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 October 6, 2025, at 9:43 a.m., the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On October 6, 2025, at 4:59 a.m., a person called police to report a man in mental health crisis. At 5:07 a.m., two officers – the Subject Official (SO) and Witness Official (WO) #1 - arrived at an address in the area of Haig Street and Carlton Street, St. Catharines, entered the residence and spoke to the Complainant through the bathroom door. The Complainant jumped from a second-floor window to the ground below. He was transported to Niagara Health – St. Catharines site – and subsequently to Hamilton General Hospital (HGH). He was diagnosed with a broken pelvis.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/10/06 at 10:37 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/10/06 at 12:11 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on October 9, 2025.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on October 8, 2025.

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

The witness officials were interviewed on October 16, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a residence located in the area of Haig Street and Carlton Street, St. Catharines.

Physical Evidence

On October 6, 2025, at 11:38 a.m., SIU forensic services attended the residence in the area of Haig Street and Carlton Street, St. Catharines, to photograph the scene. The residence was secured at the time SIU forensic services attended. The window the Complainant reportedly jumped from was 3.98 metres above a patio. A screen from the Complainant’s window was located on the concrete patio where he reportedly landed.

Forensic Evidence

NRPS Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) Deployment Data

On October 6, 2025, at 5:27 a.m., the CEW assigned to WO #1 was switched to the safety “off” position.

At 5:33 a.m., the CEW was switched to the safety “on” position.

The CEW was not deployed during the time of the events in question.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

NRPS Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Reports

On October 6, 2025, at 2:35 a.m., the Complainant contacted 911 to report people were in his backyard claiming to be police.

At 2:44 a.m., WO #3 and WO #2 notified the dispatcher that they had attended the backyard of the Complainant’s address in the area of Haig Street and Carlton Street and that it was unoccupied.

At 3:00 a.m., WO #3 and WO #2 reported the residence was secure and the complaint was unfounded.

At 5:00 a.m., the SO and WO #1 were dispatched to the same address – the Complainant’s residence – in St. Catharines.

At 5:12 a.m., WO #1 spoke with the Complainant through his bedroom door.

At 5:19 a.m., WO #1 requested an ambulance as the Complainant had ingested methamphetamine and anti-depressants and was paranoid.

At 5:25 a.m., the SO reported the Complainant “may have jumped out his window”.

At 5:28 a.m., the SO confirmed the Complainant had jumped out a window. He was covered in blood and entangled in a barbeque.

At 5:44 a.m., the Complainant was transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to the hospital as the SO and WO #1 followed.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the NRPS between October 9, 2025, and October 17, 2025:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• General Occurrence Report
• CEW deployment data
• CAD Reports
• Communications recordings
• Notes – WO #3, WO #1 and WO #2
• NRPS policies – Arrest and Detention; Use of Force

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between October 8, 2025, and October 15, 2025:

• Ambulance Call Report from Niagara EMS
• The Complainant’s medical records from HGH

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

Shortly after 5:00 a.m., October 6, 2025, the SO and WO #1 arrived at a residence in the area of Haig Street and Carlton Street, St. Catharines. This was WO #1’s second visit to the property. She had been there earlier that morning with two other officers following a call to police from a resident – the Complainant – reporting unwanted persons in the backyard. The officers had taken their leave after confirming there were no persons in the backyard and speaking to the Complainant to ensure he was mentally fit. On the present occasion, the Complainant had made another 911 call but was unable to articulate what was wrong.

The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time. He had consumed a quantity of methamphetamine and prescription medication, and was paranoid and behaving strangely.

The Complainant’s roommate allowed the officers in the house. The Complainant was in his second-floor bedroom, the door locked. Through the closed door, the SO took the lead in communicating with the Complainant. She asked the Complainant about the nature of his problem and what it was he needed help with. The Complainant asked for her name and badge number, and she provided it. Asked by the Complainant to meet him in the backyard, the officers left and waited for him there. When no one arrived after a few seconds, they returned to the bedroom door. Moments later, a commotion was heard coming from the bedroom. The Complainant had jumped from a window onto a patio at the rear of the home.

Paramedics attended the residence and transported the Complainant to hospital. He had sustained a pelvic fracture.

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 height on October 6, 2025. As NRPS officers were on scene at the time of the fall, the SIU was notified 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 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 SO and WO #1 were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties through their dealings with the Complainant. Dispatched to an unknown trouble call, the officers were duty bound to attend at the scene to investigate the matter and do what they could to prevent harm coming to the Complainant.

In the discharge of that duty, there is no evidence that either officer failed to comport herself with due care and attention for the Complainant’s wellbeing. Over the course of about 20 minutes, the officers did what might be expected. From behind the locked bedroom door, they attempted to ascertain from the Complainant what was wrong. The Complainant was not helpful but did not give any indication that he might jump from a bedroom window. In the meantime, aware that the Complainant had consumed methamphetamine, the officers contacted paramedics. They also tried to cajole his exit from the bedroom by agreeing to meet him in the back yard.

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

Date: January 26, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit