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 33-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On December 26, 2024, at 5:18 p.m., the Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

At 2:20 p.m., two officers were dispatched to a Petro-Canada gas station at 607 Victoria Street for an unwanted male at the premise. They ended the call about 30 minutes later. While on scene, a person approached and spoke to the officers about a dog found on the property of the VIA rail station at 126 Weber Street, Kitchener,. As the officers dealt with the dog they saw a man on the bridge over the railway, at Weber Street. The officers were concerned about the male on the bridge and ran towards him. One or both officers told him to get off the bridge. The man jumped from the bridge. It appeared the man was struck by a train. He sustained a severed foot and a head injury. He was conscious and talking at the scene, and was flown by Ornge air ambulance to Hamilton General Hospital (HGH).

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2024/12/26 at 5:32 p.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2024/12/26 at 6:45 p.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 1

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

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

The Complainant was interviewed on January 8, 2025.

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between December 27 and 31, 2024.

Subject Official (SO)

SO 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 Not interviewed; notes reviewed and interview deemed unnecessary

The witness official was interviewed on January 3, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired on and around the railway bridge over Weber Street West, Kitchener.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[2]

Metrolinx Video Footage

On December 26, 2024, starting at about 3:37 p.m., the Complainant was captured standing at the west end of a train platform, accompanied by a dog on a leash. He was drinking from a white container and carrying a black bag.

At 3:40 p.m., the Complainant left his bag on the ground, and walked east along the train platform towards the station with the dog, exiting the camera view.

At 3:42 p.m., the Complainant returned to the platform without the dog. He walked west along the platform, drinking from a white container. He walked off the platform onto the railway tracks out of camera view.

At 3:43 p.m., the Complainant was captured on another camera, standing on the south train track at a far distance, behind or beside the barrier [footage was unclear].

At 3:48 p.m., the SO walked west along the platform onto the tracks out of camera view. CW #1 walked behind him but remained at the end of the platform.

At 3:49:04 p.m., a Canadian National (CN) locomotive approached from the west on the southern train tracks.

At 3:49:06 p.m., CW #1, facing west, waved his arms from his position on the train platform.

At 3:49:12 p.m., the CN locomotive travelled east past CW #1 on the train platform and came to a stop in front of the station.

At 3:51 p.m., emergency medical services (EMS) arrived on the tracks.

In-car Camera (ICC) Footage

At 3:48:08 p.m., December 26, 2024, WO #1 drove his cruiser from the train station parking lot to the corner of Victoria Street and Weber Street West.

At 3:48:58 p.m., as WO #1 turned right onto Weber Street, the light of a train locomotive was visible travelling eastbound on the train tracks towards the overpass.

At 3:48:59 p.m., WO #1 asked over the radio if the male had stepped down as he parked the cruiser.

At 3:49:05 p.m., the locomotive passed eastbound over the Weber Street bridge.

At 3:49:17 p.m., the SO said to WO #1, “[C]ome up to the tracks now.” WO #1 exited his cruiser and ran up the hill towards the bridge.

At 3:49:51 p.m., WO #1 ran from the bridge back to the cruiser.

At 3:50:13 p.m., WO #1 opened the passenger door, removed the trauma kit, and ran back up the hill towards the train tracks.

At 3:50:45 p.m., WO #1 ran westbound on the overpass and out of camera view.

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

At 3:49:47 p.m., December 26, 2024, the SO said a male had just tried to jump in front of a train and it looked like he was hit. He requested EMS.

At 3:49:53 p.m., the SO said the male appeared to have been hit and was bleeding.

At 3:50:02 p.m., the SO asked WO #1 to bring a trauma bag.

At 3:50:40 p.m., the SO said a male was hit by a train, and he was conscious and breathing. He was bleeding from the head and his foot was not doing well. He broadcast they were at the VIA train station, on the train tracks on top of the bridge over Weber Street.

At 3:54:30 p.m., WO #1 advised that a torniquet had been applied to the right leg.

At 3:54:24 p.m., WO #2 advised an ambulance was on scene, and they were moving the male to a stretcher.

At 3:59:34 p.m., WO #2 advised the male was going to Hamilton by land or air.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the WRPS between December 27, 2024, and January 6, 2025:

• Video footage obtained from Metrolinx
• Observational Report prepared by Metrolinx Customer Protective Services
• WRPS incidents related to the Complainant
• A list of officers involved in this incident
• ICC footage from WO #1, WO #2 and Officer #1
• CAD Report
• Communications recordings
• Occurrence and Supplementary Reports
• Scene photographs
• A list of civilian witnesses, and statements obtained
• Notes of the SO, WO #1 and WO #2
• Policies related to Railway Incidents, Mentally Ill, Developmentally Disabled, Emotionally Disturbed Persons, and Collision Reporting and Investigation

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained medical records pertaining to the Complainant’s injuries from HGH between January 6 and 9, 2025.

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the Complainant and civilian eyewitnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was his legal right, the SO did not agree an interview with the SIU. He did authorize the release of his notes.

In the afternoon of December 26, 2024, the SO and WO #1 were at the train station at 126 Weber Street West, Kitchener, dealing with an unwanted person and an abandoned dog on the premises when they were alerted to the presence of a male on the railway overpass just west of their location. Concerned that the male was intending to harm himself, WO #1 left the station to block traffic underneath the bridge as the SO walked towards the male.

The male was the Complainant. The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time. He had left his dog in the train station and ventured out onto the bridge where his plan was to kill himself by jumping onto the road – Weber Street West – below. On seeing the SO approaching him, the Complainant, who had climbed onto the top of the metal girder on the north side of the bridge, jumped down onto the overpass and ran westward. He had just cleared another metal girder dividing the north and south side train tracks over the bridge when he threw himself onto the south side tracks and into the path of an eastbound train engine.

The SO was several metres behind the Complainant at the point of impact. He waited for the locomotive to clear the bridge before he approached the Complainant to render aid.

The Complainant was transported to hospital and treated for a severed right foot, multiple fractures, and other injuries.

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.

The Complainant was seriously injured when he was struck by a locomotive in Kitchener on December 26, 2024. As he was being chased by a WRPS officer at the time, 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 injuries.

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 injuries. In my view, there was not.

The SO was engaged in the exercise of his lawful duties when he approached the Complainant. The protection of life being an officer’s foremost obligation, the SO was duty bound to do what he reasonably could to prevent harm coming to the Complainant when he saw him precariously perched on top of the north side metal girder of the railway overpass.

In the discharge of that duty, I am further satisfied that the SO did not transgress the limits of care prescribed by the criminal law. He called out to the Complainant to have him climb down from the girder and, when he did, chased after him as the Complainant ran in the direction of the oncoming train engine. Those efforts, in my view, were reasonable and undertaken, at some risk to the officer’s own safety, to save the Complainant. After the impact with the train, the SO and WO #1 acted quickly to render first-aid, including the application of a tourniquet, while waiting for 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 24, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit