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 injury of a 36-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 3, 2025, at 5:05 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 12:59 p.m., the TPS received a call from a Civilian Witness (CW), requesting a wellbeing check on a family member, the Complainant, who resided in the area of Wellesley Street East and Jarvis Street. The CW reported that the Complainant had acted odd of late. He no longer called her, and refused to answer the door when she attended his apartment. At 1:27 p.m., a Mobile Crisis Intervention Team (MCIT), consisting of the Subject Official (SO) [a trained mental health TPS officer] and a mental health nurse, attended at the Complainant’s door. The SO identified himself and asked to speak to the Complainant, but he refused to open the door. Out of concern, an access key was obtained from the building’s superintendent and the SO entered the apartment. When the Complainant saw the SO, he ran to the balcony and jumped off. The Complainant landed on the balcony of the apartment below. The Complainant was apprehended under the Mental Health Act (MHA). Toronto Emergency Medical Service (EMS) attended and transported the Complainant to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH), where X-rays confirmed he had sustained a fractured left elbow.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/01/03 at 5:35 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/01/04 at 12:43 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on January 4, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on January 4, 2025.

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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

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

The witness official was interviewed on January 8, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the balcony of an apartment in the area of Wellesley Street East and Jarvis Street, Toronto.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On January 3, 2025, starting at about 1:44 p.m., the view was of a hallway [now known to be in front of the Complainant’s apartment]. Captured was WO #1 and, behind him, Officer #1. Between the two police officers and further down the hall stood the CW. The SO moved from one side of the Complainant’s apartment door to the other. WO #1 knocked on the door.

Starting at about 1:45 p.m., the SO knocked on the door and said, “[The Complainant’s first name], I am here with a nurse. Can you come to the door and talk to me?” The SO said, “It’s one forty-five in the afternoon, are you going to come out?” The Complainant said something that was indiscernible. The SO again asked the Complainant to open the door. He told him they just wanted to make sure he was okay. The SO said, “You know by now that we are not going away.” The police officers spoke about the smell of something burning. The SO asked if the Complainant had something on the stove. The officer reiterated that he wanted to help the Complainant, and that the Complainant would have to open the door. The SO kept repeating they were there to help the Complainant, and that a nurse and paramedics were present.

Starting at about 1:49 p.m., the police officers discussed getting a key to the apartment. Officer #1 indicated that there was a balcony to the apartment. The SO asked Officer #1 to see if he could expedite getting a key. WO #1 noted that the neighbours had heard screaming for the last two days, and they had concerns for their safety.

Starting at about 1:51 p.m., the SO asked the Complainant if he wanted to speak to a family member. The CW approached the door and spoke to the Complainant. The SO again asked him to open to the door. The Complainant said something to the effect that he feared the SO. The SO replied, “You are scared of me, you have not met me.” The Complainant told them to stand back, and they did so. The SO asked him why he had asked them to stand back. The Complainant did not respond. The SO continued to knock on the door. The Complainant said he wanted to go to the hospital, and the SO told him that he wanted to take him to the hospital. The Complainant again told the police officers to step back and, at 1:56 p.m., the CW stepped up to the door and started to speak to the Complainant.

Starting at about 1:57 p.m., the SO took off his outer jacket and approached the door with a key in his right hand.

Starting at about 1:58 p.m., the mental health nurse, who had a vest with “NURSE” on the front, handed the SO another set of keys. At 1:59 p.m., on his third attempt, the SO got the key to work. He opened the door, entered, and ran through the apartment to the patio door. At 1:59:34 p.m., the officer opened the patio door. As he did so, the outline of the Complainant could be seen to roll off the ledge at the edge of the balcony. The SO looked over the balcony and saw the Complainant one floor below. The Complainant got up, started to walk about, and cried out in pain. The SO ran out of the apartment, and followed WO #1 down the hallway and through a fire escape door.

Starting at about 2:05 p.m., the Complainant was located on the balcony of the apartment below. The Complainant had a cut to the right side of his face. The SO offered his hand and the Complainant said he was scared, and that his hand was broken.

Starting at about 2:07 p.m., the Complainant was handcuffed with his hands behind the back.

Communications Recordings

On January 3, 2025, at 12:59 p.m., the TPS received a call from management of an apartment building, indicating they had received a wellness check request from a woman, the CW, who advised that her family member would not answer the door at his apartment. They could hear sounds inside, and neighbours had reportedly heard screaming over the last couple of days from within the apartment. The Complainant had not spoken with the CW in two days. He suffered from an undiagnosed mental health issue, but there had been no mention of suicide. He lived alone, was not violent and, as far as the family member knew, did not have weapons.

Starting at about 1:06 p.m., EMS was notified.

Starting at about 1:27 p.m., EMS advised they were on scene with the building management. The Complainant was refusing to answer the door. They asked about a time for arrival of police officers.

Starting at about 1:29 p.m., WO #1 was dispatched and, at 1:30 p.m., he asked for a MCIT and someone from the building management.

Starting at about 2:03 p.m., WO #1 advised the Complainant was on the floor below the level of his apartment.

Starting at about 2:07 p.m., WO #3 advised they had one person in custody.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between January 6, 2025, and January 30, 2025.

• Communications recordings
• Involved Officer List
• BWC footage
• Notes – WO #3, WO #1 and WO #2
• Policy – Persons in Crisis
• Police History – the Complainant
• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Use of Force - 2024 Training Record – the SO

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between January 21, 2025, and January 29, 2025:

• Ambulance Call Report from Toronto EMS
• The Complainant’s medical records from SMH

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with the Complainant, and police and non-police witnesses, 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 afternoon of January 3, 2025, TPS officers were dispatched to an apartment in the area of Wellesley Street East and Jarvis Street, Toronto. A woman – the CW – had called 911 to ask that someone check on the wellbeing of her family member – the Complainant – who resided at the address. She had not heard from him in a couple of days and was refusing to answer his door when she personally attended at his home.

Paramedics were the first to arrive on scene, in the hallway outside the Complainant’s apartment. They were followed by WO #1 and his partner, and a short time later, a TPS MCIT consisting of the SO and a mental health nurse. The officers attempted to communicate with the Complainant through the closed and locked door, impressing on him that they were to help and could not leave until they had checked on him.

The Complainant, of unsound mind at the time, was not receptive to the officers’ overtures. Afraid that the police officers would beat him, he refused to answer the door.

The officers became increasingly concerned for the Complainant’s safety, particularly when they thought they smelled plastic burning from within the apartment. They decided the Complainant’s was subject to apprehension under the Mental Health Act and that there were exigent circumstances justifying entry into the apartment to take him into custody.

Shortly before 2:00 p.m., the SO unlocked the door using a key provided by the building’s management. Followed by WO #1, the officer walked through a corridor towards the apartment balcony. As he opened the balcony door, the Complainant, lying flat on the top of the balcony railing, rolled off and fell down its exterior side.

The Complainant dropped onto the roof in front of a fifth-floor apartment balcony, suffering a fractured left elbow, and a possibly broken left shoulder blade, in the process.

Officers arrived on the roof and arrested the Complainant. He was transported to hospital.

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 January 3, 2025. As TPS officers had been attempting to speak to him moments before the fall, 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 injury.

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.

I am satisfied that the officers, including the SO, were within their rights in seeking to apprehend the Complainant under the section 17 of the Mental Health Act. Given what they knew of the Complainant’s mental condition from his family member, and what they personally ascertained of his state of mind in their efforts to communicate with him through the closed door, the officers had cause to be concerned that the Complainant was a danger to himself because of mental disorder. I am also satisfied that the officers’ entry into the apartment, after detecting the smell of plastic burning from inside, was justified on the basis of exigent circumstances.

In and out of the apartment, the evidence further indicates that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for the Complainant’s safety. The officer, trained in dealing with persons in mental health crisis, did what he could from outside the apartment to secure the Complainant’s trust and have him open the door. His decision to enter the apartment when he did is entitled to deference even if it played a part in provoking the Complainant’s rash decision to jump from the balcony. Officers in these situations are in a very difficult position, constantly weighing the risks of a more proactive posture against the risks associated with waiting. On the record in this case, there is nothing to indicate that the SO made any serious error in judgement. Just the contrary, in fact, given the smell of burning plastic and the significant dangers to the Complainant and others of a possible fire in the apartment.

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

Date: May 2, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit