Mandate of the SIU

The Special Investigations Unit is a civilian law enforcement agency that investigates incidents involving police officers where there has been death, serious injury or allegations of sexual assault. The Unit’s jurisdiction covers more than 50 municipal, regional and provincial police services across Ontario.

Under the Police Services Act, the Director of the SIU must determine based on the evidence gathered in an investigation whether an officer has committed a criminal offence in connection with the incident under investigation. If, after an investigation, there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, the Director has the authority to lay a criminal charge against the officer. Alternatively, in all cases where no reasonable grounds exist, the Director does not lay criminal charges but files a report with the Attorney General communicating the results of an investigation.

Information restrictions

Freedom of Information and Protection of Personal Privacy Act (“FIPPA”)

Pursuant to section 14 of FIPPA (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 whose release 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 of FIPPA (i.e., personal privacy), protected personal information is not included in this document. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

  • subject officer name(s)
  • witness officer name(s)
  • civilian witness name(s)
  • 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 (“PHIPA”)

Pursuant to PHIPA, any information related to the personal health of identifiable individuals is not included.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may have also 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.

Mandate engaged

The Unit’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents where there is a serious injury (including sexual assault allegations) or death in cases involving the police.

“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault. Where a prolonged delay is likely before the seriousness of the injury can be assessed, the Unit should be notified so that it can monitor the situation and decide on the extent of its involvement.

This report relates to the SIU’s investigation into the death of a 45-year-old male (the Complainant) on April 21, 2018, following an interaction with police which had occurred on April 2, 2018 in which he had been seriously injured.

The investigation

Notification of the SIU

At approximately 3:21 p.m. on April 2, 2018, the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) notified the SIU of an injury to the Complainant.

The HPS reported that the Complainant resided with his wife and daughter in a residence in the City of Hamilton. On March 31, 2018, into April 1, 2018, police were called to the family home to deal with a family matter that involved the daughter. After police left the home, the Complainant also left.

On April 2, 2018, at 4:00 a.m., the wife of the Complainant approached her husband’s vehicle in front of their home. She found him seated inside and naked with a screwdriver in his hand. The Complainant’s wife returned to their home.

On April 2, 2018, at 11:08 a.m., police received several calls about a naked man [now known to be the Complainant] on the roof of his residence. One of the calls was from his wife who indicated that she thought her husband may be suffering from a cocaine induced psychosis. Three uniformed police officers and a uniformed sergeant – the subject officer (SO) - responded to the address. The SO spoke to the Complainant, who was on the roof of his home and would not come down.

The Complainant moved to the roof of a neighbouring home (residence #2) and began to rock the chimney until it fell. Two police negotiators arrived at 12:21 p.m. and entered a residence (residence #3), which was beside residence #2. While the Complainant was at the front of residence #2, he projected himself forward to the porch roof of residence #3, and then fell to the concrete driveway that was littered with bricks. The Complainant was taken to the hospital where he was found to be in serious condition with a brain bleed.

On April 21, 2018, the HPS and the Coroner notified the SIU that the Complainant had died in hospital from the injuries sustained in his fall. The Coroner directed an SIU forensic investigator attend the post-mortem examination on April 23, 2018.

The Team

Number of SIU Investigators assigned: 3

Number of SIU Forensic Investigators assigned: 2

Forensic Investigators attended and recorded the post-mortem examination.

Complainant:

45-year-old male, deceased

Civilian Witnesses

CW #1 Interviewed

CW #2 Interviewed

CW #3 Declined to be interviewed

CW #4 Interviewed

Witness Officers

WO #1 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #2 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

WO #3 Notes reviewed, interview deemed not necessary

WO #4 Interviewed, notes received and reviewed

Subject Officers

SO Interviewed, but declined to submit notes, as is the subject officer’s legal right.

Evidence

The Scene

SIU forensic investigators attended the Complainant’s residence in the City of Hamilton on April 2, 2018 at 3:54 p.m. to assist with a custody injury investigation involving the Complainant and members of the HPS. The area had been cordoned off, the weather was clear and cool, and the roads were dry.

The street where the Complainant’s residence was located consists of single-family residences on both sides of the road. The homes are spaced close together. The investigation focused on three homes: the Complainant’s residence, the residence abutting the Complainant’s (residence #2), and the residence immediately beside that second residence (residence #3).

The Complainant’s residence is a single-family 2½ story brick with aluminum trim residence on the east side of the roadway. The roofline is peaked and slopes to the north, south and rear (east side). At the rear of the residence is a raised wooden deck. A second story window at the rear of the house (right side if facing the house) was smashed out. The window frame was on the rear deck. The frame and shards of glass were heavily blood stained. There is an eavestrough that runs along the roof line and it was slightly pulled away from the fascia near the chimney.

Residence #2 is a two story brick and aluminum single family residence located on the east side of the roadway and south of the Complainant’s residence. The roof line is very close to the roof line of the Complainant’s home. The roofline is hip-style sloping to the north and south. Passive blood staining was located in the small alleyway between the residences. The brick chimney for this residence is on the south side. The top portion of the brick had been removed and the chimney liner was bent over. Brick debris littered the front yard and driveways of residences #2 and 3.

Residence #3 is a 2½ story single family residence located on the east side of the roadway and south of residence #2. The roofline slopes to the front (west) and the rear (east). There is a roof-covered porch at the front of the residence. The roofline slopes downward towards the roadway. Pieces of brick littered the roof. There is a window facing towards the north in the attic portion of the residence.

Measurements were taken by SIU forensic investigators relevant to the involved houses. The width between the Complainant’s residence and residence #2 was 0.7 metres. The width between residence #2 and residence #3 was 1.2 metres. The distance from the ground to the bottom of the eavestrough on the lower front porch roof of residence #3 was 3.5 metres.

Expert Evidence

Cause of Death

On Monday April 23, 2018 an SIU forensic investigator attended the Forensic Pathology Unit at the hospital in the City of Hamilton and met with the two Forensic Pathologists. The forensic investigator learned that the hospital had conducted initial toxicology tests prior to the Complainant passing. The Complainant had had part of his skull compromised as a result of the fall and attempts were made to alleviate pressure on his brain. The post-mortem examination commenced at 9:00 a.m. and concluded at 10:50 a.m. The preliminary cause of death was head trauma resulting in brain injury.

Video/Audio/Photographic Evidence

No video or audio recordings, or photographic evidence, were located.

Forensic Evidence

No submissions were made to the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

Materials obtained from Police Service

Upon request, the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from the HPS

  • Note of WOs #1-4

Relevant legislation

Section 219, Criminal Code - Criminal Negligence

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

  1. in doing anything, or
  2. 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.

Incident narrative

The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected in the investigation, which included statements from a number of the officers present at the time, including the SO, and a couple of independent civilian eyewitnesses.

In the morning of April 2, 2018, a number of HPS officers arrived at the residence of the Complainant in Hamilton following reports of a disturbance at the residential address. The Complainant had broken out one of the rear windows from the second floor and was yelling expletives. With police officers present, the Complainant scaled onto his roof before climbing onto the adjacent roof (residence #2) and ultimately falling to the ground in front of residence #3. The Complainant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a brain bleed. He would go on to die in hospital on April 21, 2018 of a brain injury induced by head trauma.

The SO was the senior officer on scene on April 2, 2018 and in charge of the overall police response. By the time of his arrival at the Complainant’s residence at about 11:24 a.m., WO #2, WO #1 and WO #3 were already at the rear of the residence and attempting to communicate with the Complainant. The Complainant was largely unresponsive to those efforts; instead, he spewed insults at the officers below, shouted obscenities about his wife and otherwise ranted nonsensically. As the officers continued to encourage him to come down safely from the roof, the Complainant’s bizarre behaviour continued unabated. Now on the roof of the residence immediately south of his home (residence #2), the Complainant took aim at its brick chimney. He pushed at it and was eventually successful in knocking a portion of it down. The chimney bricks, some thrown by the Complainant, landed on the front roof and paved driveway of the next home south (residence #3). Shortly thereafter, at about 12:20 p.m., the Complainant jumped from the roof of residence #2, landing on the sloped front porch roof of residence #3 before rolling off the roof and falling onto the concrete driveway below. Firefighters and paramedics present at the scene rushed in to render aid and the Complainant was taken to hospital in an ambulance.

Analysis and director’s decision

There are no reasonable grounds in my view to believe that the SO committed a criminal offence in connection with the Complainant’s fall and subsequent death. I am satisfied on the record that the officers, including the SO, acted reasonably in their attempts to bring the situation involving the Complainant to a safe resolution. Their efforts at communicating with the Complainant throughout the engagement, though falling on deaf ears, were at all times professional and clearly aimed at de-escalation. While focusing on the Complainant, the SO and the other officers also had their minds set on the safety of the public around them. They cordoned off an area around the homes to ensure emergency responders had unimpeded access to the scene, warned the Complainant to steer clear of electrical wires overhead, directed onlookers to return to their homes so as not to further agitate the Complainant, and called for the added expertise of police negotiators. Regrettably, the plan put in place for the negotiators was frustrated when they were unable to establish a clear line of communication with the Complainant from the second floor of residence #3 shortly before he fell to the ground. In these circumstances, it is apparent that the SO exercised a level of care throughout the hour or so he was on scene that fell well within the limits prescribed by the criminal law, notwithstanding the Complainant’s fall and eventual death. Consequently, this file is closed as there are no reasonable grounds for proceeding with criminal charges in this case.

Date: August 17, 2018

Original signed by

Joseph Martino
Deputy Director
Acting Director
Special Investigations Unit