres wide, the first lane for traffic was 4.54 metres wide and the centre lane was 9.4 metres wide. The measurements on the north side of the bridge reflected those of the south side of the bridge.

The south barrier wall was measured to be 0.84 metres high, with the top of the metal railing 1.47 metres above the sidewalk. The top railing was measured to be 7.55 metres above the water surface. The water depth at the bridge was reported by the WRPS to be 2 metres to 2.4 metres, with a low flow to the south.

The boat launch involved in this incident was south of the bridge, along Water Street, near access point 145 of the Cambridge to Paris Rail Trail. At that location there was a gravel parking area and a sloped boat launch.

From the boat launch, located on the east bank of the Grand River, the Concession Street Bridge was not visible, as the river bent to the west at a point north of the boat launch.

At the McMaster Children’s Hospital, a WRPS constable turned over a property bag containing the Complainant’s clothing, given to him by hospital staff. The WRPS constable had escorted the Complainant from Cambridge Memorial Hospital.

At approximately 8:30 p.m., the assigned Coroner advised the SIU the Complainant had passed away.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

WRPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

At 3:57 a.m., July 2, 2024, the SO and another officer shut down the west end of the Concession Street Bridge. A police officer reported the subject [the Complainant] was holding a cellular telephone but he just threw it into the water. The SO exited his vehicle and, at 3:58 a.m., he initiated communications with the Complainant. The Complainant was standing on the concrete wall of the bridge and the SO was approximately 50 metres away from him.

In response to questions from the SO, the Complainant provided his first name and said he was 17 years old. The SO told him he had his entire life ahead of him. The SO and the Complainant spoke about the Complainant’s family.

At 4:01 a.m., an officer reported over the radio that communications were continuing between the SO and the Complainant, who said he was afraid to die but he intended to end his life. That officer further reported there appeared to be something around the Complainant’s neck. The officer then reported the Complainant stated he was 17 years old, and the Complainant was on the bridge railing with both feet on the river side.

At 4:03 a.m., a police officer asked for the Cambridge Fire Department (CFD) to respond if they had a boat, but they were to launch the boat at a distance and they were to respond without lights and siren. An officer reported the Complainant identified himself with his first name.

At 4:04 a.m., the SO asked the Complainant what was troubling him. The Complainant said he was serious, he intended to kill himself. He also stated he did not know how to swim.

The Complainant gave the SO personal details about his life and the SO tried to explain he understood how the Complainant felt.

At 4:10 a.m., the SO asked if he could move closer, and the Complainant moved to the inside of the bridge railing. The Complainant stood on the sidewalk on the side of the bridge.

At 4:11 a.m., the dispatcher reported that, using the information supplied, they were able to identify the individual on the bridge as the Complainant.

The Complainant sat on the bridge railing, and he told the SO he had been feeling despondent for approximately one year, but nobody helped him.

At 4:18 a.m., the Complainant stated he was losing his patience. At 4:20 a.m., he stated he did not wish to speak anymore. The SO started to speak to the Complainant regarding his favourite type of pizza.

At 4:24 a.m., the SO asked if the presence of police officers was helping, even a little. The Complainant responded, “It did, but not really.” A second officer (believed to be WO #2) joined the SO on the bridge.

The SO told the Complainant he had never negotiated with someone. He said he wanted to keep talking to convince the Complainant to come to the other side of the bridge so they could meet face to face. The SO explained what the Complainant was feeling was a temporary emotion and the SO did not want him making that decision based on temporary emotion. The Complainant responded, “Do you really think I’m not going to do it?” The SO replied he believed the Complainant was serious.

At 4:26 a.m., the Complainant and the SO spoke about God. The Complainant responded, “I don’t know what to do.” He said, “I’m tired of talking, I’m going to do it.” The SO asked if the Complainant wanted him to stop talking, but the officer next to the SO told him to keep talking.

At 4:30 a.m., the SO asked if he could approach the Complainant to offer him a hand to come back over the bridge railing. The Complainant asked, “Where would I go?” He and the SO spoke about where the Complainant lived.

At 4:33 a.m., the Complainant said he was going to say his last goodbyes. The SO begged him not to do so. WO #5 then reported the Complainant jumped from the bridge.

Police officers ran over to the side of the bridge and called out, “… come over here brother,” and, “It’s okay, we got you.” WO #2 ran down the embankment to the riverside. An officer called out, “You’re doing great brother,” and an officer reported over the radio the Complainant was swimming.

At 4:35 a.m., the sound of the CFD airboat motor could be heard revving up. A police officer called out, “… come on brother.” A police officer then reported over the radio, “He’s struggling to swim here.”

At 4:36 a.m., as the CFD boat approached, an officer reported over the radio, “We’re going to have WO #2 go to him. He’s only about forty feet from shore here.” WO #2 then entered the river.

At 4:36 a.m., the SO asked, “Do you see him?” and another officer responded, “No.” WO #2, in the water, asked, “Where am I going?” and the SO directed him to where the Complainant was last seen.

At 4:38 a.m., the CFD boat arrived at the bridge. A police officer reported over the radio WO #2 and WO #3 were in the water.

At 4:41 a.m., WO #3 called out, “Got him!” An officer reported over the radio, “WO #3 has got him.” A firefighter was also in the water at the time.

At 4:44 a.m., it was reported CPR was in progress, and the CFD boat engine started again.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the WRPS between July 2 and July 31, 2024:

• A letter regarding the SIU request for materials;
• Notes - WO #1;
• Notes - WO #6;
• Notes - WO #2;
• Notes - WO #3;
• Notes - WO #5;
• Notes - WO #4;
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
• Occurrence Report;
• Communications recordings;
• Scene photographs;
• BWC footage; and
• In-car Camera footage.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU received a copy of the CFD Incident Summary report on July 25, 2024.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with officers and firefighters involved in the events in question, and video footage that captured the incident in part, 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 hours of July 2, 2024, the WRPS received a 911 call from a motorist – CW #1. CW #1 had called to report a male standing on the railing of the Concession Street Bridge. Officers dispatched to the scene started arriving shortly before 4:00 a.m.

The male was the Complainant. Distraught over his personal circumstances, he had made his way to the bridge intending to end his life.

Under the command of the senior officer on scene, WO #1, officers blocked traffic with their cruisers at the west and east sides of the bridge. One of those officers – the SO – entered onto the bridge and began to speak with the Complainant from a distance. As that conversation was ongoing, arrangements were made to have a trained negotiator and the CFD attend at the bridge. The firefighters were asked to launch their boat a short distance south of the bride and to remain on standby in case a water rescue was required.

The SO attempted to persuade the Complainant, who alternated positions on the bridge railing, to remove himself from danger. The Complainant indicated he did not know how to swim and wanted to die. As the Complainant seemed comfortable with the SO, WO #2, the negotiator arriving on scene, decided to let him continue the negotiation. The talks continued until about 4:35 a.m., at which point the Complainant jumped into the water.

Once in the water, the Complainant began to struggle. He managed to maintain his head about the surface for a period, all the while encouraged by officers to make his way to shore, but eventually dipped under the waterline.

WO #2 was the first officer to enter the water, followed shortly by WO #3. The firefighters arrived on scene in their airboat and two of them also entered the water. Shortly thereafter, at about 4:40 a.m., WO #3 announced that he had located the Complainant and brought his body up to the surface. Within moments, following some difficulty loading the Complainant onto the boat, he was taken aboard. CPR was started by firefighters as they transported the Complainant to the boat launch.

The Complainant was taken in ambulance to hospital where he was pronounced deceased that evening.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to drowning. There were no signs of trauma or disease on the body.

Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Death

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.

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

The Complainant passed away on July 2, 2024, having jumped into the Grand River in Cambridge from the Concession Street Bridge. As WRPS officers were on and around the bridge attempting to prevent him from jumping, 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 death.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 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 death. In my view, there was not.

The police officers on and around the Concession Street Bridge, including the SO, were lawfully placed and engaged in the execution of their foremost duty – the protection and preservation of life – through the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s jump. Knowing of the Complainant’s upset and his plan to do himself harm, the officers were within their rights to do what they reasonably could to prevent that harm from materializing.

I am also satisfied that the SO and his colleagues comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s well-being. It would appear that the SO, communicating with the Complainant from a distance so as not to provoke him, did well to establish what rapport he could with him. That was the impression of a trained negotiator on scene – WO #2 – who decided to allow the SO to continue the negotiations. As that conversation was happening, firefighters were wisely staging a short distance away in the event they were needed for a water rescue. Once the Complainant jumped into the water, WO #2 and WO #3, and the firefighters, desperately tried to locate the Complainant as quickly as they could in very difficult conditions. After he was located and brought onto the airboat, it is also clear that the first responders quickly began life-saving measures. On this record, while it is highly regrettable that the Complainant could not be saved, his death was not from any want of trying on the part of the involved officers and firefighters.

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

Date: October 30, 2024

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit