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 presumed death of an unidentified man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 15, 2025, at 10:17 p.m., the Niagara Parks Police Service (NPPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 15, 2025, at 9:13 p.m., the NPPS received a call from Civilian Witness (CW) #2, an employee at the Table Rock House Restaurant, 6650 Niagara River Parkway, Niagara Falls. CW #2 reported a male at the edge of the Horseshoe Falls, located in front of the restaurant. The male had passed over the retaining wall onto the unsafe side. At 9:14 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) arrived in the area, and asked if the male was okay, after which he went over the edge of the falls. At about 9:18 p.m., two other NPPS officers arrived. The male’s body had not been recovered, and his identity was unknown.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/04/15 at 11:07 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/04/16 at 1:01 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Unidentified male; presumed deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed on April 16, 2025.

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Officials (WO)

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

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

The Scene

The events in question transpired on both sides of the retaining wall separating the Horseshoe Falls from land, across from 6650 Niagara River Parkway, Niagara Falls.

Physical Evidence

On April 16, 2025, at 1:01 a.m., SIU forensic services arrived on scene at 6650 Niagara River Parkway and met with NPPS police officers WO #2 and WO #1, who had been assigned to guard the scene. The officers assisted in a brief walkthrough of the area. The scene was properly secured and guarded. It was in an unsafe area beyond the public viewing area of the falls, in front of The Table Rock House Restaurant. A large retaining wall, consisting of stone and an iron railing, and designed to safeguard the public, was present along the parkway. The wall was easily climbed to access the unsafe area. In the unsafe area was grass, which led to the edge of the gorge at the crest of the falls. There was a large man-made structure near the edge. Officers advised that was where the male [the Complainant] had jumped while interacting with a police officer at the wall. The Complainant was presumed deceased as a search of the area below had proven negative.

At 1:13 a.m., SIU forensic services received evidence from a NPPS officer - a sealed paper bag containing a liquor bottle reportedly handled by the Complainant. The evidence was secured pending further processing.

At 1:27 a.m., SIU forensic services photographed the scene.

Nothing of evidentiary value with regards to personal belongings or identification was located.

The bottle - an Appleton liquor bottle - was swabbed for DNA and fingerprinted.

On April 28, 2025, at 11:35 a.m., SIU forensic services discussed the evidence with a Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) missing persons investigator, for acceptance of evidence with the RCMP Missing Persons DNA Databank. The missing persons investigator agreed to accept the DNA evidence and submit it for search. Arrangements were made for the transfer of the evidence.

On May 2, 2025, at 11:10 a.m., SIU forensic services met with the NRPS missing persons investigator, and turned over the following exhibits for submission to the RCMP Missing Persons DNA Databank:

• 001 – Appleton Estate Signature rum bottle
• 001A – DNA dry swab from Exhibit 001
• 001B – DNA wet swab from Exhibit 001
• 001C – DNA wet swab from Exhibit 001

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Video Footage - Table Rock House Restaurant – 6650 Niagara River Parkway

The camera, located on the second-floor of the Table Rock House Restaurant, captured a view of the retaining wall from where people viewed the Canadian Horseshoe Falls.

On April 15, 2025, starting at about 9:15 p.m., CW #1, wearing an orange safety jacket, walked north on the safe side of the wall to a section across from the Table Rock House Restaurant entrance/exit. He looked over the wall and appeared by arm movements to talk with somebody on the other side. Less than a dozen people walked in the area and looked over the wall towards the falls.

Starting at about 9:16:49 p.m., a police cruiser arrived. The SO exited the vehicle and walked over to the wall and then north towards CW #1.

Starting at about 9:17:07 p.m., the SO took a position to the right side of CW #1 with her attention focused on the other side of the wall. Thirteen seconds later, a figure on the other side of the wall - the Complainant - walked south towards the falls. The SO and CW #1 followed on the safe side of the retaining wall, and stopped briefly to look over the wall at 9:17:29 p.m. Five seconds later, they continued south along the wall.

Starting at about 9:17:54 p.m., an unknown male climbed up on the wall near the falls and raised his cellular telephone in the air to video record what had occurred or was occurring. The SO spoke to the man, who climbed down. A larger crowd began to gather at the wall and look over.

NRPS Communications Recordings

On April 15, 2025, at 9:13 p.m., CW #2 called the NPPS and advised the call

taker that a male [the Complainant] was on the “diving board”. CW #2 advised that attempts were being made to talk the man back to safety. The SO was immediately dispatched and arrived on scene at 9:14 p.m.

A second call was received from an employee of the Table Rock House Restaurant, CW #1. The call-taker told CW #1 that the police were on scene and the call ended.

The SO broadcast that the Complainant, described as a 30-year-old Black male, was intoxicated, and had gone over the edge into the water from the diving board. An updated description of the Complainant indicated he was 30 to 40-years-old, and wearing sunglasses and black clothing.

The SO advised that the Complainant had dropped a liquor bottle of Hennessy at the diving board. WO #1 advised that the NRPS had been advised.

WO #2 advised he was heading below the falls with the forward looking infra-red device. He reported an ice bridge by the Maid of the Mist docks.

At 9:19 p.m., a call was made for the Emergency Medical Services to stand-by at the Maid of the Mist Boat docks, and a police officer headed there with night vision. The river and shoreline were searched with negative results. A drone was requested but, due to strong winds and rain, it was decided to not deploy the device before morning.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the NPPS and the NRPS on April 16, 2025:

• Video footage from Table Rock House Restaurant
• Communications recordings
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2 and the SO
• NRPS General Occurrence Report
• NRPS Sudden Death Report
• NRPS Incident Reports
• List of Involved Police Officers
• Training records - the SO
• NPPS General Order 026 - Mentally Ill Persons
• NPPS witness statements – CW #3, CW #2 and CW #1

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. As was her legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU. She did authorize the release of her notes.

In the evening of April 15, 2025, the Complainant – a Black male described as 35 to 40-years old, 5’10”, and 160 to 170 pounds with a moustache and beard – found himself inebriated on the water side of the retaining wall beside the Horseshoe Falls. More specifically, he was seated on a solid rock platform – the “diving board” – across from the building located at 6650 Niagara River Parkway.

Passersby noticed the Complainant’s precarious position and brought the matter to the attention of staff at the nearby establishment – the Table Rock House Restaurant. An employee – CW #1 – went out to the retaining wall. He was joined by another employee – CW #2. CW #1 called out to the Complainant and got his attention. He told the Complainant he was not supposed to be on that side of the wall and asked him to climb back. The Complainant approached CW #1’s location and assured him he was not suicidal; he was just looking at the water. CW #1 continued to encourage the Complainant to return to the other side of the retaining wall. In the meantime, CW #2 contacted police.

The SO of the NPPS arrived within a minute or so of the call to police. She joined CW #1 beside the retaining wall and also encouraged the Complainant to return to safety. The Complainant was not receptive. At the sight of the officer, he promptly turned to walk back to the diving board. CW #1 tried to grab hold of him from over the retaining wall but was unable to reach. He and the SO tracked the Complainant from their side of the retaining wall, and watched as he sat down on the diving board and then slid into the water and over the falls.

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 was carried over the Horseshoe Falls on April 15, 2025, and is presumed deceased. His body has not been recovered and his identity yet to be established. As he had engaged in a brief interaction with a NPPS officer moments before his fall, 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 presumed 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.

I am satisfied that the SO was engaged in the exercise of her lawful duties through her brief engagement with the Complainant. An officer’s foremost responsibility is the preservation of life, and the SO was within her rights in attending at the scene to do what she reasonably could to prevent harm coming to the Complainant.

I am further satisfied that the SO comported herself with due regard for the Complainant’s health and safety. In the minute or so that the officer interacted with the Complainant, she did what one would expect– attempt to talk the Complainant back to safety. A physical engagement with the Complainant was not realistic given their respective positions on either side of the retaining wall, nor would it have been advisable in light of the Complainant’s proximity to the falls. That would have risked both of their lives. A CEW was an option but not a good one. The fact that the Complainant was wearing a coat made it less likely that the weapon would have its intended effects. Moreover, the officer would have been concerned that a loss of mobility by the Complainant would do more to endanger his life than protect it.

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

Date: August 8, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit