SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TCD-304

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 death of a 43-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

The Investigation

Notification of the SIU[1]

On July 14, 2024, at 1:34 p.m., of the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the death of the Complainant.

According to the TPS, on July 14, 2024, at 11:30 a.m., TPS received a call from Witness #1 advising that they had been unable contact a family member, the Complainant, by either telephone or text messages. Witness #1 had spoken to him a few days prior. Four TPS officers were dispatched to the Complainant’s residence in the area of Dundas Street West and Kipling Avenue. At 11:43 a.m., they knocked at his apartment door. The Complainant refused to open the door. Police officers had some conversation with the Complainant through the door before it went silent. The police officers did not enter the Complainant’s apartment before learning he had jumped from the balcony.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/07/14 at 2:00 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/07/14 at 4:15 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

43-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between July 14 and 15, 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness official was interviewed on July 25, 2024.

Evidence

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around an apartment in the area of Dundas Street West and Kipling Avenue, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

Two SIU forensic investigators attended the scene and completed an examination.

The apartment had an exterior balcony that was accessible by a hinged door.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

Starting at 11:39 a.m., July 14, 2024, the SO, WO #3, WO #1 and WO #2 were captured standing in the hallway outside of the Complainant’s apartment door. WO #2 knocked lightly on the door.

The SO put his right hand on the door handle as if trying to determine if the door was locked. It would appear the door was locked.

The SO called out twice to the Complainant by first name.

The Complainant replied, “What’s the problem?”

The SO said, “How are you, man?”

The Complainant replied, “Can I help you?”

The SO said, “Yes, it’s the police. Can we talk to you for sec?”

The Complainant replied, “No. No. It’s okay.”

The SO said, “No. It’s not okay.”

The Complainant replied, “Why?”

The SO said, “Well, if you open the door, I can explain it to you.”

The Complainant replied, “Huh?”

The SO said, “If you open the door, I can explain it to you.”

The Complainant replied, “No. No. It’s okay.”

The SO said, “[The Complainant’s first name], we have to come in and speak to you, it’s not really optional.” The Complainant did not respond.

Starting at 11:40 a.m., the SO knocked on the door several more times.

Starting at 11:41 a.m., the SO directed WO #2 to go the apartment next door to see if he could see the Complainant’s balcony.

At 11:43 a.m., the police officers heard on the police radio that the Complainant had jumped.

Communications Recordings

Telephone

Starting at 11:28 a.m., July 14, 2024, Witness #1 telephoned TPS and requested a welfare check for a family member, the Complainant. The caller indicated the Complainant had said he was going to kill himself by jumping off a balcony. The Complainant had attempted suicide before.

Starting at 11:43 a.m., multiple 911 calls were received advising the Complainant had jumped.

Radio

Starting at 11:30 a.m., July 14, 2024, police officers were dispatched to the address.

Starting at 11:40 a.m., WO #1 advised the Complainant was in the apartment but refusing to open the door.

Starting at 11:43 a.m., the Complainant had jumped, and they were starting cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between July 15, 2024, and October 16, 2024:

  • Notes – WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3;
  • Names and roles of involved police officers;
  • Civilian Witness List;
  • General Occurrence Report;
  • BWC footage;
  • Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
  • Communications recordings;
  • Scene photographs; and
  • Policy - Persons in Crisis.

Incident Narrative

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, 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.

In the morning of July 14, 2024, the SO, together with WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3, arrived at the front door of an apartment in the area of Dundas Street West and Kipling Avenue, Toronto. They were to check on the wellbeing of the Complainant who lived at the address. The Complainant’s family had contacted police concerned about the Complainant’s welfare. He had talked about committing suicide by jumping from his apartment’s balcony, and the family had not heard from him in several days.

The SO took the lead in speaking to the Complainant following a knock on the door. The officer asked how the Complainant was doing and asked to see him. The Complainant refused to open the door and said that everything was okay. The SO said that he would explain their presence if he opened the door, but the Complainant refused to do so. The officer insisted that they had to see the Complainant before they could leave. The Complainant stopped responding. At 11:43 a.m., about four minutes after the officers had arrived at the door, they learned that the Complainant had jumped from his apartment balcony.

CPR was administered at the scene but the Complainant could not be revived.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to blunt force trauma.

Relevant Legislation

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.

Analysis and Director’s Decision

The Complainant passed away on July 14, 2024, following a fall from height from his apartment balcony. As TPS officers were outside the apartment door and had spoken to the Complainant moments before the fall, the SIU was notified and initiated an investigation. One of the officers – 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 SO and his colleagues were lawfully placed and in pursuit of their duties through their brief engagement with the Complainant across a closed and locked door. Having been dispatched to check on the welfare of the Complainant following a call to police from his family expressing concern, the officers were duty bound to respond and do what they reasonably could to ensure he was okay.

In the absence of the TPS Mobile Crisis Intervention Team, which was not available at the time, I am satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for the Complainant’s wellbeing when he took the lead in speaking with the Complainant. He noted the reason for the officers’ presence and indicated they needed to see him to ensure he was fine before they could leave. Regrettably, the Complainant was not receptive and jumped from his balcony within a minute or two of the officers’ arrival, even as the SO continued to knock on the door, at one point using the butt end of his baton to bang on it. On this record, while it may be that the officers’ continued presence at the door precipitated the Complainant’s decision to jump when he did, whether things would have worked out differently had they adopted a different tack is speculation. Be that as it may, I am unable to conclude that the officer’s conduct 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: November 8, 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]

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.