SIU Director’s Report - Case # 24-OCD-389
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 21-year-old man (the “Complainant”).
The Investigation
Notification of the SIU[1]
On September 16, 2024, at 7:08 a.m., the York Regional Police (YRP) notified the SIU of the death of the Complainant.
According to the YRP, on September 16, 2024, at 5:01 a.m., YRP hold-up and tactical officers executed a search warrant at an apartment on Sherway Gardens Road, Etobicoke. They breached the apartment door and were trying to establish communications with the Complainant when he climbed over the balcony railing to the floor below attempting to escape. The Complainant lost his grip and fell a number of floors. He was transported to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) where he was pronounced deceased.
The Team
Date and time team dispatched: 2024/09/16 at 8:14 a.m.
Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/09/16 at 8:20 a.m.
Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1
Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):
21-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 September 16, 2024, and October 6, 2024.
Subject Officials (SO)
SO #1 Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right
The subject official was interviewed on October 4, 2024.
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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary
The witness officials were interviewed on October 3, 2024.
Evidence
The Scene
The events in question transpired in and around an apartment on Sherway Gardens Road, Toronto.
Physical Evidence
A SIU forensic investigator attended the scene and completed an examination.
The entry door to the apartment opened inward and showed evidence of being forcibly breached. There was a burn mark on the entrance hallway believed to be caused by the detonation of a Noise Flash Distractionary Device. An interior door opened to an outdoor balcony.
The surface of the balcony handrail contained visible takeaway prints in the dust [no ridge detail].
Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]
YRP – Telephone Communications
On September 16, 2024, starting at 3:24 a.m., a YRP investigator assigned to the Hold-up Unit notified the communications centre of an impending search warrant execution at an apartment building on Sherway Gardens Road.
Starting at 5:49 a.m., the Complainant was in the ambulance and went vital signs absent.
YRP – Radio Communications
On September 16, 2024, starting at 5:35 a.m., a YRP officer advised dispatch that the Complainant had jumped off the balcony and was being transported to SMH.
Materials Obtained from Police Service
Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the YRP between September 16, 2024, and September 19, 2024:
- List of involved police officers;
- General Occurrence Reports;
- Computer-aided Dispatch Report;
- Communications recordings;
- Section 487 Criminal Code Warrant to Search;
- Notes – WO #1, WO #4, WO #2 and WO #3;
- Policy – Warrants; and
- Emergency Response Unit (ERU) Operational Plan.
Materials Obtained from Other Sources
The SIU obtained the Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service on September 17, 2024.
Incident Narrative
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with SO #1 and other police and non-police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, SO #2 chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of his notes.
In the morning of September 16, 2024, a team of ERU officers convened in the hallway outside an apartment on Sherway Gardens Road, Toronto. A search warrant had been issued in respect of the unit in connection with an armed robbery investigation. One of the unit’s tenants – the Complainant – was the subject of the warrant. The ERU officers, including SO #2 and SO #1, were to secure the unit in advance of hold-up officers attending to conduct the search.
The Complainant was on his living room sofa. He rose to his feet as the unit’s front door was forced open and distraction devices were deployed, and ran towards the balcony. CW #1 emerged from the bedroom and was escorted into the hallway by the officers.
From the door’s threshold, SO #2 alerted the team that the Complainant had made his way onto the balcony. He and SO #1 followed in that direction as the rest of the team cleared other areas of the unit. By the time they arrived on the balcony, the Complainant had scaled over to, and was on, the balcony of a neighbouring unit.
The Complainant climbed down to the balcony of the unit below and was attempting to climb down yet again to a lower unit when he fell, landing on the balcony of a unit a number of floors down and suffering catastrophic injuries.
The Complainant was transported from the scene to hospital and pronounced deceased at 6:01 a.m.
Cause of Death
The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to blunt force injuries.
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 September 16, 2024, the result of injuries incurred in a fall from height. As YRP officers were attempting to arrest him at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. SO #1 and SO #2 were identified as subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official 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 either subject official, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.
The ERU officers were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties through the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s fall. The Complainant was subject to arrest for armed robbery and the team of officers had lawful authority on the basis of the search warrant that had been issued to enter into the apartment.
I am also satisfied the ERU, including SO #2 and SO #1, comported themselves with due care and regard for public safety. The decision to pursue a dynamic entry came with risks but was a reasonable tactic in the circumstances. Given the nature of the offence in question, and what were grounds to believe that firearms were on the premise, it made sense to forcibly breach the door and deploy distraction devices about the same time the team announced they were police. The elements of surprise and disorientation could reasonably be expected to mitigate the risk of the Complainant accessing or using a firearm. Even then, the team did not immediately rush into the unit. Rather, the plan was to have the occupants exit as the officers called-out from the doorway. That, in fact, is essentially what occurred with CW #1. Regrettably, the Complainant chose to embark on a perilous attempt at escape that cost him his life.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges in this case. The file is closed.
Date: January 14, 2025
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.