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 44-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 13, 2024, at 3:24 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) notified the SIU of the death of the Complainant.

According to the TPS, on January 13, 2024, at 1:58 a.m., four TPS Major Crime Unit (MCU) officers from 14 Division responded to a ‘wanted person’ call. The Complainant was wanted for robbery offences and believed to be at an apartment in a building on High Park Avenue, Toronto. MCU officers knocked on the apartment door, spoke to the Complainant and confirmed she was the wanted person. The Complainant closed the door and unsuccessfully attempted to scale down from the rear balcony, falling to the ground. Officers located the Complainant and observed that she had a head injury and two broken legs. She was conscious but not responsive. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) attended and transported the Complainant to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH). At 2:37 a.m., the Complainant was pronounced deceased.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/01/13 at 3:42 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/01/13 at 4:55 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

44-year-old female; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

CW #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

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

CW #4 Not interviewed (declined)

Subject Official (SO)

SO Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

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 on January 23, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the balconies of Apartment #1 and Apartment #2 in a building on High Park Avenue, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

The building was a multi-level apartment complex. Apartment #2’s balcony was attached to Apartment #1’s balcony, separated by a partition.

SIU forensic investigators attended the scene on January 13, 2025, at 6:15 a.m., and took photographs and measurements.

During the scene examination of the balconies and the ground where the Complainant landed, SIU forensic investigators located damaged Christmas string lights. It was believed that the Complainant got caught on the cord as she fell.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage – The Apartment Building[3]

SIU investigators obtained video footage from the apartment building on High Park Avenue from the hallway leading to Apartment #1 and Apartment #2, and external cameras. The footage did not contain an audio track.

On January 13, 2025, at 1:39 a.m., the SO, WO #3, WO #1, WO #2, CW #1 and CW #3 arrived in the hallway and approached Apartment #2. Due to the distance of the camera, it was difficult to determine exactly who moved in and out of the apartment, though it appeared after a couple of minutes that the SO and WO #1 entered Apartment #2, and WO #3 and WO #2 remained in the hallway with CW #1, CW #2 and CW #3.

At 1:56 a.m., WO #3 and WO #2 ran down the hallway to the elevators.

At 1:56:15 a.m., the Complainant was seen on an external camera falling to the ground. She fell feet-first onto the snow-covered ground and came to rest on her back, where she lay motionless.

At 1:58:20 a.m., WO #2 and WO #3 ran to the Complainant. They moved what looked like a wire or cord away from the Complainant, and remained with her.

TPS Communications Recordings – Radio

At 1:58 a.m., January 13, 2025, WO #1 requested EMS, reporting that the Complainant had fallen from an upper floor balcony. A request was made for more police officers to assist. It was reported that the Complainant was conscious but not talking. She had a head injury and two broken legs. Shortly after, the Complainant was taken to SMH.

The Complainant was pronounced deceased at 2:37 a.m.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between January 13, 2025, and February 5, 2025:

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Person Report – the Complainant
• Occurrence Report
• Notes – the SO, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #1

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

Between January 13, 2025, and February 3, 2025, the SIU obtained the following records from other sources:

• Preliminary Autopsy Report Findings from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• Notes - CW #1, CW #3 and CW #2
• Video footage from an apartment building
• Video footage from news media

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police eyewitness and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the early morning of January 13, 2025, the SO, in the company of WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3, arrived in the hallway outside Apartment #2 on High Park Avenue. They were there to arrest the Complainant, for whom there were warrants in effect for multiple break and enters. Present with the officers were CW #1, CW #2 and CW #3.

The Complainant answered the knock at the door. Informed by WO #3 that there were warrants for her arrest, she closed the door shut. From inside the apartment, the Complainant told the officers she would not be going with them before she entered onto the balcony, made her way onto the adjacent balcony of Apartment #1, and entered that unit.

The officers decided to arrange for a Feeney warrant[4] while they waited outside the front door. Aware that CW #4 was the apartment tenant, and that he too had warrants for arrest, the SO spoke to him through the door, warning that he would also be arrested if the officers had to wait for a Feeney warrant to enter. CW #4 opened the door for the officers and allowed them to enter. He told the officers that the Complainant was now in Apartment #1. The time was about 1:50 a.m.

The SO and WO #1 went onto the balcony of Apartment #2. The Complainant, inside Apartment #1 at the time, knew that there were still officers in the hallway aware of her presence in that unit. She returned to the balcony and was confronted by the SO, looking over from the balcony of Apartment #2. The officer attempted to persuade the Complainant to turn herself in. She asked if she could surrender at a later date, and was told that the matter had to be dealt with now. With that, the Complainant said she would just jump. She quickly climbed over the railing, and fell to the ground below. The time was about 1:56 a.m.

Officers rushed to the Complainant’s side to provide aid. Paramedics attended and transported her to hospital. She was pronounced deceased at 2:37 a.m.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to multiple blunt impact 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 died in a fall from height in Toronto on January 13, 2025. As TPS officers were on scene communicating 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 SO and the other officers in attendance were engaged in the execution of their duties through the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s fall. They were within their rights in seeking to execute warrants for the Complainant’s arrest for multiple incidents of break and enter. They had also received consent from CW #4 to enter the apartment and were lawfully placed in and around Apartment #1 and Apartment #2 at all material times.

I am also satisfied that the SO comported himself with due care and regard for the Complainant’s safety throughout their dealings. The officer clearly articulated their intention to arrest the Complainant and requested that she surrender. When she asked to be allowed to turn herself in at a subsequent time, the SO calmly explained that that was not an option. He had no reason to suspect that the Complainant was in mental health distress or suicidal, and no reason to believe that she would take the drastic action she did. The SO also had no opportunity to intervene to prevent the Complainant’s fall. Not more than several seconds elapsed from the moment the Complainant indicated she would jump until she was up and over the balcony railing.

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

Date: May 13, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit