SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-TCD-332
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 death of a 33-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On August 6, 2024, at 10:56 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.
On August 6, 2024, at 9:15 p.m., a citizen contacted the TPS to report that a man [now known to be the Complainant] was variously sitting and standing, and hanging over, the edge of the Leaside Bridge. The citizen had a brief conversation with the Complainant and offered assistance, but he refused. At 9:18 p.m., two TPS cruisers arrived on the Leaside Bridge and officers spoke to the Complainant. At 9:19 p.m., the Complainant jumped to the ground below, a greenspace near a footpath. Paramedic services were called to the scene and the Complainant was pronounced deceased at 9:48 p.m.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/08/06 at 11:25 p.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/08/07 at 1:55 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
33-year-old male; deceased
Civilian Witness (CW)
CW Interviewed
The civilian witness was interviewed on August 7, 2024.
Witness Officials (WO)
WO #1 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired on Millwood Road as it traversed the Leaside Bridge, Toronto, and an area underneath the bridge.
Physical Evidence
On August 7, 2024, at 1:55 a.m., a SIU Forensic Investigator arrived at the scene located on Millwood Road [the Leaside Bridge]. Upon arrival, there was a marked TPS cruiser with its emergency lights activated. The sergeant in control of the scene indicated that the cruiser had its In-car Camera System (ICCS) activated to record the management of the scene but had been moved for traffic control prior to SIU arrival.
Millwood Road was a six-lane paved roadway with three lanes of travel in each direction.
The SIU Forensic Investigator was advised that TPS officers had interacted with the Complainant near a streetlight pole on the west side of the bridge. There was a concrete barrier with a metal railing on top of it on the edge of the bridge. The combined height of the concrete barrier and railing was 1.5 metres. The railing was examined and nothing of evidentiary value was found. The distance from the top of the railing to the ground beneath the bridge was measured to be 41.5 metres. The scene was photographed.
At 3:05 a.m., the SIU Forensic Investigator attended the scene underneath the bridge. Beneath the Leaside Bridge was an asphalt footpath which travelled east-west. On each side of the footpath was greenspace. There was a TPS cruiser and police officers in control of the lower scene. The police officers advised that the Complainant had been moved from the initial area of impact. The initial area of impact was in a grassy area on the north side of the footpath. The area of impact was tall grass and a substrate of compacted soil. There was a small area of suspected blood on the grass and a hat nearby. The Complainant had been moved onto the footpath by EMS to accommodate medical treatment. The lower scene was photographed.
The Complainant was covered by a sheet. The sheet was removed for examination. The Complainant was on his back with his head oriented to the east. He was clad in shorts, a T-shirt and shoes. The T-shirt had been cut by paramedics. There was obvious trauma to the Complainant’s head with blood coming from the ears and nose.
At the lower scene, the Complainant’s cell phone was provided to the SIU Forensic
Investigator by a TPS officer. The cell phone was used to positively identify the Complainant. The cell phone was collected as evidence.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
Cell Phone Footage from the CW
On August 6, 2024, the CW walked away from an unseen man [the Complainant] as the cell phone camera pointed towards the ground. The CW said, "Alright, don’t jump though." As he walked away, the CW summarized for the camera how the Complainant hung over the edge of the bridge [the Leaside bridge] from a railing.
In a different video, the CW stood on the east sidewalk of the bridge and towards the south end of the roadway. He faced northbound. There were emergency lights from police cruisers in the distance. The officers and the Complainant were not visible due to the distance away that the CW stood. The CW summarized for the camera how he had approached the Complainant and asked if he was alright. The Complainant told the CW to leave him alone. The CW walked closer to the cruiser and wondered aloud to the camera where the Complainant had gone. As he walked, he realized the Complainant had jumped from the bridge.
Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage
On August 6, 2024, at 9:19:00 p.m., WO #3 was captured driving a cruiser with WO #4 as the passenger. The cruiser had its emergency lights activated. The cruiser parked in front of another cruiser [WO #1 and WO #2] near a lamp post on the Leaside Bridge [Millwood Road]. On the passenger side of the cruiser was a man [the Complainant] standing on a railing with his right arm around a lamp post. The Complainant looked over his shoulder towards the cruiser.
At 9:19:02 p.m., WO #4 opened the passenger door of his cruiser and the Complainant let go of the lamp post. WO #1 exited her cruiser.
At 9:19:03 p.m., the audio of WO #4’s BWC activated.
At 9:19:04 p.m., the Complainant jumped off the railing. WO #4 was still inside the cruiser. He said, “No,” repeatedly and exited the cruiser. He broadcast on his radio that the Complainant had jumped off the bridge. WO #4 approached the railing and looked over. He shone his flashlight downwards over the railing. The officers on the bridge closed the road and directed traffic away from the scene.
At 9:39:23 p.m., Officer #1 and Officer #2 arrived on the trail located below the Leaside Bridge [Lower Don River Trail] with emergency warning lights activated. EMS was already on scene. The Complainant’s body was located in tall grass. Paramedics placed him on a backboard and moved him onto the asphalt of the trail. Paramedics performed CPR on the Complainant. Officer #1 walked away to speak with potential witnesses on the trail. When he returned, CPR had ceased. A paramedic told Officer #1 that the Complainant had been pronounced deceased.
At 9:45:55 p.m., on the bridge, WO #4 and WO #3 spoke with a male sergeant, who asked them about the incident. WO #4 said the only thing he said to the Complainant was, "Hey, man." Another officer arrived and asked WO #4 and WO #3 what had occurred. WO #3 said when he and WO #4 arrived there was another cruiser on scene [WO #2 and WO #1]. WO #3 drove his cruiser around theirs because he could not see. The Complainant stood on the railing and held onto a lamp post. WO #3 said the Complainant looked at the officers, smiled and jumped. WO #3 said, "Wait, wait, wait." WO #4 said they could not see the Complainant at first because he was on the other side of the lamp post.
ICCS Footage
On August 6, 2024, at 9:19:02 p.m., WO #3 and WO #4 arrived at the scene. The Complainant stood on the railing of the Leaside Bridge. He held onto a lamp post. He looked at the cruiser as it parked. He removed his hand from the lamp post and jumped. As WO #4 opened the door of his cruiser and said, "Hey buddy," and then, “No,” repeatedly. WO #4 was the closest officer to the Complainant. WO #4 was entirely within his cruiser when the Complainant jumped off the west side of the Leaside Bridge.
Radio Communications
On August 6, 2024, at 9:14:43 p.m., the CW called 911 and reported a man [the Complainant] sitting on the railing of the Millwood Road Bridge [Leaside Bridge]. He held onto a lamp post. The CW had asked if the Complainant was alright, and the Complainant replied he was fine and told the CW to go away. Police officers [WO #2 and WO #1] arrived while the CW was on the phone with the dispatcher.
At 9:19:05 p.m., paramedic services were requested to attend the Leaside Bridge.
At 9:19:09 p.m., a police officer reported the Complainant had jumped off the bridge.
At 9:19:50 p.m., an officer reported he could see the Complainant on the ground, and he was motionless.
Additional officers were requested to attend for scene management and to locate the Complainant’s body on the ground below. Police and ambulance units expressed difficulty finding access to the area beneath the Leaside Bridge.
At 9:40:59 p.m., an officer reported that he was at the Complainant’s body and CPR was in progress.
At 9:50:00 p.m., an officer reported the Complainant had been pronounced deceased at 9:48 p.m.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from TPS between August 9, 2024, and September 13, 2024:
- General Occurrence Report;
- Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
- Persons in Crisis Policy;
- BWC footage;
- ICCS footage;
- Radio communications; and
- Notes – WO #3, WO #1, WO #4 and WO #2.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between August 7, 2024, and August 13, 2024:
- Cell phone footage from the CW, received August 7, 2024; and
- Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service, received August 13, 2024.
Incident Narrative
The events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.
In the evening of August 6, 2024, a concerned citizen contacted police to report a male – the Complainant – sitting on the railing of the Leaside Bridge. He had asked the Complainant if he was okay. The Complainant had responded he was fine and told the citizen to leave. Police officers and paramedics were dispatched to the scene.
A cruiser occupied by WO #1 and WO #2 arrived from the north, stopping a short distance from the Complainant. He was perched on the outer side of a railing that sat atop a concrete barrier at the western edge of the bridge, holding onto a lamp post. The officers were followed shortly by another cruiser occupied by WO #3 (driver) and WO #4 (passenger), who came to a stop in front of WO #1 and WO #2’s cruiser, just shy of the Complainant’s location. WO #4 had just opened his door when the Complainant let go of the lamp post and stepped off the bridge.
The Complainant fell a distance upwards of 40 metres to the ground below. He was pronounced deceased at the scene.
Cause of Death
The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to “multiple 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 August 6, 2024, following a fall from height. As police officers were on scene at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any police officer 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 responding officers, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.
WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4 were lawfully placed through the incident. Dispatched to check on the condition of the Complainant, the officers were duty bound to attend at the scene to do what they reasonably could to prevent harm coming to the Complainant.
Nor is there any question of a want of care in the officers’ brief engagement with the Complainant. They had only just arrived on scene when the Complainant jumped from the bridge, leaving the officers no opportunity for any kind of intervention that might have safely resolved the situation.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: December 3, 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.