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 74-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 19, 2024, at 2:39 p.m., the London Police Service (LPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On December 19, 2024, at 11:59 a.m., LPS received a call to apprehend a man [the Complainant] under a Mental Health Act (MHA) Form 1. At 12:46 p.m., Witness Official (WO) #2 and WO #1 were dispatched to the Complainant’s address. At 1:08 p.m., WO #2 and WO #1 knocked on the apartment door and spoke with the Complainant through the door. The Complainant jumped off the balcony. The officers did not enter the apartment. A man [CW #1] saw the Complainant fall from the balcony and called 911. WO #2 and WO #1 went downstairs and performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on the Complainant. Paramedic services arrived and transported the Complainant to hospital. He was vital signs absent in the ambulance. At 2:08 p.m., the Complainant was pronounced deceased at hospital.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/12/19 at 3:10 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/12/19 at 6:16 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

74-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between December 19, 2024, and January 15, 2025.

Witness Officials

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed on December 27, 2024.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around an apartment in the area of Southdale Road West and Pomeroy Lane, London.

Physical Evidence

On December 19, 2024, at 6:16 p.m., two SIU forensic investigators attended the apartment building. There was an indoor scene and an outdoor scene, which had been secured by LPS. Both scenes were examined and photographed.

Indoor Scene

The entrance of the Complainant’s apartment showed no signs of forced entry or damage. In the living room was a partially open patio door leading to a balcony. The balcony was directly overhead the outdoor scene.

In a bedroom was a handwritten note, dated December 19, 2024, that was unsigned. It was believed to be written by the Complainant. The note described the Complainant’s health complications and how he could not live with his condition anymore.

Outdoor Scene

The outdoor scene was located at ground level directly below the balcony of the Complainant’s apartment. There was a single left foot shoe on a nearby ground floor balcony.

Forensic Evidence

On December 20, 2024, at 10:00 p.m., a preliminary cause of death was issued by the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service - “Multiple Trauma”. The Complainant had injuries consistent with a fall “from a great height”.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Police Communications Recordings

On December 19, 2024, at 12:46:36 p.m., police officers [WO #2 and WO #1] were dispatched to a mental health occurrence at an address in the area of Southdale Road West and Pomeroy Lane. There was a Form 1 in place for the Complainant.

At 1:00:15 p.m., WO #1 conducted a traffic stop en route to the scene.

At 1:32:15 p.m., CW #1 called 911 and reported a man [the Complainant] had fallen from an unknown height from an apartment building. CW #1 said the Complainant appeared deceased but then provided an update that the Complainant had moved his head. Police officers [WO #2 and WO #1] arrived at the Complainant’s location while CW #1 was still on the phone with the dispatcher. WO #2 and WO #1 started CPR.

At 1:34:50 p.m., the dispatcher advised paramedic services would attend the scene.

At 1:35:04 p.m., WO #1 advised there was no pulse and CPR was underway.

At 1:36:22 p.m., the dispatcher asked what the situation had been at the doorway prior to the Complainant’s fall from the balcony. WO #1 said they had done a door-knock and spoken with the Complainant briefly.

At 1:36:43 p.m., paramedic services arrived.

At 1:42:39 p.m., a dispatcher asked if WO #2 and WO #1 had entered the unit prior to the Complainant’s fall. WO #2 advised they had not entered the unit, but the door was wedged open.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the LPS between December 20, 2024, and December 23, 2024:

• General Occurrence Reports
• Computer-aided Dispatch Reports
• MHA Form 1
• Mental Health Crisis Response Policy
• Communications recordings
• Notes and Witness Statements – WO #2 and WO #1

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from other sources between December 20, 2024, and March 6, 2025:

• Preliminary Autopsy Findings Report from Ontario Forensic Pathology Service
• The Complainant’s medical records from London Health Sciences Centre
• The Complainant’s medical records from St. Joseph’s Health Care London

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

In the early afternoon of December 19, 2024, WO #2 and WO #1 were dispatched to an apartment in the area of Southdale Road West and Pomeroy Lane, London. A Form 1 under the Mental Health Act, authorizing the Complainant’s involuntary admission to hospital for psychiatric examination, had been issued by the Complainant’s psychiatrist.

The officers arrived at the building at about 1:26 p.m. and made their way to the Complainant’s apartment. The Complainant opened the door and was informed of the Form 1 and the officers’ intention to transport him to hospital. Asked whether he could change into warmer clothes and use the bathroom before leaving, the officers agreed.

At about 1:32 p.m., the officers heard a radio broadcast announcing that a male had jumped from a balcony at their location. A motorist – CW #1 – had observed the fall and stopped to call police. The officers looked over the balcony and confirmed that the male was the Complainant. They proceeded to ground level and performed CPR while waiting for paramedics.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and pronounced deceased at 2:08 p.m.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to multiple trauma consistent with a fall from height.

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 from injuries incurred in a fall from height on December 19, 2024. As LPS officers were in the process of apprehending the Complainant at the time, the SIU was notified of the incident and initiated an investigation. The investigation is now concluded. On my assessment of the evidence, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that any LPS officer 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 either WO #2 or WO #1, sufficiently egregious to attract criminal sanction, that caused or contributed to the Complainant’s death. In my view, there was not.

WO #2 and WO #1 were engaged in the lawful execution of their duty when they attended at the Complainant’s residence to take him into custody. They were acting on a duly executed Form 1 authorizing the Complainant’s involuntary admission to hospital.

In the discharge of that duty, the officers comported themselves with due care and regard for the Complainant’s safety. In hindsight, it might have been the better course for the officers to have arrested the Complainant promptly at the door, not permitting him an opportunity to retreat into the apartment while they waited in the building hallway. On the other hand, the Complainant had appeared cooperative and coherent in his exchange with the officers, and his requests – that he be allowed to put on some warmer clothes and use the bathroom – were not unreasonable in the circumstances. As soon as they heard of the fall, the officers rushed to the Complainant and attempted to resuscitate him pending the arrival of paramedics.

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

Date: April 10, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit