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

Notification of the SIU[1]

On April 24, 2026, at 12:14 a.m., the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On April 23, 2026, the Complainant, who resided at a group home in Pickering, started having suicidal ideation. Staff at the home took the Complainant to Lakeridge Health Oshawa Hospital (LHOH) to be assessed. The Complainant was assessed by the doctor in the Emergency Department (ED) and was not admitted under the Mental Health Act (MHA). She was released back into the care of the group home staff, who drove back to Pickering. Shortly after leaving the hospital, the Complainant told the staff members that she was still going to kill herself. They stopped their vehicle in the area of 2605 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, and called DRPS for assistance. At 9:34 p.m., officers were dispatched to assist with the Complainant. At 9:50 p.m., the officers arrived at the vehicle on Simcoe Street North and apprehended the Complainant under the provisions of the MHA. They took the Complainant back to LHOH for an MHA assessment. The Complainant was triaged at 10:11 p.m. and waited until 10:51 p.m., when the doctor saw her and told the officers that he had just seen the Complainant. The doctor indicated that the Complainant was not going to be admitted and said she was free to leave. One of the officers continued to speak with the doctor about the Complainant and the other officer contacted the group home staff to arrange to have the Complainant transported back to Pickering. At 10:57 p.m., LHOH Security attended the ED and advised that the Complainant had been seen in the parking garage. One of the officers ran with the security officers to the parking garage while the other officer got the cruiser and drove up the parking garage. They arrived at the top level [7th level] at 10:59 p.m. and did not see the Complainant. They looked over the edge and saw the Complainant on the ground below. The Complainant was taken to the ED where she was pronounced deceased.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/04/24 at 1:00 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/04/24 at 3:37 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

23-year-old female; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed; next of kin

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Not interviewed; declined

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between April 24, 2026, and May 1, 2026.

Subject Official (SO)

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on July 17, 2026.

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 unnecessary

WO #8 Not interviewed; notes reviewed, and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness officials were interviewed between May 12 and 15, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the ED of Lakeridge Health, Oshawa, 45 Hospital Court, Oshawa, and the northern parking garage at the same address.

Physical Evidence

On April 24, 2026, at 2:23 a.m., SIU forensic services attended the parking garage at LHOH, 45 Hospital Court in Oshawa. It consisted of seven levels. The Complainant had reportedly jumped from the east side of the north end of Level 7 of the parking garage. The parking area was enclosed by a 1.128 metre-high wall, and the distance from the top of the wall to the ground below was measured at 17.875 metres.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

DRPS Communications Recordings

On April 23, 2026, at 9:33 p.m., CW #2 called 911 from a retail plaza, reporting that the Complainant [recently discharged from LHOH] was again threatening suicide. She had a plan to harm herself and refused to return to the group home, insisting on returning to LHOH. The SO and WO #1 responded, apprehended the Complainant under the MHA, and transported her back to the hospital.

At 10:56 p.m., LHOH Security called 911 and reported that the Complainant was threatening to jump from the parking garage. The SO proceeded to the seventh floor.

At 10:58 p.m., WO #1 broadcast that the Complainant had jumped. She had sustained catastrophic head injuries and was vital signs absent. CPR was initiated. The scene was secured, and the Complainant was being transported inside the hospital.

Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage – The SO, WO #1 and WO #6

On April 23, 2026, at 9:50 p.m., the SO and WO #1 spoke with the Complainant outside a retail store. The Complainant explained that she had just been at LHOH and that they had not kept her. She said that she remained very suicidal and stated that, if she was taken home, she planned to die by strangulation. WO #1 apprehended the Complainant at 9:56 p.m. and transported her to LHOH, arriving at 10:11 p.m. The footage concluded at that point.

At 10:59 p.m., the BWC footage recommenced. WO #1 was in a parking garage; the Complainant had already jumped.

At 11:09 p.m., the SO spoke with WO #6 and explained that he and WO #1 had earlier advocated that the Complainant be placed on a Form 1,[3] but hospital staff declined, stating that she had already been there that day. After her release, security officers alerted him that she was walking towards the garage. He ran upstairs with them but arrived after she had already jumped. He showed WO #6 the discharge paperwork signed by CW #6.

Video Footage – LHOH

DRPS provided the SIU with footage from three different cameras within the hospital: the ED Triage Hall, the north ED/Parking Garage Entrance, and the Parking Pay Station Lobby.

The Complainant was observed walking along a hallway in the ED, followed by the SO. The SO stopped and watched as the Complainant walked towards a set of doors. The Complainant exited the ED and entered the Parking Pay Station Lobby and elevator area. She entered the vestibule and walked towards an elevator. The Complainant then proceeded through the doors to the Pay Station Lobby and entered an elevator.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the DRPS between May 1, 2026, and May 15, 2026:

• Computer-aided Dispatch Report
• Police communications recordings
• Occurrence Report
• Form DRP220 – “Police Releasing Custody to Schedule 1 Facility”
• BWC footage - the SO, WO #1 and WO #6
• Notes – WO #7, WO #8, WO #5, WO #1, WO #4, WO #2, WO #3 and WO #6
• Video footage - LHOH
• DRPS policy - Persons in Crisis

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between May 1, 2026, and May 15, 2026:

• The Complainant’s medical records from LHOH
• LHOH security guard notes – CW #3, CW #4 and CW #5
• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from Ontario Forensic Pathology Service

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the SO and additional police and non-police eyewitnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario.

In the evening of April 23, 2026, the SO and his partner, WO #1, made their way to 2605 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa. Staff members of a group home in Pickering had pulled over to a retail store at the address and called police to express concern about the wellbeing of a group home resident in their care – the Complainant. The Complainant had just been discharged from Lakeridge Health Oshawa, having threatened to harm herself earlier that day, and was being escorted home when she again expressed suicidal ideation. The officers apprehended the Complainant under the MHA and transported her to Lakeridge Health Oshawa.

The staff at the hospital were reluctant to deal with the Complainant again. She had just been discharged and it was felt there was nothing more that could be done. When the SO insisted that the Complainant be assessed, CW #6, who had earlier discharged the Complainant, attended at the waiting area to speak to the officer and the Complainant. The SO explained that the Complainant remained depressed and suicidal, and believed that the Complainant should be admitted to hospital. CW #6 noted that the Complainant had just been discharged and there was nothing further that could be done. Asked by the doctor what she would do if she was released, the Complainant replied she would kill herself. CW #6 proceeded to sign a release form, effectively ending the Complainant’s apprehension under the MHA, and left the waiting area.

The SO uncuffed the Complainant and led her back to another area to await the arrival of group home staff. The officer then went outside to explain what had happened to WO #1, who had earlier gone to their cruiser to contact the group home anticipating the need for their attendance. Within moments, hospital security alerted the SO that the Complainant had been seen on security camera entering the parking garage elevator.

Security staff had followed the Complainant to the seventh level of the garage - the rooftop of the building - and watched as she maneuvered over the perimeter wall at the northeast corner and fell down the other side. The SO arrived after she had jumped.

The officers made their way to the Complainant. WO #1 administered CPR. Paramedics attended and transported her to the adjacent hospital where she was subsequently pronounced deceased.

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 - 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 April 23, 2026, the result of a fall from height. As she had just been released from the custody of DRPS officers, 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, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.

The SO and WO #1 were engaged in the lawful exercise of their duties through the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s death. With reason to believe that the Complainant was of unsound kind and suicidal, they rightly took her into custody under section 17 of the MHA. That provision confers authority on police officers to take persons at risk of harming themselves because of mental disorder to a hospital to be assessed by a physician.

It is also apparent that the SO and WO #1 comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s wellbeing through the course of their engagement. The SO went to bat for the Complainant and did what he could at the hospital to have her admitted, notwithstanding the hesitancy expressed by some nurses and the doctor who believed there was nothing more they could do for her at that time. I am also unable to fault the SO for removing the Complainant’s handcuffs and ending her period in custody. CW #6 had been down to speak to the Complainant and the officer, and explained her position. Whatever the SO’s misgivings might have been about the doctor’s decision, the fact is he had effectively discharged his duty of taking the Complainant to a hospital to be assessed and, having done so, no longer had grounds justifying her continued detention. Thereafter, the evidence indicates that the SO did what he could to comfort the Complainant by assuring her that she or the group home could always contact police again if she felt unsafe. At the same time, WO #1 was busy trying to make travel arrangements with the group home for the Complainant’s return.[4]

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

Date: August 19, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit