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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 21, 2025, at 2:24 p.m. the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 1:36 p.m., officers responded to a call about a person in crisis at a hotel in the area of Colborne Street and Yonge Street in Toronto. A female [subsequently identified as the Complainant] had reportedly been in the lobby creating a disturbance. When the officers arrived, they were told that the female had returned to her room on the 18^th floor. Officers attended the door of the room and had a brief conversation with a female inside. They were then advised that the female had jumped from the room’s balcony. The female was located on the top of the parking level and pronounced deceased by Emergency Medical Services (EMS).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/12/21 at 2:48 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/12/21 at 3:52 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

58-year-old female; deceased

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between December 21, 2025, and December 28, 2025

Subject Official

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

Witness Officials

WO #1 Not interviewed; notes and body-worn camera (BWC) footage reviewed, and interview deemed not necessary

WO #2 Not interviewed; notes and body-worn camera (BWC) footage reviewed, and interview deemed not necessary

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes and body-worn camera (BWC) footage reviewed, and interview deemed not necessary

WO #4 Not interviewed; notes and body-worn camera (BWC) footage reviewed, and interview deemed not necessary

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a room in a hotel located in the area of Colborne Street and Yonge Street, Toronto.

The hotel in question was a multi-level hotel complex containing one-bedroom suites, some with full balconies and some with Juliet-style balconies.

Physical Evidence

The Complainant’s room was located on the 18^th floor and contained a Juliet-style balcony that opened to the north side of the hotel. The balcony did not have a standing platform and consisted of a metal handrail that measured 117 cm from the ground and a glass panel under the handrail. It was accessible by a sliding glass door off the living room area.

SIU Forensic Services attended the scene and took photographs and measurements. The height from the balcony railing to the third-floor maintenance rooftop below was 44.4 metres.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS BWC Footage – The SO, WO #3, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #4

On December 21, 2025, starting at about 1:36 p.m. the SO, WO #3, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #4 arrived at the hotel and took the elevator to the 18^th floor with CW #2. The SO knocked on the door to the Complainant’s room and the Complainant asked who was there. The SO told her it was the police and that they just wanted to talk. The Complainant told him she did not call police. The SO asked the Complainant to open the door, and she told him no. The Complainant did not respond to any further questions. The SO used a master key to unsuccessfully attempt to open the door, as it had been double-locked from inside. WO #3 heard a noise and asked other officers what it was. CW #2 confirmed to WO #1 there were no balconies or windows that the Complainant could access. WO #3 asked if anyone had heard the bang. CW #2 again confirmed that the Complainant’s room did not have a balcony, and she could not jump out. The SO and WO #2 continued to attempt to speak to the Complainant but there was no response. After five minutes, another staff member arrived and said that the Complainant’s room had a Juliet balcony from which someone could jump.

WO #1 entered a room on the same floor as the Complainant’s room with the other staff member at 1:43 p.m. This room had a walk-out balcony that provided a view of the Complainant’s room. WO #1 walked out onto the balcony and saw the Complainant’s Juliet balcony door wide open. WO #1 looked down and requested EMS over the radio. He informed dispatch that the Complainant had exited over a balcony and was on the ground below.

A maintenance worker arrived at 1:46 p.m. and unlocked the Complainant’s door. The SO entered and walked to the open balcony door. He looked down and confirmed over the radio that the Complainant had jumped and was on the maintenance roof below.

The remainder of the footage was of the officers attempting to access the rooftop where the Complainant had landed. Toronto Fire Service were able to access the rooftop via a ladder.

Communications Recordings

On December 21, at 12:49 p.m., CW #2 phoned 911 to report that the Complainant had complained that someone tried to kill her. She had made a scene in the lobby, screamed, and accused hotel staff of being associated with those who had tried to kill her. The Complainant had returned to her room. CW #2 requested that the Complainant be removed from the hotel.

The SO, WO #3, WO #1, WO and WO #2 responded and requested the Mobile Crisis Intervention Team (MCIT) at 1:26 p.m.

Thirteen minutes later, WO #1 advised that officers were attempting to gain entry to the room.

WO #1 requested EMS at 1:44 p.m., as the Complainant had fallen from the balcony and was on the ground below.

EMS arrived on scene at 1:57 p.m.

The Complainant was pronounced deceased at 2:11 p.m.

Video Footage – The Hotel

The Complainant approached the front desk staff and made a request for a room change. She sat in the reception area and waited for about 13 minutes before approaching CW #2 and asking about the progress of her room change. She was asked to be patient while her room was prepared. The Complainant appeared anxious and frustrated. She told a staff member that someone wanted to kill her and had searched her room. The Complainant moved out of camera range and continued to argue loudly with CW #2. CW #2 told staff members that she was going to call the police.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between December 22, 2025, and January 12, 2026.

• Communications recordings
• Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report
• Notes – WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4
• BWC footage – the SO, WO #1, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4
• General Occurrence Reports
• TPS policy – Persons in Crisis

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between December 23, 2025, and December 24, 2025.

• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• Video footage from the hotel

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, 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 early afternoon of December 21, 2025, TPS officers were called to a hotel located in the area of Colborne Street and Yonge Street, Toronto. Hotel staff had contacted police to seek the removal of a guest – the Complainant. The Complainant had caused a commotion in the lobby and accused hotel employees of being associated with persons seeking her death.

The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time of her interaction with the officers. Since checking into the hotel a few days earlier, the Complainant had frequently attended the front desk to complain about persons wanting her dead. She had returned to her room by the time of the officers’ arrival.

A group of TPS officers arrived on scene and, accompanied by the hotel manager, took the elevator to the 18^th floor and attended at the Complainant’s room. Among them was the SO. At about 1:37 p.m. the SO knocked on the door and asked for the Complainant. The Complainant indicated she had not called police and refused to open the door. The SO indicated that the officers would open the door if she did not let them in. the Complainant did not respond. A female officer interjected and attempted to speak with the Complainant. The officer assured her she was not in trouble and that they simply wanted to talk. Still, there was no response from the Complainant. Officers attempted to open the door, including with a master card key, but were unsuccessful as it had been double-locked from the inside. A TPS MCIT arrived on scene and also tried to have the Complainant open the door.

At about 1:44 p.m. on learning from hotel staff that the Complainant’s room had a Juliet balcony from which the Complainant could jump, WO #1 entered an adjacent room and entered onto its balcony. From that vantage point, he observed that the door to the Juliet balcony was open. Looking down, he observed the Complainant laying on the roof of the third-floor. The officer immediately radioed for paramedics.

The roof was accessed by the Toronto Fire Service. The Complainant was pronounced deceased at 2:11 p.m.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to multiple blunt force trauma.

Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code of Canada - 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 21, 2025, the result of injuries sustained in a fall from height. As TPS officers were attempting to speak with her at the time, 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 and the responding officers, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.

The SO and his fellow officers were lawfully placed and engaged in the exercise of their duties through the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s death. The officers were at the hotel to deal with a disturbance but seemed aware of the fact that the call had to do with the Complainant’s mental health. Their manner at the front door of the Complainant’s room was reasonable. The SO asked to have the door opened and explained that they would have to enter against the Complainant’s wishes if she did not open the door. Another officer tried a softer approach, also to no avail, of assuring the Complainant that she was not in trouble and that the police just wanted to talk. TPS MCIT were dispatched to assist, and also attempted to cajole the Complainant to open the door. As these efforts were underway, the officers were of the understanding that there was no way the Complainant could exit the room, whether via a window or balcony. They had been advised as much by a hotel staff member. When another employee attended on the 18^th floor and explained that, in fact, the Complainant’s room had a Juliet balcony, WO #1 promptly entered an adjacent room from which he could see the balcony. Doing so, the officer observed that the Complainant had fallen from the Juliet balcony and quickly asked that paramedics be dispatched. On this record, it is apparent that in the very brief period that officers dealt with the Complainant through a closed door before she fell from the balcony, they did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

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

Date: April 20, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit