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 51-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On March 31, 2026, at 9:21 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On March 31, 2026, at approximately 6:58 p.m., Peel Regional Police (PRP) contacted the TPS regarding concerns for the safety of a person in crisis, who resided within the jurisdiction of the TPS. Reportedly, a PRP police officer had been in telephone communication with the person, the Complainant, who was wanted for numerous offences, including breach of a release order, uttering threats, assault with a weapon, and mischief. At approximately 6:55 p.m., during the telephone conversation, the PRP officer became concerned for the Complainant’s wellbeing after the Complainant made threats to kill himself. When the PRP subsequently conducted a “ping” on the Complainant’s cellular telephone, revealing a location in Toronto, they immediately notified the TPS. At 6:58 p.m., TPS officers responded to the area within the radius of the ping. At 7:30 p.m., additional pings were requested for the Complainant, and further investigation revealed his whereabouts to be at an apartment unit in the area of The Queensway and Windermere Avenue,[2] Toronto. At 7:36 p.m., TPS officers arrived at the condominium complex and, with the assistance of the condo management, were successful in obtaining key access to the apartment unit. Upon gaining entry at 7:56 p.m., police officers began to talk to the Complainant, who had moved to the balcony and was reported to be hanging onto the exterior rail. At 7:58 p.m., police officers reported that the Complainant had fallen from the balcony to the ground below. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responded to the location at 8:11 p.m. The Complainant was pronounced deceased at 8:18 p.m.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/03/31 at 9:41 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/03/31 at 11:29 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

51-year-old male; deceased

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 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #7 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed not necessary

WO #8 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed not necessary

The witness officials were interviewed between April 9 and 27, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the balcony of an apartment unit in the area of The Queensway and Windermere Avenue, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

On March 31, 2026, at 11:29 p.m., SIU forensic services arrived on scene. The scene was secured and protected by TPS uniformed officers. A sergeant on scene advised that the deceased, the Complainant, was located on the roof of the first floor, and the only access was by ladder.

SIU investigators attended the apartment unit, which was also secured and protected by TPS police officers. There were sliding patio doors leading from a small room onto the balcony. The patio door was in the open position.

The balcony was empty and had a single sandal on the south side floor. There was a scarf tied to the railing on the side of the balcony and hanging straight down. There were no knots tied in the scarf other that where it was tied to the railing. The Complainant was visible on a rooftop directly below the balcony. Toronto Fire Service (TFS) was utilized to gain access to the first-floor rooftop. The Complainant lay in a supine position, and he was covered with a blanket. TFS recovered the deceased and brought him to the ground where he was later removed by body removal services.

The scene, including the apartment unit and the deceased on the rooftop, were both photographed by SIU forensic services.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[3]

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage

On March 31, 2026, at 7:44 p.m., the SO, WO #6, and WO #2, arrived at the door of the apartment unit. The SO knocked, identified themselves as TPS police officers, and asked the Complainant to come out so they could confirm his wellbeing.

At 7:45 p.m., WO #2 directed WO #6 to obtain a key to the unit and, as WO #6 left, WO #4 joined the group at the door. Officers continued to knock and call-out, but there was no response from within.

At 7:54 p.m., WO #6 returned with WO #3, who provided the unit key to the SO. The SO had blue latex gloves on. He unlocked the door and entered the unit, while he announced that it was the police and called-out to the Complainant. The front door opened directly into a kitchen area, with an island in the middle of the room, and the living area situated behind the kitchen. Items were scattered on the floor, bottles of medication were on the island, and four bottles of alcoholic beverages were near the kitchen sink, three of which were almost empty. A sliding glass door on the front right side of the living room opened into a small room, beyond which another sliding glass door opened to the balcony. Shortly after entering, the SO briefly went into the bedroom. At that moment, other police officers began urgently shouting, “No!” and, “Wait!” and stated, “We are not coming in.” WO #5 ran towards the opening near the sliding glass door and stopped at the end of the island, while WO #2 moved back towards the front left area of the unit. They addressed the Complainant, who was now known to be on the balcony but outside camera view, and reassured him that they were not coming in any further. WO #5 called-out to him, “Brother,” and pleaded with him. The SO told him he was not in trouble and moved closer to the open sliding glass door at the front of the living room. From there, the SO had a diagonal view of the balcony and could see the Complainant, who was barely visible on the recording. From the balcony, the Complainant spoke to the SO. The SO advised that they step back and not get close to him. The officers stepped back to increase the distance, and the SO continued to plead with the Complainant. He explained that the police officers were there to help and encouraged him to come talk to them. The Complainant swore at the police officers and told them to shoot him. The SO continued to ask him to come speak with them and reiterated that they wanted to help.

At 7:55 p.m., the SO confirmed that the Complainant spoke a language other than English and the SO began to communicate with the Complainant in that language. The Complainant responded in that same language, and he became more visible on camera. He was seated on top of the balcony guardrail facing towards the unit and the police officers. His legs were almost crossed at the ankles in front of him, and he held the top of the railing with both hands spread to his sides.

At 7:56 p.m., the Complainant went over the balcony and out of view of the camera. The SO exclaimed, “Oh!” and ran towards the balcony, leaned over the guardrail, and grabbed the Complainant. The camera view became obstructed, so the precise manner in which the SO held the Complainant was not visible. The SO called-out using the Complainant’s first name and urged him not to let go of his hand. The SO called to other police officers to hold onto him (the SO) to prevent him from falling over the guardrail while holding the Complainant. A police officer responded that he would grab him. While he leaned over the balcony, the SO’s breathing was deep and laboured, consistent with physical strain. He repeatedly shouted, “Brother,” and swore and pled with the Complainant not to let go of his hands. The Complainant appeared to speak, though his words were unclear on the recording. The SO asked for his gloves to be removed so he could improve his grip and continued pleading in the other language.

At 7:57 p.m., the SO again shouted, “Brother, no!” as the Complainant slipped from his grasp and fell. A red fabric flew into view, descended, and went out of the frame. The SO rested his arms on the top of the guardrail, said, “Fuck,” took a deep breath, and returned inside the unit where WO #2 and WO #4 asked if he was alright. WO #3 asked what floor they were on and then left.

At 7:58 p.m., WO #2 directed the SO and WO #4 to hold the scene in the unit and not move anything, after which he left. The SO told WO #4 not to discuss the incident and to focus on the facts as there would be a SIU investigation and reminded him that everything was captured on video.

At 8:01 p.m., the SO returned to the balcony and called down to WO #5, who replied from below that they were trying to get a ladder.

At 8:29 p.m., WO #4 commented on the Complainant’s charges and questioned why he had acted as he did. The SO suggested that alcohol intoxication could have impaired his reasoning.

At 8:30 p.m., WO #2 returned and told the SO and WO #4 that the SIU would invoke its mandate and instructed them to continue holding the scene. He asked whether the Complainant had a rope tied there [in reference to the red fabric on the guardrail] and the SO replied in the affirmative. The SO informed WO #2 that while checking for a suicide note they found opium and “block” [which is understood to be a piece of crack cocaine or a mixture of crack cocaine and fentanyl]. He showed the opium on the island and indicated that the “block” was on a kitchen counter. WO #2 looked at the opium, acknowledged it, and left the unit.

At 9:40 p.m., Officer #1 and Officer #2 arrived. The SO told them that there were several bottles of alcohol and that the call from the PRP had indicated that the Complainant had been drinking. He also showed them the opium and “block” and noted the presence of numerous prescription medications. WO #2 returned with the attending Coroner. Officer #1 informed the Coroner about the alcohol and drugs located in the unit, and they spoke about how to confirm the Complainant’s identity and whether there were any identification documents. The SO stated that they had reviewed the Complainant’s photo on the Ministry of Transportation database before attending and that the only time he saw the Complainant’s face was while he was holding him as he hung from the balcony, and the face appeared similar to the photograph.

Communications Recordings & Computer-assisted Dispatch (CAD) Report

On March 31, 2026, at approximately 6:54 p.m., PRP WO #1 called the TPS on the telephone and requested they conduct a wellbeing check on the Complainant, who had threatened to harm his wife and to commit suicide by hanging. WO #1 reported that the Complainant was currently on the telephone with a police officer, who was trying to dissuade him from harming himself. WO #1 added that the Complainant was intoxicated. The Complainant’s address was an apartment unit in the area of The Queensway and Windermere Avenue, Toronto, and WO #1 stated that the Complainant could be arrested for a number of criminal offences, which she listed. WO #1 told the TPS that the Complainant’s telephone and business vehicle were pinged, and he was traced to and address in the area of The Queensway and Windermere Avenue, which was also the address on his release order.

At 6:58 p.m., the TPS dispatcher noted that there was a TPS mobile crisis intervention team (MCIT) that covered the area, and that EMS would be dispatched to the address.

At 6:59 p.m., the dispatcher reported that the Complainant had hung-up on the police officer trying to dissuade him from harming himself.

At 7:04 p.m., the TPS announced that the matter had been reported to 11 Division police officers.

At 7:06 p.m., WO #2 announced that he would dispatch police officers.

At 7:14 p.m., the SO and WO #4 were dispatched to the address in the area of The Queensway and Windermere Avenue.

At 7:22 p.m., WO #2 was dispatched in connection with the incident.

At 7:24 p.m., WO #3 was dispatched to the incident.

At 7:29 p.m., the SO requested that the Complainant’s telephone be pinged, and TPS broadcast the new ping location, which indicated that the Complainant was in the area around his address.

At 7:36 p.m., WO #6 reported that he and WO #5 were at the scene, and that they would drive around the area to see if they could find the Complainant and return to his residence if he was not found in the area.

At 7:37 p.m., WO #2, and the SO and WO #4, arrived at the scene. WO #2 requested to know if the Complainant had any weapons. TPS announced there was no information in that regard.

At 7:48 p.m., the dispatcher announced there was an EMS crew on the way to the scene and requested an update from the police officers on the ground.

At 7:56 p.m., WO #2 announced that they had entered the Complainant’s residence and he was hanging off the balcony. WO #2 requested that the Emergency Task Force (ETF) be dispatched to assist them. He noted that there were sufficient police officers at the scene, but the MCIT might also be required.

At 7:58 p.m., WO #2 announced that the Complainant had, “Gone off the balcony.” The dispatcher announced that the ETF would no longer be attending in view of the new development, but that the EMS had been updated.

At 7:59 p.m., WO #2 reported they were trying to find the best location for the EMS to access the scene.

At 8:02 p.m., a TPS unit [either WO #5 or WO #6] requested the urgent attendance of the TFS to the southeast corner of the building, and the TPS informed the TFS.

At 8:05 p.m., WO #3 reported that the TFS were at the scene and were getting a ladder up to try and access the building overhang [where the Complainant had landed]. He was cordoning off the area for the TFS and EMS.

At 8:07 p.m., WO #2 announced that the TFS had reported that the Complainant was VSA, and they were starting cardiovascular pulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The TPS informed the PRP of the current situation.

At 8:11 p.m., WO #3 announced that the EMS had arrived, and the TFS were still providing first aid to the Complainant. WO #2 reported that there was no information regarding taking the Complainant to the hospital.

At 8:18 p.m., WO #2 broadcast that the EMS had reported the Complainant was deceased and he would not be taken to the hospital.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between March 21, 2026, and May 3, 2026:

• BWC footage
• Police communications recordings
• Incident History / Person Details Report / Fingerprints
• General Occurrence Report
• Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Occurrence Report
• CAD Report
• Involved Officers List
• TPS notes - WO #5, WO #4, WO #3, WO #6, and WO #2
• PRP notes - WO #1 and WO #7, and WO #8
• Training records - the SO
• TPS policies - Persons in Crisis; Incident Response Use of Force (De-escalation)

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between April 2, 2026, and June 16, 2026:

• Ambulance Call Report from Toronto EMS

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews withpolice eyewitness and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO chose not to interview with the SIU or release a copy of his notes.

In the evening of March 31, 2026, TPS officers were dispatched to an address in the area of The Queensway and Windermere Avenue, Toronto, after receiving a request for assistance from the PRP. The resident of the address, the Complainant, was subject to arrest in relation to IPV offences, and an alleged breach of release order. During communications with the PRP, the Complainant repeatedly threatened to hang himself before disconnecting the call. Police believed he was intoxicated. They had received information from his wife that he was an alcoholic, and she had provided officers with emails from that afternoon in which he had expressed suicidal ideation. Given the concerns for the Complainant’s safety and well-being, PRP requested TPS assistance with a wellness check.

At approximately 7:44 p.m., TPS officers arrived at the Complainant’s residence. They knocked on the door and identified themselves as police officers who were there to conduct a wellness check. The Complainant did not attend the door. WO #6 and WO #3 left to obtain a pass key from the building manager while the remaining officers continued their attempts to communicate with the Complainant. At approximately 7:54 p.m., WO #6 and WO #3 returned with the key, and officers entered the unit.

Upon entering the residence, officers observed the Complainant through the open balcony doors. He was straddling the balcony railing, which was approximately one metre in height, with his right leg positioned on the inside of the balcony and his left leg extending over the outside of the guardrail. He had a length of red fabric tied around his neck. The other end of the fabric was tied to the top of the balcony guardrail. WO #2 requested the attendance of the MCIT and EMS. While awaiting their arrival, officers attempted to de-escalate the situation by reassuring the Complainant that he was not in trouble and that they were there to help him. The Complainantswore at the officers and told them to shoot him. Officers continued to engage and negotiate with the Complainant to discourage him from harming himself. The SO and WO #4 communicated with the Complainant in another language in an effort to build rapport and encourage his cooperation.

At 7:56 p.m. the Complainant went over the balcony railing. Officers immediately rushed to the balcony. The SO leaned over the guardrail and grabbed the Complainant’s right hand, while WO #3 grabbed his left forearm and attempted to pull him back onto the balcony. It was raining heavily at the time, and the officers were wearing latex gloves. The wet conditions made it difficult for them to maintain a secure grip on the Complainant. The Complainant was facing outwards and dangling below the balcony with his arms extended above his head. The other end of the red fabric around his neck was tied to the top of the guardrail. Due to the Complainant’s position below the balcony and his movements, officers were unable to obtain a secure hold beyond his forearms. Other officers held onto the SO to prevent him from being pulled over the guardrail while he maintained his grip on the Complainant. As officers were attempting to pull the Complainant to safety, the Complainant fell, landing on the rooftop overhang above the first floor.

The overhang deck was accessed by TFS. The Complainant was found to be without vital signs. At approximately 8:18 p.m., EMS pronounced the Complainant deceased at the scene.

Cause of Death

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

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.

Section 17, Mental Health Act - Action by Police Officer

17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;

(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or

(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,

and in addition the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;

(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or

(f) serious physical impairment of the person,

and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section 16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician.

The Complainant passed away on March 31, 2026, the result of injuries sustained in a fall from an apartment balcony. As TPS officers were engaged with the Complainant at the time of his death, 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 in the execution of their duties throughout the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s death. TPS officers attended the residence at the request of the PRP. The Complainant was arrestable for an alleged breach of a release order and several intimate partner violence-related offences. Police were also aware that he had made repeated threats to hang himself during communications with the PRP. Officers were duty bound to attend the scene to do what they reasonably could to prevent harm coming to the Complainant, and police were lawfully entitled to apprehend him under s. 17 of the Mental Health Act.

I am satisfied that the SO and his colleagues comported themselves with due care and regard for the safety and wellbeing of the Complainant throughout the incident. Their manner at the front door of the unit was reasonable. Officers knocked on the door and called out to the Complainant. The SO requested that the Complainant open the door, advised that officers were there to check on his well-being, and explained that they would be required to enter the residence by other means if he did not open the door.

I am also satisfied that the officers’ conduct upon entering the unit was reasonable.

Upon observing the Complainant outside on the balconyin a precarious position, the officers ceased moving towards him, requested the attendance of the MCIT and EMS, remained a distance away from him, and engaged him in conversation in both English and another language. Officers attempted to build rapport by referring to him as "brother" and sought to de-escalate the situation, maintain communication with him, and discourage him from harming himself. The Complainant continued to engage with officers when spoken to in another language, suggesting that their efforts at communication and rapport-building met with some success. When the Complainant later came into camera view, he was no longer straddling the guardrail. Rather, he was seated on top of the balcony guardrail facing the unit and the officers. His legs were positioned in front of him with his feet nearly crossed, and he was holding the top of the guardrail with both hands extended to either side.

I am further satisfied that the officers’ response when the Complainant went over the balcony was immediate, practical, and proportionate to the circumstances. Faced with an unfolding emergency, the officers acted without hesitation. They attempted to pull the Complainant to safety using the only means available to them, namely, their physical efforts. Officers leaned over the balcony to hold onto the Complainant while other officers held onto one of the rescuing officers to prevent him from being pulled over the guardrail. The situation evolved rapidly and required immediate action. At the time, it was raining heavily, the Complainant was suspended below the balcony with his arms extended above his head, and the officers were unable to obtain a secure hold beyond his forearms. In these circumstances, the officers had limited options and were required to make split-second decisions in an effort to preserve the Complainant’s life. While the outcome was tragic, the evidence does not reasonably support the conclusion that it resulted from any criminal negligence on the part of the officers. Rather, the evidence establishes that the officers undertook significant efforts to prevent the Complainant from falling and acted reasonably throughout the incident.

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

Date: July 29, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit