Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Alberta

ASIRT investigations concluded on fatal officer-involved shooting involving the RCMP.

Published

7 minute read

Incident investigation report from the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT)

Introduction

On December 22, 2022, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) was directed pursuant to s. 46.1 of the Police Act to investigate a then non-fatal Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officer-involved shooting. The shooting of the affected person (AP) was reported to have happened during an interaction with him, as a result of him being a suspect in a complaint of a man with a gun.

While AP initially survived, he died of complications from the shooting the following day.

ASIRT’s Investigation

ASIRT’s investigation was comprehensive and thorough, conducted using current investigative protocols and principles relating to Major Case Management. Information from civilian witnesses, the subject and a witness officers, and importantly video recordings provided sufficient information to determine whether the force used by the subject officer during this incident was reasonable.

Circumstances Surrounding the Officer-Involved Shooting

On December 01, 2022, Maskwacis RCMP received a call reporting that a male [AP] had been drinking and left the caller’s house with a gun. AP was shooting the gun in the country (believed to be the area around the residence). Two RCMP officers responded.

Witness officer (WO) located AP walking on the road with a rifle. AP walked toward WO’s marked police vehicle with the rifle pointed at the vehicle/WO, while WO was seated in the driver’s seat. WO then exited his vehicle with his carbine rifle and moved to the rear of his vehicle while AP kept the rifle pointed at the police vehicle. The subject officer (SO) arrived on scene, but came from the opposite direction. AP turned around and walked toward SO with the barrel of the rifle pointed upwards. SO exited his police vehicle with his service pistol drawn and walked toward AP while he
repeatedly provided verbal direction to AP to drop the firearm. AP and SO were walking toward each other; at that time AP still had the barrel of the rifle pointed upward. As SO and AP got within approximately five meters of each other, AP lowered the barrel of the rifle and pointed it directly at SO. SO fired multiple rounds and struck AP with four rounds causing AP to stumble, drop the rifle and fall to the ground. AP initially survived the shooting and was transported to an Edmonton hospital, where he underwent emergency surgery. The following day, AP succumbed to his injuries.

Analysis

The subject officer was lawfully placed and acting in the execution of his duties in dealing with AP as a person who was the subject of a complaint about him being in possession of a firearm and shooting it off.

The Use of Force

Under s. 25 of the Criminal Code, police officers are permitted to use as much force as is necessary for the execution of their duties. Where this force is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm, the officer must believe on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary for the self-preservation of the officer or preservation of anyone under that officer’s protection.

A police officer’s use of force is not to be assessed on a standard of perfection nor using the benefit of hindsight.

With the benefit of hindsight, time for detached reflection and knowledge of the ultimate outcome, it is easy to speculate about how things could have been done differently. That is not the standard, however, against which an officer’s conduct is measured. The question is, applying principles of proportionality, necessity, and reasonableness, whether the force used falls into a range of possible reasonable responses.

Proportionate Response

Proportionality requires balancing a use of force with the action to which it responds. Here, the subject officers were faced with an individual that was armed with a gun and pointing it in their direction. As such, the response by the subject officers in using their respective firearms to shoot AP was proportionate to the threat of death or grievous bodily harm that he reasonably posed to both of them.

Reasonably Necessary

As set out previously in this report, AP presented as a lethal threat to both SO and WO given his actions in pointing his rifle at them. While WO did not shoot during this incident that does not impact the analysis of SO’s actions. Under the circumstances as then faced by SO, no other use of force options were reasonably available for attempted use. The use by SO of his firearm to incapacitate this lethal threat was reasonably necessary. Given the above, the defence available to SO under s. 25 of the Criminal Code would apply.

Conclusion

Under s. 25 of the Criminal Code a police officer is justified in doing what he or she is authorized to do and to use as much force as is reasonably necessary where he or she has reasonable grounds to do so. Force intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm is justified if the officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that the force was necessary to prevent the death or grievous bodily harm of the officer and/or any other person. The analysis under s.34 of the Criminal Code leads to a similar finding that subject officer’s actions were lawfully permitted.

After a thorough, independent and objective investigation into the conduct of the subject officers, it is my opinion that they were lawfully placed and acting properly in the execution of their duties. There is no evidence to support any belief that any officer engaged in any unlawful or unreasonable conduct that would give rise to an offence. The force used was proportionate, necessary and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Alberta’s Massive Carbon Capture and Storage Network clearing hurdles: Pathways Alliance

Published on

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

Pipeline front-end engineering and design to be complete by end of year

Canada’s largest oil sands companies continue to advance a major proposed carbon capture and storage (CCS) network in northeast Alberta, including filing regulatory applications, conducting engineering and design, doing environmental surveys and consulting with local communities.   

Members of the Pathways Alliance – a group of six companies representing 95 per cent of oil sands production – are also now closer to ordering the steel for their proposed CO2 pipeline.   

“We have gone out to potential pipe suppliers and asked them to give us proposals on costs and timing because we do see this as a critical path going forward,” Imperial Oil CEO Brad Corson told analysts on November 1.  

He said the next big milestone is for the Pathways companies to reach an agreement with the federal and provincial governments on an economic framework to proceed.  

“Once we have the right economic framework in place, then we will be in a position to go order the line pipe that we need for this 400-kilometre pipeline.” 

Pathways – which also includes Suncor Energy, Canadian Natural Resources, Cenovus Energy, MEG Energy and ConocoPhillips Canada – is proposing to build the $16.5 billion project to capture  emissions from oil sands facilities and transport them to an underground storage hub. 

The project was first announced in 2022 but Pathways had not provided recent public updates. The organization had stopped advertising and even briefly shut down its website during the summer in wake of the federal government’s amendments to the Competition Act in June.  

Those changes include explicit provisions on the need to produce “adequate and proper testing” to substantiate environmental benefit claims. Critics say the provisions could lead to frivolous lawsuits and could or even scuttle the very projects that Canada is relying on to slash greenhouse gas emissions.  

In early December, the Alberta Enterprise Group (AEG) and the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association jointly filed a constitutional challenge against the federal government over the new “greenwashing” rules, which they say unreasonably restrict free speech. 

“These regulations pre-emptively ban even truthful, reasonable and defensible discussion unless businesses can meet a government-imposed standard of what is the truth,” said AEG president Catherine Brownlee. 

Pathways has since restored its website, and president Kendall Dilling said the organization and its member companies continue working directly with governments and communities along the corridors of the proposed CCS project. 

Canadian Natural Resources began filing the regulatory applications to the Alberta Energy Regulator on behalf of Pathways earlier in the year. The company has so far submitted 47 pipeline agreement applications along with conservation and reclamation plans in seeking approvals for the CO2 transportation network. 

Pathways has also continued consultation and engagement activities with local communities and Indigenous groups near its pipeline corridors and storage hubs. 

“Engagement is ongoing with local communities, Indigenous groups and landowners, as well as a consultation process with Indigenous groups in accordance with Aboriginal Consultation Office requirements,” Dilling says.  

An environmental field program that began in 2021 continues to survey the network’s project areas. 

“Environmental field studies are ongoing and we are supporting Indigenous groups in completing traditional land use studies,” Dilling says.  

“Studies are supported by hundreds of heritage resource assessments, wetland classifications, soil assessments, aquatic habitat evaluations and other environmental activities.” 

In addition to working with governments and communities, Pathways expects front-end engineering and design on the proposed 400-kilometre-plus main transportation line and more than 250 kilometres of connecting pipelines to be complete by the end of this year.  

Pathways has also drilled two test wells in the proposed storage hub and plans to drill another two or three evaluation wells in the final quarter of 2024. 

Continue Reading

Alberta

Free Alberta Strategy trying to force Trudeau to release the pension calculation

Published on

 

Just over a year ago, Alberta Finance Minister Nate Horner unveiled a report exploring the potential risks and benefits of an Alberta Pension Plan.

The report, prepared by pension analytics firm LifeWorks – formerly known as Morneau Shepell, the same firm once headed by former federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau – used the exit formula outlined in the Canada Pension Plan Act to determine that if the province exits, it would be entitled to a large share of CPP assets.

According to LifeWorks, Alberta’s younger, predominantly working-class population, combined with higher-than-average income levels, has resulted in the province contributing disproportionately to the CPP.

The analysis pegged Alberta’s share of the CPP account at $334 billion – 53% of the CPP’s total asset pool.

We’ve explained a few times how, while that number might initially sound farfetched, once you understand that Alberta has contributed more than it’s taken out, almost every single year CPP has existed, while other provinces have consistently taken out more than they put in and technically *owe* money, it starts to make more sense.

But, predictably, the usual suspects were outraged.

Media commentators and policy analysts across the country were quick to dismiss the possibility that Alberta could claim such a significant portion. To them, the idea that Alberta workers had been subsidizing the CPP for decades seemed unthinkable.

The uproar prompted an emergency meeting of Canada’s Finance Ministers, led by now-former federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland. Alberta pressed for clarity, with Horner requesting a definitive number from the federal government.

Freeland agreed to have the federal Chief Actuary provide an official calculation.

If you think Trudeau should release the pension calculation, click here.

Four months later, the Chief Actuary announced the formation of a panel to “interpret” the CPP’s asset transfer formula – a formula that remains contentious and could drastically impact Alberta’s entitlement.

(Readers will remember that how this formula is interpreted has been the matter of much debate, and could have a significant impact on the amount Alberta is entitled to.)

Once the panel completed its work, the Chief Actuary promised to deliver Alberta’s calculated share by the fall. With December 20th marking the last day of fall, Alberta has finally received a response – but not the one it was waiting for:

“We received their interpretation of the legislation, but it did not contain a number or even a formula for calculating a number,” said Justin Brattinga, Horner’s press secretary.

In other words, the Chief Actuary did the complete opposite of what they were supposed to do.

The Chief Actuary’s job is to calculate each province’s entitlement, based on the formula outlined in the CPP Act.

It is not the Chief Actuary’s job to start making up new interpretations of the formula to suit the federal government’s agenda.

In fact, the idea that the Chief Actuary spent all this time working on the issue, and didn’t even calculate a number is preposterous.

There’s just no way that that’s what happened.

Far more likely is that the Chief Actuary did run the numbers, using the formula in the CPP Act, only for them – and the federal government – to realize that Alberta’s LifeWorks calculation is actually about right.

Cue panic, a rushed attempt to “reinterpret” the formula, and a refusal to provide the number they committed to providing.

In short, we simply don’t believe that the Chief Actuary didn’t, you know, “actuarialize” anything.

For decades, Alberta has contributed disproportionately to the CPP, given its higher incomes and younger population.

Despite all the bluster in the media, this is actually common sense.

A calculation reflecting this reality would not sit well with other provinces, which have benefited from these contributions.

By withholding the actual number, Ottawa confirms the validity of Alberta’s position.

The refusal to release the calculation only adds fuel to the financial firestorm already underway in Ottawa.

Albertans deserve to know the truth about their contributions and entitlements.

We want to see that number.

If you agree, and want to see the federal government’s calculation on what Alberta is owed, sign our petition – Tell Trudeau To Release The Pension Calculation:

Once you’ve signed, send this petition to your friends, family, and all Albertans.

Thank you for your support!

Regards,

The Free Alberta Strategy Team

Continue Reading

Trending

X