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 42-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On June 4, 2025, at 9:18 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) reported that the Complainant had suffered an injury while in police custody.

According to the TPS, on June 3, 2025, at 9:57 p.m., police were called to a domestic dispute at a residence in the area of Birchmount Road and Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto. A man had been screaming for two hours. When a neighbour went to see what was happening, a scared Civilian Witness (CW)answered the door. At 10:15 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) and the Witness Official (WO) attended to find the Complainant, his wife [the CW] and their 4-year-old child in the apartment. On June 4, 2025, at 12:31 a.m., as the police officers conducted their investigation, the Complainant attempted to flee. He accessed his [third-floor] balcony, jumped to a second-floor balcony, and eventually to the ground. The police searched for the Complainant. Following a brief foot pursuit, he was arrested and complained of a sore ankle and back. The Complainant was taken to Scarborough Grace Hospital (SGH) where, at 7:15 a.m., he was diagnosed with a fractured L1 vertebra.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/06/04 at 10:05 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/06/04 at 11:20 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 3

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on June 24, 2025.

Civilian Witness

CW Not interviewed (declined)

Subject Official

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on August 22, 2025.

Witness Official

WO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness official was interviewed on August 5, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in an apartment in the area of Birchmount Road and Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto.

The scene was held by police until examined by SIU forensic services at 11:20 a.m., June 4, 2025.

SIU forensic services examined and photographed the interior of the apartment.

The balcony was enclosed by a railing that measured 1.07 metres high. Its surface was rusted and unsuitable for the development of latent fingerprints. The distance from the top of the railing to the ground level was 6.8 metres. The distance from the top of the railing to the second-floor balcony was 4.1 metres.

Two outdoor scenes were examined. First, the asphalt paved parking at the side of the building beneath the apartment balcony. It held nothing of evidentiary value.

The second outdoor scene examined was a grassed area at the side of the building. That was the area the Complainant was found and arrested. It held nothing of evidentiary value.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

The video began on June 3, 2025, at 11:27:13 p.m., without audio, and captured a view of the hallway outside the apartment. The door to the apartment was not securely closed. At 11:27:42 p.m., the WO pushed the door open as the audio component of the BWC activated. A police officer [now known to be the SO] stood just inside the apartment with two females [the CW, and her mother]. The WO handed the SO a cellular telephone.

The SO explained to the CW that both she and the Complainant could be arrested as they both had conditions not to be around each other. She replied, “Again?” The SO confirmed, and explained this was a serious situation, but he had to speak with detectives to confirm the conditions. The WO told the SO the detectives were not available to take the notification; they had to wait until they were free. The CW was told to tell her husband he might have to tell his employer he would be late. A toddler ran around the apartment. The maternal grandmother attended to him. The CW handed the WO her cellular telephone. The screen displayed a document he identified as a peace bond. The CW suggested it might be proof the conditions prohibiting her and her husband from contact had been lifted. A male voice spoke loudly in the background off camera.[3] Referencing the peace bond, the WO asked the CW who the third party was they used to schedule child visitation. She said her mother was there and that was why she allowed her husband to visit. The WO asked if she understood the bond stipulated the Complainant was not to contact her, be near her, or attend the apartment. She appeared confused and asked, “It’s not finished?” He handed her back the telephone and she continued to look through it. He explained a judge or detective had the authority to allow them to contact one another and that information was not on file. He explained he and the SO were waiting for detectives to verify whether the conditions were still in place. She explained the paperwork was old. The WO explained other couples who had fought were given permission to have contact through a detective who generated paperwork to allow that contact. He did not see that in this case, and he wanted time to verify the information before arresting them. Both officers remained at the door of the apartment.

At 11:37:53 p.m., the SO asked the CW if her lawyer had answered her call. He asked her to call him again to verify the paperwork. She placed a call on speaker phone and got voice mail. The SO asked if the Complainant was still on the balcony.[4]

At 11:38:48 p.m., the SO walked to the balcony, poked his head outside, walked back to the front door, and asked the CW if the Complainant had a car. She said he did but he told her he was not going to drive.

At 11:45:54 p.m., the SO exited the apartment as he took a telephone call leaving the WO inside. The CW asked the WO whether they would be arrested if the police officers could not find the paperwork. The WO said they were trying to confirm the paperwork so they would not be arrested. The Complainant could be heard talking in the background. The WO remained at the door as the CW and her mother attended to the child.

On June 4, 2025, starting at about 12:03:25 a.m., the SO re-entered the unit, apologized it was taking time to verify the information, and asked the CW if she spoke to a detective about a change in their conditions. She said she was told the Complainant could see the child if a third party was present and today told him he could visit because her mother was there. She then admitted she understood that was wrong. She mentioned a neighbour knocking and asking them to keep the noise down. She believed that neighbour called police. The SO told her his supervisor was working on confirming the release conditions too. The police officers remained at the door. The Complainant’s voice could be heard in the background.

At 12:07:30 a.m., the CW asked if she could put the baby to bed. The police officers told her that was okay. They continued to try to verify the conditions, and discovered they were to expire in 2026 and appeared to still be in place. The CW’s mother went to the balcony door and spoke with the Complainant.

At 12:20:49 a.m., the SO went to the balcony and spoke with the Complainant. He apologized for the time it was taking.

At 12:22:39 a.m., the SO returned to the front door and stood with the WO.

At 12:23:01 a.m., the Complainant came in from the balcony, approached the police officers, and asked if he could leave for work. The SO explained he could not leave until they figured things out. As it stood, he was in breach of his conditions and could

be arrested. The Complainant said he spoke to his lawyer but, when he tried again, he

could not get an answer.

At 12:24:35 a.m., the Complainant returned to the balcony.

At 12:25:33 a.m., the SO said he was going to call the sergeant and exited the apartment for the hallway.

At 12:26:30 a.m., the WO walked to the balcony to check on the Complainant. He then walked back to the front door.

At 12:30:08 a.m., a bang came from outside. The WO crossed the living room and went out to the balcony. The Complainant was not there. He looked down from the balcony, ran back inside, exited through the front door, and told the SO, who was in the hallway, that the Complainant had jumped off the balcony. They waited a few seconds for the elevator before they decided to take the stairs and, at that moment, the elevator arrived. The WO got in the elevator; the SO continued to the stairs.

At 12:31:52 a.m., the WO exited the building through the main entrance and met the SO in the parking lot. He told the SO he had seen the Complainant on the ground. They canvassed the parking lot as the WO made a radio broadcast to update the communications centre. They ran to the end of the parking lot and located the Complainant.

At 12:33:13 a.m., the SO took him into custody for failing to comply with conditions. His hands were handcuffed behind his back by both police officers in a compliant arrest. As they escorted him back to the parking lot, the WO asked if he was hurt, and he said he was good. Additional police officers arrived. The SO again asked the Complainant if he needed an ambulance. He first replied no, then said yes. When asked what was wrong, he said he needed to go to the hospital. They continued to escort him through the parking lot. He did not have trouble walking and did not appear to be injured. The SO asked him if he was hurt. He said no but insisted on going to the hospital. The SO asked if he was in pain. He said no. The Complainant asked that the handcuffs be removed so he could go to work and was told he would be going to 41 Division. He was escorted to and stood in front of a police vehicle. The SO again asked if he was injured. He replied he was good and admitted to jumping from the third-floor balcony to the second-floor balcony, then to the ground.

TPS Communications Recordings

On June 3, 2025, at 9:49:16 p.m., a woman called 911 to report a domestic incident at a residence in the area of Birchmount Road and Eglinton Avenue East. She told the 911 operator she had been hearing screams, shouts and bangs for four hours from an apartment several floors below her own. She heard a female shout for help. When she went to the unit to de-escalate the matter, it made things worse. A couple [the Complainant and the CW] were in that apartment with an elderly woman and a child.

At 9:51:23 p.m., the dispatcher broadcast the call details and requested a “hot shot” to the apartment for unknown trouble.

At 9:52:07 p.m., another woman called 911 and requested police respond to a fight at a residence in the area of Birchmount Road and Eglinton Avenue East. She reported shouts and bangs.

At 9:57:36 p.m., the SO and the WO asked to be added to the call.

At 10:15:20 p.m., the officers advised they had spoken to the Complainant and the CW, and all was in order. They asked to be connected to a sergeant for a telephone call.

On June 4, 2025, at 12:31:06 a.m., the SO and the WO asked for additional police officers to attend.

At 12:31:33 a.m., police officers in a TPS vehicle replied they would attend.

At 12:31:50 a.m., the SO and the WO informed the dispatcher that the Complainant had “ran from the premises” and was on conditions not to be around the CW.

At 12:32:22 a.m., the SO and the WO informed the dispatcher the Complainant had jumped from a second-floor balcony and fled. They did not know which direction he had fled.

At 12:32:56 a.m., the dispatcher asked if an ambulance was required. A police officer responded to get one on the way; he was not sure if the Complainant was injured.

At 12:33:39 a.m., the SO and the WO broadcast they had found the Complainant, and all was in order.

At 12:34:15 a.m., the police officers in the TPS vehicle arrived and, at 12:36:49 a.m., informed the dispatcher that the Complainant was able to walk but complained of pain.

At 12:37:20 a.m., the dispatcher called the paramedic service and updated them regarding the Complainant’s injuries. Paramedics and firefighters arrived at 12:45:28 a.m.

At 12:53:44 a.m., the SO and the WO returned to 41 Division after police officers in another TPS vehicle took custody of the Complainant.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from TPS between June 23, 2025, and August 18, 2025:

• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Communications recordings
• General and Supplementary Reports
• Prosecution Summary
• BWC footage
• List of involved officers
• Notes – the SO and the WO
• TPS arrest policy

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from SGH on July 16, 2025.

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

In the evening of June 3, 2025, TPS officers were dispatched to a residence in the area of Birchmount Road and Eglinton Avenue East following calls to police from residents of the apartment complex of a domestic disturbance in the unit. There had been shouting and banging coming from the apartment for hours. The SO and the WO arrived on scene at about 10:00 p.m.

The officers were invited into the apartment and spoke with the Complainant and his wife, the CW, to understand what was happening. Though the situation appeared calm on their arrival, the couple admitted that they had been arguing earlier. The officers came to learn that the couple was prohibited by court order from being around one another, and the Complainant was not permitted at the address. The pair told the officers that their legal situation had changed, and that the Complainant was, in fact, allowed to visit. Neither the Complainant nor the CW could produce any paperwork to persuade the officers the release conditions had changed. The officers tried unsuccessfully to reach someone at the police service who could inquire into the matter. As time wore on, the Complainant asked if he could leave for work and was refused by the officers. They explained that he had to remain on scene pending the conclusion of their investigation.

At about 12:30 a.m., June 4, 2025, the officers were by the apartment’s doorway when the WO suddenly exited, informing the SO that the Complainant had just jumped from the balcony. Both officers made their way to the ground floor, exited the building and, after a brief search, located and arrested the Complainant.

An ambulance was called to the scene and transported the Complainant to hospital. He had fractured a vertebra in the fall.

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 the course of his detention by TPS officers on June 4, 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 injury.

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 injury. In my view, there was not.

The officers were lawfully placed and engaged in the execution of their duties through the events that culminated in the Complainant’s jump from the balcony. They had been invited into the apartment by the CW to investigate a domestic disturbance reported by two other residents of the building. It is apparent that the Complainant was being detained for purposes of investigation. Investigative detentions conducted by police are only lawful where police have reasonable grounds to suspect that the detainee is implicated in criminal conduct: R v Mann, [2004] 3 SCR 59. Those grounds were present with the discovery by the SO and the WO that the Complainant was apparently in breach of a court-ordered condition that he not be at the address.

I am also satisfied that the SO and the WO comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s wellbeing. They explained what they were doing and took the time to make reasonable checks of the Complainant’s conditions before proceeding with what could have been an illegitimate arrest. The officers were conscious of the fact that the Complainant was on the apartment’s third-floor balcony at points during their interaction and checked on him on several occasions. He gave no indication of wanting to harm himself and appeared to be out there using his phone. When they heard a sound coming from the balcony and realized the Complainant had jumped, they were quick to locate him and arrange for medical attention.

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

Date: September 24, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit