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 56-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 24, 2025, at 7:21 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On January 24, 2025, at 12:43 a.m., the TPS received a call about a man on a roof – the Complainant – trying to enter the caller’s door at an address in the area of St. Clair Avenue West and Old Weston Road. TPS officers accessed the roof, and chased and grabbed the Complainant as he was about to jump. He was grounded and arrested. The Complainant complained of a sore ankle and was taken by ambulance to Toronto Western General. At 6:08 a.m., he was diagnosed with a fractured right medial malleolus.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/01/24 at 7:33 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/01/24 at 8:59 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on January 24, 2025.

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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

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

The witness official was interviewed on February 11, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on the roof of a building in the area of St. Clair Avenue West and Old Weston Road, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

On January 29, 2025, a SIU forensic investigator attended the scene to take photographs and measurements.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3

On January 24, 2025, starting at about at 12:49:07 a.m., the SO was captured climbing a staircase onto a rooftop. As he neared the top of the staircase, he shone a flashlight across the roof and yelled for the Complainant to come to him. The Complainant stood on an elevated ledge at the edge of the rooftop. The Complainant clung to the corner of another building. The SO approached the Complainant and directed him to get down. The Complainant mumbled incoherently. The SO backed up and gave the Complainant space. The SO advised on the radio that the Complainant made remarks about jumping from the roof. The SO continued to try and speak with the Complainant. The Complainant said, “You’re not taking me to jail,” and, “I’m going to fall.”

Starting at about 12:54:34 a.m., the Complainant attempted to grab at a higher rooftop with his hands. The SO said the Complainant seemed to want to climb up.

Starting at about 12:54:46 a.m., both of the Complainant’s feet left the ledge he was standing on as he pulled himself up towards the higher rooftop. The SO rushed towards the Complainant, grabbing and pulling him down. The Complainant landed on his feet. There was a struggle, and the SO directed the Complainant to place his hands behind his back. WO #1 arrived to assist the SO. The Complainant was successfully handcuffed with his hands behind the back. He cried out in pain and said his ankle hurt.

WO #3 and WO #2 remained at road level throughout the entire interaction.

TPS Communications Recordings

On January 23, 2025, at 11:51:33 p.m., a woman called 911 and reported that the Complainant had tried to break down her door, and assaulted her. She said the Complainant was a wanted person and presently on drugs. She provided her address.

At 12:11:47 a.m., January 24, 2025, TPS officers attended and were unable to locate the Complainant. There was a woman with an injured arm.

At 12:41:54 a.m., an unidentified man called 911 and reported a suspicious man [the Complainant] on a roof. The Complainant had attempted to open a door on the roof.

At 12:49:28 a.m., WO #2 advised there was a man [the Complainant], who had scaled the front of the building.

At 12:50:57 a.m., the SO advised the Complainant made remarks about jumping.

At 12:54:41 a.m., WO #2 reported the Complainant had tried to climb to the top of a neighbouring building.

At 12:54:56 a.m., it was reported the Complainant was in custody.

At 12:56:23 a.m., an ambulance was requested for a possible ankle injury to the Complainant.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between January 28, 2025, and February 17, 2025:

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Reports
• Notes – the SO, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3
• Use of Force Policy
• BWC footage
• Communications recordings
• Scene photographs
• Training Records – Use of Force – the SO

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from Toronto Western Hospital on January 30, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident, 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 24, 2025, TPS officers, including the SO, attended at a residence in the area of St. Clair Avenue West and Old Weston Road. A female resident at the address had earlier called police to report that her boyfriend – the Complainant – had kicked down her door and assaulted her. The Complainant was located on the roof of the two-storey building.

From behind the building, the SO climbed an external stairway and found the Complainant standing on an elevated ledge at the edge of the rooftop. He told the Complainant to step off the ledge to safety. The Complainant refused to do so. Rather, within minutes of the officer’s arrival, the Complainant attempted to climb to an adjacent rooftop that was a storey higher. As the Complainant tried to pull himself up, the SO rushed towards him, grabbed him by the legs, and took him down.

The Complainant landed on his feet, fracturing his right inner ankle in the process.

The SO, with the assistance of WO #1, handcuffed the Complainant and took him into custody. He was taken to hospital following his arrest and treated for his injury.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code - Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on January 24, 2025. The SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation, naming the SO 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 arrest and injury.

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law.

Given what they knew of the 911 call from the Complainant’s girlfriend, the Complainant was subject to arrest for assault.

With respect to the force used by the SO against the Complainant, I am satisfied it was no more than was reasonably necessary to effect the arrest. The SO was alive to the precarious position the Complainant found himself, perched on the exterior ledge of the second-floor of a two-storey building. When he did not respond to the officer’s initial direction that he surrender safely to arrest, and made comments about jumping, the SO wisely backed up so as not to provoke the Complainant. He maintained that posture until the Complainant attempted to climb up to the third-floor roof of an adjacent building. The officer seized that opportunity to physically engage the Complainant in the only way available at the time, namely, by pulling him down. The officer could have chosen a more passive tack, allowing the Complainant to reach the third-floor from where negotiations could conceivably have continued. That said, the SO would have been rightly concerned that the Complainant might escape apprehension or suffer an even more serious injury were he to fall from three stories instead of two. Faced with these competing considerations, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the SO acted unreasonably.

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

Date: May 14, 2025

Electronically signed by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit