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 serious injury of a 75-year-old woman (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU0F

[1]

On May 30, 2026, at 5:31 p.m., the Niagara Regional Police Service (NRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 30, 2026, at 3:16 p.m., Civilian Witness (CW) #1 called the NRPS to report that the Complainant had made utterances suggesting she was in mental health crisis and a danger to herself and others. At 3:51 p.m., an ambulance arrived at an apartment located in the area of Dorchester Road and Thorold Stone Road, Niagara Falls. Paramedics reported that the Complainant was locked inside the apartment. At 3:57 p.m., the Subject Official (SO) and Witness Official (WO) #1 arrived on the scene and were allowed into the apartment by an as yet unidentified occupant. As the officers entered, the SO observed the Complainant fall from the balcony and land on a patch of grass below. The paramedics also witnessed the fall. The Complainant was transported by ambulance to Niagara Health – Niagara Falls Hospital, where she was diagnosed with a femoral fracture.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/05/30 at 5:49 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/05/30 at 7:32 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

Interviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on June 3, 2026.

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between May 30, 2026, and May 31, 2026.

Subject Official

SO Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The subject official was interviewed on August 4, 2026.

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on June 29, 2026

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around the balcony of an apartment located in the area of Dorchester Road and Thorold Stone Road, Niagara Falls.

On May 30, 2026, at 7:49 p.m., SIU forensic services attended and processed the scene.

The balcony contained several chairs, plants in pots and a footstool. The balcony railing was 1.069 metres in height from the balcony floor. The distance from the top of the railing to the ground below was 3.924 metres.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence1F

[2]

NRPS Communications Recordings

On May 30, 2026, at 3:15 p.m., CW #1 called 911 and requested police and ambulance attendance at an apartment located in the area of Dorchester Road and Thorold Stone Road, Niagara Falls.

CW #1 advised she had spoken to the Complainant by phone, and the Complainant had said that the devil was in her and that she was told by the devil to set her quilt on fire inside her apartment and walk down the hallway with it. The Complainant said she needed an ambulance. The Complainant was not known to be violent and had no history of violence. No weapons were involved. The Complainant was about 75 years of age. CW #1 also outlined prior medical incidents involving the Complainant. CW #1 said she would drive to the Complainant’s residence.

At 3:20 p.m., a police communicator spoke with ambulance and asked them to attend the apartment located in the area of Dorchester Road and Thorold Stone Road, Niagara Falls.

At 3:50 p.m., ambulance called police communications asking for the arrival of police officers. The paramedics were on scene, and the Complainant had locked the door to her apartment and was yelling obscenities at them. The police communicator said she would increase the priority level and dispatch police officers.

At 4:07 p.m., ambulance called police communications and said the Complainant had jumped off the balcony.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the NRPS between June 1, 2026, and August 4, 2026:

• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• General Occurrence Report
• NRPS History – the Complainant
• Police communications recordings
• Notes – the SO, WO #1 and WO #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained an Ambulance Call Report from Niagara Emergency Medical Services.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the SO and other witnesses (police and non-police), gives rise to the following scenario.

In the afternoon of May 30, 2026, paramedics and police officers were dispatched to an apartment located in the area of Dorchester Road and Thorold Stone Road, Niagara Falls. CW #1 had called police to request a wellbeing check on the Complainant In a phone conversation with the Complainant moments before, she had made utterances to the effect that the devil was in her and telling her to set a quilt on fire and walk with it down the hallway.

Paramedics were the first to the scene, followed by WO #1 and the SO, the officers arriving at about 1600 hours. The first responders knocked on the apartment door and sought access. The Complainant was told they were there to help. Her replies indicated she was having a mental health crisis. She swore at the paramedics and officers, accused them of being the devil, and refused to open the locked door.

Inside the apartment at the time was CW #2, a friend of the Complainant. She had arrived at the address following a call with the Complainant in which she sought CW #2’s help. It became clear to CW #2 shortly after her arrival that the Complainant was of unsound mind. The Complainant would not allow CW #2 to open the door to the first responders. Several minutes after the arrival of the officers at the door, the Complainant brought CW #2 onto the apartment balcony and said that they would jump together. CW #2 begged the Complainant not to jump and ran back inside the apartment. She opened the door and told the SO that the Complainant was going to jump.

From the open door, the SO observed the Complainant through the living room on the balcony. He ran towards her and watched as the Complainant tipped herself over the balcony railing. He reached for her feet but was too late. The Complainant landed on the ground below, a distance of about four metres, and broke her right femur. The time was about 4:06 p.m.

The officers and paramedics rushed to the Complainant and rendered care. She was taken to hospital, treated for her injuries and admitted under the Mental Health Act.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code of Canada - Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm

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.

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or

b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a fall from height on May 30, 2026. As NRPS officers had attempted to engage with her in the minutes before the fall, 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 fall.

The offence that arises for consideration is criminal negligence causing bodily harm contrary to section 221 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 fall. The evidence establishes there was not.

The SO was lawfully placed and in the exercise of his duty to protect and preserve life throughout his engagement with the Complainant. Arriving at the scene and finding the door locked, the SO and his colleagues made reasonable efforts to persuade the Complainant and her friend to let them in. When it appeared after a couple of minutes that the door would not be opened, the SO instructed WO #1 to retrieve a key from building management and directed another officer on scene – WO #2 – to make his way to the rear of the unit in the event the Complainant attempted to exit via the balcony. WO #2 was just about in position when he saw the Complainant fall from the balcony. The SO was just through the door rushing to the balcony at the same time. Neither officer had a chance to intervene physically to prevent the Complainant’s fall. Thereafter, the officers and the paramedics acted promptly to care for the Complainant. On this record, it is apparent that the SO comported himself at all times with due care and regard for the Complainant’s health and wellbeing.

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

Date: September 10, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit