Director's Report Details

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 4
Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Four investigators and two forensic investigators were assigned, launching an investigation and arriving at the scene at 7:48 p.m. on May 27, 2020. Additional staff assisted, reviewing the volume of email messages and voice messages received to determine whether the writers witnessed the incident.

As a result of information provided by TPS, a Subject Officer (SO) was designated because he had the most interaction and dialogue with Ms. Korchinski-Paquet prior to her death. Represented by counsel, the SO consented to the release of his memo book entries related to the incident and requested an interview with the SIU, which was conducted on May 29, 2020.

Civilian Witness (CW) #7 (Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s mother) and CW #2 (Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s brother) were interviewed on June 18, 2020, with their counsel present. Both CW #7 and CW #2 provided the SIU a copy of typewritten statements at that time. The statements were adopted and read into the record.

On July 7, 2020, counsel for the family advised the SIU that Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s father, CW #1, did not consent to an interview with the SIU but did consent to providing the SIU with a typewritten statement.

Complainant:

Regis Korchinski-Paquet 29-year-old female, deceased

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Provided written statement
CW #2 Interviewed
CW #3 Interviewed
CW #4 Interviewed
CW #5 Interviewed
CW #6 Interviewed
CW #7 Interviewed
CW #8 Interviewed
CW #9 Interviewed
CW #10 Interviewed
CW #11 Interviewed
CW #12 Interviewed
CW #13 Interviewed
CW #14 Interviewed
CW #15 Interviewed 

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed
WO #2 Interviewed
WO #3 Interviewed
WO #4 Interviewed
WO #5 Interviewed
WO #6 Interviewed

Subject Officers

SO Interviewed, and notes received and reviewed

Furniture, a bicycle and numerous other items appeared to have been stored on the balcony, leaving very limited space for persons to occupy. The following photographs show the balcony.


Figure 2 - The balcony of the apartment. Numerous items, including a bicycle and various pieces of furniture, are present.


Figure 3 - A closer look at the area of the balcony that Ms. Korchinski-Paquet traversed. There is a 1.1 metre railing with a tall metal partition separating the balcony from a neighbouring apartment's balcony.

The balcony railing rose 1.1 metres above the deck with a plastic top rail. A higher, metal partition was affixed along the north side of the balcony, separating it from the neighbouring apartment balcony to the north. [1]

The following photograph shows the netting that had since been installed, forming a barrier to prevent anyone from crossing at that area. The netting extended across the front area of CW #10’s balcony as well, from the top of the railing to the underside of the 25th floor balcony deck above.


Figure 4 - The metal partition that separated the balcony from the neighbouring apartment's balcony. Netting surrounds the neighbouring apartment's balcony and acts as a barrier.

“My daughter had a seizure this morning and so this is how, basically, it all started. And he knows just to leave her alone. But now she’s calling me all kinds of names, calling me a bitch and everything else, right. So, I don’t want her -- I want the police to take -- literally take her out of my house. I don’t want her here. I don’t want no kids living in my house… Okay. She’s got to go tonight.”

“No, no weapons. But bottles were thrown, knives were pulled out, my -- punches in the face. All kinds of foolishness… I don’t know who treats people like this. Glass is all over in front of my door, they broke bottles. Like just no -- no respect. And -- neither one of them can stay here. I just want the police to come and I don’t care where you take either one of them but I don’t ever want them back here. None of them. I don’t care where they go to live but they’re not coming here. I’m done.”

“…demonstrated multiple blunt impact trauma, including injuries to the head, neck, torso, and extremities. The fatal injuries can be accounted for by a descent from height and are the consequence of force transmission in the final deceleration upon impact. A constellation of injuries is present and typical of so-called ‘axial loading’ where force is transmitted up the vertical axis of the body upon impact. The injuries were necessarily and rapidly fatal. Immediate or nearly immediate death would be anticipated. A grouping of small discoid bruises on the left forearm may have occurred as the result of blunt injury that was not related to a descent from height, such as pressure from fingertips in the context of the forearm being grasped firmly by a hand. The mechanism of injury for the small discoid bruises on the left forearm is not known with certainty. None of the injuries show evidence of an inflammatory (healing) response from the body and, as such, all occurred recently. Pathological examination alone cannot determine the sequence of events leading up to or precipitating the initiation of a descent from height. There were no other injuries (such as sharp force injuries or firearm injuries). There were no anatomically apparent natural diseases.”

1. Was there any evidence that Ms. Korchinski-Paquet was struck in the face or head before impact on the ground?

2. Was there any evidence of a physical struggle?

3. Is there an explanation of the abrasion on her forehead and cut to her inner mouth area?

4. Was there evidence of Ms. Korchinski-Paquet urinating immediately prior to her death?

5. Whether he could explain anything to do with an injury on her arm and the markings identified?

(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.

“Pt then went onto the balcony and closed the door. When pt went onto the balcony, I overheard police say, ‘everyone out of the apartment’ and I left to stand in the hall. My partner had been in the hall the whole time and neither of us got any verbal information from the pt herself at any point. A few minutes later, police realized she had fallen off the balcony and we went to the ground floor to assess her.”

• 5:38:53 p.m., WO #4’s ICCS recorded a male, likely him, asking someone, likely CW #7, if she was “OK”, to which she responded, “No…”;
• At 5:39:05 p.m., WO #4’s ICCS captured a sound consistent with the air conditioner toppling over;
• At 5:39:06 p.m., a male voice is heard to say, “Hey, hey, hey”;
• At about that same time, 5:39:07 p.m., CW #7, followed by CW #2, entered the apartment, as seen in the following screenshot:

Figure 8 - A still image from the security video recording depicting CW #7, followed by CW #2, entering the apartment.

• At 5:39:09 p.m., WO #4’s ICCS recorded CW #7 asking, “What is she doing?”;
• At 5:39:11 p.m., WO #1’s ICCS then recorded WO #1 saying, “She’s jumping balconies,” while a male voice said, “She went to the neighbour’s”;
• At about 5:39:15 p.m., Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s descent likely already began by the time CW #7 started speaking in the next reference; [11]
• At about 5:39:15 p.m., WO #1’s and WO #4’s ICCSs recorded CW #7 saying, “She can’t get to the neighbour’s,” followed by CW #2 adding, “It’s blocked off.” CW #7 repeated, “It’s blocked off”; [12]
• At 5:39:16 p.m. on the communications recordings, WO #3 reported, “She’s scaling the balconies here”;
• At 5:39:17 p.m., immediately following that transmission, the SO’s ICCS video captured Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s descent as she entered view from about the sixth-floor level, as seen in the following screenshot:

Figure 9 - A still image from the SO's ICCS video which depicts Ms. Korchinski-Paquet falling.

• At 5:39:18 p.m., a sound was heard on the SO’s and WO #4’s in-car microphones, likely the sound of Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s impact with the ground;
• One second later, WO #4’s ICCS captured video of an elderly woman with a walker at the front of the building reacting to something to her south, likely Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s impact with the ground;
• At 5:39:27 p.m., CW #6 exited the apartment into the hallway;
• At about 5:39:50 p.m., the building security video recording captured CW #7 exiting her apartment again, as seen in the following screenshot:

Figure 10 - A still image from the security video recording depicting CW #7 exiting the apartment.

• WO #4 then exited the apartment and walked to the neighbouring apartment with WO #5;
• At about 5:40:01 p.m., WO #5 was seen on the building security video knocking at the neighbouring apartment;
• At about 5:40:14 p.m., the SO exited fully from the apartment into the hallway;
• At 5:40:35 p.m., WO #4 was heard on his ICCS and seen in the building security video knocking at the neighbouring apartment again; [13]
• At 5:41:12 p.m., CW #2 exited the apartment into the hallway;
• At 5:41:13 p.m., WO #4 re-entered Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s apartment as CW #7 and CW #2 stood together in the hallway just outside the apartment door;
• At 5:41:39 p.m., on the SO’s and WO #4’s ICCSs, WO #4 was heard requesting an ambulance after realizing Ms. Korchinski-Paquet had fallen;
• At 5:41:46 p.m., WO #2, WO #3 and WO #4 emerged through the apartment door and joined the others in the hallway making their way north toward the elevators; and
• At 5:43:45 p.m., WO #4’s ICCS captured the paramedics arriving at Ms. Korchinski-Paquet on the ground.

The video recordings revealed that CW #7 was in her apartment with Ms. Korchinski-Paquet for 58 seconds, between 5:37:52 p.m. and 5:38:50 p.m., at which time she exited. She then re-entered the apartment at 5:39:07 p.m., just about the time that the evidence suggests Ms. Korchinski-Paquet was entering onto the balcony and 11 seconds before Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s body impacted the ground below. It is estimated the descent took about three-and-a-half seconds. This suggests that Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s fall began between 5:39:14 p.m. and 5:39:15 p.m.

CW #2 also entered the apartment after his mother, at 5:39:10 p.m., and exited at 5:41:12 p.m.

CW #6, the female paramedic, entered the apartment at 5:38:11 p.m. and exited at 5:39:27 p.m.

The investigation revealed the situation with Ms. Korchinski-Paquet developed rapidly. CW #6 entered the room at 5:38:11 p.m. Less than a minute later, after a brief interaction in which a police officer asked her to speak to the paramedic, Ms. Korchinski-Paquet made her way onto the balcony and, by 5:39:15 p.m., had fallen.

Ms. Korchinski-Paquet was captured on video landing at 5:39:18 p.m. She lay on the ground for over four-and-a-half minutes before the paramedics reached her.

25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

Section 215, Criminal Code - Failure to provide necessaries

(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person

(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and

(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

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.

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,

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,

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 Incident

Beginning at about 5:13 p.m., the TPS received multiple 911 calls about a domestic disturbance in an apartment on the 24th floor of 100 High Park Avenue among the residents of the home - Ms. Korchinski-Paquet and her mother and brother, CW #7 and CW #2, respectively. Ms. Korchinski-Paquet placed three of these calls; CW #7 and CW #2 each made one. I need not go into detail regarding the content of these calls as they are summarized elsewhere in this report. In general, CW #7 indicated that Ms. Korchinski-Paquet and CW #2 were fighting, bottles and punches had been thrown, and she wanted the police to immediately remove her son and daughter from the residence as she could no longer tolerate their behaviour. In her calls, Ms. Korchinski-Paquet told the 911 operator that her mother and brother had attacked her and that knives were involved. In his call to the police, CW #2 said that his sister had initiated an assault on him with two knives. When asked by the 911 operator about any mental health issues among the parties, Ms. Korchinski-Paquet and CW #2 each indicated that Ms. Korchinski-Paquet had epilepsy. CW #2 further explained that Ms. Korchinski-Paquet was irate after having suffered seizures earlier in the day, and that their quarrel stemmed from a disagreement over the volume of the television in the living room. In Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s final call to police at about 5:30 p.m., by which time officers were present and on scene, she indicated that she needed to urinate.

Officers were dispatched to the scene at about 5:16 p.m. The SO and WO #3 were the first at the apartment building, arriving on the 24th floor at about 5:29 p.m. They were met outside the elevators by CW #7 and Ms. Korchinski-Paquet, who was yelling down the hall toward her apartment. [17] Ms. Korchinski-Paquet told the officers that her brother had assaulted her. At the southern end of the hall was CW #2. As the officers, CW #7 and Ms. Korchinski-Paquet made their way down the corridor, the SO used his arm to prevent Ms. Korchinski-Paquet from moving past him toward CW #2 as CW #2 moved in their direction. Seconds later, WO #3 did the same and proceeded to direct Ms. Korchinski-Paquet further north up the hallway. WO #3 remained with Ms. Korchinski-Paquet as the SO accompanied CW #7 and CW #2 further south down the hallway and eventually into their apartment. At about this time, WO #2 arrived and joined WO #3 in speaking with Ms. Korchinski-Paquet near the elevators. Ms. Korchinski-Paquet told the officers she had experienced seizures earlier in the day and damaged the television when her brother refused to lower the volume. The SO spoke with CW #2, who confirmed Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s seizure and the argument over the television volume, adding that his sister had grabbed knives from the kitchen.

WO #1 and WO #4 were the next two officers to arrive on scene, at about 5:34 p.m. The other three officers were standing further south in the corridor and, CW #7 and CW #2, further south still. Ms. Korchinski-Paquet again tried to get past the officers but was prevented from doing so by the SO, who used his body to block her path. Seconds later, WO #4, who together with WO #1 had reached the other officers, engaged Ms. Korchinski-Paquet and escorted her further north up the hallway. Ms. Korchinski-Paquet indicated that she needed to urinate and threatened to relieve herself in the corridor if she was not permitted back into the apartment. The SO agreed and accompanied Ms. Korchinski-Paquet inside the apartment, as did WO #3 a short time later. The time was about 5:35 p.m.

While the SO and WO #3 were inside the apartment with Ms. Korchinski-Paquet, WO #4 spoke with CW #7 and CW #2 in the stairwell adjacent to the apartment. CW #7 wanted her daughter to be brought to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, noting that Ms. Korchinski-Paquet suffered from seizures. In response, WO #4 asked, “What about mental health?”

Also at about 5:35 p.m., paramedics – CW #5 and CW #6 - arrived on the 24th floor with a stretcher and made their way south down the hallway. At about 5:36 p.m., CW #2 stood up from the staircase on which he was sitting in the stairwell and approached CW #5 to be examined.

Ms. Korchinski-Paquet had called her father – CW #1 - inside the bathroom and was still on the call when she exited. CW #7 entered the apartment at about 5:37 p.m., and she and Ms. Korchinski-Paquet argued with each other. About 20 seconds later, CW #6 entered the apartment. The SO attempted to persuade Ms. Korchinski-Paquet to speak with CW #6 given her seizures earlier in the day. CW #7 exited the apartment into the hallway at about 5:38 p.m. Within seconds of her departure, WO #1, WO #2 and WO #4 entered through the apartment door.

Ms. Korchinski-Paquet refused to speak with CW #6. Instead, she backed away from the officers, toppled a standup portable air conditioning unit by the balcony door, and exited through the door onto the balcony. CW #7 entered the apartment again at this time followed by CW #2. The SO told Ms. Korchinski-Paquet to re-enter and attempted to open the door - a hinged screen door that opened into the balcony - but Ms. Korchinski-Paquet kept it closed using her body weight. Very quickly, Ms. Korchinski-Paquet scaled the balcony railing and the SO lost sight of her. At about this time, CW #7 asked, “What is she doing?” A male voice replied, “She’s going to the neighbour’s.” WO #1 said, “She’s jumping balconies.” CW #7 indicated, “She can’t get to the neighbour’s,” followed shortly by CW #2 saying, “It’s blocked off.” Believing Ms. Korchinski-Paquet was attempting to cross over to the neighbouring balcony to the north, WO #3 reported this information over his radio. The time was about 5:39 p.m.

At word that Ms. Korchinski-Paquet was on the balcony crossing over to an adjacent balcony, WO #4 directed everyone out. He and another officer knocked on the front door of the adjacent apartment but received no answer. [18] WO #4 returned to Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s apartment and made his way onto the balcony, where he noticed a metal partition dividing the adjoining balconies with netting completely around the balcony to the north making it inaccessible from the outside. Believing Ms. Korchinski-Paquet had nowhere to go, he looked down and saw her body on the ground below.

Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s descent to the ground was captured in part by a video recording from the ICCS of the SO’s cruiser. The recording first depicted Ms. Korchinski-Paquet falling past the 6th floor of the building. She made impact with the ground at about 5:39:18 p.m., about 40 seconds before the officers first knocked on the neighbour’s front door.

Some using the elevator, others using the stairs, the officers, paramedics and CW #7 made their way to the ground floor. Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s body was lying on a patch of lawn in line with the balcony immediately north of her balcony; she had fallen approximately 60 metres. The paramedics on scene tended to Ms. Korchinski-Paquet and found her without vital signs. A cardiac monitor was used and found that Ms. Korchinski-Paquet was asystolic.

Ms. Korchinski-Paquet was pronounced deceased at the scene at 6:05 p.m. 

 

The Autopsies and Opinions of Forensic Pathologists

A post-mortem examination was conducted on May 28, 2020 at the facilities of the Provincial Forensics Pathology Unit in Toronto. By way of report dated June 15, 2020, the pathologist attributed Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s death to “multiple blunt impact trauma”, which were consistent with a fall from height. That conclusion was confirmed in a second autopsy conducted by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for Newfoundland and Labrador at the request of the family.

In his report of the second autopsy, the forensic pathologist was also asked to opine on oval shaped bruising located on Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s left arm and a recent contusion apparent on the right upper back. He reported that the bruising to the arm resembled fingerprint marks and may have occurred during a struggle, the result of Ms. Korchinski-Paquet being forcefully grabbed by the arm. With respect to the shoulder bruise, the pathologist concluded it occurred before Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s impact with the ground and was the result of blunt force. 

 

The Analysis of Potential Criminal Liability

There are two theories which present themselves for consideration as far as the officers’ potential criminal liability is concerned vis-à-vis the events culminating in Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s death. The first asks whether the officers went too far in the exercise of their authority. The second, whether the officers went far enough.

Did the police overstep their authority?

Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are immune from criminal liability for force used in the course of their duties provided such force was reasonably necessary in the execution of an act that they were required or authorized to do by law. Having personally heard the 911 calls to police and reviewed the transcripts of those calls, I am satisfied that the officers who responded to Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s apartment were there lawfully. As far as they knew, they were responding to multiple reports of assault, some which claimed Ms. Korchinski-Paquet had attacked her brother, others indicating that Ms. Korchinski-Paquet had been attacked by her brother and/or mother, all of which mentioned the presence of knives in the course of the altercation or altercations.

Arriving at the 24th floor hallway and meeting with CW #7, CW #2 and Ms. Korchinski-Paquet, it was apparent to the officers that emotions were running high between the parties. Ms. Korchinski-Paquet was yelling at her brother and her brother was yelling back. Shards of broken wine bottles and red wine were on the corridor floor. [19] The officers stepped between the siblings to prevent any renewal of hostilities and set about trying to figure out what had happened.

At one point, after the SO had finished speaking with CW #2 inside the apartment to get his side of the story, he stepped into the hallway intending to speak with Ms. Korchinski-Paquet. Ms. Korchinski-Paquet yelled at CW #2 and tried to approach him. The SO used his body to block her path and Ms. Korchinski-Paquet backed down. This constituted a measure of force on the part of the officer, but one which I am satisfied was reasonably necessary in the circumstances. The SO was within his rights in attempting to preserve the peace and prevent a further altercation between the siblings, and he did so with minimal force and without injury. To her credit, Ms. Korchinski-Paquet did not press the issue and tensions abated, but only momentarily.

There is the question of the fingertip-type bruising and a contusion on the back of Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s right shoulder, indicative, on the pathology evidence, of a possible physical struggle before the fall. As there was no witness evidence of such a struggle between any of the officers and Ms. Korchinski-Paquet, and given the distinct possibility that these injuries may have been incurred in the assault or assaults that reportedly occurred among the family members ahead of the police arrival, I am unable to infer from this evidence that there was any physical altercation between the officers and Ms. Korchinski-Paquet inside the apartment or on the balcony.

Aside from the physical force used to keep Ms. Korchinski-Paquet away from CW #2, it is also true that the officers exercised non-physical control over the movements of Ms. Korchinski-Paquet, CW #7 and CW #2 upon their arrival on the 24th floor by deciding, for example, who would and would not enter the apartment at times during their interaction. Thus, for example, when Ms. Korchinski-Paquet entered the apartment to use the bathroom, steps were initially taken to keep CW #2 and CW #7 in the stairwell. I do not believe the officers’ conduct in this regard was unlawful. More specifically, I am satisfied that Ms. Korchinski-Paquet, CW #7 and CW #2 were under lawful detention at the time.

In R v Mann, [2004] 3 SCR 59, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that a police officer has a limited power to detain an individual for investigative purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is connected to a crime. The detention must be reasonably necessary with a view to such considerations as the extent to which the interference with individual liberty is necessary to the performance of the officer’s duty, the liberty interfered with, and the nature and extent of the interference. In the instant case, the officers were aware via the information that came in on the 911 calls that they were responding to deal with an assault that had involved physical violence and weapons. On their arrival at the scene, the broken glass on the hallway floor and the enmity on display between the family members would have reinforced the notion that an unlawful assault had occurred. While knives were not present in the hallway, their presence in the apartment had yet to be ruled out by the officers. On this record, it would seem the officers had a lawful basis to temporarily detain Ms. Korchinski-Paquet and her family, and to control their access to the apartment, while they tried to figure out whom among them were the victims and whom among them were the perpetrators of the reported assault.

Did the police do enough?

The issue turns to whether the officers could have done more to prevent Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s death and, if so, whether their failure to do so amounted to a criminal offence. There are two offences that arise for consideration on this theory of liability, namely, failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing death contrary to sections 215 and 220 of the Criminal Code, respectively. I deal first with the former.

As an offence of penal negligence, simple negligence will not suffice to ground liability for failure to provide the necessaries of life. Rather, the offence is premised, in part, on conduct that amounts to a marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances: R v Naglik, [1993] 3 SCR 122; R v F(J), [2008] 3 SCR 215. [21] In the instant case, the liability analysis boils down to the following question: ought the officers have apprehended Ms. Korchinski-Paquet at some point before she scaled the balcony railing?

In asking this question, I accept as arguable that in the environment that prevailed in and around the apartment at the time, Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s apprehension by the police may well have constituted a “necessary of life” as it would have prevented her putting her life in danger by scaling the balcony railing. [22] Of course, the officers were not simply free to apprehend Ms. Korchinski-Paquet outside the ambit of their legal authority.

While there were grounds for Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s detention, I am not satisfied there was a lawful basis to assume complete control over Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s movements via an arrest. The officers had conflicting information about who had done what to whom and were still attempting to sort that out when Ms. Korchinski-Paquet took the drastic action she did. Nor were the officers in a position to forcibly remove Ms. Korchinski-Paquet from the premises until she had calmed down. As with her mother and brother, Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s name was equally on the lease. Was there some other basis upon which the officers could have acted?

Section 17 of the MHA provides, in part, that police officers may take a person into custody for psychiatric examination at hospital where they have sufficient grounds to believe the person is: acting or has acted in a disorderly manner, at risk of self-harming or harming another person, and suffering from a mental disorder that will likely result in serious harm to the person or another person. It appears that some of the officers who responded to the scene turned their minds to whether the MHA was applicable to the situation at hand. One of them, at least, WO #4, seems to have concluded it was not. Informed by CW #7 outside the apartment that Ms. Korchinski-Paquet suffered from seizures, the officer asked, “What about mental health?” There also appears to have been uncertainty in the minds of one or more of the 911 operators as to whether epilepsy was a mental health condition.

I am not a doctor nor versed in the medical community’s modern-day understanding of epilepsy and the seizures it produces. The limited layperson’s research I have conducted of the matter suggests that epilepsy is a neurological disorder with manifestations that can be mental as well as physical. [23] Be that as it may, I cannot fault the officers for failing to take Ms. Korchinski-Paquet into custody prior to her scaling the balcony railing. She had not given them any indication that she wished to harm herself and was professing to be the victim of an assault at the hands of her brother. There is no doubt she was irate and perhaps even behaving in a disorderly manner in the presence of the police, but that would not have been unusual for a person claiming to have been assaulted and demanding the police take action. Separate and apart from whether Ms. Korchinski-Paquet was suffering from a mental disorder, therefore, I am unable to reasonably conclude that the officers were derelict in failing to apprehend Ms. Korchinski-Paquet under the MHA at least until such time as they were satisfied that she was the aggressor of the violence that had preceded their arrival or at risk of self-harm. I am satisfied they never reached those conclusions, nor were there necessarily grounds for having done so.

For the foregoing reasons, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the officers’ failure to take Ms. Korchinski-Paquet into custody for her own protection amounted to an offence under section 215 of the Criminal Code. The liability analysis turns to whether there is evidence of criminal negligence against any one or more of the involved officers in connection with Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s fateful fall.

The want of care at the heart of criminal negligence causing death is more egregious than that which defines other species of negligent-type offences, such as the failure to provide the necessaries of life under section 215 of the Criminal Code. The latter are premised on a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care. The former is not made out unless the impugned conduct amounts to a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable standard of care. [24]

Regardless of the officers’ understanding of epilepsy or the precise nature of Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s mental health at the time, [25] it was obvious that they were responding to a family dispute in which emotions were heated. Once the parties had been duly separated to prevent a continuation of further hostilities, de-escalation efforts would have been in order. The evidence indicates that the officers made efforts to defuse the situation. For example, once Ms. Korchinski-Paquet was inside the apartment with the SO, [26] and after the officer had been unable to establish any productive communication with her as she emerged from the bathroom on the phone with her father, CW #6, the female paramedic on scene, was brought in. As WO #1 explained, paramedics had in her experience been effective in de-escalating situations in which individuals had not reacted well to police presence. Unfortunately, CW #6 could make no inroads. The weight of the evidence, including the video recordings of the corridor and the audio recordings of dialogue at the scene captured by the wireless microphones of WO #1 and WO #4, also suggests the officers were not aggressive in their dealings with the family. There were objections raised with the number of officers who arrived on scene – six – and with the long gun [27] in the possession of WO #4. However, the officers were responding to an assault call involving multiple parties and the use of knives. In the circumstances, I am unable to characterize the nature and extent of the police resources deployed as an overreaction or heavy-handed.

There remains the question of the TPS Mobile Crisis Intervention Team (MCIT) program. The teams bring together officers specifically trained in de-escalation techniques with mental health nurses to rapidly respond to situations involving “emotionally disturbed persons”. They are part of the police service’s strategy for achieving positive outcomes when dealing with persons threatening self-harm or harm to others because of behaviour attributable to a mental or emotional crisis. Whether Ms. Korchinski-Paquet was in a mental health crisis strictly speaking, she was certainly “emotionally disturbed” in the language of the TPS MCIT policy and could have benefitted from the expertise brought to bear by the MCIT. It is conceivable, for example, that the intervention of a mental health nurse might have proven successful in achieving a level of engagement with Ms. Korchinski-Paquet that the officers on scene had been unable to achieve. However, the policy expressly precludes the deployment of the MCIT as first responders with respect to incidents involving the possible use of weapons. This was such a case. In the circumstances, I am unable to find fault with the decision not to initially dispatch the MCIT. Nor is there a basis to be critical of the failure on the part of the officers on the scene to call for such a team. After all, even though it was apparent that none of the parties had actually sustained any serious injuries, the officers had not yet located and secured the knives that had reportedly been brandished in the domestic disturbance that prompted their attendance.

Finally, the decision to disengage soon after Ms. Korchinski-Paquet moved to the balcony and scaled the railing is open to legitimate scrutiny. The decision to do so was made by WO #4 and followed an initial attempt on the part of the SO to enter onto the balcony after Ms. Korchinski-Paquet. Arguably, the situation called for a more proactive posture at that moment; one in which, perhaps, officers entered onto the balcony to try to coax or physically pluck Ms. Korchinski-Paquet back to safety. As it turned out, within seconds of scaling the railing and attempting to make her way over to the neighbouring balcony, Ms. Korchinski-Paquet lost her balance and fell.

On the other hand, Ms. Korchinski-Paquet had given the officers no reason to believe that she was intent on harming herself. Instead, as they correctly surmised, she was attempting to traverse to the neighbouring balcony. In their SIU interviews, some officers indicated withdrawal was pursued so as not to do anything that could startle or further provoke Ms. Korchinski-Paquet, who was at the time in a very precarious position perched on a narrow ledge on the outer aspect of the balcony railing 24 stories in the air. In his SIU interview, WO #4 noted that he had previously spent three years in the MCIT. It was his judgment at the time that the officers’ best recourse was to have the Emergency Task Force (ETF) dispatched to a situation that had suddenly become life-and-death. Certainly, the ETF is trained for these sorts of high-risk incidents and would have been able to bring to bear resources to attempt a rescue operation that the officers on scene were without. In this context, if the officers’ fell short in their decision, I am satisfied the decision was not one divorced of logic.

In the final analysis, I am satisfied on the totality of the evidence that the conduct of the officers who responded to Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s residence did not amount to a marked and substantial departure from a reasonable level of care in the circumstances. The officers acted prudently, in my view, in keeping the parties separated while they sorted out exactly what had happened. Though their efforts were unsuccessful, they tried to de-escalate tensions by bringing in a non-police emergency responder to speak with Ms. Korchinski-Paquet. There is no suggestion of an undue show of force by the officers or unnecessarily aggressive behaviour in tone or movement. Arguably, they might have acted more proactively in the penultimate moments of the incident by venturing onto the balcony. That said, the concern that doing so might worsen the situation was not without merit. On this record, I am satisfied on balance that the officers did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law.

Conclusion

In the result, as I am satisfied that the involved officers acted lawfully throughout their engagement with Ms. Korchinski-Paquet and her family, there are no grounds for proceeding with criminal charges in this case notwithstanding Ms. Korchinski-Paquet’s tragic death. Accordingly, the file is closed.