Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Crime

Anatomy of a police shooting on the Whitefish Lake First Nation

Published

19 minute read

Alberta Serious Incident Response Team ASIRT

This is a compelling read and will help average citizens understand what members of Alberta’s police forces encounter in the course of their duties.

From the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team

Police shooting of armed man was reasonable

On Sept. 6, 2017, ASIRT was directed to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of a 26-year-old man on the Whitefish Lake First Nation following an encounter with an RCMP officer that day.

ASIRT’s investigation was comprehensive and thorough, conducted using current investigative protocols and best practices. In addition to interviewing all relevant civilian and police witnesses, ASIRT seized all available video and audio recordings from the officer’s police vehicle, as well as all relevant police dispatch records, including recordings of the 911 calls and radio communications.  ASIRT directed a forensic examination of the incident scene and seized several physical exhibits. The RCMP officer provided a voluntary, written statement.

At the outset, ASIRT engaged an independent Indigenous community liaison to review the completed investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the community liaison had full access to ASIRT’s investigative file and to the team assigned to the investigation. The liaison could ask questions of the investigative team and make recommendations where necessary. At the conclusion of this process, the community liaison confirmed that ASIRT’s investigation into this incident was thorough, complete, and objective.

On Sept. 6, 2017 at approximately 6:15 p.m., St. Paul RCMP received a 911 call from a woman indicating that a family member could be on the verge of hurting himself or others. She was concerned that he was suicidal, that he may be in medical distress, he appeared to be sweaty and clammy, and that he was not acting like himself. At the time of the call, she advised that the man was walking down the road carrying a baseball bat, while she and another family member followed behind in a vehicle, attempting to persuade him to enter their truck and return home.

Approximately six minutes later, a second person called 911 to report that two young women on a recreational vehicle had encountered a man walking on the road who had almost attacked them with a baseball bat. The caller advised that the man appeared to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

An RCMP officer, in uniform and operating a marked police vehicle, responded to these calls. The officer spoke with the family member who told him that she believed the man would require an ambulance as he was sweating badly, and she advised that it appeared as if he wanted to commit suicide. She advised that they had been able to get the man into their truck, and the officer asked them to keep him there while he was on the way.

The second person called police again and advised that she had observed the man walking with a bat, provided the man’s possible first name and indicated that it appeared the man was trying to hit his parents with the bat while they were standing on their driveway.

The officer travelled to the scene with his vehicle’s emergency equipment activated for the majority of the trip. The officer’s police vehicle was equipped with both forward- and rear-facing video cameras. This system was operational and captured both camera perspectives on video with accompanying audio and recorded time stamps. The rear-facing camera was intended to capture the rear seat of the police vehicle, but provided a limited view to the sides of the vehicle and towards the back. While the cameras did not capture full frames of the entire incident, they did capture an audio recording of the incident in its entirety, and portions of video in which the officer and/or the man can be seen at various points. As such, there are aspects of these events that are reliably established by the available audio and video recordings.

At 7:04 p.m., the officer pulled up to the 26-year-old man, who was walking on the road. The officer exited his vehicle and, in a calm voice, addressed the man by name and asked him, “What’s going on?” Neither the officer nor the man were on camera. Within three seconds, the officer can be heard repeatedly calling out, “Drop the knife,” as he stepped into camera view on the driver’s side of his vehicle and rapidly backed away from where the man would have been. The man appeared to follow and the officer fired his Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW), commonly referred to as a Taser, which caused the man to drop to one knee but failed to disarm him. Very quickly, the man was able to rise and continue towards the officer. The officer continued to direct the man to “Drop the knife,” sounding increasingly more frantic, and continued to try to create space by backing away around the back of the police truck bed.

The armed man can be seen to clearly and quickly pursue the officer towards the rear of the police vehicle. At the rear of the police vehicle truck bed, both the man and the officer are off-camera but can still be heard. Having directed the man to again drop the knife multiple times following the use of the CEW, the officer can clearly be heard to tell the man, “Drop the knife or you’re going to get shot.” Within four seconds of this command and warning, and following two additional directions to drop the knife, at 7:04:47 p.m., two gunshots are heard. The officer immediately calls “shots fired” repeatedly over the police radio. Although the man initially fell to the ground after being shot, and can be heard groaning, he maintained possession of the knife and the officer can be heard to yell “Drop the knife,” an additional six times following the shots, before again radioing “shots fired.”

Approximately 10 seconds after the man was shot, the forward-facing camera recorded the man’s family pulling out of a driveway in the distance and onto the road, then driving up to the scene. The officer is instructing the man to get down on the ground and drop the knife, and can be seen on the passenger side of the police vehicle backing away from where the man would have been. As the family members began to exit the vehicle, the man was briefly seen to be pursuing the officer at the edge of the camera view but appears to fall or falter.

Upon the arrival of the family, the officer can be heard to repeatedly yell “stay back.” The two family members walked in the direction of the ongoing incident. The subject officer continued to yell commands to “get down” and “drop the knife.” Within seconds, a second civilian vehicle arrived on scene. The occupants were not related to the man or his family.

At this point, the man slowly got to his feet and advanced in the direction of the officer, making a swinging or thrusting motion with the knife. Simultaneously, on video, a family member retreated to the area in front of the police vehicle, crying, as the officer continued to yell “drop the knife” and ordering the man to “get down on the ground.” As the man advanced again on the officer, this family member could be seen and heard screaming and pleading with the man to “get down” at least twice, and shortly thereafter, begging him to “stay down.” Ultimately, the man’s injuries caused him to collapse. The officer provided emergency first aid until additional officers and EMS arrived on scene.

The man was pronounced deceased at 8:09 p.m. An autopsy determined that the man had sustained two gunshot wounds: one to the right flank and one to the right upper thigh. The second gunshot wound transected organs and major blood vessels, causing rapid and significant blood loss that became fatal within minutes. The medical examiner confirmed that these injuries would not have been instantly fatal, and that it would have been possible for the man to walk or move for some time after the injuries. A toxicology report revealed the presence only of prescription and over-the-counter medication, with no alcohol present in the man’s body.

Interviews with family members confirmed that the man had been acting strangely all day, being very quiet. At approximately 2 p.m., the man reportedly made a comment “today is the day,” which a family member interpreted as the man telling her he was going “to go” on this day. The man also told a family member, “I gave my soul to the devil,” and this family member felt that something was not right with the man. She believed him to be suffering from worsening mental health issues. She advised that the man would stare into space and have conversations with people who were not around.

The man’s knife, recovered at the scene, was similar to a filet or boning knife with an approximately five-inch handle and seven-inch blade.

ASIRT: Police shooting of armed man was reasonable

The officer, on duty, in full uniform and driving a fully marked RCMP vehicle, responded to several calls for assistance regarding the man’s actions. While the initial report was in relation to mental health concerns, subsequent calls were complaints of a weapons incident. In any case, the officer would have been lawfully entitled to take the man into custody under both the Mental Health Act and the Criminal Code. Considering these factors, the officer was at all times lawfully placed and acting in the course of his duty during his interactions with the man. The relevant consideration is thus the level of force used during the incident.

Under Sec. 25 of the Criminal Code, an officer is entitled to use as much force as necessary in the lawful execution of his or her duties. This can include force that is intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm, when officers reasonably believe that such force is necessary to defend themselves or someone under their protection from death or grievous bodily harm. Further, under Sec. 34 of the Criminal Code, any person, including a police officer, is entitled to the use of reasonable force in defence of themselves or another. Factors in assessing the reasonableness of force used can include the use or threatened use of a weapon, the imminence of the threat, other options available, and the nature of the force or threat of force itself.

Having reviewed the evidence in this case, ASIRT executive director Susan D. Hughson, QC, has determined that there are no reasonable grounds nor even reasonable suspicion to believe that the officer committed any offences.

Looking at the evidence in its entirety, it is clear that the officer was responding to a call of an individual whose behaviour was erratic, who was possibly suicidal, who may have been involved in an incident where he swung a bat at two young women and who was also potentially armed. When the officer encountered the man, the evidence established that the man was armed with a knife and in a position to cause grievous bodily harm or death. The evidence also established that the man actively pursued the officer while armed with the knife. After the officer directed the man to “drop the knife” no less than 12 times, the officer used the CEW, which failed to disarm, disable or dissuade the man.

In these circumstances, the man both subjectively and objectively posed a risk of grievous bodily harm or death to the officer. The force used by the subject officer was justified and reasonable. The officer had diligently tried to avoid the use of lethal force as demonstrated by his repeated attempts to get the man to drop the knife, the unsuccessful use of the CEW as an intermediate weapon in an attempt to disarm and incapacitate the man, and his very clear warnings to drop the knife or the man would be shot. But as the man closed the distance, the officer was left with no other options.

The circumstances in this case speak to both the continuing nature of the threat itself, but also to the officer’s other efforts before resorting to a higher degree of force. Objectively, there can be no doubt that in these circumstances, while the officer clearly attempted to avoid it, resort to lethal force was both justified and reasonable.

It is impossible to determine what the man actually intended. The only indication of what he might have been thinking is what might be inferred from his conduct. He was not behaving rationally, was clearly actively and aggressively advancing on the officer with the knife and was not deterred by the CEW, the repeated commands and warning — or, in fact, even being shot. He continued his pursuit of the officer until he could physically no longer do so.

A person in the midst of a mental health crisis is as capable as any other person of causing grievous bodily harm or death to another person. That person can be even more dangerous given one cannot expect them to respond rationally to the situation or an officer’s presence. The evidence established that the officer used every tool available to him to try and avoid having to use lethal force, until the point that he had no other safe option to protect himself but lethal force. On that basis, the level of force employed, while tragic, was lawful.

Having found that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the officer committed any offences, the officer will not be charged.

This finding does not diminish the tragedy of the loss for the family of this young man, who was clearly in the midst of some form of health crisis, nor how devastating the incident was for the family members who were present for portions of this event. ASIRT extends its sincere condolences to the family and friends of the man.

Before Post

Todayville is an independently-owned digital media company. We specialize in helping community groups, local businesses and organizations tell their story. Our team has years of media and video production experience. Talk to us about advertising, brand journalism stories, opinion pieces, event promotion, or other ideas you have to make our product better. We also own and operate Todayville Red Deer and Todayville Calgary.

Follow Author

Crime

Inside the Fortified Sinaloa-Linked Compound Canada Still Can’t Seize After 12 Years of Legal War

Published on

Exclusive analysis shows how a fortified Surrey mansion tied in court filings to the Sinaloa Cartel’s leader has become the core of a stalled civil forfeiture fight, exposing Canada’s weak laws.

A British Columbia government lawsuit seeks to merge almost a decade of litigation into a single, high-stakes test of whether the province can finally seize a fortified mansion near the U.S. border that was first swept up in a 2014 fentanyl investigation, raided in 2016, and is now at the center of a new synthetic-opioid case alleging its occupants contracted with the leader of Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel to flood narcotics into Canada.

In a notice of application filed in November 2025, the Director of Civil Forfeiture argues that all of the files revolve around one owner — James Sydney Sclater — and his flagship property on 77th Avenue, a multi-million-dollar house about twenty minutes’ drive from the Peace Arch crossing.

The property became newly notorious this spring when the latest effort to seize it pulled back the curtain on a 2024 RCMP raid. Officers say they entered a mansion ringed by compound fencing, steel gates and razor wire, wired with Chinese-made Hikvision surveillance cameras and hardened doors.

Inside, they reported finding hidden compartments in bedrooms and a basement bathroom packed with counterfeit pills and kilograms of raw synthetic opioids — including fentanyl — while assault-style rifles with screw-on suppressors, thousands of bullets and other firearms and body armour were stored in ways that suggested the residents were prepared for urban warfare. Investigators later alleged the targets had “connections to virtually every criminal gang in British Columbia.”

They also seized travel documents, including Mexican visas, before tracing the operation to alleged negotiations with Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada García, the reputed head of the Sinaloa Cartel, which Ottawa has now listed as a terrorist entity.

But for Canadian anti-mafia units, the address tracks the history of fentanyl’s deadly sweep across British Columbia, among the hardest-hit opioid death zones in North America. Their interest in the Surrey mansion stretches back to the first wave of lethal fentanyl trafficking that surged from Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside to Victoria and Vancouver Island around 2013 — making this single property a through-line in the North American opioid crisis, one that now runs through senior offices in Washington, Mexico City, Beijing and Ottawa.

Behind the hundreds of pages of civil filings reviewed by The Bureau lies a failure of governance as urgent as the unchecked advance of Latin cartels into Canadian cities — and as lethal as the synthetic opioids tied to the Surrey home.

British Columbia has been chasing the same house, and the same alleged transnational traffickers, through raids, affidavits and Charter of Rights battles since before fentanyl became a household word — and still has not managed to take the keys away.

The case documents explicitly point to a criminal-defence-friendly Supreme Court of Canada ruling — Stinchcombe, notoriously cited by police leaders — and to its role in undermining numerous major prosecutions involving networks tied to alleged narcoterror suspect Ryan Wedding and modern Canadian fentanyl-lab operators. One of those networks is the Wolfpack, a hybrid of Mexican cartels, Middle Eastern threat networks and biker gangs said to be supplied by Chinese Communist Party–linked criminal organizations and other Latin American cartel interests.

For the Director, the newest chapter begins in earnest with an RCMP raid on September 23, 2024. By then, investigators say, the Surrey mansion was no longer a domestic drug base, but the Canadian end of a supply line reaching into Sinaloa itself. Notably, 38 days later, on October 31, the RCMP announced a separate raid on what U.S. sources describe as the largest fentanyl lab ever discovered in the world, in rugged Falkland, B.C., roughly halfway between Vancouver and Calgary.

“The combined fentanyl and precursors seized at this facility could have amounted to over 95,500,000 potentially lethal doses of fentanyl, which have been prevented from entering our communities, or exported abroad,” the Mounties said.

But Sinaloa does not appear out of nowhere in the Surrey compound. The older case that the Director now wants consolidated onto the same track reaches back to a different phase of the crisis — and sketches an earlier incarnation of the Surrey house as a node in a Lower Mainland fentanyl network.

According to a 2019 notice of civil claim filed in the Victoria registry, the RCMP’s Project E-Probang began in November 2014, targeting a chemical narcotics distribution network that operated across the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island. At the centre of that probe, police say, was Nicholas Lucier and his associates. The Director alleges that Sclater supplied Lucier’s network with controlled substances, while his father-in-law Gary Van Buuren lived with him at the 77th Avenue property and “assisted him in trafficking of controlled substances.”

The narrative that follows reads like a blueprint for mid-2010s fentanyl tradecraft. In October 2016, Lucier associate Yevgeniy Nagornyy-Kryvonos allegedly drove to the Surrey mansion to receive fentanyl from Sclater. Two days later, Nagornyy-Kryvonos met Daemon Gariepy; Gariepy was arrested shortly after that meeting, with one kilogram of fentanyl in his possession. On November 6, 2016, Sclater and Van Buuren visited the Surrey home of another associate, Azam Abdul. Van Buuren was picked up soon afterwards, allegedly carrying a kilogram of methamphetamine, a kilogram of fentanyl and two cellphones.

That same day, RCMP officers moved in on 16767 77th Avenue with a warrant. Inside, according to the pleadings, they found the kind of infrastructure that exists to supply major drug lines: long guns and improvised weapons scattered through the house, from conventional shotguns and rifles to a deactivated grenade, brass knuckles and a small armoury of knives, batons and throwing stars. There was a money counter parked near vacuum-sealing equipment; shelves of drug-packaging and currency-bundling materials; a body armour vest; and a banknote stash of roughly $20,000 in twenties, bundled with elastic bands and tucked into vacuum-sealed bags.

Fentanyl-containing pills and scoresheets documenting transactions sat alongside a multi-monitor surveillance system and a wiretap-detection kit. In a separate corner, tax records in Sclater’s name showed his declared income stepping down from more than $77,000 in 2010 to just over $11,000 by 2014 — data points that undermined his ability to carry mortgages on two Surrey properties.

The days that followed widened the picture.

A search at Abdul’s residence turned up scales, fentanyl and the tools of drug production and processing. Raids at Lucier’s home and two rentals he allegedly used produced what the Director describes as a haul worth a serious cartel’s attention: weapons and ammunition, more than $2-million in cash, and “thousands of grams” of fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine, a heroin-fentanyl mixture, fentanyl “oxy” tablets and MDMA, along with the scoresheets and processing gear that underpin a wholesale operation.

On Vancouver Island, an arrest search of Lucier allegedly produced tens of thousands of dollars in cash and multiple phones.

Lucier had been on Canadian police radar since at least the mid-2000s, and his story intertwines with the murder of B.C. cocaine broker Tom Gisby in Mexico — a killing that, according to a Canadian police source interviewed by The Bureau, formed part of a bloody consolidation of Mexican cartel power over Vancouver’s drug markets.

Lucier’s notoriety stretches back to October 2009, when Victoria police announced what they described as the city’s largest-ever cocaine bust. After a three-month undercover probe triggered by a shooting near Beacon Hill Park, nearly 100 officers carried out pre-dawn raids on five locations around the capital region, seizing roughly 22.5 kilograms of cocaine, four high-powered handguns, two vehicles and about $420,000 in cash. Lucier, then 41 and already on parole from a 2007 trafficking sentence involving multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine and heroin, was the lone suspect to slip away; a Canada-wide warrant was issued for his arrest.

In 2012, police in Mexico’s Nayarit state announced they had arrested Lucier in the Pacific resort city of Nuevo Vallarta on the outstanding Canadian warrant — the same town where Gisby, a longtime player in British Columbia’s cocaine trade, had been shot dead days earlier while ordering coffee at a Starbucks. Mexican authorities said Lucier had been living under an assumed name and socializing with other Canadian expatriates in the Puerto Vallarta area, including people who knew Gisby, although his arrest was not believed to be directly tied to the murder.

For investigators, the episode underscored how Canadian traffickers were deeply embedded in Mexican resort corridors from Mazatlán to Cancún that doubled as hubs for cartel-linked players from the north. In the years that followed, it would be former Canadian snowboarder Ryan Wedding — tightly associated with the Wolfpack networks tied to Western Canada’s fentanyl superlabs — who, according to U.S. government sources, rose above other Canadian narcos in those resort towns to become perhaps the single conduit for Latin American–supplied narcotics imported into Canada for both domestic consumption and onward transshipment.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

No Charges on Fentanyl Network

E-Probang era investigations underpin the 2019 civil claim that seeks forfeiture of both the 77th Avenue mansion and a second property at 15797 92nd Avenue. The Director’s position is that the homes were purchased and maintained with money that cannot be reconciled with Sclater’s reported earnings and should be treated as the proceeds of crime.

According to an amended notice of civil claim filed in May 2025, Sclater shared the 77th Avenue house with Hector Armando Chavez-Anchondo and John Brian Whalen, while Whalen’s father, John Edwin Whalen, and Brittany Anne Horvey are drawn into the case through their alleged roles in what the Director calls a drug trafficking organization, or DTO. The court filings describe not a loose circle of dealers, but a structured group that trafficked ketamine, methamphetamine, counterfeit Xanax, oxycodone, MDMA and fentanyl, and that “since June 2021 at the latest” had been working to import bulk cocaine from Mexico.

As the Director tells it, those efforts led straight to Sinaloa itself. The Surrey group is alleged to have agreed to purchase cocaine from senior cartel suppliers — operating at such scale, sophistication and power within Canada that they ultimately negotiated directly with alleged cartel boss Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada García.

When U.S. authorities arrested El Mayo on July 25, 2024, the Surrey operation is said to have lurched sideways, searching for “other parties” to keep the cocaine pipeline alive. In early September, Sclater, Chavez-Anchondo and Whalen Jr. allegedly pooled money to secure a shipment, then drove out to a rendezvous where they expected to collect their imported cocaine. According to the filings, their transport contact never materialized, and they returned to Surrey empty-handed.

Eleven days later, the RCMP arrived with a search warrant. Inside the mansion, officers reported walking into what looked more like a mid-level cartel outpost than a suburban home: firearms racked and stashed in multiple rooms, including assault-style rifles with screw-on suppressors and piles of ammunition, suggesting residents lived with the expectation of raids or perhaps clashes with some of the six other Mexican cartel networks aside from Sinaloa that have been identified in Canada by federal police.

Hidden compartments had been carved into bedrooms and a basement bathroom, where police say they found kilogram-scale quantities of ketamine and methamphetamine, counterfeit alprazolam tablets pressed to resemble Xanax, hundreds of oxycodone pills, a smaller but potent stash of fentanyl, and bundles of Canadian cash tucked away in a manner seasoned investigators instantly recognized — elastic-bound bricks, some vacuum-sealed, packed tightly enough to hint at far more money moving through the house than Sclater’s tax returns would ever show.

Downstairs, a kitchen freezer allegedly doubled as a storage vault for nearly a kilogram of MDMA; elsewhere, RCMP catalogued an Azure pleasure boat, a stable of trucks and custom motorcycles, gold jewellery and two Hikvision digital-video recorders that formed the core of a security system surveying the compound. The Director’s case is that neither Sclater nor his co-defendants had legitimate income capable of supporting that lifestyle, and that the house was both the proceeds and instrument of unlawful activity.

The timing was not incidental. Ottawa formally listed the Sinaloa Cartel as a terrorist entity on February 20, 2025, as one of seven Latin American criminal organizations added to Canada’s Criminal Code list in response to the fentanyl crisis and mounting U.S. pressure.

The Director’s pleadings lean into that backdrop, explicitly calling Sinaloa a terrorist entity and portraying 16767 77th Avenue as part of the infrastructure of a cartel now placed at the centre of a transnational security crisis.

While the alleged facts of police raids against the Surrey mansion seem to move steadily, the apparent lack of criminal charges against any of the targets — let alone a racketeering-style case against the network itself, which is effectively impossible to mount in Canada, where there is no U.S.-style RICO statute — reveals a litigation record that can fairly be described as broken and ineffectual, except from the perspective of criminal-defence lawyers and their clients.

The Director’s Victoria-based action was filed on May 22, 2019.

Sclater responded months later, disputing the forfeiture. In December 2019, the province produced its list of documents. Sclater replied in January 2020 with a list that named no documents at all. Over the next two years, Crown counsel sent a steady stream of letters — in March 2020, August 2021, and repeatedly between October 2021 and March 2022 — demanding a proper list and the financial and property records that would show how Sclater funded his holdings.

In a 2022 application, the Director’s frustration spilled onto the record. The submission notes that under the Civil Forfeiture Act, the core question is whether the Surrey properties are proceeds or instruments of unlawful activity — and that without basic financial disclosure, there is no way to test Sclater’s claim that they were acquired lawfully. The Director points out that documents showing income sources, mortgage servicing, and the acquisition and storage of weapons “are critical to a determination of the action on its merits,” and accuses Sclater of refusing or neglecting, for almost three years, to meet even the baseline disclosure duties imposed by the civil-procedure rules.

To head off what it casts as an attempt to turn the case into a criminal-style disclosure standoff, the Director leans on British Columbia v. PacNet Services Ltd., where the court rejected defence arguments that tried to graft the Supreme Court’s Stinchcombe-era criminal disclosure standards onto civil forfeiture proceedings. R. v. Stinchcombe — the 1991 Supreme Court of Canada decision that imposed a broad duty on the Crown to disclose all potentially relevant information so an accused can make full answer and defence under section 7 of the Charter — is firmly rooted in criminal procedure. Echoing that line of authority, the Director argues that there is “no justification” for Sclater to shelter behind Stinchcombe to avoid producing his own financial and property records, and tells the court it is “time to move [the case] forward,” with full document production or a lawful explanation for the default.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Constitutional Test

The newer Sinaloa-linked file adds another layer of complexity. Four of the five named defendants — Chavez-Anchondo, the two Whalens and Horvey — have not filed responses. In a separate notice of application, the Director now asks the court to treat the core allegations against them as admitted by default: that they were members of a drug trafficking organization; that they used or threatened violence; that they trafficked a catalogue of synthetic drugs and opioids; that they negotiated with Sinaloa; and that the weapons, cash and assets found in the 2024 raid are instruments and proceeds of crime.

For his part, Sclater is trying to turn the Surrey files into a constitutional test case. In his latest defence, he claims a lawful ownership interest in the 77th Avenue property, certain vehicles, cash, jewellery and electronic devices, and denies every allegation that he joined a criminal organization, conspired to import cocaine from Mexico, or negotiated with El Mayo. He acknowledges having a criminal record but disputes the particulars, and insists he had sufficient legitimate income to fund his properties and toys.

More ambitiously, he argues that the Civil Forfeiture Act itself is unconstitutional. By using allegations that he failed to declare taxable income as part of the proceeds-of-crime theory, he says, the province is encroaching on the federal government’s exclusive power over taxation under the Constitution Act, 1867. Assessing taxes owed, he points out, is the business of the Minister of National Revenue and the Tax Court of Canada. Civil forfeiture, in his view, cannot be used as a kind of shadow tax audit. He also asserts that the case “has arisen solely” from breaches of his Charter rights by RCMP officers and other state actors, arguing that the Director — “also an agent of the state” — is improperly relying on those breaches in seeking forfeiture.

It is, in effect, a bid to turn a forfeiture trial about a Surrey mansion into a referendum on how far provincial authorities can go in dismantling alleged drug networks without turning civil litigation into a criminal prosecution by another name.

All of this is unfolding against a national and continental backdrop that makes the Surrey house look less like an isolated problem than a symbol of a wider national failure.

Under National Fentanyl Sprint 2.0, Canadian police and partner agencies seized 386 kilograms of fentanyl and analogues between May 20 and October 31, 2025, with Ontario and British Columbia accounting for more than 90 per cent of that total. British Columbia reported 88 kilograms of seized fentanyl during the sprint. Yet those numbers miss some of the most alarming data points. Just days before the sprint window opened, Canada Border Services Agency officers at the Tsawwassen container facility in Delta intercepted more than 4,300 litres of chemicals from China, including 500 litres of propionyl chloride — a direct fentanyl precursor — and other substances capable of feeding clandestine labs in the Canadian wilderness for years. That shipment was destined for Calgary, and conservative estimates suggest it could have yielded enough fentanyl for billions of potentially lethal doses.

The Carney government continues to insist that Canada is primarily an end market, not a major exporter, and CBSA officials emphasize that only “small, personal doses” of finished fentanyl are being found heading south.

Seen from that angle, the fight over one Surrey mansion and the man who owns it becomes more than a story of Mexican cartels embedding in British Columbia’s wealthy suburbs.

It is a test of whether Canada’s patchwork of civil forfeiture laws, criminal prosecutions and Charter-driven disclosure rules can keep pace with transnational networks that blend Chinese chemical suppliers, Mexican cartels and domestic labs into a single system. For now, many Canadian police experts acknowledge in private — and some senior leaders flag in cautious public statements — that this test is being failed, and failed egregiously.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Crime

Vancouver police seize fentanyl and grenade launcher in opioid-overdose crisis zone

Published on

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

Vancouver police say they have seized a grenade launcher, four guns, and nearly 500 grams of fentanyl and other hard drugs from a fortified Downtown Eastside rooming house that was allegedly feeding a synthetic opioid supply line through the city’s most drug-ravaged blocks.

“Task Force Barrage has come to an end, but our work to curb violence and disrupt organized crime in the Downtown Eastside continues,” Sergeant Steve Addison said, adding “the proliferation of violence and weapons in some residential buildings continues to put the neighbourhood at risk.”

The latest investigation began November 13, when a 42-year-old man suffered serious injuries in an assault near Carrall Street and East Cordova and was taken to hospital. Officers followed leads to a rooming house at 50 East Cordova Street, in the heart of a street-level open drug market that has become notorious in photos and news clips around the world.

On November 18, police say they uncovered a stockpile of illicit drugs, guns and weapons in three rooms of the East Cordova building. According to Addison, there are signs that parts of the property, which is supposed to house low-income residents, were repurposed as a hub to store weapons and distribute contraband throughout the neighbourhood, with some areas “fortified with countersurveillance measures to avoid detection from law enforcement.”

Items seized include four firearms, two imitation guns, a grenade launcher, a firearm suppressor, seven machetes, four flare guns, bullwhips, baseball bats, body armour, handcuffs and ammunition. Officers also seized 486 grams of fentanyl, cannabis, Dilaudid pills and methamphetamine – a quantity police say represents more than 2,500 single doses.

Meanwhile, in a separate update posted November 26 — the day before VPD announced the Cordova Street raid — Vancouver Fire Rescue Services said that on Tuesday, November 21, firefighters responded to 54 overdoses, the highest single-day total in the department’s history. The service said it averaged about 16 overdose calls per day in May, but that figure has surged in recent weeks, and during the most recent income-assistance week, firefighters were averaging roughly 45 overdose responses per day.

While police have not publicly linked the East Cordova seizure to any specific cartel, the mix of fentanyl, fortified real estate and a small armoury of weapons closely tracks the profile of a separate, high-profile British Columbia case in which provincial authorities say a Sinaloa Cartel–aligned cell embedded itself just south of Vancouver.

In that case, a civil forfeiture lawsuit alleged a Sinaloa Cartel–linked fentanyl and cocaine trafficking group set up in a multi-million-dollar mansion near the U.S. border, capable of negotiating major cocaine import deals with Ismael Garcia—known as “El Mayo”—the reputed Sinaloa Cartel chief. According to the filings, the Canada-based syndicate involved at least three men, and belonged to a violent drug trafficking organization that “used and continues to use violence, or threats of violence, to achieve its aims.”

Investigators alleged the Surrey-based group trafficked ketamine, methamphetamine, Xanax, oxycodone, MDMA and fentanyl. “As part of these efforts, the drug trafficking organization has agreed to, and made arrangements to, purchase cocaine from the Cártel de Sinaloa in Mexico,” the filings stated. They added: “the Sinaloa Cartel is a terrorist entity, and the government of Canada listed it as such on February 20, 2025.”

RCMP said they uncovered a substantial cache of weapons and narcotics during a search of the Surrey property on 77th Avenue on September 23, 2024. Opioids seized from the mansion included 400 grams of counterfeit Xanax, 810 oxycodone pills, 5.5 grams of fentanyl and nearly a kilogram of Ecstasy. The province is now seeking forfeiture of the house, which sits about 20 minutes from the Peace Arch border crossing north of Seattle.

Court submissions detailed an arsenal of 23 weapons – ten handguns, two sawed-off shotguns, two hunting rifles, seven assault rifles (two reportedly fitted with screw-on suppressors), and a speargun – alongside about 3.5 kilograms of ketamine and methamphetamine hidden in a compartment in one suspect’s room, hundreds of counterfeit alprazolam pills, a stash of oxycodone, and nearly CAD 15,000 in bundled cash “not consistent with standard banking practices.”

Viewed together, the Downtown Eastside raid and the Surrey mansion case sketch out different ends of what appears to be the same continuum, ultimately pointing to senior criminal leaders in Mexico and China.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Trending

X