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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 30, 2023, at 5:54 p.m., the Thunder Bay Police Service (TBPS) notified the SIU of the death of the Complainant.

According to the TBPS, on December 30, 2023, at approximately 2:05 a.m., the TBPS received a 911 call from Civilian Witness (CW) #1 regarding a domestic incident between CW #2 and his girlfriend, the Complainant. It was reported that the Complainant was an unwanted person at a house located in the area of Balmoral Street and Oliver Road (the Residence). At approximately 2:23 a.m., the TBPS received a second 911 call from CW #1 advising that the Complainant was no longer at the house, and that the 911 call should be “cancelled”. The initial 911 call was taken by Service Employee Witness (SEW) #1 and placed in the call task queue. The second 911 call was eventually reviewed by the Subject Official (SO). At 3:08 a.m., the original call was removed from the task queue and the TBPS did not respond to the Residence. TBPS received information that the Complainant might have been texting CW #2 after 2:23 a.m., but that his cell phone was not active. TBPS had her phone. At approximately 10:34 a.m., the TBPS received a third 911 call from the Residence reporting that the Complainant had been located hanging inside a bedroom closet and was deceased.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/01/02 at 1:24 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/01/04 at 11:44 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

21-year-old female; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Not interviewed; next-of-kin

CW #7 Not interviewed; next-of-kin

CW #8 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between January 9, 2024, and June 23, 2024.

Subject Official

SO Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Service Employee Witnesses

SEW #1 Interviewed

SEW #2 Interviewed

SEW #3 Interviewed

The service employee witnesses were interviewed between January 18, 2024, and September 9, 2024.

Investigative Delay

The length of the investigation was the result of the complexity of the investigation, and resource pressures among the investigative contingent at the SIU and the Director’s Office.

A report prepared by the Forensic Data Recovery Unit of the Compliance Branch of Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General was received by the SIU on June 9, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired inside the Residence in Thunder Bay.[2]

Physical Evidence

Screenshots of Text Messages from CW #2’s Cell Phone

On February 23, 2024, the TBPS provided copies of screenshots of CW #2’s cell phone of a conversation he was believed to have had with the Complainant the evening prior to, and during, the early morning hours of December 30, 2023. The conversation between CW #2 and the Complainant began while she was out, and he was home at the Residence.

CW #2: you sleepin cjaye, goodnight (2358 hrs, December 29, 2023)

The Complainant: What (2358 hrs)

Ima come there (2358 hrs)

Leave door unlocked (2358 hrs)

Don’t be like that (2358 hrs)

CW #2: Please go to bed, isabelle here an ion doin shi (2358 hrs)

The Complainant: I’m coming (0005 hrs, December 30, 2023)

CW #2: don’t (0005 hrs)

The Complainant: Unlock door (0137 hrs, December 30, 2023)

Missed audio call (0137 hrs)

The Complainant: Wru (0230 hrs)

I went to washroom (0230 hrs)

Want me there (0230 hrs)

Missed audio call (0230 hrs)

Missed audio call (0234 hrs)

Wru (0234 hrs)

Ok (0234 hrs)

Missed audio call (0234 hrs)

Missed video call (0242 hrs)

Examination of the Complainant’s Cell Phone by TBPS

The TBPS examined the Complainant’s iPhone 11 Pro.

The last picture taken by the device was on December 30, 2023, at 12:40 a.m. The picture contained geolocation data placing the device at the Waterhouse Bar, 9 Cumberland Street South, Thunder Bay.

The last user-generated activity on the device was on December 30, 2023, at 2:42 a.m. – an outgoing call using the Facebook Messenger application.

The following are excerpts of the Facebook Messenger conversation between the Complainant and CW #2:

The Complainant: hi (2336 hrs, December 29, 2023)

Answer my call fast (2337 hrs)

Wru? Are u cheating on me? (2337 hrs)

You haven’t viewed my story, what are you doing (2338 hrs)

CW #2: you sleeping cjaye, good night (0003 hrs, December 30, 2023)

The Complainant: what (0004 hrs)

Ima come there (0004 hrs)

Leave door unlocked (0004 hrs)

Don’t be like that (0004 hrs)

CW #2: Please go to bed, Isabelle here an I on doin shi (0004 hrs)

The Complainant: I’m coming (0005 hrs)

CW #2: Don’t (0005 hrs)

The Complainant: Still coming (0007 hrs)

CW #2: not tn yo (0007 hrs)

The Complainant: Don’t be jealous of cjaye tho lmaoo (0013 hrs)

If I don’t come tn, I’m jus testing u (0013 hrs)

GN (0013 hrs)

Unlock door (0137 hrs)

wru (0230 hrs)

I went to washroom (0230 hrs)

Want me there (0231 hrs)

wru (0235 hrs)

Ok (0236 hrs)

The Complainant’s phone also had outgoing Facebook Messenger calls to CW #2, at 2:30 a.m. and 2:34 a.m., which do not appear to have been answered.

The following Facebook Messenger conversation was noted between the Complainant and CW #8:

The Complainant: was that u (0153 hrs, December 30, 2023)

who msged ur mom that I was here (0153 hrs)

CW #8: No (0153 hrs)

The Complainant: I want the bong lmao, y’all g with it or (0239 hrs)

CW #8: I’m gone I’m at my homies (0253 hrs)

It isn’t anyway (0256 hrs)

No reason to go in there (0256 hrs)

The following Facebook Messenger conversation was noted between the Complainant and a civilian acquaintance:

The Complainant: Tell bro I need a smoke (0231 hrs, December 30, 2023)

Civilian: Huh (0231 hrs)

The Complainant: [name of CW #2]

Civilian: who’s that

The Complainant: OMG bro (0232 hrs)

I’m so sorry (0232 hrs)

Civilian: it’s okay (0232 hrs)

The Complainant: I’m drunk, message wrong person (0232 hrs)

GN to u and ur pretty bb

Lmaoo (0232 hrs)

Civilian: gnn be safe (0233 hrs)

Examination of the Complainant’s Cell phone by Ministry of Finance

The SIU submitted the Complainant’s cell phone for examination by the Forensic Data Recovery Unit of the Compliance Branch of Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General. The findings contained in the report prepared by the Forensic Data Recovery Unit, received by the SIU on June 9, 2025, were consistent with the findings of the examination conducted by the TBPS. The findings included the following:

The last user-generated activity on the Complainant’s phone was located in the call logs at 2:42:56 a.m., December 30, 2023, which was an unanswered call to CW #2.

Three email messages were received on the Complainant’s phone: at 3:23:54 a.m., 4:55:04 a.m. and 9:07:21 a.m., December 30, 2023. These messages were unread.

Forensic Evidence

Toxicology Report

On April 22, 2024, upon request, the SIU received a copy of the Centre of Forensic Sciences Toxicology Report in relation to the Complainant. The results indicated that the Complainant had 235 mg of ethanol / 100 ml of blood.

THC was also detected but its levels could not be determined.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

911 Communications Recordings

The first 911 call was three minutes and 21 seconds in length, and was placed by CW #1. She asked that police attend her residence - the Residence - to remove CW #2’s girlfriend [now known to be the Complainant]. She advised that CW #2 was not supposed to be around the Complainant because of a no-contact order in relation to domestic charges from the summer. She further advised that the Complainant was currently making a mess of CW #2’s room. She was unable to provide a clothing description for the Complainant. She was advised that TBPS officers would get there as soon as they could. She was further told to call back if anything changed.

The second 911 call was 46 seconds in length, and it too was placed by CW #1. She asked that her original call for police to attend her home be cancelled because all was quiet, and she believed that the Complainant had left. The communications operator advised her to lock her door so that the Complainant could not come back, and that the call was being cancelled.

The third 911 call was 31 seconds in length and was made by CW #2. He was overheard saying, "She is hanging by the roof," as the communications operator asked if he needed police, fire, or ambulance. He was then asked again if he required police, fire, or ambulance, and he replied that he did not know. He indicated that his girlfriend was passed out and asked for ambulance. The call was transferred to the ambulance service.

The fourth call was 53 seconds in length. It was made by the ambulance service requesting the assistance of police at the Residence for a possible vital signs absent (VSA) case involving a 21-year-old female. They further advised there was a family member or relative on scene, and that they had a crew en route.

The radio communications dispatch was three minutes and 20 seconds in length. The TBPS unit on scene initially indicated he was on scene and there was no answer at the door. Other units offered to attend. The on-scene TBPS unit then advised that CPR was in progress and indicated that the Complainant had been pronounced deceased by emergency medical service (EMS).

A female TBPS officer then queried the Complainant’s name and year of birth over the air. Dispatch provided the Complainant’s full date of birth. Another TBPS officer advised he was attending the Residence.

Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Reports

There were two separate reports.

The initial 911 call details and cancellation were under TBPS occurrence #1.

The sudden death report details were captured under TBPS occurrence #2.

The original 911 call was received on December 30, 2023, at 2:05:51 a.m., from CW #1 asking for the police to attend the Residence for an unwanted female approximately 22 years of age.

The occurrence was titled "UNWANTED- VIOLENT" by SEW #1.

CW #1 advised that the Complainant was present and that she wanted her removed because CW #2 and the Complainant had conditions not to be around each other. She further advised that the Complainant was making a mess in CW #2’s room but could not elaborate on that.

At 2:23:16 a.m., CW #1 called the TBPS back and wished to cancel the complaint, advising that the Complainant had left the house. The call was cancelled by SEW #2.

The sudden death call was received on December 30, 2023, at 10:34:36 a.m.

The occurrence was titled "DEATH-POSSIBLE-SUDDEN DEATH-POSSIBLE 10-45" by a dispatch operator.

Units were dispatched.

At 10:37:46 a.m., CPR was noted as being in progress.

At 10:39:43 a.m., it was noted: “PRONOUNCED BY EMS”.

At 10:57:55 a.m., it was noted that the police Criminal Investigation Branch was requested to attend.

At 11:26:15 a.m., the Identification Unit was requested to attend.

At 12:34:38 p.m., an officer requested that funeral home body removal attend.

At 12:48:57 p.m., an officer advised there would be a postmortem examination.

At 12:55:15 p.m., it was noted that there would be a postmortem and that the scene was not being held.

At 1:20:26 p.m., funeral home body removal arrived on scene to remove the body.

At 2:25:58 p.m., it was noted that officers were attending an address in Thunder Bay for next-of-kin notification.

At 2:37:02 p.m., family members were said to be at a hotel in Thunder Bay.

At 2:43:20 p.m., officers were said to be at the hotel.

Records – Miscellaneous

Task History – Call Cancellation Occurrence #1

The SIU received a copy of the task history from the TBPS in relation to the cancellation of occurrence #1.

On December 30, 2023, at 2:24 a.m., task #1 – unwanted person at the Residence - was added to occurrence #1 and assigned to the SO, for review. At 3:08 a.m., task #1 was approved by the SO and the clearance status for occurrence #1 was changed from “New” to “Clr other: CSC identified – vic/comp request no further action”.

The task history indicates that the SO was active on his police computer from December 29, 2023, starting at about 5:01 p.m., until December 30, 2023, at about 4:53 a.m. Part of the business transacted on the computer involved changing the status of calls, including clearing calls that had come in.

TBPS Calls for Service to the Residence

Between January 1, 2023, to December 29, 2023, the TBPS received 17 calls for service to the Residence. These were variously classified by the TBPS, and included calls classified as “Domestic”, “Family Dispute”, “Person Welfare” and “Assist”. Officers were dispatched to most, but not all, of the calls.

On December 30, 2023, at 2:05:51 a.m., a call for service was listed by type as “unwanted” with a sub type “violent”. A second call for service on December 30, 2023, was received at 10:34:37 a.m., with the type being “death” and a sub type of “possible”.

TBPS Occurrence Report #2 - December 30, 2023

On December 30, 2023, Officer #1 of the TBPS attended the Residence. He had been contacted by Officer #2, who requested that the Major Crime Unit (MCU) attend for a deceased 21-year-old female. The female had been identified as the Complainant. Officer #2 further advised that EMS had pronounced the Complainant deceased at 10:39 a.m. He reviewed prior occurrences involving the Complainant and CW #2 on May 5, 2023, and October 8, 2023.

Officer #1 arrived and observed the Complainant laying on her back in the hallway at the top of the stairs. She had been pulled to that location so EMS and police could perform CPR.

Officer #1 entered the bedroom where the Complainant was discovered and observed debris scattered on the floor and a television tipped over between the bed and the closet. He looked at the closet and observed a scarf tied at each end around the clothes bar in a big loop.

Officer #1 then interviewed civilian witnesses.[4] The Complainant reportedly accused CW #2 of cheating on her. She pushed him and started throwing things around his room. CW #2 advised that at that point CW #1 told him to go downstairs and that she was calling the police to have the Complainant removed.

The scene was secured. The coroner arrived and advised that he was ordering a postmortem examination.

TBPS Occurrence Report #3 - July 14, 2023

On Friday, July 14, 2023, at 6:31 a.m., Officer #3 along with Officer #4 were dispatched to the Residence to respond to a report by a complainant – CW #1 - of an unwanted person within the residence. TBPS was informed that the Complainant, girlfriend of CW #2, was unwanted, as she was intoxicated and causing a disturbance the entire night.

Officers arrived on scene at 6:37 a.m. and noted blood on the front steps. Officers then spoke with CW #1, who advised that the Complainant had settled down. Officers noticed more blood in the residence and were told that it was because of broken glass. The Complainant and CW #2 were both observed to have blood on them.

At 6:59 a.m., Officer #3 arrested CW #2 for assault with a weapon and he was transported to TBPS cells.

The Complainant refused to complete a witness statement and refused to complete a Domestic Violence Risk Management form. She also declined victim services and advised officers that she had no concerns for her safety.

At 8:11 a.m., officers were advised that CW #1 was out front of TBPS Headquarters and indicated that she did not witness an assault; however, she did believe that the Complainant had stabbed CW #2 with the broken bong. The investigating officers had no evidence to indicate that had occurred.

Officer #3 requested that her General Report be forwarded to the Intimate Partner Violence Unit (IPVU). She further requested that IPVU follow up with CW #2 and the Complainant, as CW #1 had reported a previous domestic history with the couple.

Judicial Release Order – CW #2

On July 14, 2023, CW #2 was arrested by TBPS for domestic assault with a weapon. He was released on an Undertaking Form 10. The condition of release outlined on the Undertaking was “You must not communicate, directly or indirectly, with the Complainant”.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TBPS between January 4, 2024, and February 23, 2024:

• CAD Reports
• Communications recordings
• Occurrence, Investigative and Supplementary Reports
• Computer workstation logs
• TBPS Policy – Call Taker and Police Dispatch
• Judicial release order in relation to previous occurrence involving CW #2 and the Complainant
• Data downloaded from the cell phones of CW #2 and the Complainant
• Call History in relation to the Residence
• Photographs of scene and evidence
• Copy of writing sample from CW #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between January 9, 2024, and June 9, 2025:

• Affidavit of CW #6
• Sexual Assault / Domestic Violence Treatment Discharge Sheet of the Complainant on October 6, 2023
• Handwritten notes of the Complainant
• Toxicology Report from the Centre of Forensic Sciences
• Report of Postmortem Examination from the Coroner’s Office
• Expert medical opinion from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• Report from Forensic Data Recovery Unit of the Compliance Branch of Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General
• EMS records

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU or the release of his notes.

In the summer of 2023, CW #2 was arrested for assault following an altercation with the Complainant. As a condition of his release, CW #2 was ordered to have no communication with the Complainant.

On December 29, 2023, CW #2 and the Complainant began texting each other. The Complainant asked whether she could attend CW #2’s residence. CW #2, home at the time, told her not to come over. The Complainant was insistent. In a text message time-stamped 1:37 a.m. (December 30, 2023), the Complainant told CW #2 to unlock the door. Shortly after, she entered the home at the Residence and went upstairs to CW #2’s bedroom.

CW #2 and the Complainant began to argue. This caught the attention of CW #1 on the main floor. Aware of the non-communication order, CW #1 had CW #2 go to the basement to sleep in another family member’s bedroom. She also called police, noted the non-communication order and that the Complainant was inebriated, and asked that they attend the residence to have her removed. The call-taker indicated that police would attend as soon as they could. The time was about 2:05 a.m.

The call-taker was SEW #1. SEW #1 classified the call as “Unwanted – Violent” and forwarded it to be dispatched on a “Priority 2” basis.

Following her call to police, CW #1 fell asleep for a brief period and woke to a silent house. Believing that the Complainant had left the residence, CW #1 called police again to report her departure and ask that her initial call for police attendance be cancelled. The time was about 2:23 a.m.

On this occasion, the call-taker was SEW #2. SEW #2 confirmed that CW #1 had no safety concerns and cancelled the call on her system. The cancelled call was sent to the SO via the records management system as a ‘task’ to be reviewed. At that point, the SO could either confirm the cancellation or send it back to be re-opened. In the event of the latter, the call would again be queued for dispatch.

At about 3:08 a.m., the SO confirmed the cancellation in the system, noting the “vic/comp request no further action”.

CW #2 woke at about 10:30 a.m. and went upstairs to his bedroom. He was sitting on his bed when he turned and saw the Complainant hanging in the closet. He rushed to her, unwrapped a scarf from around her neck, laid her on the floor and called 911. He told the call-taker that the Complainant was passed out and asked for an ambulance. The time was 10:34 a.m.

Paramedics arrived on scene to find the Complainant VSA. They were unable to resuscitate her and pronounced her deceased at about 10:39 a.m.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to “hanging”.

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 December 30, 2023, inside a residence in Thunder Bay. As police attendance at the home had earlier been requested regarding a disturbance involving the Complainant and a male, CW #2, 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.

An officer’s foremost obligation is the protection and preservation of life. An officer in the position of the SO at the time of the events in question would know that their decisions around the cancellation or non-cancellation of 911 calls for service could have life or death repercussions. With respect to CW #1’s calls, the officer would have known, at minimum, that there was a non-communication order related to the parties. Had he reviewed any of the parties’ recent history with police, he would have also known the non-communication order stemmed from an incident of violence between the two in which CW #2 had been charged with assault. On this record, I accept that the SO owed the Complainant a duty of care and was bound to proceed with vigilance in deciding how to handle CW #1’s cancellation request.

There is a case to be made that the SO failed in his duty of care. On the one hand, pursuant to TBPS policy in effect at the time, it may be that the initial call from CW #1 - classified as “Unwanted – Violent” (a ‘Priority 2’ call) - ought not to have been cancelled. Faced with a domestic disturbance call involving alcohol and potential violence, arising in the context of a history of violence, one might reasonably have expected a police officer in the SO’s position to err on the side of caution and insist on a police response regardless of a subsequent request for cancellation. On the other hand, it may be the policy did not go so far as to say that a call originally categorized as a ‘Priority 2’ could not be cancelled if circumstances changed. Thus, while the policy anticipated a prompt response for ‘Priority 2’ calls, it also indicated that “these are time-critical calls where an officer can conduct some type of preventative, deterrent or apprehension action, or other emergency services”. The policy did not address a situation where the call-taker received additional information before a response occurred which undermined the reasons for the initial classification. As for the understanding and practice of the call-takers, it seems that information received subsequent to the first call for service could result in the call being treated as a lower priority. Arguably, with information that the Complainant had left the residence, the SO could reasonably believe that any potential for violence had dissipated and that he was within his rights to cancel the call.

Whether or not the SO was negligent in cancelling the call for service, or whether any such negligence amounted to a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable level of care, the difficulty with finding criminal liability relates to two separate but related issues. If the SO was criminally negligent in how he handled CW #1’s cancellation request, when did that negligence crystalize, and, was it causally connected to the Complainant’s death? Theoretically, had the call not been cancelled and police officers responded to the scene, the Complainant would have been removed from the home and, presumably, not died in the manner she did. However, the expert medical opinion in this case was unable to discern a time of death. It did indicate that death from hanging usually occurs very quickly. This leaves open the distinct possibility that the Complainant hung herself and was dead shortly after her last known cell phone activity at 2:42 a.m. If that is what happened, and any criminal negligence on the part of the SO arose at or after he confirmed the cancellation at 3:08 a.m., then the officer’s conduct cannot be said to have caused or contributed to the death.

The question becomes whether there was any criminal negligence on the part of the SO before 2:42 a.m. (the time that the Complainant is last known to be alive) that might conceivably have caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. To reiterate, the call was cancelled by the call-taker at about 2:23 a.m. and then sent to the SO for review. That effectively left the officer about 19 minutes in which to turn his attention to the task, consider his options, and make a decision. Bearing in mind that there is evidence that it was a busy night in the communications centre and the officer would have been occupied with other matters, and that at least several minutes would have elapsed before officers could attend at the house in any event,[5] I am unable to reasonably conclude in this condensed window of time that any negligence by the SO transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

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

Date: July 14, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit