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 injuries of a 30-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 11, 2025, at 3:09 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

The TPS received a call on March 11, 2025, at 11:16 a.m., regarding a woman hanging from a balcony of an apartment building in the area of Jane Street and Lawrence Avenue West. Police officers from 12 Division arrived to find the woman, later identified as the Complainant, hanging from the balcony. The Subject Official (SO) and Witness Official (WO) #1 entered the apartment, went onto the balcony, and tried to pull the Complainant back over the railing, but she dropped to a lower balcony. Paramedics attended and transported the Complainant to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC). A treating physician advised police the Complainant had sustained a fractured bone but would not disclose more details.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/03/11 at 3:27 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/03/11 at 4:33 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

30-year-old female; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on March 11, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between March 12, 2025, and March 20, 2025.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on May 6, 2025.

Witness Officials

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 March 25, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the balcony of an apartment (Apartment #1) in the area of Jane Street and Lawrence Avenue West, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

The scene was in a multi-storey residential apartment building. The apartment balconies were covered with bird-deterrent netting.

Apartment #1 had a balcony off the living room. A one-metre section of the anti-bird netting, outside the balcony railing, was torn away at the base.

The anti-bird netting on the balcony of the apartment (Apartment #2) onto which the Complainant landed had a large hole where the mesh had been torn open. It is believed the Complainant landed on the netting, tearing it open, before landing onto the balcony of Apartment #2. No other damage was noted on that balcony.

The distance from the top of the railing of Apartment #1 to the balcony of Apartment #2 was nine metres.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Police In-car Camera (ICC) and Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage & Footage from the Apartment Building

At 9:30 a.m., March 11, 2025, Witness #1 and the Complainant entered the apartment building. Witness #1 and the Complainant exited the elevator, after which Witness #1 attempted to open the door of Apartment #1. He subsequently knocked on the door and entered the apartment, followed by the Complainant.

At 9:43 a.m.,[3] Witness #1 exited Apartment #1, stood at the door as though speaking to an occupant, and then entered an elevator.

At 9:53 a.m., Witness #1 exited an elevator carrying a plastic shopping bag. He opened the door of Apartment #1 and entered the apartment.

At 10:25 a.m., Witness #1 and another man exited Apartment #1 and entered the stairwell next to Apartment #1. Witness #1 later returned to the building.

At 11:12 a.m., a cellular telephone, believed to belong to the Complainant, fell onto the pavement at the entrance to the building.

At 11:15 a.m., CW #1 could be seen running across Jane Street. CW #1 was speaking on his cellular telephone. As he entered the apartment building, his cellular screen revealed he was speaking to a 911 call-taker.

At 11:20 a.m., the SO, WO #2 and WO #1 entered the building. CW #1 held the entrance door open for the officers. WO #3 remained in the parking lot in front of the building, and he called out to the Complainant, “Stay right there.”

At 11:21:02 a.m., the SO entered the balcony of Apartment #1. Witness #1 was on the balcony. He told the SO, “Sorry sir, I don’t know what’s wrong with her.” The Complainant was not visible.

At 11:21:06 a.m., the SO moved over to the balcony railing and called out, “Hey, hey.”

At 11:21:11 a.m., the SO reached between the balcony railing supports and pleaded, “Please, come upstairs. Talk together,” and asked, “What’s your name sweetie?” He asked the Complainant to put her hand on the lower bar of the balcony railing supports. She responded she was done talking. The Complainant spoke about family problems. The SO offered to speak to her family member.

At 11:21:26 a.m., WO #1, who was next to the SO, reached down to the Complainant and called out to her, “Give me your hand, give me your hand.” WO #3 called up to WO #1, “WO #1, grab the arm. Grab it, grab it.” The Complainant was standing on the balcony railing of the apartment below, with her hands on the floor of the Apartment #1 balcony. She appeared to have one hand in the SO’s grasp. The Complainant then lifted her feet from the railing of the apartment below, leaving her hanging from the SO’s grasp. She appeared to place one foot back on the railing before falling. WO #2 exited Apartment #1 and ran down to the apartment below. By the time she made her way to the balcony below, the Complainant had fallen.

At 11:21:41 a.m., WO #1 commented, “No, fuck,” and the SO screamed, “No!” The SO stood and ran out of the apartment, calling out, “She jumped, she jumped.”

At 11:22:21 a.m., WO #3, who entered the building after the Complainant had fallen, started banging on the door of Apartment #2. When the resident, CW #3, opened her balcony door, she commented she wondered what the sound was. Six police officers entered Apartment #2 and ran out onto the balcony. The SO held the Complainant’s hand and told her, “I’m sorry.” One of the officers on the balcony was standing up through a hole in the balcony bird netting, likely torn because of the Complainant impacting the netting.

At 11:26 a.m., the Complainant told the officers, “I need to go to Florida. If you guys don’t take me to the Union Station to get exactly on the right train I am out of here.” She then complained she had sustained broken bones and was in pain.

At 11:26 a.m., with Toronto Fire Department (TFD) firefighters administering first-aid, the Complainant stated, “My bones are broken. I wish I died.”

At 11:27 a.m., the Complainant commented she needed to go home because her boyfriend was cheating on her.

At 11:30 a.m., the SO turned to a TFD firefighter and reported he sprained his shoulder while trying to hold the Complainant. The firefighter asked if he was in pain and the SO responded he was.

Later, in the lobby of the building, a sergeant asked the SO who was present when the woman fell. The SO responded that he held her hand. The sergeant asked, “Before she came down?” and the SO responded he tried to hold her.

In the building lobby, Witness #1 was being questioned by Officer #1. Witness #1 initially told Officer #1 that the Complainant smoked a “spliff” and then said, “Fuck life.” When asked to confirm the Complainant had been smoking cannabis, Witness #1 then denied it, and stated they only consumed some alcohol and cigarettes, no drugs. He commented he believed the Complainant never expected the balcony to have bird netting and it might have saved her.

WO #2 approached Witness #1 and asked him if they were in the living room and then went out onto the balcony. Witness #1 said they were going to smoke and, “An episode took her, madness, oh I’m gonna take my life. You don’t know me.” WO #2 told Witness #1 they were just trying to figure out what happened. Witness #1, becoming frustrated and suspicious of the intentions of police, said, “She literally wanted to kill herself. You see, I didn’t force her off the balcony, I was trying to save her the whole time. You guys took forever. I was saving her the whole time, and as soon as you guys come, she jumps off the balcony. Don’t do that to me. You know I was saving her the whole time.”

Officer #1 took a statement from Witness #1, who reported that once they arrived at the apartment, he and the Complainant were relaxing. He reported the Complainant smoked a cigarette and then started “spazzing out”. She was random and emotional, and ran out onto the balcony. The Complainant was holding her cellular telephone and it dropped to the pavement below. Witness #1 reported he attempted to save the Complainant for five to ten minutes. He said she was caught in the balcony bird netting, and she felt foolish. Witness #1 reported the two male officers tried their best, as did the female officer.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between March 12, 2025, and March 23, 2025:

• Lists of involved persons and police officers
• Summary of Witness #1’s statement
• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Screenshot of 911 callers
• Person Hardcopy Report
• Notes - WO #1
• Notes - WO #2
• Notes - WO #3
• Video footage from the apartment building
• ICC footage
• BWC footage

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between March 12, 2025, and March 13, 2025:

• Camera recordings from Apartment #2
• The Complainant’s medical records from SHSC

The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized.

In the morning of March 11, 2025, TPS officers were dispatched to an apartment building in the area of Jane Street and Lawrence Avenue West. 911 calls had been received about a woman hanging from one of the apartment balconies. The SO, joined by WO #1 and WO #2, arrived at the address and immediately made their way to the scene – the balcony of Apartment #1. The woman – the Complainant – was on the outside of the balcony railing. Her head was just below the balcony floor, her body weight supported by the railing of the balcony directly beneath her and anti-bird netting.

The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time. Shortly after arriving as a guest at the apartment in the company of Witness #1, the Complainant ventured out onto the balcony intending to harm herself by jumping. Witness #1 had tried to return her to safety without success. He was present on the balcony when the officers arrived.

The SO bent down, reached through the balcony railing support bars, and grabbed a hold of the Complainant’s right hand with his right hand. He pleaded with her to return to safety. Within seconds, the Complainant wriggled free of the SO’s grip, fell through the netting, and dropped a couple of storeys onto the balcony of Apartment #2 directly below her.

Paramedics responded to the scene and transported the Complainant to hospital. She was diagnosed with multiple injuries, including a fractured pelvis and sacrum (tailbone).

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.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a fall from an apartment balcony in Toronto on March 11, 2025. As TPS officers were on scene attempting to prevent her fall 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 fall and injuries.

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 fall. In my view, there was not.

A police officer’s foremost duty is the protection and preservation of life. The SO was in the execution of that duty when he attended at the balcony of Apartment #1 intending to prevent harm coming to the Complainant.

During his brief time on the balcony, there is no indication that the SO failed to acquit himself with due care and regard for the Complainant’s wellbeing. Having arrived on scene to find the Complainant in an extremely precarious position and on the verge of falling, the officer acted reasonably by taking hold of her hand. He held on as long as he could but eventually lost his grip, through no fault of his own. Thereafter, he and the other officers acted quickly to render aid to the Complainant pending the arrival of paramedics.

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

Date: June 30, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit