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 death of an 18-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On November 28, 2024, at 3:14 a.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On November 27, 2024, at approximately 3:00 p.m., police officers were requested to attend an apartment in the area of St. Patrick Street and Cobourg Street, Ottawa, to check on the wellbeing of a female, the Complainant. The caller, Civilian Witness (CW) #1, was the Complainant’s friend. Police responded, assessed the Complainant, and concluded there were no grounds to apprehend her under the Mental Health Act (MHA). The Complainant agreed to voluntarily attend the hospital [later found to be Monfort Hospital Ottawa] to be further assessed. Police officers followed the Complainant to the hospital to assist with the triage process and left shortly thereafter. It was subsequently learned that the Complainant was released from hospital by medical staff. On November 28, 2024, at 1:03 a.m., another friend of the Complainant’s, CW #2, contacted the OPS after receiving several text messages from the Complainant threatening suicide. Police were dispatched and attempts were made to ping the Complainant’s phone to ascertain her whereabouts. Reportedly, an officer had successfully contacted the Complainant by telephone at 1:45 a.m. The Complainant indicated that she “wanted to jump”. At 1:51 a.m., three police officers attended the Complainant’s apartment and knocked on the door. Two additional police officers attended the base of the apartment building and located the Complainant. Ottawa Emergency Medical Services (EMS) attended the scene. The Complainant was pronounced deceased shortly thereafter.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/11/28 at 4:03 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/11/28 at 11:56 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

18-year-old female; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on November 28, 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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

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

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #6 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #7 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed on November 28, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around an apartment in the area of St. Patrick Street and Cobourg Street, Ottawa.

Physical Evidence

On November 28, 2024, at 11:56 a.m., two SIU forensic investigators arrived on scene to assist with a death investigation. Scene security was provided by two OPS police officers. The Complainant had been transported from the scene prior to SIU arrival.

There was a red/brown stain on the pavement located 6.2 metres east of the base of the building. General scene photos were taken of the exterior of the building, and the area of the stain.

At 12:20 p.m., the SIU forensic investigators entered the apartment. The unit did not show any sign of a struggle or forced entry. The door to the balcony was open. A wooden chair was pushed up next to the railing of the balcony. The balcony was 1.52 metres wide and 6.694 meters long. The railing was 1.06 metres tall. A cell phone was located on the ground near the base of the chair and two shoes were located, one on either side of the chair. The top of the railing was 30.03 metres from the ground in the area of the stain on the pavement. The seat area of the chair was 0.458 metres from the floor. The phone was examined once it had been allowed to charge for a short while and found to be locked. After consultation with the lead investigator, it was understood that the telephone would not be required for collection.

General scene photos were taken of the interior of the apartment and the balcony area.

An examination of the bedroom was conducted.

The bathroom was also examined and nothing of note was observed. At 1:20 p.m., the SIU forensic investigators left the apartment.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPP Communications Recordings

On November 28, 2024, at 1:03 a.m., the OPS received a call from CW #2, reporting that her friend, the Complainant, had left to visit her boyfriend after a break-up. The Complainant had gone to the hospital earlier in the day as she was suffering from anxiety and stress, and she was told at the hospital that they could not help her. CW #2 was concerned as the Complainant was not answering her messages, and she did not say what her intentions were. CW #2 provided information about the Complainant’s prior self-harm and threats of suicide.

At 1:11 a.m., CW #2 said she was not comfortable with police officers at her home. She could meet the police officers downstairs. CW #2 provided her address.

At 1:18 a.m., CW #2 advised that the Complainant had texted her and that she was at her own residence.

At 1:48 a.m., the SO stated that he had spoken to the Complainant, who informed him that she was at her residence in the area of St. Patrick Street and Cobourg Street, Ottawa, and wanted to jump off the building. The Complainant had asked the SO whether she would survive a jump from that height.

At 1:51 a.m., the SO advised there was no response from the Complainant.

At 1:54 a.m., WO #4 advised that police officers were knocking at the apartment door, which had a balcony. The SO responded that he had an open line and could hear the door knocks.

At 1:59 a.m., WO #2 and WO #5 advised they had a female [later identified as the Complainant] on the ground who was bleeding and vital signs absent.

At 2:00 a.m., WO #5 advised that they were performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

At 2:01 a.m., WO #5 stated, “No shock advised on defib.”

At 2:04 a.m., the SO advised that the family was out of the country. At about the same time, WO #2 reported that the apartment was clear, and the Complainant’s cellular telephone lay on the balcony.

At 2:10 a.m., an officer advised they had stopped CPR.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the OPS between November 28, 2024, and December 16, 2024:

• Communications recordings;
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Reports;
• Investigative Action Reports – WO #3, WO #2, WO #5, WO #7, WO #6, WO #4, and WO #1;
• Notes – WO #3, WO #2, WO #5, WO #7, WO #6, WO #4, and WO #1;
• History of Deceased Report;
• Policy - Mental Health Incidents;
• Patient Valuable Itemized Sheet Ottawa General Hospital; and
• Person to Hospital Report.

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained records from the following other sources on November 29, 2024.

• Ambulance Call Report from EMS;
• Call Details Reports from EMS;
• Incident Reports from EMS; and
• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from Ontario Forensic Pathology Service.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

OPS officers attended the Complainant’s apartment in the area of St. Patrick Street and Cobourg Street, Ottawa, in the afternoon of November 27, 2024, to check on her wellbeing. Depressed over a deteriorating relationship with her boyfriend, the Complainant decided it was a good idea to contact police and did so. So, too, did CW #1, the Complainant’s friend with whom she had confided her concerns. CW #1 and the officers spoke to the Complainant. She assured them that she was not suicidal. The officers concluded that there were no grounds for an apprehension under the Mental Health Act, but, with her agreement, drove the Complainant to hospital for a mental health assessment.

The Complainant left the hospital after several hours having received a prescription, and eventually made her way to her friend’s – CW #2’s – residence. Unable to reach her boyfriend, the Complainant left to go to his house shortly before midnight. When CW #2 tried unsuccessfully to reach her about an hour later, she became concerned and called the police.

Police officers arrived at CW #2’s residence, including the SO, and were present when the Complainant called. CW #2 put the phone on speaker so the officers could hear their conversation. She pleaded with the Complainant not to do anything drastic. The Complainant asked her to take care of her pet and said goodbye. The SO interjected, asked for her address and explained that they were worried for her safety. The Complainant provided her address and asked the officer whether she would survive a fall from her floor. The time was about 1:48 a.m. At about 1:51 a.m., the SO radioed that the Complainant was no longer responding to him.

Officers were dispatched to the Complainant’s residence and arrived outside her apartment door at about 1:54 a.m. They could hear nothing from inside the apartment and received no response when they knocked on the door. The SO, still at CW #2’s residence with an open line to the Complainant’s phone, reported he could hear the knocks. The officers at the door asked that officers be sent to the side of the building that the Complainant’s apartment balcony faced.

Shortly before 2:00 a.m., officers arriving at the side of the building located the Complainant’s body. It was directly under her balcony. She had suffered catastrophic injuries. CPR was administered. Paramedics arrived on scene within minutes and took charge of the Complainant’s care. The Complainant was pronounced deceased on scene at about 2:07 a.m.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to “blunt force trauma consistent with a fall from height”.

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.

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 passed away on November 28, 2024, from injuries received in a fall from height. As OPS officers were attempting to communicate with her 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 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 officers who dealt with the Complainant on November 27 and 28, 2024, were acting pursuant to their lawful duties through the events in question. An officer’s foremost obligation is the protection and preservation of life. Aware of concerns expressed by the Complainant’s friends, and the Complainant herself, with her wellbeing, the officers were duty bound to do what they reasonably could to prevent harm coming to the Complainant.

I am further satisfied that the officers went about their duties with due care and regard for the Complainant. The officers who had earlier attended the Complainant’s residence appear to have made a reasonable decision when they concluded there were no grounds to apprehend her under section 17 of the Mental Health Act. The Complainant appeared in control of her faculties and assured the officers she had no intention of harming herself. Even so, they accompanied the Complainant to hospital and assisted in the triage process before taking their leave. The SO and the officers at the Complainant’s apartment door were equally vigilant in their efforts. The SO responded promptly to CW #2’s residence and attempted to dissuade the Complainant from a distance over the phone. Over at the Complainant’s apartment, there is a distinct possibility that the Complainant had already fallen from the balcony by the time of the officers’ arrival. In any event, there is nothing in the conduct of the officers at the door that gives rise to concern. They chose, prudently, in my view, to refrain from forcing the door open out of concern that such an aggressive action could provoke rash behaviour on the part of the Complainant if she was still inside. Rather, they attempted to communicate with her from outside the door and entered after the building’s management provided a key, only to find the apartment empty.

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

Date: March 28, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit