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 32-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On September 15, 2025, at 3:14 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On September 14, 2025, at 9:35 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) and Witness Official (WO) #1 from 51 Division responded to a call for service from the Civilian Witness (CW). The CW reported that the Complainant was on a curfew condition and had not returned home. The SO and WO #1 contacted Recovery Science, a monitoring device tracking company, in an attempt to locate the Complainant. The SO and WO #1 subsequently located the Complainant at 9:49 p.m. sitting in front of a residence. Advised that he was under arrest, the Complainant rose and went into the residence, closing the front door behind him. The SO and WO #1 called-out to the Complainant by name. The Complainant opened the door and asked the police officers why they were chasing him, and if he was arrestable. The parties argued before the Complainant closed and locked the front door. Through a window in the door, he was seen to argue with the CW. The police officers cleared the area around the front door and prepared to enter the residence. The CW came to the front door and said the Complainant was up on a balcony. The SO and WO #1 entered the residence and went upstairs. The SO went onto the balcony and attempted to dissuade the Complainant from jumping. The Complainant jumped from the balcony. The Complainant was found unconscious, but he awoke and told the police officers he was fine. He was transported to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) by Toronto Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and diagnosed with serious injuries, including broken bones.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/09/15 at 4:04 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/09/15 at 5:52 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on September 15, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Not interviewed (declined)

Subject Official (SO)

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

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #5 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between September 16 and 29, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the rear balcony of a residence in the area of Dundas Street East and Parliament Street, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

On September 15, 2025, at 8:08 a.m., SIU forensic services arrived on scene at a residence in the area of Dundas Street East and Parliament Street, Toronto. The rear of the residence was one level above ground-grade, west side of the building. The residence’s balcony railing was 1.165 metres high. The surface of the railing top itself was examined and found not to be suitable for latent development. The distance from the top of the railing to an area of impact below was 4.5 metres. Photography was conducted of the balcony and of the ground below. The area of impact was examined and nothing of evidentiary value was found. The ground surface consisted of hard grass turf and patio stones.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On September 14, 2025, at 10:38:38 p.m., the video started with a view of the interior of a police vehicle from the SO’s BWC. The SO exited the police vehicle and was approached by the Complainant. The Complainant told the SO that the CW [now known to be his surety] had attended the residence earlier and became paranoid. WO #1 told the Complainant that he was being investigated for possible breach of his curfew. The Complainant informed the police officers he had been under the stairs at the front of the residence and that the CW, who did not know he was home, had called the police. WO #1 told the Complainant that they wanted to confirm the information in relation to the ankle GPS monitor the Complainant was wearing.

Starting at about 10:42 p.m., WO #1 performed a pat-down search of the Complainant. The Complainant informed the officers that he would go with them willingly if information came back that he had breached his curfew.

Starting at about 10:45 p.m., the Complainant walked back to the residence.

Starting at about 10:53 p.m., the SO joined three uniformed police officers [now known to be WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3] and approached the stairs at the front of the residence. The Complainant emerged from the underside of the stairs and ran up the staircase to the front door. Voices shouted, “[Complainant’s first name], [Complainant’s first name], come back.” The SO climbed the staircase behind the Complainant, who entered the front door and closed it behind him.

Starting at about 10:54 p.m., the Complainant opened the door and said, “Why are you chasing me?” A voice said, “[Complainant’s first name], come back, you’re going to be arrestable, it’s as simple as that. [Complainant’s first name], come back.” The SO descended the staircase to join the other police officers. The Complainant asked why he was arrestable, and he was informed that he had breached his curfew. The Complainant said he did not breach his curfew, and that he had been at the residence the whole time. WO #1 climbed the stairs followed by the SO. A woman sat on the porch of the residence as WO #1 tried to open the door. Shouts were heard from inside the residence.

Starting at about 10:55 p.m., the front door opened and a man - the CW - said, “He’s trying to go out the balcony.” The SO passed WO #1 and ran up the interior stairs of the residence. He then ran through a living room where a woman pointed to an open balcony door. The SO said, “Hey! Stop!” The SO entered the balcony and said, “Stop!” The SO’s left hand contacted the Complainant, and the camera view blurred. The Complainant’s leg was captured going over the balcony as the SO moved to the north of the balcony. The officer announced, “He’s over the balcony.”

Starting at about 10:56 p.m., WO #1 was captured entering the balcony and looking over. WO #1 requested an ambulance. The SO said, “He jumped.” WO #1 informed the dispatcher the Complainant was moving but unresponsive.

Starting at about 10:58 p.m., WO #1 left the balcony, exited the residence, and entered the neighbouring residence to get to the backyard of the Complainant’s residence. The Complainant rested on his right side with his right arm extended over his head and his knees bent in a recovery position. WO #1 bent down in front of the Complainant and said, “Hey.” WO #1 took the Complainant’s left arm and told him to put his hands behind his back as he gently rolled the Complainant towards him. Another police officer - WO #4 - assisted WO #1 in handcuffing the Complainant’s hands behind the back. The Complainant appeared unconscious.

Starting at about 11:01 p.m., the Complainant raised his head and WO #1 told him he was under arrest for failure to comply.

Communications Recordings and Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

On September 14, 2025, at 9:35 p.m., the CW telephoned the TPS and explained that he was the surety for the Complainant. The Complainant had not returned home to a residence in the area of Dundas Street East and Parliament Street for his 9:00 p.m. curfew.

At 9:46 p.m., the SO and WO #1 were dispatched to the residence.

At 10:56 p.m., the SO advised that the Complainant had jumped from the second-floor balcony at the rear of the residence.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between September 15, 2025, and October 1, 2025:

• BWC footage
• Police communications recordings
• Probation Order - the Complainant
• Release Order - the Complainant
• General Occurrence Report
• CAD Reports
• Notes – WO #3, WO #1, WO #4, WO #5 and WO #2
• History Report – the Complainant
• TPS policies - Incident Response (Use of Force / De-escalation); Persons in Crisis and Designated Psychiatric Facilities; Arrest

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the Complainant’s medical records from SMH on September 26, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, 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 evening of September 14, 2025, the SO and his partner, WO #1, attended at a residence in the area of Dundas Street East and Parliament Street. A resident of the address – the CW – had contacted police to report that the Complainant, for whom he was a surety, had breached the terms of a release order by violating a curfew.

Arriving on scene at about 10:40 p.m., the officers were greeted by the Complainant outside the residence. Told why they were there, the Complainant argued that it was all a misunderstanding. He said that he had been at the residence in time for his 9:00 p.m. curfew. The Complainant was wearing an ankle monitor, a term of his release. The officers explained they would check with the ankle monitoring company to confirm his location at 9:00 p.m. before deciding whether to arrest him for breach of a release order. The parties separated awaiting word from the monitoring company.

After a few minutes elapsed and it was confirmed via the monitoring company that the Complainant was not at the address in time for his curfew, the officers moved towards the residence to effect an arrest. The Complainant, who had been waiting in a storage space underneath the front staircase to the residence, climbed the stairs and entered the home as the officers approached. He again stated that he had not breached his curfew before he closed and locked the front door behind him. Shortly after, the CW opened the door for the officers and noted that the Complainant was heading for the balcony.

The SO rushed into the home, climbed a flight of stairs and made his way through a living room to the balcony at the rear of the residence. The officer said “stop” a couple of times, entered onto the balcony and physically engaged the Complainant. The Complainant broke free of the officer and jumped from the balcony to the ground below – a distance of about five metres.

The Complainant was momentarily knocked unconscious by the fall. He regained consciousness and was transported to hospital. He had sustained multiple rib fractures and a collapsed lung.

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.

Section 145(5)(a), Criminal Code – Failure to Comply with Release Order

145(5) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction, who

(a) is at large on a release order and who fails, without lawful excuse, to comply with a condition of that release order other than the condition to attend court; or

The Complainant was seriously injured in the course of his arrest by TPS officers on September 14, 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 injuries.

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.

I am satisfied that there were lawful grounds to arrest the Complainant for breach of a release order under section 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code. Having heard back from the ankle monitoring company, the SO was possessed of reliable information that the Complainant had breached a term of his release, namely, a curfew.

As far as can be discerned from the BWC footage, it appears that there was some sort of a physical engagement between the SO and the Complainant just before the latter fell. The interaction was very brief and there is no suggestion in the evidence that the nature and extent of that contact was responsible for the Complainant’s fall from the balcony. Given the Complainant’s flight from police, I accept that some force would have been necessary to take him into custody. There is no evidence to indicate that that force involved strikes of any kind or was otherwise excessive. On this record, whether the SO was principally moving to arrest the Complainant when he fell from the balcony, or whether he was attempting to prevent him hurting himself by jumping, I am satisfied that the officer used only reasonable force in pursuit of his aims.

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

Date: January 9, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit