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 27-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On January 1, 2026, at 1:59 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On December 31, 2025, at 11:33 p.m., the TPS received a call regarding an incident of intimate partner violence at a residence in the area of Jane Street and Wilson Avenue. A woman, the Civilian Witness (CW), having reportedly been assaulted by the Complainant, had called police from a neighbour’s apartment. At 11:40 p.m., TPS officers arrived and observed the CW with a black eye, choke marks on her neck, and cuts to the palms of her hands. She told the officers that the Complainant was still in the apartment. Three TPS officers knocked on the door of the apartment but there was no response. On January 1, 2026, at 12:02 a.m., Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) officers provided a key and TPS officers made entry into the apartment. There was blood around the door and throughout the apartment. The TPS officers went to the balcony, looked over and observed the Complainant on the ground below.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/01/01 at 2:19 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/01/01 at 4:20 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

27-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witness

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on January 1, 2026.

Witness Officials

WO #1 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #2 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

WO #3 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a high-rise apartment in the area of Jane Street and Wilson Avenue, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

The apartments of the building had balconies on the east and west sides of the building.

There was a fresh layer of snow on the ground on the east side of the building.

The main entrance of the apartment building was on the west side of the building and there was a rear exit which was located on the east side of the building. There was a sidewalk that extended from the rear exit to a parking roundabout. Where the sidewalk met the roundabout were blood stains in the snow surrounded by an orange paramedic blanket. The blood stains were located 5.4 metres east of the building balconies and 7.6 metres from the east wall of the building. There were numerous cameras on the exterior and interior of the building.

There were passive blood stains in the hallway leading to the door of the CW’s apartment. The door to the CW’s apartment had no visible damage. There were cameras mounted at the ends of the hallway.

There were passive blood stains on the floors of the hallway and living room. There was a large butcher knife on a couch in the living room.

There was a balcony accessible from a door in the living room. The balcony railing was comprised of a metal panel with a top handrail. The height of the railing measured 1.07 metres. There was a string of Christmas lights around the top of the railing. The distance from the top of the railing to the ground level below measured 43.43 metres.

There was a trail of passive blood stains leading from the CW’s apartment to a stairwell. The blood stains were on the hallway floor and on the door handle of the stairwell door. The blood trail led down to the floor below. There were more blood stains on the doorway from the stairwell to the hallway and drops which led to an apartment with blood on the door to the apartment. The blood drop trail continued to another apartment, where there was blood on the door.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On December 31, 2025, starting at about 11:40:36 p.m., WO #1 was outside an apartment door [the CW’s apartment] with WO #2 and WO #3. They knocked on the door and held their ears to the door to listen inside.

Starting at about 11:41:06 p.m., WO #1 said, “He may have left,” as he queried the Complainant on his phone. The TPS officers continued to knock on the door and called out for “[Complainant’s first name]”. There was no response. The whine of a dog was heard from within the apartment.

Starting at about 11:43:58 p.m., WO #3 tried to use the door handle to open the door but found it locked.

Starting at about 11:46:16 p.m., WO #1 called a sergeant and advised he was at a domestic assault call in which a woman [the CW] had fled the apartment. He reported that it was unknown whether the man [the Complainant] who had assaulted her was still inside. The CW reportedly had a black eye and marks on her neck, and had cut herself with a knife attempting to defend herself. WO #1 discussed entry authorities to the apartment and a need to ascertain whether the Complainant was on the lease prior to entry.

Starting at about 11:48:45 p.m., WO #3 knocked on the apartment door again and said, “[Complainant’s first name], I know you’re in here.” There was no response.

Starting at about 11:49:38 p.m., WO #1 attended the floor below and spoke with the CW while WO #2 and WO #3 remained outside of the CW’s apartment. The CW had a significant contusion around her right eye with black discolouration to the skin. She had marks on her neck and a wrist. The CW confirmed that the Complainant was not on the lease to the apartment and that he had been at her apartment for one week. WO #1 asked questions about the dog in the apartment. The CW said the dog would bark if someone knocked on the door. WO #1 said the dog did not bark upon each door knock, so he believed someone was in the apartment to calm the dog. The CW said alcohol had been a factor in the incident with the Complainant. She said she left the apartment unlocked when she fled.

Starting at about 11:52:48 p.m., WO #1 called a sergeant and provided an update about the information he had obtained from the CW and his observations at the scene. WO #1 said, “We don’t have a guarantee that he [the Complainant] is in there.”

Starting at about 11:55:00 p.m., WO #1 had a conversation with WO #2 and WO #3, and two newly arrived TPS officers. He said they needed to enter the apartment to ensure the Complainant’s safety due to the involvement of a knife in the incident.

Starting at about 11:58:26 p.m., WO #3 knocked on the door again and WO #2 said, “We want to make sure you’re okay man, just open the door, we just want to make sure you’re okay.” WO #3 then said, “I can hear you through the other side, [Complainant’s first name].” There was no response.

Starting at about 11:58:38 p.m., WO #1 took the elevator down to the lobby to meet two TCHC special constables. The TCHC special constables confirmed the CW was the only person listed on the lease. WO #1 and the TCHC special constables returned to the upper floor.

On January 1, 2026, starting at about 12:01:10 a.m., a TCHC special constable handed a set of keys to WO #3. WO #3 unlocked the door to the apartment. WO #2 entered the apartment first, followed by WO #3 and WO #1. They called out for the Complainant but there was no response. The door to the balcony was closed. The TPS officers searched each room of the apartment, looking underneath the bed and in a closet. A dog was loose and free to roam within the apartment.

Starting at about 12:02:39 a.m., WO #2 went onto the balcony. He looked over the balcony and said, “Oh, we got a jumper”. The TPS officers exited the apartment, went to the elevator, and rode it to the ground floor.

Starting at about 12:04:42 a.m., WO #1 exited the rear door of the apartment building. The Complainant was in a prone position on the ground in a small layer of freshly fallen snow. There were no footprints in the snow around the body to indicate anyone had approached it prior to police arrival. There was a large puddle of blood absorbed by the snow around his head. He was motionless. WO #3 approached the body and asked if the TPS officers could pronounce a time of death. WO #1 said they could not pronounce death.

Starting at about 12:08:42 a.m., WO #1 had a phone conversation with a sergeant and said, “We’re waiting for ambulance, I don’t know where they are, they’re still not here, believe it or not. Yeah, there’s no way, there’s no breathing, there’s no movement, since we’ve been here.” WO #1 said, “No, no, we didn’t hear a thing.”

Starting at about 12:16:10 a.m., paramedic services arrived. No resuscitative measures were undertaken by paramedic services, fire services, or police officers at any time.

Starting at about 1:09:54 a.m., Officer #1 activated his BWC at Humber River Hospital as he spoke with the CW. The CW advised she had invited the Complainant to her apartment. She said the Complainant had purchased a 40-ounce bottle of alcohol and consumed crack cocaine. She recounted how she had been on the ground when the Complainant placed his hands around her throat. She said she grabbed the knife after the third time he strangled her. She feared for her life. Officer #1 asked the CW if the Complainant had ever expressed homicidal ideation and she said no before indicating that the Complainant had suicidal ideation. The Complainant had never been specific about a plan for suicide. The CW expressed concern the Complainant would kill himself if it “came down to a standoff” between the Complainant and TPS.

Video Footage from Apartment Building

On December 31, 2025, at 11:41:53 p.m., a person [the Complainant] impacted the pavement in a lateral position. The Complainant did not move for the remainder of the video. There was no one outside at the time of the incident and no one approached the body for the duration of the video.

Communications Recordings

On December 31, 2025, starting at about 11:30:50 p.m., a woman called 911. She reported that her neighbour (the CW) had been cut with a knife and bled from her hand and face. The CW came onto the phone and spoke with the dispatcher. She advised she had been assaulted by the Complainant in her apartment. She said he did not live in the apartment, he had consumed alcohol, and he had unspecified mental health issues. She advised she had defended herself with a knife.

Starting at about 11:35:26 p.m., a dispatcher advised that the Complainant might still be in the CW’s apartment.

Starting at about 11:35:55 p.m., a dispatcher advised paramedic services would also attend.

Starting at about 11:40:29 p.m., a TPS officer advised that they had conducted a door knock on the CW’s apartment.

Starting at about 11:44:45 p.m., a TPS officer advised the door to the apartment was locked. TCHC were requested to attend.

On January 1, 2026, at 12:00:54 a.m., WO #1 advised that TCHC had arrived with keys to the CW’s apartment and they would enter shortly.

Starting at about 12:02:21 a.m., a TPS officer advised the apartment was clear and there was no one inside.

Starting at about 12:02:56 a.m., a TPS officer advised someone [the Complainant] had jumped off the balcony.

Starting at about 12:04:55 a.m., a TPS officer confirmed the Complainant was not breathing.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from TPS between January 2, 2026, and March 18, 2026:

• General Occurrence Report
• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Notes – WO #2, WO #1 and WO #3
• BWC footage
• Communications recordings
• Video footage from apartment building
• Judicial Release Order

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between January 2, 2026, and April 10, 2026:

• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• Report of Postmortem Examination from the Coroner’s Office
• Toxicology Report from the Centre of Forensic Sciences

The evidence collected by the SIU, including an interview with a civilian witness and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario.

TPS officers attended at an address in the area of Jane Street and Wilson Avenue in the evening of December 31, 2025. A female – the CW – had called police to report being assaulted by the Complainant. She had fled the apartment and was calling from a friend’s residence.

WO #1, WO #2 and WO #3 arrived at the door of the CW’s apartment at about 11:40 p.m. Knocks and call-outs to the Complainant went unanswered. Officers remained in front of the door as arrangements were made to retrieve a master key from the landlord. At about 12:01 a.m., January 1, 2026, the key arrived and the officers entered the apartment. The Complainant was not inside. At about 12:02 a.m., WO #2 went onto the apartment balcony, looked over and saw the Complainant on the ground below.

The Complainant was intoxicated by drugs and alcohol in the time leading to his death. Video footage from a camera of an adjacent building captured the Complainant falling and impacting the ground at about 11:42 p.m.

Officers and other first responders examined the Complainant outside. He was clearly deceased.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy attributed the Complainant’s death to blunt impact injuries from a descent from height.

Sections 219 and 220, Criminal Code - 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 from injuries suffered in a fall from an apartment balcony on December 31, 2025. As TPS officers were outside the apartment door at the time, attempting to communicate with him, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any TPS officer 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 any of the attending officers, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. There clearly was not.

The officers who attended at the apartment were engaged in the exercise of their lawful duties. With information at their disposal that the Complainant had physically attacked the CW and was in the apartment, the officers were within their rights in seeking to enter the apartment to investigate the matter. They had just arrived at the door and were there for perhaps a minute or two when it appears that the Complainant fell from the apartment balcony. On this record, aside from perhaps being the catalyst for the Complainant’s final acts, there is no evidence that any of the officers transgressed 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.

Before closing the file, I note for the record what appears to have been conduct on the part of a TPS sergeant in possible contravention of section 20 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, and section 3 of the Police Code of Conduct. Specifically, there is evidence that the TPS sergeant ordered an officer to take down police caution tape and clear the scene before SIU investigators had taken charge of the scene. I will be bringing this matter to the attention of the TPS Chief of Police. Further to section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, I will also be referring the matter to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

Date: May 1, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit