Connect with us

Alberta

ASIRT clears two Edmonton Police officers in death of suspect in custody

Published

8 minute read

From the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT)

EPS officers acted reasonably in fatality

On Aug. 18, 2016, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) was directed to investigate the circumstances surrounding an encounter with the Edmonton Police Service (EPS), resulting in the death of a 34-year-old man that same day in Edmonton, Alberta.

As the death occurred during an encounter with police, the man’s death was deemed to be an in-custody death, and the investigation was assigned to ASIRT.

At 8:50 p.m. on that day, EPS received a call from Alberta Hospital regarding the man, who was a resident of Alberta Hospital with a history of violence and weapons offences. The man had been released from the hospital on a pass but was not complying with his conditions and failed to return to the hospital. A warrant was issued for his arrest. EPS was advised that the man was at a family residence causing a disturbance and was believed to be intoxicated by some form of drug, “freaking out,” and sweating profusely. The man was not described as being violent, but there was concern that he may become violent.

Two EPS officers responded to the residence, which was an apartment on the 14th floor. As the officers entered the suite, they immediately spoke with the man in an attempt to calm him. The man was initially compliant, but then attempted to exit onto the balcony and appeared to throw an object over the railing. Given his intoxication and behaviour, it was determined that permitting him onto the balcony was unsafe. As a result, when he failed to comply with verbal directions, the officers tried to take him into custody. Officers told the man that he was under arrest, and each officer tried to take control of one of the man’s arms. The man immediately became aggressive and resisted, and was ultimately taken to the ground by the two officers, where he continued to struggle against being placed into handcuffs. No blows were delivered. A wrist-lock, used as a pain-compliance technique, had no impact on the man. Following a struggle, the man was fully restrained and still able to speak.

The officers notified dispatch that the man was in custody and requested the assistance of Emergency Medical Services (EMS). At this point, the man was breathing and responsive, but was described as pale and sweaty. Prior to the arrival of EMS, the man’s condition deteriorated, and he exhibited difficulty breathing and failed to respond to verbal commands. One of the officers contacted dispatch to request that EMS be expedited, while members removed the restraints and placed the man in the recovery position. While awaiting EMS, the man stopped breathing. Officers alternated performing chest compressions on the man until EMS arrived. EMS transported the man to the University of Alberta Hospital where he was pronounced dead.

A small plastic bag of methamphetamine was recovered from the man’s person, along with a bottle containing 40 yellow pills of unknown origin.

The cause of death was attributed to “excited delirium syndrome secondary to methamphetamine toxicity.” The struggle with police and subsequent restraint was noted as a contributing factor. A toxicology report confirmed the presence of methamphetamine and its metabolites, as well as a small amount of oxycodone.

The man had been staying in a hotel room since leaving Alberta Hospital, and a search of that room revealed few personal effects but clear evidence of drug use, including methamphetamine as well as used and unused syringes. The room was in complete disarray with clothing on the floor and syringes throughout the room.

Under S.25 of the Criminal Code, a police officer is permitted to use as much force as is reasonably necessary in the lawful execution of their duties. Given the fact that they had been called to the residence for assistance and the fact that there was an outstanding warrant for the arrest of the man, the officers had both the lawful ability and duty to arrest him, and were permitted to use reasonably necessary force to do so.

When the man’s behaviour escalated, some use of force was necessary both to ensure the safety of the man, but also to detain him. To allow a mentally ill and intoxicated man access to the balcony would have been both irresponsible and highly dangerous. The force used by the two officers was brief, and was used only for the purpose of gaining control of the man, who had become non-compliant and was physically resistant. No weapons were used by the officers, and the use of force ceased immediately upon the man being restrained. Once the man was restrained and when a concern emerged regarding the man’s physical condition, police called EMS, removed the restraints, and attempted first aid.

While police and medical efforts were unfortunately unsuccessful in saving the life of the man, there is no basis to suggest any degree of negligence in failing to care for the man while in medical distress, and the force used to arrest him was no more than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Having reviewed the matter, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that either officer committed any Criminal Code offence while dealing with the man. While his death was tragic, the actions of the officers were not only reasonable and lawful in the circumstances, they were necessary. A failure to take custody of the man would have left him in a position where he presented a serious risk to himself, the family members who were present, and the officers.

This was a terrible event for all involved. Notwithstanding his mental health and drug issues, the man had a family who loved him and wanted him to be safe and well. The officers attended with the intention of providing assistance to both the man and his family, to ensure everyone’s safety, and to have the man returned to Alberta Hospital so he could be properly treated. The outcome was one that no one present wanted and is an example of a situation when officers attempt to do everything correctly but there is still a tragic outcome. ASIRT extends its most sincere condolences to the family of the man.

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

Alberta

Ford and Trudeau are playing checkers. Trump and Smith are playing chess

Published on

CAE Logo

 

By Dan McTeague

 

Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry.

There’s no doubt about it: Donald Trump’s threat of a blanket 25% tariff on Canadian goods (to be established if the Canadian government fails to take sufficient action to combat drug trafficking and illegal crossings over our southern border) would be catastrophic for our nation’s economy. More than $3 billion in goods move between the U.S. and Canada on a daily basis. If enacted, the Trump tariff would likely result in a full-blown recession.

It falls upon Canada’s leaders to prevent that from happening. That’s why Justin Trudeau flew to Florida two weeks ago to point out to the president-elect that the trade relationship between our countries is mutually beneficial.

This is true, but Trudeau isn’t the best person to make that case to Trump, since he has been trashing the once and future president, and his supporters, both in public and private, for years. He did so again at an appearance just the other day, in which he implied that American voters were sexist for once again failing to elect the nation’s first female president, and said that Trump’s election amounted to an assault on women’s rights.

Consequently, the meeting with Trump didn’t go well.

But Trudeau isn’t Canada’s only politician, and in recent days we’ve seen some contrasting approaches to this serious matter from our provincial leaders.

First up was Doug Ford, who followed up a phone call with Trudeau earlier this week by saying that Canadians have to prepare for a trade war. “Folks, this is coming, it’s not ‘if,’ it is — it’s coming… and we need to be prepared.”

Ford said that he’s working with Liberal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to put together a retaliatory tariff list. Spokesmen for his government floated the idea of banning the LCBO from buying American alcohol, and restricting the export of critical minerals needed for electric vehicle batteries (I’m sure Trump is terrified about that last one).

But Ford’s most dramatic threat was his announcement that Ontario is prepared to shut down energy exports to the U.S., specifically to Michigan, New York, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, if Trump follows through with his plan. “We’re sending a message to the U.S. You come and attack Ontario, you attack the livelihoods of Ontario and Canadians, we’re going to use every tool in our toolbox to defend Ontarians and Canadians across the border,” Ford said.

Now, unfortunately, all of this chest-thumping rings hollow. Ontario does almost $500 billion per year in trade with the U.S., and the province’s supply chains are highly integrated with America’s. The idea of just cutting off the power, as if you could just flip a switch, is actually impossible. It’s a bluff, and Trump has already called him on it. When told about Ford’s threat by a reporter this week, Trump replied “That’s okay if he does that. That’s fine.”

And Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry. Just over the past year Ford and Trudeau have been seen side by side announcing their $5 billion commitment to Honda, or their $28.2 billion in subsidies for new Stellantis and Volkswagen electric vehicle battery plants.

Their assumption was that the U.S. would be a major market for Canadian EVs. Remember that “vehicles are the second largest Canadian export by value, at $51 billion in 2023 of which 93% was exported to the U.S.,”according to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and “Auto is Ontario’s top export at 28.9% of all exports (2023).”

But Trump ran on abolishing the Biden administration’s de facto EV mandate. Now that he’s back in the White House, the market for those EVs that Trudeau and Ford invested in so heavily is going to be much softer. Perhaps they’d like to be able to blame Trump’s tariffs for the coming downturn rather than their own misjudgment.

In any event, Ford’s tactic stands in stark contrast to the response from Alberta, Canada’s true energy superpower. Premier Danielle Smith made it clear that her province “will not support cutting off our Alberta energy exports to the U.S., nor will we support a tariff war with our largest trading partner and closest ally.”

Smith spoke about this topic at length at an event announcing a new $29-million border patrol team charged with combatting drug trafficking, at which said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” Her deputy premier Mike Ellis was quoted as saying, “The concerns that president-elect Trump has expressed regarding fentanyl are, quite frankly, the same concerns that I and the premier have had.” Smith and Ellis also criticized Ottawa’s progressively lenient approach to drug crimes.

(For what it’s worth, a recent Léger poll found that “Just 29 per cent of [Canadians] believe Trump’s concerns about illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Canada to the U.S. are unwarranted.” Perhaps that’s why some recent polls have found that Trudeau is currently less popular in Canada than Trump at the moment.)

Smith said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” And on X/Twitter she said, “Now is the time to… reach out to our friends and allies in the U.S. to remind them just how much Americans and Canadians mutually benefit from our trade relationship – and what we can do to grow that partnership further,” adding, “Tariffs just hurt Americans and Canadians on both sides of the border. Let’s make sure they don’t happen.”

This is exactly the right approach. Smith knows there is a lot at stake in this fight, and is not willing to step into the ring in a fight that Canada simply can’t win, and will cause a great deal of hardship for all involved along the way.

While Trudeau indulges in virtue signaling and Ford in sabre rattling, Danielle Smith is engaging in true statesmanship. That’s something that is in short supply in our country these days.

As I’ve written before, Trump is playing chess while Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford are playing checkers. They should take note of Smith’s strategy. Honey will attract more than vinegar, and if the long history of our two countries tell us anything, it’s that diplomacy is more effective than idle threats.

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Your towing rights! AMA unveils measures to help fight predatory towing

Published on

From the Alberta Motor Association

Know Before the Tow: Towing Rights in Alberta

Predatory towing is a growing concern in major cities across the province. The Alberta Motor
Association (AMA), in partnership with the Calgary Police Service and Calgary Fire Department,
wants to ensure Albertans are not only aware of this emerging issue but also know how to stop
it.

Today, AMA launches Know Before the Tow—a new, provincewide awareness campaign that
empowers Albertans with the knowledge needed to stay confident and in control when faced with
a tow scam. The campaign features a list of five key towing rights that every Alberta driver should
know:

1. You have the right to refuse unsolicited towing services.
2. You have the right to choose who tows your vehicle, and where, unless
otherwise directed by police.
3. You have the right to access your vehicle to retrieve personal items during a
storage facility’s business hours.
4. You have the right to ask if the towing company receives a kickback for taking
your vehicle to a particular storage facility or repair shop.
5. You have the right to a quote prior to service, and an itemized invoice prior to
making payment.

“Being in a collision or broken down at the roadside is stressful enough; the last thing any Albertan
needs is high pressure from an unscrupulous tower,” says Jeff Kasbrick, Vice-President,
Advocacy and Operations, AMA. “These towing rights are clear and remind every Albertan that
they’re in the driver’s seat when it comes to who they choose to tow their vehicle.”

Edmonton and Calgary in particular are seeing increasing reports of predatory towing. Unethical
operators will arrive at a collision or breakdown scene uninvited, create a false sense of urgency
to remove the vehicle, and ultimately leave drivers facing huge fees.

Starting today, Albertans can visit ama.ab.ca/KnowBeforeTheTow to download a digital copy of
their towing rights, helping them feel confident if faced with a tow scam. And soon, all AMA centres
will offer free print versions, which are small enough to tuck in a glovebox.

“Alberta’s towing industry is still highly reputable, with the vast majority of operators committed
to fair and professional service. In fact, AMA and our roadside assistance network is proud to
represent 80% of all private-passenger tows in the province, so our members can be confident
that we’ll always protect them—just as we have for nearly 100 years,” says Kasbrick.

“By knowing your rights and choosing trusted providers like AMA, you can avoid unnecessary
stress, costs, and uncertainty. Because the road to recovery after a collision shouldn’t have to
include fighting for your vehicle.”

Sergeant Brad Norman, Calgary Police Service Traffic Section, says law enforcement continues
to work diligently with first responders and community partners like AMA to put the brakes on
predatory towers, who “are showing up at collision sites and pressuring overwhelmed and
frightened victims into paying high towing rates.”

“Our priority is to ensure the safety of collision victims, the public, and first responders at
collision sites. Part of this effort is educating motorists about their rights so that they Know
Before the Tow that they can say no to unsolicited towing services and choose a reputable
tower of their choice instead,” says Norman. “No one deserves to be taken advantage of after
being involved in a collision.”

To learn more, and to view an expanded version of Alberta towing rights, visit
ama.ab.ca/KnowBeforeTheTow

Continue Reading

Trending

X