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 injuries of a 32-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On May 23, 2026, at 4:52 a.m., the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On May 23, 2026, at 3:20 a.m., a male [the Complainant] broke into a bar in the area of York Street and Sussex Drive, Ottawa. Staff members were present cleaning up when he entered the premises. The manager got into a verbal argument with the Complainant. Police were called and the Complainant fled. Officers attended and a foot chase followed. The Complainant ran to an adjacent parking garage. At 3:29 a.m., he was seen by officers jumping from a second-floor landing onto the sidewalk below. The Complainant was subsequently found with agonal breathing, a broken arm, a broken ankle and a gash to the back of his head. He was transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to Civic Hospital, where he presently had an open skull fracture and was in life-threatening condition.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2026/05/23 at 11:17 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2026/05/23 at 6:00 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 0

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”)

32-year-old male; interviewed; medical records obtained and reviewed

The Complainant was interviewed on June 16, 2026.

Civilian Witness (CW)

CW Interviewed

The civilian witness was interviewed on May 27, 2026.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

SO #2 Declined interview, as is the subject official’s legal right; notes received and reviewed

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on June 5, 2026.

Investigative Delay

Delay was incurred owing to resource pressures impacting SIU video enhancement resources.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the third floor of a parking garage in the area of York Street and Sussex Drive, Ottawa.

The parking garage was a multiple-story building with commercial businesses occupying ground level. The railing from which the Complainant reportedly fell was located on the third floor of the garage. A concrete sidewalk was immediately below.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

OPS Communications Recordings & Computer-aided Dispatch (CAD) Report

On May 23, 2026, at 3:20 a.m., OPS received a 911 call reporting a break and enter at a bar. The suspect had entered through a rear door connected to a parking garage.

Starting at 3:24 a.m., SO #1 and SO #2 were dispatched. They arrived at 3:27 a.m..

Starting at 3:29 a.m., police officers [SO #1, SO #2 and WO #1] observed a male [the Complainant] fleeing from them. There a followed a radio communication that the male had jumped from the second story, landing on the sidewalk, and was unconscious.

Video Footage from Parking Garage

On May 23, 2026, starting at 3:28 a.m., the Complainant was captured walking within a parking garage when two OPS police officers [SO #1 and SO #2] approached him. He ran towards a railing, climbed over and disappeared from view.

Video Footage from Retail Establishment

The recording was from inside the store and captured the front entrance of the business. The Complainant was observed to fall from somewhere above the front window onto the sidewalk in front of the establishment.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU received the following materials from the OPS between May 25, 2026, and June 26, 2026:

• Names and roles of involved police officers
• General Occurrence Report
• Police communications recordings
• CAD Report
• Scene photographs
• In-car camera footage
• Notes & written statements – SO #1, SO #2, WO #1 and WO #2

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between May 25, 2026, and July 23, 2026:

• Video footage from parking garage
• Video footage from retail establishment
• The Complainant’s medical records from Ottawa Civic Hospital

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and a police witness, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed interviews with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes and written statements.

In the early morning of May 23, 2026, the Complainant, intoxicated and of unsound mind, forced open a fire exit door and entered a bar, situated in the area of York Street and Sussex Drive, Ottawa. Staff at the establishment, which was closed at the time, called police to report a break and enter. The manager – the CW – escorted the Complainant off the premises. They travelled through the fire exit door, which opened into a parking facility.

SO #1 and SO #2 arrived on scene and were instructed by WO #1 to search the parking garage for the Complainant. On the second floor of the garage, the officers spotted the Complainant. The Complainant ran northward from the officers towards the third floor, climbed over a perimeter railing and hung on the other side momentarily before falling to the sidewalk below. He landed on his head and sustained serious injuries, including a brain bleed and skull fracture.

SO #1 and SO #2 had run after the Complainant and made it to the railing shortly before he fell.

EMS attended and transported the Complainant to hospital.

Sections 219 and 221, Criminal Code - 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.

Section 348, Criminal Code - Breaking and Entering With Intent, Committing Offence or Breaking Out

348 (1) Every one who

(a) breaks and enters a place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein,

(b) breaks and enters a place and commits an indictable offence therein, or

(c) breaks out of a place after

(i) committing an indictable offence therein, or

(ii) entering the place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein,

is guilty

(d) if the offence is committed in relation to a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and

(e) if the offence is committed in relation to a place other than a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) For the purposes of proceedings under this section, evidence that an accused

(a) broke and entered a place or attempted to break and enter a place is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that he broke and entered the place or attempted to do so, as the case may be, with intent to commit an indictable offence therein; or

(b) broke out of a place is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that he broke out after

(i) committing an indictable offence therein, or

(ii) entering with intent to commit an indictable offence therein.

(3) For the purposes of this section and section 351, place means

(a) a dwelling-house;

(b) a building or structure or any part thereof, other than a dwelling-house;

(c) a railway vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or a trailer; or

(d) a pen or an enclosure in which fur-bearing animals are kept in captivity for breeding or commercial purposes.

The Complainant was seriously injured in a fall from height on May 23, 2026. As he was being chased by OPS officers at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. SO #1 and SO #2 were identified as subject officials. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either subject official 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 subject officials, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s fall. In my view, there was not.

With information at their disposal that the Complainant had forced his way into a closed establishment, I am satisfied that SO #1 and SO #2 were within their rights in pursuing him to take him into custody for break and enter contrary to section 348 of the Criminal Code.

I am further satisfied that SO #1 and SO #2 comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s wellbeing during their brief, seconds-long engagement. When the Complainant turned to run, the officers reasonably assumed he was attempting to avoid arrest and logically gave chase. They could not have anticipated that he would shortly imperil his life by climbing over a third-floor railing that dropped to a sidewalk below. As soon as that became apparent, the officers gave thought to what they could do to help the Complainant, who hung from the railing by his hands. Regrettably, before they could act, the Complainant fell. On this record, there is no evidence to reasonably conclude that either subject official 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. The file is closed.

Date: October 19, 2026

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit