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 52-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 1, 2026, at 12:32 p.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

TPS received a 911 call reporting a stabbing at a housing complex in the area of Bleeker Street and St. James Avenue, Toronto. The victim had reportedly sustained a stab wound to the neck and was located in an upper level hallway, while the suspect was believed to be in an apartment on that floor – Apartment #1. Police officers knocked on the door of Apartment #1 and spoke with a man. After a brief conversation, the man stopped communicating. TPS then received a 911 call from a resident of Apartment #2, located two floors below Apartment #1, advising that a man was on his balcony attempting to climb down the building. The police received further information indicating that the man had fallen and landed on the ground. Police officers responded with paramedics to where the man had fallen, and he was pronounced deceased.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/05/01 at 2:09 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/05/01 at 4:25 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

52-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Not interviewed (unable to locate)

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between May 1, 2026, and June 4, 2026.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #3 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #1 was interviewed on June 25, 2026.

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on May 20, 2026.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around Apartment #1 located on an upper floor of a building in the area of Bleeker Street and St. James Avenue, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

Apartment #1 contained passive blood staining inside the unit and on the balcony. The balcony had a railing approximately one metre high and the exterior was covered with a nylon mesh bird netting. The netting was cut or torn on one side, next to the wall that separated the balconies of Apartment #1 and Apartment #3, as well as being torn under the base of the railing and balcony floor. Apartment #2 was two floors directly below and had a balcony with a railing approximately one metre high with bird netting affixed to the exterior. The netting was torn and pushed inwards on the same side as the netting was on the balcony of Apartment #1 leaving an opening above the railing.

The deceased was located on the concrete sidewalk below the balcony railing of Apartment #2.

SIU forensic services attended and processed the scene.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

TPS Body-worn Camera (BWC) Footage - SO #1, SO #2, SO #3 and WO #2

On May 1, 2026, starting at 11:05 a.m., SO #1, SO #2, SO #3 and WO #1 were in the hallway outside Apartment #1 and Apartment #3. SO #1 entered Apartment #3 where CW #1 was standing clenching his neck and claiming a man [the Complainant] had stabbed him in the neck. SO #3 forcefully knocked on the door of Apartment #1, identified himself as a police officer and asked the occupant to open the door. SO #2 turned the door handle and discovered the door locked. SO #3 looked through the door viewer and said he could see a man [CW #5] inside. SO #1 asked CW #5 [whom the officers mistakenly believed to be the Complainant] to come to the door.

Starting at 11:10 a.m., police officers repeatedly asked CW #5 to open the door. SO #1 placed his BWC against the door viewer and indicated he could see CW #5 sitting on a couch.

Starting at 11:12 a.m., SO #3 told SO #1 that CW #1 had indicated that it had only been he and the Complainant in the apartment.

Starting at 11:17 a.m., the TPS Communications Centre advised by radio that a man [now known to be the Complainant] had jumped off the balcony of Apartment #2. SO #3 and SO #2 attended Apartment #2 and were told by CW #2 that the Complainant had fallen from his balcony. SO #3 returned to the floor containing Apartment #1 and learned from SO #1 that CW #5 [whom they still believed was the Complainant] was still inside.

Starting at 11:24 a.m., SO #1 asked CW #5 why he did not want to talk to him. CW #5 responded because he was not the Complainant and that is who they were asking to speak with.

Starting at 11:30 a.m., building security personnel unlocked the door to Apartment #1. CW #5 was seated on a couch and was arrested by SO #1 for assault. CW #5 said the Complainant had followed CW #1 onto the balcony when he fled to the neighbouring apartment.

Video Footage from Building

The camera captured the ground level of the apartment building and the Complainant impacting the concrete walkway.

TPS Communication Recordings – Telephone

On May 1, 2026, starting at 10:58 a.m., CW #3 reported that her neighbour [now known to be CW #1] had broken into her apartment. He had been stabbed and was covered in blood. CW #1 indicated that the Complainant was responsible and believed to be in Apartment #1.

Starting at 11:16 a.m., CW #2 from Apartment #2 reported that a man [now known to be the Complainant] had climbed down from above onto his balcony.

Starting at 11:17 a.m., the Complainant was said to have fallen from the balcony and was on the ground.

TPS Communication Recordings – Radio

Starting at 11:01 a.m., May 1, 2026, TPS officers were on scene.

Starting at 11:17 a.m., the Complainant had fallen from the balcony of Apartment #2.

Starting at 11:25 a.m., police officers remained in the hallway outside the door of Apartment #1 negotiating with CW #5

Starting at 11:31 a.m., police officers made entry to Apartment #1.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the TPS between May 1, 2026, and June 3, 2026:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• Civilian Witness List
• General Occurrence Report
• Event Details Report
• Police communications recordings
• Video footage from building
• BWC footage
• Notes - SO #1, WO #1 and WO #2
• TPS Arrest Policy

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between May 2, 2026, and May 3, 2026:

• Cellular telephone video from CW #2
• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with SO #1 and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, SO #2 and SO #3 did not agree interviews with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the morning of May 1, 2026, the subject officials were among a group of officers responding to a 911 call about a stabbing in Apartment #1 at a building in the area of Bleeker Street and St. James Avenue. The resident of the adjacent unit – Apartment #3 – had called police to report that her neighbour – CW #1 – was in her apartment covered in blood. He had fled to her unit after being stabbed by the Complainant.

The officers arrived outside the locked door of Apartment #1. They could see through the door viewer into the apartment. A male – whom they mistakenly believed was the Complainant – was sitting on the living room couch. He refused to allow them into the unit. As the officers attempted to gain entry over the next several minutes, they were alerted by radio that a male had fallen from a floor two stories below.

That male was the Complainant. With the officers at the door, the Complainant had exited onto the balcony and scaled down two stories to the balcony of Apartment #2 directly underneath. The resident of Apartment #2 – CW #2 – refused him entry into the apartment. The Complainant attempted to open the balcony door. Unable to do so, he climbed over the balcony railing, presumably in an effort to continue his flight. The Complainant lost his grip and/or his footing, and fell to the ground below.

Officers and other first responders made their way to the Complainant. He was pronounced deceased.

Cause of Death

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

The Complainant passed away on May 1, 2026, the result of a fall from height. He was apparently attempting to evade arrest at the hands of TPS officers at the time and, accordingly, the police service notified the SIU of the incident. The SIU initiated an investigation, naming SO #1, SO #2 and SO #3 subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any of the subject officials 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 subject officials, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.

The officers who attended at Apartment #1 were lawfully placed and engaged in the exercise of their duty. With reason to believe that the Complainant had committed a serious assault on CW #1 and was presently in the apartment, they had cause to want to negotiate their way into the premises as soon as possible to arrest him.

I am also satisfied that the subject officials comported themselves with due care and regard for public safety throughout their efforts while in the apartment building. They finally entered Apartment #1 with the help of building security, only to learn that the person they had been attempting to communicate with was CW #5, not the Complainant. However, by that time, the evidence indicates that the Complainant had already fallen from a balcony two stories below. As the officers had been led to believe that the Complainant and CW #1 were the only persons in the apartment, they reasonably believed that they were speaking to the Complainant. They had no reason to believe that the Complainant had, in fact, scaled the balcony railing and was descending, an effort that ultimately would result in his fall. On this record, there is no evidence that the subject officials transgressed the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law in relation to the Complainant’s death.

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

Date: August 27, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit