An attempt by five young men to access the roof of the Aura residential building at 386 Yonge Street in Toronto on September 23, 2024, ended in arrests, the seizure of a loaded handgun, and a subsequent Ontario Court of Justice ruling on Charter rights and break-and-enter charges.
Rooftopping Attempt at Aura Condo Tower
The group of five individuals went to Aura, one of Toronto’s tallest condo towers, with the intention of “rooftopping”—a form of urban exploration focused on gaining access to high-rise roofs for photography and videography. According to testimony from a concierge, young people attempt to access the building’s roof approximately once every two months.
Sai-Vivek Vangipuram, who was ultimately convicted of break and enter and mischief, testified that he had engaged in rooftopping about 50 times since 2017 and posted content on TikTok from multiple locations. Prior to targeting Aura, Vangipuram and a friend attempted to enter One Bloor Street East by following a resident inside. They encountered three other young individuals attempting the same thing before security removed all five from the premises.
Outside, the group decided to try Aura, where Vangipuram had previously accessed the roof. They gained entry by following a resident inside and proceeded to a stairwell leading to the roof. Vangipuram carried a camera, a laptop, six cellphones, pliers, pry bars, and crowbars. Members of the group covered a surveillance camera with a backpack while attempting to open the rooftop door. Security staff spotted the group and contacted police, who arrested all five individuals in the 79th-floor stairwell.
Discovery of the Handgun and Court Findings
During a search of Vangipuram’s backpack, Detective Constable Daryl Konecny located several tools and a black satchel containing a loaded Glock 42 handgun with one round in the chamber and two in the magazine. Vangipuram did not hold a licence to possess the firearm and denied knowing it was in his backpack, testifying that he had left the bag with others for about 15 minutes while searching for cellphone reception. Another group member testified that tools were moved into Vangipuram’s backpack to empty another bag used to cover the surveillance camera.
Justice Cidalia Faria accepted Vangipuram’s evidence that he lacked knowledge of the firearm, or alternatively, that the circumstances raised a reasonable doubt regarding knowing possession and control. Vangipuram was found not guilty of three firearms offences. The handgun remained admissible as evidence because police discovered it lawfully prior to subsequent searches.
Warrantless Cellphone Searches Violate Charter Rights
Following the arrests, Detective Constable Konecny accessed two of the six seized cellphones without a search warrant. The officer provided inconsistent explanations, testifying that he believed the phones could be stolen while also stating in a document provided to the Crown that he searched them for evidence of Vangipuram filming his rooftopping activities.
Justice Faria found no urgent circumstances to justify warrantless access and ruled that the searches violated Section 8 of the Charter against unreasonable search and seizure. Faria described the officer’s approach to Charter rights as “lackadaisical” and “troubling,” noting that cellphones contain extensive personal information and carry a high expectation of privacy. However, because the Charter breach did not uncover any evidence, the handgun’s admissibility remained unaffected.
Legal Definition of Break and Enter in Common Areas
The defence argued that entering common areas of a condo tower constitutes trespassing—a provincial offence—rather than break and enter, as the accused did not enter a dwelling. Justice Faria rejected this argument, pointing to Aura’s controlled access points, including the lobby, elevators, locked stairwells, and locked rooftop door.
Faria determined that despite residents having a lower expectation of privacy in common areas compared to individual units, the building’s infrastructure provided sufficient privacy barriers to classify the lobby, elevators, hallways, stairwells, and rooftop as part of a “dwelling-house” under the Criminal Code for this case. Consequently, the judge found Vangipuram guilty of break and enter and mischief. The court delivered the decision orally on August 19, with written reasons released on September 21.
| Event Detail | Fact / Finding |
|---|---|
| Date of Incident | September 23, 2024 |
| Location | Aura, 386 Yonge Street, Toronto (79th-floor stairwell) |
| Charges Decided | Break and enter, mischief (Guilty); Firearms offences (Not guilty) |
| Charter Violation | Warrantless search of two cellphones by police (Section 8 breach) |
