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 a 33-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 8, 2025, at 12:03 p.m., the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) notified the SIU of the death of the Complainant.

According to the DRPS, on January 8, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., DRPS officers arrested a suspect outside an apartment building. Following the arrest, police officers went to the suspect’s apartment and told the occupants they needed to leave because they would be executing a search warrant. While in the apartment, the police officers received information that someone had fallen from a balcony. Police officers located a woman – the Complainant – on the ground outside and performed CPR. She was subsequently pronounced deceased at the scene.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/01/08 at 12:50 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/01/08 at 4:10 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

33-year-old female; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Not interviewed (declined)

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between January 8, 2025, and January 15, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on February 13, 2025.

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 16, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around an apartment on Waller Street, Whitby.

Physical Evidence

There were three full-length fingermarks adjacent to one another on the top and inner balcony sides of the top rail that were oriented in a manner suggesting the depositor was on the street side of the balcony. Three drag marks, adjacent to one another, were on the street side of the glass, directly below the finger marks.

A second area on the top rail contained a fingerprint.

A pool of blood 3.86 metres from the base of the building was located on the ground.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

DRPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - WO #1 & WO #3

On January 8, 2025, starting at 10:48 a.m., the SO knocked on the door of an apartment on Waller Street. Standing with her were WO #2, WO #1 and WO #3. The door was opened by CW #1. The SO identified herself as a police officer, indicated an awareness that a named person was in the apartment earlier, and asked who else was present. CW #1 replied that it was just her. The SO told CW #1 they were coming in and entered, advising she (CW #1) had to leave because they were going to execute a search warrant. The SO peered in the living room and asked where the Complainant was. CW #1 did not respond and sought direction on what to do with her pets. CW #1 entered a bedroom, while the SO followed. WO #1 stood in the doorway. CW #2 was sitting on a couch in the living room.

Starting at 10:50 a.m., the SO backed out of the bedroom followed by CW #1 and CW #3.

Starting at 10:51 a.m., the SO completed a pat-down search of CW #1, CW #2 and CW #3 for firearms. CW #2 left the apartment and met with WO #2 in the hallway.

Starting at 10:53 a.m., WO #3 asked CW #1 who had been in the apartment. CW #1 answered it was just them, while motioning towards CW #3 and CW #2.

Starting at 10:54 a.m., CW #1 followed by WO #1 walked into a bedroom where the SO and CW #3 were.

Starting at 10:56 a.m., CW #1 gathered a pet in the apartment, and walked it out to CW #2, who was standing in the exterior hallway with WO #2 and CW #3.

Starting at 10:57 a.m., CW #1 retrieved another pet from the balcony.

Starting at 11:01 a.m., CW #1, the SO, WO #1 and WO #3, left the apartment and stood in the hallway.

Starting at 11:10 a.m., WO #1 informed WO #2 there was a radio call of someone falling from the apartment building. With direction from the SO, WO #1 re-entered the apartment and looked over the balcony railing. He returned to the hallway and advised the SO and WO #2 that the Complainant was on the ground. WO #1 asked CW #2 how many females were in the apartment. He indicated CW #1 and CW #3.

Starting at 11:12 a.m., CW #1 told the SO that the Complainant was in a bedroom when she answered the SO’s knock at the door.

Starting at 11:13 a.m., CW #2 told WO #2 that he did not know the Complainant was in the apartment. He knew she was there the day before but thought she had left earlier.

DRPS Communications Recordings – 911

On January 8, 2025, starting at 11:05 a.m., CW #4 called the DRPS communications centre from an apartment on Waller Street and told them that someone [now known to be the Complainant] had fallen from the building. The Complainant had been hanging from a balcony on the floor above him, and he watched her fall.

Starting at 11:09 a.m., CW #5 called the DRPS communications centre and advised that the Complainant was running away from the police and had jumped.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the DRPS between January 8, 2025, and February 13, 2025:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Civilian Witness List
• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• Notes - the SO, WO #2, WO #1, and WO #3
• BWC video

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

On January 10, 2025, the SIU obtained the Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with the SO and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the morning of January 8, 2025, DRPS officers, including the SO, attended at an apartment on Waller Street, Whitby. Their intention was to remove the apartment’s occupants ahead of a search warrant that was to be executed there later that day.

The apartment’s tenant – CW #1 – answered the officers’ knock at the door and watched as they entered the residence. She was asked who was present and was told that everyone would have to vacate the premise in preparation for a search warrant execution. Just prior to the officers’ arrival, CW #1 had been in the apartment with the Complainant, CW #3 and CW #2. Shortly after the officers’ knock at the door, the Complainant entered onto the apartment’s balcony and attempted to scale down to the balcony below. She lost her grip and fell to the ground below.

On entering the apartment, the SO and her colleagues watched over CW #1, CW #3, and CW #2, as they gathered their pets before escorting them out of the apartment into the building hallway. Minutes later, while still in the hallway, the officers came to learn via a radio transmission that a woman had fallen from the balcony of an apartment and was on the ground. One of the officers – WO #1 – re-entered the apartment, looked over the balcony, and confirmed that there was a woman on the ground below. The woman was the Complainant.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to multiple blunt trauma.

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.

The Complainant passed away on January 8, 2025, following a fall from an apartment balcony at height. As DRPS officers were present in the apartment 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.

It is doubtful that the SO was lawfully placed when she entered the apartment without any consent on the part of its tenant – CW #1. Though indicating that the police were planning to enter the apartment to execute a search warrant, no such warrant was present with the officer, nor does it appear that any process had been issued at the time.

Notwithstanding the SO’s dubious standing inside the apartment, I am unable to reasonably conclude that there is a sufficient legal nexus between the officer’s entry and the Complainant’s fall. For example, it is unclear on the evidence when precisely the Complainant fell. Conceivably, it could have occurred as the officers were knocking on the door but had yet to enter. Alternately, even if the fall happened after the officers’ entry, there is no reason to suggest that the SO did anything to contribute to the Complainant’s demise other than, perhaps, simply being an impetus for her rash decision. The officer was not abusive to the persons in the apartment. She had also made inquiries about who was present in the unit, and had been led to believe by CW #1 that everyone had been accounted for. On this record, whatever role the SO’s mere presence inside the apartment played in the Complainant’s decision to attempt to scale down the balcony, I am satisfied it was too remote to attract any legal liability.

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

Given the SO’s questionable entry into the apartment, and pursuant to the SIU’s legal obligation under section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will be referring this matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency as possible misconduct.

Date: May 1, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit