SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OOD-364
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 26-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On August 31, 2024, at 7:45 a.m., the Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the SIU with the following information.
On August 31, 2024, at about 7:30 a.m., the Subject Official (SO) was operating an unmarked police vehicle southbound on Highway 410 when he noticed a woman [now known to be a man – the Complainant] standing in the westbound lane area on the overpass at Steeles Avenue. The SO was suspicious and he exited at the Steeles Avenue exit, driving to the location where the Complainant was situated. At the same time, a 911 call was received by the PRP regarding the Complainant, who was reportedly standing on the Steeles Avenue bridge over Highway 410. The SO had a brief conversation with the Complainant who told him, “Don’t come any closer.” The Complainant then jumped from the overpass and landed on the southbound lanes of Highway 410, approximately 7.6 metres (25 feet) below. The Complainant had since been pronounced deceased.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 08/31/2024 at 8:49 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 08/31/2024 at 10:15 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 2
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
26-year-old male; deceased
Civilian Witnesses
CW #1 Interviewed
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
The civilian witnesses were interviewed between August 31 and September 26, 2024.
Subject Official
SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
Witness Officials
WO #1 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed not necessary
WO #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed not necessary
WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed not necessary
WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed not necessary
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired on and around the Steeles Avenue East bridge of the southbound lanes of Highway 410, Brampton.
Physical Evidence
On August 31, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., a SIU forensic investigator arrived on the Steeles Avenue East overpass over Highway 410, Brampton, and proceeded to the area of southbound Highway 410 under the Steeles Avenue East overpass. Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and PRP police officers were on scene. The coroner was on location. Two areas of interest were identified. Both were cordoned off with police and Ministry of Transportation (MTO) contract vehicles. It was sunny and hot throughout the course of the day.
Scene one was a section of southbound Highway 410, slightly north and slightly south of the Steeles Avenue East overpass. This section of highway included a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane, four lanes for through traffic, and a merging on-ramp lane for vehicles entering Highway 410 from westbound Steeles Avenue East. A concrete barrier separated northbound from southbound traffic. All lanes were clearly marked and visible. The roadway was flat and asphalt paved with a maximum posted speed limit of 100 km/h. Tire marks were visible in the second lane west of the HOV lane. These tires marks were slightly north of the overpass. Food products were strewn about the roadway. Identification markers were placed on the roadway to assist with identifying biological evidence.
The deceased rested under a blue blanket slightly south of the Steeles Avenue East overpass, in the third lane west of the HOV lane. Personal property, biological evidence, and other items of interest were strewn about the roadway. Spatter was visible on the roadway. A white-coloured Honda Civic (Vehicle 1) was stopped south of where the deceased rested. A large tractor-truck, carrying a large disposal bin (Vehicle 2), rested on the roadway’s shoulder, further south of where the deceased and the white Honda rested.
A police officer fingerprinted the body to expedite the identification of the deceased. The scene was photographed, and the deceased’s body was placed into a body bag before it could be photographed in situ. An OPP officer mapped the scene. A MTO camera was visible on a utility pole on the east side of Highway 410 south of the Steeles Avenue East overpass.
Vehicle 1 was a 2021 Honda Civic, 4-door. The vehicle rested in the second lane west of the HOV lane. The vehicle faced south, and a long fluid trail ended where the vehicle rested. The vehicle’s engine was not on, and the front passenger air bag was deployed. There was extensive damage to the vehicle’s front end, passenger side. Blood was visible on the underside of the front-end fender. Hair was visible on the undercarriage components.
Vehicle 2 was a 2023 Freightliner tractor-truck. The truck was hauling a large, commercial grade disposal bin for Wasteco. The vehicle was resting on the soft shoulder at the west side of Highway 410. There was no damage to the vehicle’s front end; however, blood and body tissue were visible on a toolbox and the rear mud flaps on the driver’s side of the vehicle.
Items of interest were collected and photos were taken. Body removal services arrived on location and, at 12:17 p.m., a seal was threaded through the body bag’s zipper pulls. The body removal technicians removed the deceased from the area.
Scene two was a section of the north side of the Steeles Avenue East overpass, situated over Highway 410. All areas of interest were cordoned off with PRP vehicles. Two PRP vehicles of interest rested on the westbound lanes of Steeles Avenue East at the east side of the overpass. There was no damage to the fully marked police vehicles, which were photographed. One of them was a four-door white Dodge Charger. The other was a four-door white Ford Explorer.
A section of sidewalk and railing on the north side of the overpass were photographed, and measurements were taken from the top railing to the sidewalk - a distance of 1.41 metres. The height from the top railing to the southbound Highway 410 lanes was 9.1 metres. An open soft drink can (Coke) was on the sidewalk at the railing.
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
PRP Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage
On August 31, 2024, the weather was overcast, and the roads were dry.
Starting at about 7:02:27 a.m., the SO’s camera captured a street view [now known to be on the east side of the Steeles Avenue East bridge at Highway 410]. A PRP police vehicle [now known to be operated by WO #2] was stopped in the westbound lane.
Starting at about 7:02:31 a.m., the PRP police vehicle drove westbound over the bridge and the SO walked westbound on the north sidewalk of the bridge.
Starting at about 7:02:57 a.m., a man [now known to be the Complainant] was captured standing on the north railing of the north side of the Steeles Avenue East bridge. The SO broadcast that an eastbound car had stopped in the road and the driver appeared to speak to the Complainant. The vehicle left eastbound and the SO asked that a unit stop the vehicle for information.
Starting at about 7:03:58 a.m., WO #2 exited her police vehicle on the west side of the bridge and walked eastbound along the north sidewalk of the Steeles Avenue East bridge.
Starting at about 7:04:03 a.m., on the SO’s video, the Complainant was captured saying something that was indiscernible because of the wind and vehicle traffic noise. The SO continued to walk westbound towards the Complainant.
Starting at about 7:04:13 a.m., the Complainant again said something that was indiscernible. The SO reported that the Complainant had swung his other leg over the railing as he sat above the southbound lanes of Highway 410. WO #2 walked eastbound on the north sidewalk of the bridge towards the Complainant.
Starting at about 7:04:30 a.m., the Complainant looked from the east to the west several times and swung his arms.
Starting at about 7:04:37 a.m., the Complainant said, “Don’t come here (inaudible).”
Starting at about 7:04:38 a.m., the Complainant crouched and leapt northbound off the bridge. The Complainant screamed, and a loud bang sounded.
Starting at about 7:04:41 a.m., the SO looked over the north railing. He alerted the dispatcher that the Complainant had jumped from the bridge and was struck by a vehicle.
The SO never spoke to the Complainant. He was about 15 to 18 metres away from the Complainant when the Complainant jumped. WO #2, who could be seen in the distance to the east, was even further away from the Complainant.
Starting at about 7:05:03 a.m., WO #1 and an OPP police officer ran to meet with the SO.
Starting at about 7:05:08 a.m., the OPP police officer turned to walk eastbound. WO #1 asked the SO, “He was drinking and yelling, right?” the SO said, “Yeah, I don’t, I think he was trying to say don’t come any closer to me, but I couldn’t fucking hear.”
Starting at about 7:06:07 a.m., WO #1 said to the SO, “Yeah, I saw it and I heard the cars, something smashed him.”
MTO Video Footage
On August 31, 2024, the video opened with a southbound view of the traffic flow on the north and southbound lanes of Highway 410. The camera faced southbound from the south side of Steeles Avenue East. The roads were dry, and traffic was light.
Starting at about 4:28 minutes, the camera rotated to face northwest. A man - the Complainant - stood on the north side of the Steeles Avenue East bridge. He held the rails and bent over a few times, after which he walked westbound. He wore dark clothing and carried a dark backpack on his right shoulder. The Complainant looked back eastbound several times as he walked.
Starting at about 6:00 minutes, the Complainant crossed the southbound Highway 410 on-ramp and continued westbound. The Complainant then crossed the southbound Highway 410 off-ramp.
Starting at about 7:23 minutes, a grey Ford Explorer SUV stopped in the westbound curb lane of Steeles Avenue East next to the Complainant. [Unsuccessful attempts were made to identify the vehicle and driver]. The vehicle activated its emergency lights set in the top middle of the rear windshield. The Complainant turned and ran eastbound on Steeles Avenue. The vehicle extinguished the emergency lights and continued westbound.
Starting at about 8:03 minutes, the Complainant began to climb the Steeles Avenue East bridge on the north sidewalk.
Starting at about 8:27 minutes, the Complainant climbed the north railing of the bridge [now known to be directly over the southbound lanes of Highway 410]. The Complainant sat straddled over the railing and faced westbound. The Complainant looked around repeatedly. Intermittently, the Complainant leaned over and placed his head on the railing.
Starting at about 12:11 minutes, a grey sedan stopped in the westbound curb lane and reversed to the Complainant.
Starting at about 13:06 minutes, the grey sedan continued westbound out of the camera frame.
Starting at about 13:53 minutes, a vehicle [now known to be PRP police vehicle operated by WO #2] entered the very edge of the left camera frame, eastbound on Steeles Avenue, and stopped.
Starting at about 14:02 minutes, WO #2 exited the police vehicle and walked eastbound across the eastbound and westbound traffic lanes on Steeles Avenue East to the north sidewalk.
Starting at about 14:06 minutes, the Complainant swung his left leg over the railing and stood on the opposite side of the railing, facing northbound.
Starting at about 14:17 minutes, the SO walked westbound into the camera frame on the north sidewalk of Steeles Avenue.
Starting at about 14:40 minutes, the SO was approximately 15 metres (50 feet) away from the Complainant when the Complainant jumped northbound off the bridge. WO #2 ran to the SO.
Starting at about 14:43 minutes, in the bottom left corner of the camera frame, debris scattered on the southbound lanes of Highway 410 south of the Steeles Avenue East bridge. A green truck [now known to be a Wasteco dump truck] travelled southbound under the Steeles Avenue East bridge. The Wasteco truck exited the bottom left camera frame.
Communications Recordings
On September 6, 2024, at 6:50:39 a.m., a woman [now known to be CW #4] called 911 and reported that a man [now known to be the Complainant] was on the railing of the Steeles Avenue East bridge over Highway 410. There were 11 subsequent calls to 911 from civilians reporting the Complainant on the Steeles Avenue East bridge.
At 6:53:57 a.m., the dispatcher alerted police officers of an unknown disturbance on the Steeles Avenue East bridge over the southbound lanes of Highway 410. It was believed the Complainant would jump from the bridge. The SO, WO #1 and WO #2 confirmed they would attend. The SO also reported he saw the Complainant as he travelled southbound on Highway 410, and that he would circle back to attend.
At 6:57:05 a.m., the SO reported that he saw the Complainant walk westbound on the north side of Steeles Avenue.
At 6:57:36 a.m., the SO reported the Complainant had run eastbound back to the bridge, and that he - the SO – was not pursuing him.
At 6:58:52 a.m., the dispatcher informed the SO that the Complainant was back on the bridge. The SO reported he had a visual of the Complainant and wanted to wait for more units to attend before he approached. The SO reported the Complainant had one leg over the railing. The dispatcher reported the MTO was monitoring the Complainant on their camera. The SO informed the dispatcher that the Complainant was rocking back and forth, and looking around, and that he might be intoxicated by illegal substances.
At 7:01:51 a.m., the SO asked for a police officer to approach from the west side of the bridge when he approached from the east side. The SO reported a grey sedan stopped on Steeles Avenue East by the Complainant, which appeared to attempt to engage him in conversation. WO #2 informed the dispatcher she would approach from the west side. The SO reported he had blocked westbound Steeles Avenue East traffic. He then reported that the grey sedan had left. The SO broadcast that he was walking towards the Complainant, and that the Complainant had swung his other leg over. The SO reported that he and WO #2 were approaching from either side of the bridge. The SO was in the process of requesting that the OPP shut down lanes when he reported that the Complainant had jumped.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
The SIU obtained the following records from the PRP and OPP (as specified below) between August 31, 2024, and September 10, 2024:
- OPP In-car Camera footage;
- MTO video footage (PRP);
- PRP communications recordings;
- Incident Details Report (PRP);
- Incident History (PRP);
- Notes – WO #2 (PRP);
- Notes – WO #1 (PRP);
- Notes – WO #3 (OPP);
- Notes – WO #4 (OPP);
- OPP Sudden Death Report;
- OPP Motor Vehicle Collision; and
- PRP Directive – Mental Health Policy.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources:
- Ambulance Call Reports from Emergency Medical Services, received September 26, 2024; and
- Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service, received September 2, 2024.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, 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 August 31, 2024, PRP officers were dispatched to the Steeles Avenue East bridge over Highway 410. Multiple 911 calls had been received by police from citizens expressing concern about a male on the bridge railing. The male was the Complainant.
The SO was among the first PRP officers to arrive at the bridge. He stopped his cruiser on the east side of the overpass east of Highway 410. WO #2 arrived in her cruiser shortly after and brought her vehicle to a stop in the eastbound lanes of Steeles Avenue East a distance west of the Complainant, who was by the north railing of the bridge over the southbound lanes of Highway 410.
The Complainant straddled the railing and eventually brought both his legs over to the exterior side of the railing. WO #2 and the SO approached the Complainant on foot. The SO had neared to approximately 15 metres of the Complainant when he leapt off the bridge ledge onto the highway below.
The Complainant suffered fatal injuries in the fall and his impact with two southbound vehicles.
Cause of Death
The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to multiple traumas.
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 fell to his death from a highway overpass in Brampton on August 31, 2024. As PRP officers were on scene at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The PRP officer closest to the Complainant when he fell, 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 the rest of the police presence on and around the Steeles Avenue East overpass were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties through the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s fall. Apprised of information suggesting a person contemplating self-harm on a bridge, the officers were duty bound to attend at the scene to do what they reasonably could to protect the Complainant.
I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and safety. Police called to such scenes have a difficult choice to make. They are called upon to weigh the risks associated with different approaches to the situation, often within narrow windows of time, and to act accordingly. In this case, the Complainant was heard to say words to the effect of “don’t come any closer” just before he jumped from the bridge as the SO and WO #2 were approaching his location. From this, one can infer that the police presence was a catalyst of sorts for the Complainant’s fateful decision. On the other hand, it would be largely speculation to suggest that a less proactive posture by the officers would have resulted in a better outcome, particularly as the Complainant had been on the bridge railing for a period of time before the officers’ arrival. The officers would have also been concerned about the risks to motorists travelling on the southbound lanes of Highway 410 were the Complainant to jump. On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO transgressed the limits of care when he decided to approach the Complainant, presumably to place himself in a position to communicate with him.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: December 27, 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 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.