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 is a corrigendum in relation to the SIU Director’s Report, dated July 14, 2025, relating to the SIU’s investigation into the death of a 21-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

The SIU’s Director’s Report, dated July 14, 2025, indicated that the last known cell phone activity by the Complainant was at 0242 hours, December 30, 2023. That information was based on forensic examinations of the Complainant’s phone conducted by the Thunder Bay Police Service (TBPS) and subsequently confirmed by the Forensic Data Recovery Unit (FDRU), Compliance Branch, Ministry of Finance.

Following a meeting with the family of the Complainant and their representatives on August 14, 2025, the SIU agreed to re-examine the time of the Complainant’s last known cell phone activity. The FDRU conducted the re-examination and concluded on this occasion that the last known cell phone activity occurred at 0517 hours, December 30, 2023.

This change in evidence resulted in a re-evaluation of the potential criminal liability of the Subject Official (SO) with respect to the Complainant’s death. That re-evaluation is now concluded. The SIU remains of the view that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s death.

In the course of the investigation into the death of the Complainant, the TBPS collected her cell phone and sought to analyze its contents using forensic computer programs that are commercially available. The programs, in effect, take an image of the phone’s contents and organize the contents into reports that can be reviewed and used for a number of investigative purposes. In this instance, the pertinent features of these forensic programs are that they can allow for the review of time-stamps related to user activity and, therefore, establish when a phone was last used.

The timing of the Complainant’s last cell phone activity was important because it started the window of time in which the Complainant’s life ended. This window necessarily closed at approximately 1034 hours, December 30, 2023, when Civilian Witness #2 called 911 to report that he had found the Complainant hanging in his closet.

The TBPS examined the Complainant’s phone and determined that the last user activity was at 0242 hours, December 30, 2023.

The SIU subsequently obtained the cell phone and submitted it for a further and independent examination by the FDRU. That examination came to the same conclusion, namely, that the last user activity was at 0242 hours.

Most recently, following a re-examination of the cell phone by the FDRU, the FDRU arrived at a different conclusion, namely, that the last user activity on the Complainant’s phone took place at 0517 hours, December 30, 2023. This finding was provided to the SIU in a memorandum dated November 21, 2025.

Notwithstanding what is now evidence that the Complainant was alive at least as late as 0517 hours, December 30, 2023, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with her death. Though it can no longer be said that any criminal negligence on the part of the SO that may have arisen in connection with his confirmation of the cancellation at 0308 hours did not cause or contribute to the Complainant’s death because of the distinct possibility that she was already deceased, I am satisfied there remains an insufficient legal nexus between the death and the officer’s conduct.

Whether the Complainant would have been removed from the home and, presumably, not died in the manner she did had the SO not cancelled the call and police officers responded to the scene is arguable. Assuming for purposes of these reasons that she would not have died, that is not in itself sufficient to establish that the SO’s conduct was a legal cause of the Complainant’s death. Legal causation is premised on more than a factual tie between the impugned conduct and a consequence. It has to do with notions of morality and blameworthiness and is directed at questions about whether or not a person should be held criminally responsible for the consequences of their conduct. These questions include consideration of whether there was an objectively unforeseeable intervening act following the impugned conduct and, if so, was the intervening act an independent factor that severs the impact of the impugned conduct.

Foreseeability requires examination of the larger contextual picture including the facts existing at the time of the impugned conduct in light of the individual’s perception of those facts. At the time the SO confirmed the cancellation, he would have known:

• A 911 call had been made complaining that an intoxicated female – the Complainant – had attended a residence, and seeking police attendance to remove her.
• The Complainant was there to see Civilian Witness (CW) #2.
• There were conditions in place restricting CW #2’s ability to communicate with the Complainant at the house, which were apparently related to assault charges.
• There was some information that the Complainant might have been making a mess or causing damage to a room in the residence.
• A second call had been made indicating that the Complainant had left the residence and that all was quiet, and requesting that police attendance be cancelled.

On this record, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the Complainant’s death by suicide at the residence that evening was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the cancellation of the call. There was nothing in this information to suggest that the Complainant was a threat to herself. In my view, the Complainant’s volitional act of self-harm broke whatever chain of factual causation might have existed between the SO’s confirmation of the cancelled call and her tragic death.

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

Date: April 29, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit