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 46-year-old man (the “Complainant”).

Notification of the SIU[1]

On Tuesday, June 17, 2025, at 4:30 a.m., the Toronto Police Service (TPS) contacted the SIU with the following information.

On June 17, 2025, at 1:56 a.m., police officers were requested to attend an apartment in the area of Church Street and The Esplanade, Toronto, regarding a person in crisis. The Complainant had contacted the TPS to report that he believed a dead body was concealed in his apartment. Also present in the apartment was CW #1, who attempted to console the Complainant as he spoke with police dispatchers. The Complainant left his apartment and was reported to be banging on neighbouring doors, resulting in additional calls to TPS about his behaviour. As police officers arrived on scene, the Complainant returned to his apartment accompanied by CW #1. At approximately 2:27 a.m., police officers forced open the door following screams from within the apartment. Inside the apartment, the Complainant smashed glass and moved to and from the balcony area [now known to be in a bedroom]. At 2:43 a.m., having thrown glass from the balcony and returned to the interior of the apartment, he was subjected to an unsuccessful conducted energy weapon (CEW) deployment. He proceeded back onto the balcony as police officers attempted to pull him back into the apartment. At 2:51 a.m., the Complainant was reported to have fallen from the balcony to the ground below. Toronto Paramedic Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were summoned to the scene and the Complainant was transported to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH). He succumbed to his injuries and had been pronounced deceased.

The Team

Date and time team dispatched: 2025/06/17 at 4:50 a.m.

Date and time SIU arrived on scene: 2025/06/17 at 7:20 a.m.

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Affected Person (aka “Complainant”):

46-year-old male; deceased

Civilian Witnesses (CW)

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

CW #5 Interviewed

CW #6 Interviewed

The civilian witnesses were interviewed between June 18, 2025, and July 15, 2025.

Subject Officials (SO)

SO #1 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

SO #2 Declined interview and to provide notes, as is the subject official’s legal right

Witness Officials (WO)

WO #1 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #4 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #5 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #6 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

WO #7 Interviewed; notes received and reviewed

The witness officials were interviewed between June 26, 2025, and June 27, 2025.

The Scene

The events in question transpired in and around a bedroom balcony of an apartment in the area of Church Street and The Esplanade, Toronto.

Physical Evidence

On June 17, 2025, at about 7:20 a.m., SIU forensic services arrived at an apartment in the area of Church Street and The Esplanade, Toronto, in response to a custody-related death. The weather was clear and warm with minimal wind. The scene was a multiple-storey residential apartment building. The Complainant had landed on a concrete sidewalk directly below the apartment.

Items were photographed and collected near the landing area, including three CEW probes. There were multiple blood stains, and a sample swab was taken. Also collected were a lighter, a broken hammer head and handle, a small bottle of hand sanitizer, a Samsung phone box, a can of bug spray, assorted toiletries, two shoes, and three $5 bills.

On entry to the building, significant blood droplets were observed on the floor of the elevator. A sample was collected, and the area was photographed.

The hallway to the Complainant’s apartment had blood droplets present outside the elevator, forming a trail leading to the Complainant’s apartment. Blood smears were visible on the door and handle of the unit.

The interior of the apartment was examined.

The bedroom had a broken window, which was 66 centimetres tall by 42 centimetres wide, with jagged glass and blood staining. Blood pooling was present on the floor east of the window. There was a small balcony (window well) measuring 96 centimetres long x 48 centimetres wide with a wall, which measured 25 centimetres wide and 35 centimetres tall. There was blood staining on the balcony floor. Two CEW probes were collected from the balcony. A black T-shirt with a CEW probe hung from the wall and two additional probes were found located. All items and the apartment were photographed.

Photographs were taken of the damage and blood on the exterior of the bedroom window of the apartment below.[2]

At 11:45 a.m., photographs of the Complainant were taken at SMH. A SIU evidence tag was affixed to the body bag and, at 1:00 p.m., the body was transported to the Coroner’s Office for a post-mortem examination.

Forensic Evidence

CEW Deployment Data – WO #1 (Discharged by SO #1)

On June 17, 2025, at 2:46:02 a.m.,[3] the trigger was pulled, Bay 1 was deployed, and electricity was discharged for 0.628 seconds. At 2:46:03 a.m., the trigger was pulled, Bay 2 was deployed, and electricity was discharged for 13.056 seconds. At 2:46:17 a.m., the right arc button was pressed, and electricity was discharged for 13.623 seconds.

CEW Deployment Data – SO #1’s CEW (Discharged by SO #2)

On June 17, 2025, at 2:46:44 a.m., the trigger was pulled, Bay 1 was deployed, and electricity was discharged.

At 2:46:45 a.m., the trigger was pulled, and electricity was discharged for 4.993 seconds.

At 2:47:02 a.m., the left arc button was pressed, and electricity was discharged for 5.072 seconds.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence[4]

BWC Footage

Starting at about 2:05 a.m., June 17, 2025, WO #2 and SO #2 were captured standing in front of a doorway [now known to be the door of the Complainant’s apartment, in the area of Church Street and The Esplanade, Toronto]. SO #2 knocked on the door and announced, “TPS,” and a man [now known to be the Complainant] immediately yelled out, “They are trying to kill me.” The Complainant banged on the door from inside. A woman [now known to be CW #1] was heard within the apartment. WO #2 announced that they wanted to make sure everybody was okay. CW #1 said, “Give me the hammer.”

Starting at about 2:07 a.m., SO #1 and WO #4 arrived, followed by WO #3 and WO #1. The sound of banging continued. The police officers could not open the door. The Complainant repeated, “They are trying to kill me.” SO #1 attempted to kick the door open.

Starting at about 2:15 a.m., a substance was sprayed from inside the apartment. WO #2 requested a less-lethal use of force option.

Starting at about 2:18 a.m., the Complainant repeatedly yelled, “Fire, fire.”

Starting at about 2:27 a.m., SO #1 and WO #2 had a conversation about a CEW deployment being the best option.

Starting at about 2:28 a.m., WO #7 and a Toronto Fire Services (TFS) firefighter arrived. The firefighter used a crowbar to try to break the locking mechanism of the door. The Complainant asked to be left alone, and he told CW #1 that he was going to jump from the balcony. Information was received that the Complainant was on the ledge of a balcony and was going to jump. Everybody disengaged. WO #2 spoke to CW #1 and asked her to try to coax the Complainant back into the apartment. She returned and reported that the Complainant was still on the ledge and threatened to jump.

Starting at about 2:35 a.m., WO #7 left the area.

Starting at about 2:36 a.m., a master key was delivered by a security guard. CW #1 advised that the Complainant was still on the ledge, and he had thrown her telephone out the window.

Starting at about 2:37 a.m., WO #2 asked CW #1 to open the door, which she did, and the police officers entered. CW #1 stated that the Complainant had one leg over the ledge. SO #1 spoke of grabbing the Complainant by surprise if the opportunity presented itself. The intention was to pull him inside.

Starting at about 2:39 a.m., CW #1 advised that the Complainant wanted to go to the hospital.

Starting at about 2:40 a.m., WO #2 made an inquiry about the arrival time of the EMS. CW #1 advised that the Complainant smoked marijuana and took sleeping pills.

Starting at about 2:41 a.m., CW #1 stated that the Complainant would jump if the police officers went near him. WO #2 assured CW #1 that they would take the Complainant to the hospital. WO #2 had CW #1 go back and tell the Complainant that the ambulance was en route.

Starting at about 2:44 a.m., WO #3 was at ground level. The Complainant was captured breaking glass in the window and throwing it to the ground below. WO #2 received a telephone call, and was heard to ask about the Complainant’s location and if the Complainant would fall if a CEW was used. The police officers spoke of safety issues if CEWs were deployed on the Complainant, namely, the risk of him going over the ledge. There was mention of the situation needing an immediate response as WO #2 had learned that the Complainant had cut his wrist with glass, and he had one foot over the ledge. WO #2 spoke to a police officer at ground level and waited for information that the Complainant had come off the ledge and was closer to the side of the building.

Starting at about 2:46 a.m., WO #2 said, “Go.” SO #1 entered the bedroom first, followed by WO #1 and then SO #2. SO #1 and WO #1 both had their CEWs drawn. The Complainant screamed. The right window was smashed, and the Complainant could be seen at the left side, on the window well. The officers deposited their CEWs on the bedroom windowsill and then reached through the broken windowpane to their right to grab hold of the Complainant. SO #1 and WO #1 were in the window and SO #2 was behind SO #1. SO #1 picked up WO #1’s CEW at 2:46:21 a.m., and SO #2 moved to the left side of the window, picking up SO #1’s CEW. The Complainant said, “I am coming in.” Both SO #1 and WO #1 pulled on the Complainant’s arm and said, “Come here.” The Complainant screamed, “Help, they are going to shoot me.” The Complainant was told they did not want to hurt him. SO #1 hung out the window to maintain his two-handed grip on the Complainant’s right arm. WO #1 told the Complainant, “Don’t do it brother, don’t do it.” SO #1 pointed his CEW at the Complainant over top of WO #1.

Starting at about 2:46.26 a.m., the crackle sound of a CEW deployment could be heard and, at 2:46:28 a.m., someone announced, “Taser, Taser, Taser.” SO #2 was at the left side of the window. WO #1 was on SO #2’s right side and SO #1’s arm was over the top of WO #1’s right shoulder. The sound of the CEW continued.

Starting at about 2:46:37 a.m., SO #2, with SO #1’s CEW in his right hand, smashed the left side window. The Complainant was captured lying below the window and his runners were seen kicking at the window.

Starting at about 2:46:38 a.m., SO #1 announced, “Double deployment,” as he pushed WO #1 back from the window. The Complainant stated, “Okay, okay.” SO #1’s outstretched right arm held his CEW at the window. SO #2 stood at the left side of the window and WO #1 was between SO #1 and SO #2. SO #2 placed SO #1’s CEW back on the windowsill and tried to grab the Complainant.

Starting at about 2:46:44 a.m., the Complainant sat between the window and the ledge with his back to the wall of the balcony. A police officer reached out through the left window to grab the Complainant.

Starting at about 2:46:46 a.m., someone screamed, “Taser him again.” SO #1 deployed his CEW at the Complainant, who screamed, “No.” The Complainant pulled the CEW wires and probes from the front of his torso. The Complainant was grabbed by his left shoulder as he came to his feet and began to climb over the ledge. SO #1 and SO #2 were seen grabbing the Complainant’s right arm to prevent him from climbing over. The police officers said, “No, no, no, no.” The Complainant continued to pull away to break their grip.

Starting at about 2:46:58 a.m., WO #2 shouted that he had a black strap and said, “Can we tie him?” Somone shouted, “He’s slipping.” SO #2 and SO #1 hung through the broken glass holding onto the Complainant to prevent him from going over.

Starting at about 2:47:15 a.m., WO #2 handed the black strap to SO #2, and SO #2 said he could not reach the Complainant. SO #1 said, “Come here, do not do it.” SO #1 said he was cut, and questioned the Complainant’s location. A response was heard, “Down below.” The Complainant yelled, “They were trying to shoot me.” SO #1 stepped back, and SO #2 had a black strap in his hand. SO #1 left the apartment as WO #2 tried to stop the bleeding on his right arm. SO #2 had cuts to his right arm and met WO #7 by the elevator.

Cellular Video Footage - CW #2

On June 17, 2025, the video started with a view from an apartment building located across the street from the scene. The footage was not date or time-stamped.

Three fully marked TPS police vehicles and a fire truck were parked in front of an apartment building. The camera panned up the apartment building as a blue blanket fell to the ground. Flashlights from street level illuminated a man - the Complainant - perched on a window ledge as he pulled shards of glass from a shattered window and tossed them onto the street. The Complainant appeared to communicate with someone at street level [now known to be WO #3], but what he said was indiscernible.

Starting at about 1 minute, 29 seconds of the video runtime, shouts from police officers were heard from the window where the Complainant was located. A police officer reached out the window and grabbed the Complainant’s hands, but the Complainant pulled them away. The Complainant lowered himself to a seated position in the window well and continued to fight off the police officers. The second windowpane shattered as another police officer reached through to assist with the attempt to bring the Complainant inside the apartment.

Starting at about one minute, 45 seconds, a hand holding a CEW was seen at the window, and the weapon was deployed at the Complainant. The sound of a loud pop was heard, followed by a second loud pop, as a second window shattered. Hands came out the second window. The Complainant transitioned onto his back and kicked his legs upward at the police officers’ hands. A police officer held the Complainant’s right wrist as the Complainant moved onto his feet, and swung a leg over the edge of the window well. The Complainant then pulled his arm away from the police officer and lowered himself down.

Starting at about two minutes, 25 seconds, the Complainant removed his sweater, moved north along the ledge of the floor below and used his left foot to strike a window.

Starting at about three minutes, 12 seconds, the police officers left the window area. The Complainant turned his back to the window and used his outstretched arms to steady himself in the window frame. He then lowered his left leg down below the window ledge. He appeared to try to move to the next window, but slipped and fell feet-first from the window ledge. The Complainant fell through some tree branches before a loud thud was heard.

Cellphone Footage - Anonymous Tik Tok User

The footage was not date or time-stamped.

The Complainant was captured standing on a ledge outside a window. Starting at about 11 seconds of the video run time, he threw a blanket down to street level. The camera panned away from the building and a fire truck was shown reversing south on the street in front of the building. A flashlight illuminated the area of the building where the Complainant was located.

Starting at about 19 seconds, the footage jumped ahead. A voice said, “That was a Taser, they tased him.” A crackling sound was audible, and the Complainant was seen resting on his back on the window well, kicking upward.

Starting at about 40 seconds, a hand emerged from the window towards the Complainant, who stood and swung his left leg over the edge of the window well ledge. The Complainant leaned his upper body forward on the ledge and his right arm movement was impaired. A voice said, “Don’t do it!” The Complainant swung a leg over the window well ledge. He climbed over and his legs hung down as he grasped the edge of the ledge with both hands. The head of a police officer emerged from the window as the Complainant struggled out of his sweater. He managed to place his feet on the ledge of the apartment below, and freed himself from his sweater.

Starting at about one minute, 29 seconds, the Complainant stood with his back against the window of an apartment below. He turned to face the window and, at one minute, 42 seconds of the video run time, he fell from the window ledge.

Starting at about one minute, 54 seconds, the footage jumped ahead and captured police officers surrounding the Complainant where he rested on his back. The Complainant’s hands were handcuffed in front of his body.

Cellphone Video Footage – CW #6

The footage – consisting of two recordings - was not date or time-stamped.

Starting at about 13 seconds into the first video, the Complainant was captured trying to climb out of a window. His left leg hung on the outside of the window and his back faced towards ground level. As he continued to try to climb out, his right arm was pulled back into the apartment.

Starting at about 25 seconds, the Complainant’s body, other than his lower right leg and arm, were outside the window. Glass broke and his right leg came further out of the window. CW #6 questioned if the TPS had discharged their CEWs. The Complainant’s right leg came outside, and he pulled it free by using the wall as leverage. The Complainant hung from the window ledge. As he attempted to lower himself to a window ledge below, his shirt was held and pulled off from over his shoulders.

Starting at about 55 seconds, the Complainant stood on the window ledge of the apartment below.

The second recording began as the Complainant traversed from the window ledge on which he stood to another window ledge. As he reached the second window, his right side faced the building. He kicked the window twice with his left foot. He slid further over and, with his back to the building, made one more attempt to break the window with his left foot. He then turned clockwise and faced the building. Within the next ten seconds, the Complainant appeared to reach for a window with his left hand and fell feet first from the ledge. He passed through tree branches below and landed on the sidewalk.

CW #6 yelled, “You all did that!” and he yelled about the Complainant being “tasered”. He accused the TPS of killing the Complainant. The Complainant slowly moved his body as the TPS police officers approached and circled him. About 20 seconds after he fell, TFS personnel approached with first-aid equipment.

Cellphone Footage – CW #4

The video, taken from an apartment complex across from the scene, was 37 seconds in length.

A shirt was captured hanging from an upper floor window. The Complainant was on a window, below. His feet hung below the window ledge, and he appeared to attempt to hold onto the brickwork between two sets of windows or the ledge from each window. The Complainant fell and stuck a tree below, landing on his stomach on the sidewalk. Within nine seconds, the Complainant rolled onto his back. Thirteen seconds later, the first TFS firefighter arrived with first-aid equipment as police officers stood nearby.

TPS Communications Recordings

At 1:54 a.m., June 17, 2025, the Complainant called 911 in an agitated state and reported that TPS police officers from 55 Division planned to kill him. He stated that there were body bags, plastic and gloves in his residence located in the area of Church Street and The Esplanade, Toronto. 55 Division police officers had accused him of being a drug dealer and a pedophile, and he urged the call-taker to have police officers attend his apartment immediately. CW #1 was heard in the background of the 911 call, attempting to calm the Complainant. The Complainant screamed that someone was at his door and had tried to get into his apartment. CW #1 screamed for the police to hurry.

At 2:07 a.m., WO #2 advised that the Complainant was elevated and banging something inside the apartment.

At 2:10 a.m., WO #2 requested that TFS attend to breach the apartment door. The officer also requested that the Emergency Task Force (ETF) attend; however, they were busy and unavailable. The Complainant yelled that he wanted the ETF at the apartment.

At 2:15 a.m., WO #2 broadcast that the Complainant would not open the door and had sprayed an unknown aerosol around the inside of the door. A police officer with a less-lethal shotgun was requested, along with someone from building management with a master key for the apartment.

At 2:20 a.m., a dispatcher advised that the Complainant had called 911 and screamed, “Fire, fire, fire.” WO #2 requested a Mobile Crisis Intervention Team (MCIT) to attend, and was told none were available.

At 2:22 a.m., WO #2 broadcast that they could hear heavy furniture being pushed in front of the apartment door.

At 2:26 a.m., WO #7 was on scene with a TFS firefighter, who had a breaching tool.

At 2:31 a.m., WO #3 broadcast that the Complainant was on the ledge of the balcony and would jump if the police officers got any closer. Approximately one minute later, the Complainant got off the ledge, stood on the balcony, and yelled.

At 2:34 a.m., a Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) tactical unit was en route to the scene.

At 2:35 a.m., TFS requested a tower truck to attend. A police officer broadcast that the Complainant was standing on the ledge, and had put one leg over the ledge of the balcony.

At 2:36 a.m., a dispatcher broadcast that the TPS ETF was en route and not DRPS. The Complainant moved back and forth with his back against the wall on the balcony.

At 2:44 a.m., a police officer advised that the Complainant had kicked and broken his balcony window. He then threw glass from the balcony, and started to cut his wrists.

At 2:47 a.m., the Complainant was said to be hanging from the balcony.

At 2:51 a.m., the Complainant fell to the ground.

At 3:11 a.m., the Complainant was en route to SMH.

At 3:52 a.m., WO #5 broadcast that, at 3:28 a.m., the Complainant was pronounced deceased.

Materials Obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained the following records from the TPS between June 18, 2025, and August 25, 2025:

• BWC footage
• Communications recordings
• Computer-assisted Dispatch Report
• Policies - Persons in Crisis; Incident Response (Use of Force & De-escalation); and Conducted Energy Weapon
• Involved Officer List
• Notes - WO #7, WO #2, WO #1, WO #3, WO #4, WO #5 and WO #6
• History - the Complainant
• Sudden Death General Occurrence Report
• CEW deployment data

Materials Obtained from Other Sources

The SIU obtained the following records from the following other sources between June 17, 2025, and July 15, 2025:

• Ambulance Call Report from Toronto EMS
• Cellphone video footage from CW #2
• Cellphone video footage from CW #6
• Cellphone video footage from anonymous Tik Tok user
• Cellphone video footage from CW #4
• Emergency Incident Report from TFS

The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, neither subject official agreed an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes.

In the early morning of June 17, 2025, the Complainant contacted police to report that 55 Division officers were planning to kill him, and that his residence contained body bags, plastic and gloves. CW #1 was heard attempting to calm the Complainant in the background of the call. Police officers were dispatched to check on the Complainant’s condition and assess the situation.

The Complainant was of unsound mind at the time. He had been staying with CW #1 in her apartment in the area of Church Street and The Esplanade for a few days when his condition began to deteriorate the evening of June 16, 2025. He became paranoid and highly agitated, and started throwing items out the window.

SO #1 and SO #2, and other TPS officers, including WO #1 and WO #2, arrived outside the door of the apartment shortly after 2:00 a.m. They could hear the Complainant shouting and banging items inside the apartment. WO #2 took the lead in attempting to de-escalate the Complainant’s behaviour, telling him through the locked door that the police were there to help him. SO #1 unsuccessfully tried to kick open the door. WO #2 asked for a master key from building security and the ETF’s attendance. The ETF were unavailable to respond. The same was true of the TPS MCIT. A firefighter arrived on scene with a tool to breach the door. WO #2 asked him to stop his efforts for fear of provoking the Complainant, whom they had come to learn from officers at street level was on a window well with a leg dangling over the building. Rather, from outside the door, they asked CW #1 to talk to the Complainant to persuade him to return inside. CW #1 did so but was unable to encourage the Complainant back to safety.

CW #1 opened the front door, and the officers entered at about 2:37 a.m. They spoke for a period, considered their options, including the use of a CEW, and were told by CW #1 that the Complainant would jump if the officers approached him.

At about 2:45 a.m., on learning from officers at street level that the Complainant had cut his wrists from broken glass, WO #2, SO #1, SO #2 and WO #1 entered the bedroom and confronted the Complainant sitting on a small window well outside the window. SO #1 and WO #1 deposited the CEWs they were holding on the windowsill and reached through a broken windowpane to grab hold of the Complainant. The Complainant resisted strenuously to break their hold. SO #2 intervened, also grabbing hold of the Complainant. SO #1 retrieved WO #1’s CEW from the windowsill and SO #2 picked up SO #1’s CEW, and the pair of officers fired the weapons at the Complainant. The Complainant screamed out but continued to resist. He broke free of the officers and climbed over a ledge that bordered the window well, lowering himself down to a window ledge of an apartment below as a CEW discharged again for about five seconds. The Complainant tried to kick open the window before losing his grip on the building’s exterior wall and falling to the ground below.

First-responders on scene tended to the Complainant. He was handcuffed and transported to hospital, where he was subsequently pronounced deceased.

Cause of Death

The pathologist at autopsy was of the preliminary view that the Complainant’s death was attributable to blunt impact trauma to the torso.

Section 25(1), Criminal Code - Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

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

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

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.

The Complainant passed away on June 17, 2025, the result of a fall from height. As TPS officers had physically engaged the Complainant moments before the fall, 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 death.

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.

The officers involved in trying to prevent harm coming to the Complainant, including SO #1 and SO #2, were lawfully placed and in the execution of their duties through the series of events culminating in the Complainant’s fall. Aware of a person in crisis, acting erratically and precariously positioned on an exterior window well on the upper floor of a building, the officers were within their rights in responding to the scene to do what they reasonably could to protect the Complainant.

I am also satisfied that the force used by the officers, including SO #1 and SO #2, constituted reasonable force. The officers considered their options on arrival at the scene and began by attempting to de-escalate the situation via lines of communication. As these efforts were ongoing, steps were being taken to secure other resources to the scene, including paramedics, the fire service and the ETF. Once through the front door, the officers were aware that their presence could aggravate the situation, as CW #1 had warned. That said, they were acting on information that the Complainant had cut his wrists with broken glass and the situation was deteriorating, including with respect to his location on the window well. In the circumstances, the officers’ decision to enter the apartment and the apartment bedroom when they did was not unreasonable. The same may be said of the officers’ recourse to physical force and CEW discharges. The Complainant was in a dangerous position, and it was imperative that the officers act quickly to return him into the apartment. The use of the CEWs made sense after the Complainant had managed to resist the officers’ efforts to wrestle control of him. At the same time, the Complainant was sitting or lying within the window well for all but the last of the CEW discharges, and the risk that he would fall over the window well ledge because of neuromuscular incapacitation was minimal.SO #1’s CEW was discharged by SO #2 for a period of about five seconds as the Complainant hung over the window well ledge just before he lowered himself to a window ledge below. The evidence suggests this was an inadvertent CEW discharge, the result of SO #2 leaning over the weapon on the bedroom windowsill as he and SO #1 were reaching through the window attempting to maintain a hold of the Complainant. Nor does it appear that this discharge was the proximate cause of the Complainant’s fall; he exhibited control of his physical faculties after the discharge ended, lowering himself onto a window ledge and kicking at a window." id="fn5">[5] In fact, neither the grappling nor the CEW discharges resulted in the Complainant’s fall. That happened after he was able to free himself of the officers and lower himself to a window ledge below.

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

Date: October 14, 2025

Electronically approved by

Joseph Martino

Director

Special Investigations Unit