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 serious injuries of a 28-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 20, 2024, at 4:26 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On September 20, 2024, at 12:56 a.m., the TPS received a call from a female reporting that her boyfriend – the Complainant – had expressed thoughts of suicide and was on the train tracks at East Liberty Street and Strachan Avenue, Toronto. Officers responded to the area and located the Complainant at 1:40 a.m. The Complainant fled, and officers pursued on foot. The Complainant jumped over a retaining wall at 50 Ordnance Street and landed on the ground below. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were requested, and the Complainant was transported to St. Michael’s Hospital [36 Queen Street East, Toronto]. The Complainant was diagnosed with an orbital bone fracture to both eyes, kidney and spleen damage, several rib fractures, contusions to both lungs and hemorrhaging in the head.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/09/20 at 7:30 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/09/20 at 10:54 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

28-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on December 9, 2024.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on September 21, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on November 3, 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

The witness officials were interviewed between October 15, 2024, and October 18, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question began on East Liberty Street, a distance west of Strachan Avenue, continued east on East Liberty Street and then Ordnance Street, and north just after the building situated at 30 Ordnance Street towards a retaining wall that dropped to a set of railway tracks.

Physical Evidence

On September 20, 2024, at 4:45 a.m., a SIU forensic investigator attended Ordnance Street in Toronto. The road was a small dead-end that ran east from Strachan Avenue in Toronto. There were high-rise complexes - #50 and #30 - on the roadway. There was a pedestrian walkway between complex #30 and #50 that led to a green area. There were paved walkways located within the green area and a pedestrian bridge that crossed over a set of railway lines. The railway tracks ran in a general east - west direction. There was a chain link fence that restricted access to the railway tracks, which were located at a lower grade. The chain link fence was 1.866 metres in height. There was a small area on the north side of the fence measuring 1.2 metres in width to a retaining wall, at the base of which was an access laneway south of the railway tracks. The height of the retaining wall was 4.5 metres.

The forensic investigator attended the laneway below the retaining wall and south of the train tracks. There was an area of blood staining on the laneway 1.3 to 1.6 metres from the retaining wall. A swab was taken of this stain area. Photographs were taken of this lower area. Photographs were subsequently taken of the upper scene.

Figure 1 - The laneway and retaining wall

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO

On September 20, 2024, starting at about 1:40 a.m., the SO saw the Complainant walking on the sidewalk from across the street. He called out to the Complainant and crossed towards him. He attempted to speak to the Complainant, but the Complainant asked who he was and would not stop or speak to him. The SO pleaded with the Complainant to talk to him but the Complainant said he should leave him alone.

The SO and another TPS officer who had arrived - WO #3 - continued to plead for the Complainant to speak with them, and ordered him to, “Come here.” The officers began to run after the Complainant, who fled. The SO and WO #3 appeared to be about ten metres from him as they pursued on foot. The parties crossed the road and continued eastbound on Ordnance Road. The SO and WO #3 ordered him to stop but he refused and continued to increase his distance from the SO to about 20 to 25 metres. Soon, the Complainant disappeared behind the corner of the east facing wall of a building on Ordinance Road. The SO arrived around the corner of the building wall and called out that the Complainant was hiding in the bushes.

The Complainant came into view and was seen scaling over a fence and then down a retaining wall on the other side. The SO got to the fence and stopped. He called out to other TPS officers, including WO #3, WO #2 and WO #1, who had arrived, and told them they would have to go over to the other side of the fence. The three police officers ran down a stairway by the side of the building, and the SO began to ask for his phone.

WO #3 pointed his flashlight down the steep ground and announced the Complainant was on the ground. WO #2 noted that they should immediately get an ambulance to attend and began to run back along the route of the pursuit until he found his phone on the ground.

In the background, WO #3 was heard saying to a sergeant that the Complainant was conscious and breathing but bleeding from the nose. WO #3 confirmed that no officer was injured. The sergeant told him to stay with the Complainant and began to arrange for an ambulance. It was soon announced that an ambulance was on its way to the scene.

The SO returned to the scene and remained near where the Complainant scaled the wall. He called out to WO #3 and WO #2, and asked how they got down to the Complainant. They showed him where they climbed down and the SO went to join them.

The SO arrived and met WO #3 holding the Complainant in a recovery position. The Complainant was lying on the ground on his right side, and WO #3 was crouched on his knees beside him. WO #3 asked the Complainant to talk to him, and the SO asked if he was talking. WO #3 said he was conscious.

At 1:53 a.m., an ambulance arrived. Paramedics placed a neck brace on the Complainant and, at 1:57 a.m., they carried him onto a stretcher with the assistance of TPS officers.

Communications Recordings

On September 20, 2024, starting at about 12:54 a.m., the CW contacted police via 911 and requested police assistance. The CW told the police dispatcher that the Complainant had threatened to harm himself. He had sent the CW all his passwords and money from his bank accounts. He was actively texting the CW and said he was on the train tracks and was going to jump in front of a train. The CW believed he was near the Liberty Village train tracks.

Starting at about 12:58 a.m., the SO and WO #3 were dispatched to meet with the CW. A request was made that Rogers Communications be asked to ping the Complainant’s cell phone.

The SO and WO #3 met with the CW at about 1:09 a.m., and the CW provided them a photo of the Complainant. The CW was communicating with the Complainant via text but he did not provide his location. Construction workers reported to the SO and WO #3 that the Complainant was seen running westbound near the train tracks on Atlantic Street. A description of his clothing was broadcast.

Starting at about 1:37 a.m., the Complainant texted the CW saying he could see police officers at his residence.

Starting at about 1:40 a.m., WO #1 and WO #2 followed the Complainant at Strachan Avenue and East Liberty Street. The Complainant refused to stop for them.

The SO and WO #3 engaged in a foot pursuit with the Complainant.

WO #1 and WO #2 told police dispatch that the Complainant was running through the park. He had jumped over a fence onto the train tracks and was on a retaining wall at Ordnance Street and Strachan Avenue.

Starting at about 1:42 a.m., WO #1 told police dispatch that the Complainant had fallen “10 to 12 feet” onto the ground from a retaining wall. EMS were dispatched. The Complainant was conscious and breathing. He had a wound on the back of his head, a large swollen wound on his left temple, bleeding from the nose and a swollen eye. He was breathing loudly. EMS arrived on scene and treated the Complainant. He was transported by ambulance to St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto with an officer in the ambulance.

Video Footage – 30 Ordnance Street -1

On September 20, 2024, starting at about 2:56:04 a.m.,[3] the footage opened with a south view from the northeast corner of 30 Ordnance Street.

Starting at about 2:59:24 a.m., the Complainant was captured rounding the southeast corner of the building and running northbound.

Starting at about 2:59:27 a.m., the SO and WO #2 rounded the southeast corner of the building and ran after the Complainant as he exited the bottom left camera frame.

Starting at about 2:59:29 a.m., WO #1 rounded the southeast corner of the building.

Starting at about 2:59:59 a.m., WO #3 entered the bottom camera frame and walked south to round the southeast corner of the building.

Video Footage – 30 Ordnance Street – 2

On September 20, 2024, starting at about 2:52:44 a.m., the footage opened with a westbound view of the north side of 30 Ordnance Street. There was a concrete walkway the length of the frame and a railing at the north edge of the walkway. CN and Metrolinx railways were below the railing to the north. It was dark with minimal bulb lighting.

Starting at about 2:59:50 a.m., WO #1 and WO #2 entered the right camera frame, looked over the railing and ran westbound along the walkway.

Starting at about 3:02:15 a.m., a sergeant entered the bottom right camera frame and looked over the railing.

Starting at about 3:02:18 a.m., WO #3 entered the lower camera frame and walked westbound along the walkway.

Starting at about 3:02:38 a.m., the sergeant walked westbound along the walkway.

Starting at about 3:03:29 a.m., the SO entered the right camera frame and walked westbound on the walkway.

Starting at about 3:11:19 a.m., an ambulance entered the upper camera frame and travelled eastbound along the CN and Metrolinx grounds to the north of the railing and exited the camera frame just north of the railing at the east side of the building.

Starting at about 3:20:40 a.m., a TPS police vehicle with the emergency lights activated entered the upper camera frame and travelled eastbound. It stopped at the bottom left of the camera frame.

Video Footage – 30 Ordnance Street – 3

On September 20, 2024, starting at about 2:52:06 a.m., the footage opened with an eastbound street view from the southwest corner of 30 Ordnance Street.

Starting at about 2:58:40 a.m., emergency lights reflected off the buildings.

Starting at about 2:58:47 a.m., the Complainant ran eastbound in the westbound traffic lane of Ordnance Street. He was followed by the SO, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #1.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between September 22, 2024, and October 18, 2024:

• In-car camera recordings;
• BWC recordings;
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report;
• General Occurrence;
• Involved Officer List;
• Policy – Persons in Crisis;
• Notes – the SO, WO #1, WO #2, and WO #3; and
• Communications recordings.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between September 22, 2024, and November 20, 2024:

• The Complainant’s medical records from SMH; and
• Video from 30 Ordnance Street.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant, the SO and other police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the early morning of September 20, 2024, police were dispatched to an address on East Liberty Street. The CW had called 911 to report that the Complainant had threatened to kill himself. She indicated that the Complainant had transferred her a large sum of money and provided her his account password.

The SO arrived on scene with his partner, WO #3. They attended at the Complainant’s residence to look for him. He was not there. The CW joined the officers and indicated that she was still in communication with the Complainant. Using her phone, the officers sent the Complainant a text message indicating they were looking for him. The Complainant was not receptive.

The Complainant made his way back to his residence where, from a distance, he observed the CW outside his address with the officers. The CW noticed the Complainant and alerted the officers. The SO made his way eastbound on East Liberty Street and came across the Complainant emerging from a parkette on the north side of the roadway, west of Strachan Avenue. The Complainant turned and walked away from the officer, eastbound on East Liberty Street. The officer asked the Complainant to stop and talk to him. The Complainant asked to be left alone.

Joined by WO #3, the SO followed the Complainant. He continued to call out to him to no avail. Deciding they had to take the Complainant into custody, the officers quickened their pace and ran after him. The Complainant fled eastbound across Strachan Avenue and onto Ordnance Street. The officers pursued the Complainant eastbound on Ordnance Street and onto a footpath along the southside of 30 Ordnance Street. The Complainant rounded the corner of the address and continued north a short distance towards a fence. He climbed over fence onto a ledge on the other side, and then fell down a retaining wall attempting to scale down to the ground below.

Arriving at the fence, the officers observed the Complainant incapacitated on the ground below. He had fallen a distance of about four metres.

EMS were contacted, arrived on scene and transported the Complainant to hospital. He had suffered multiple injuries, including facial and rib fractures, internal bleeding, and permanent brain damage.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

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.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Section 17, Mental Health Act - Action by Police Officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a fall from height on September 20, 2024. As he was being pursued on foot by TPS officers at the time, 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 serious injuries.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 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 injuries. In my view, there was not.

The SO and the other officers who responded to the scene were in the execution of their lawful duty to protect and preserve life through the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s fall. Aware of his suicidal ideation, the officers were within their rights in doing what they reasonably could to prevent harm from coming to the Complainant. Having been advised by the CW that the Complainant suffered from mental illness, the officers also had cause to believe that he was subject to apprehension under section 17 of the Mental Health Act.

I am also satisfied that the officers, including the SO, comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and wellbeing while in pursuit of their duty. With no reason to believe that the Complainant was anything other than serious about wanting to hurt himself, the officers acted reasonably when they pursued him on foot to take him into custody. Having located him after a search, they would have been remiss in not attempting to apprehend him so he could be taken to hospital for help. It is highly regrettable that the officers were not able to catch the Complainant before he reached the fence and fell a distance to the ground on the other side, suffering serious injuries in the process, but it was not from lack of trying on their part.

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

Date: January 16, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit