ASIRT says shooting of armed suspect reasonable use of force

From ASIRT (Alberta Serious Incident Response Team

On Sept. 27, 2017, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) was directed to investigate the circumstances surrounding the arrest of a 29-year-old man in Lloydminster that resulted in an officer-involved shooting.

During the arrest, the man was struck by a police vehicle and two RCMP officers discharged their service pistols, resulting in serious injury.

ASIRT interviewed police and civilian witnesses, including the 29-year-old man and both subject officers. Large portions of the events, including the uses of force were captured on audio and video recordings. ASIRT’s investigation is complete.

Having reviewed the investigation, executive director Susan Hughson, QC concluded there were no reasonable grounds, nor reasonable suspicion, to believe the involved officers committed any criminal offence.

On Sept. 27, 2017, Lloydminster RCMP officers attempted to stop a Dodge truck in relation to an outstanding investigation. The truck entered the drive-thru of a fast-food restaurant. An officer in a marked RCMP vehicle pulled behind the truck and activated its lights and siren. Other officers pulled in front of the truck. In response, the driver of the truck drove over the drive-thru curb and up an embankment to the roadway, speeding past two officers standing with their service pistols pointed at the truck. As the driver exited the parking lot, he headed northbound on 40 Avenue and engaged in a high-speed criminal flight from police.

As the truck approached 52 Street, it collided with a SUV driven by a 25-year-old woman, causing extensive damage to both vehicles and causing the woman’s vehicle to roll, landing on its roof. The woman did not sustain serious injury. The visible damage to her vehicle and the force of the collision would have easily left an observer with the belief that any occupant would have likely sustained serious injury or died. Data downloaded from the truck confirmed that immediately prior to the collision, it had been travelling at a speed of 144 km/h, and was moving at 124 km/h at the moment of collision.

The truck stopped on the side of the road. A passenger fled on foot from the truck to an adjacent field. The 29-year-old exited the truck holding a handgun, and immediately ran towards a man who stopped his truck to provide assistance.

An officer in pursuit pulled over his marked police vehicle and exited upon seeing the collision. He shouted verbal commands to drop the gun as the 29-year-old man ran towards the second truck. When the armed man failed to comply, the officer fired his service pistol. The man kept running and reached the civilian’s truck, attempting to gain entry. With a gun in hand, the man began banging on the driver’s window and yelling for him to “get out of the truck.”

As the armed man stood at the driver’s door, a second officer drove up in his unmarked RCMP SUV and clipped the armed man with the vehicle, causing him to spin away and fall, dropping the gun. As the second officer exited his SUV, the man got up, grabbed the handgun and raised it. The officer fired two shots from his service pistol striking the man.

The man fell to the ground, where he was arrested and handcuffed. RCMP members contacted Emergency Medical Services, who responded to the scene, provided medical attention and transported the man to a nearby hospital. He was subsequently transferred by STARS air ambulance to an Edmonton hospital where he was treated for what would ultimately turn out to be serious, permanent injuries including partial paralysis.

Under S. 25 of the Criminal Code, police officers are entitled to use as much force as is reasonably necessary to carry out their lawful duties. When necessary, where an officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that the person presents an imminent risk of death or grievous bodily harm to the officer or any other person, he or she may use force that is intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm. An officer may also use lethal force in limited circumstances to prevent the flight of a person.

During the course of these events, the 29-year-old man demonstrated he was highly motivated to escape, having driven over an embankment and fled police. He was not only prepared to endanger others to do so, but had possibly already injured or killed an uninvolved woman who had simply been in his path, having forcefully collided with her vehicle. Instead of remaining at the scene of the collision or checking on the condition of the driver of the other vehicle, the man took a handgun from the truck before running towards a vehicle that stopped to provide assistance. In these circumstances, the man objectively presented a risk of death or grievous bodily harm to the occupant of that vehicle. Having directed the man to stop or drop the gun, the first officer’s use of force was reasonable and necessary. This risk became even more immediate when the man reached and attempted to enter the stopped truck. The use of the police vehicle to remove the armed man from the vehicle door of the innocent bystander was reasonable in the circumstances.

Having been fired on by the first officer, and struck by a police vehicle, the man stood and instead of running or surrendering, decided to pick up the handgun. In that moment, the man presented a risk of grievous bodily harm or death to not only the innocent bystander but also to the officer.

The officers’ use of force during this event, while they were lawfully placed and engaged in the lawful execution of their duties, was both reasonable and justified in the circumstances. In the opinion of the executive director, there can be no doubt that the actions of the officers prevented the man from committing what could be characterized as an armed robbery, or more simply, a “car-jacking”, that could have easily resulted in the serious injury or death of the driver of that vehicle. As such, no charges will be laid against the officers.

ASIRT’s mandate is to effectively, independently and objectively investigate incidents involving Alberta’s police that have resulted in serious injury or death to any person.

Duane Rolheiser

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

DOJ fails to fully comply with Friday deadline for Epstein files release

Daily Caller / 5 days ago

Two states designate Muslim group as terrorist

Alberta / 1 week ago

The Recall Trap: 21 Alberta MLA’s face recall petitions

Alberta

Alberta’s new diagnostic policy appears to meet standard for Canada Health Act compliance

Published on December 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail, Mackenzie Moir and Lauren Asaad

In October, Alberta’s provincial government announced forthcoming legislative changes that will allow patients to pay out-of-pocket for any diagnostic test they want, and without a physician referral. The policy, according to the Smith government, is designed to help improve the availability of preventative care and increase testing capacity by attracting additional private sector investment in diagnostic technology and facilities.

Unsurprisingly, the policy has attracted Ottawa’s attention, with discussions now taking place around the details of the proposed changes and whether this proposal is deemed to be in line with the Canada Health Act (CHA) and the federal government’s interpretations. A determination that it is not, will have both political consequences by being labeled “non-compliant” and financial consequences for the province through reductions to its Canada Health Transfer (CHT) in coming years.

This raises an interesting question: While the ultimate decision rests with Ottawa, does the Smith government’s new policy comply with the literal text of the CHA and the revised rules released in written federal interpretations?

According to the CHA, when a patient pays out of pocket for a medically necessary and insured physician or hospital (including diagnostic procedures) service, the federal health minister shall reduce the CHT on a dollar-for-dollar basis matching the amount charged to patients. In 2018, Ottawa introduced the Diagnostic Services Policy (DSP), which clarified that the insured status of a diagnostic service does not change when it’s offered inside a private clinic as opposed to a hospital. As a result, any levying of patient charges for medically necessary diagnostic tests are considered a violation of the CHA.

Ottawa has been no slouch in wielding this new policy, deducting some $76.5 million from transfers to seven provinces in 2023 and another $72.4 million in 2024. Deductions for Alberta, based on Health Canada’s estimates of patient charges, totaled some $34 million over those two years.

Alberta has been paid back some of those dollars under the new Reimbursement Program introduced in 2018, which created a pathway for provinces to be paid back some or all of the transfers previously withheld on a dollar-for-dollar basis by Ottawa for CHA infractions. The Reimbursement Program requires provinces to resolve the circumstances which led to patient charges for medically necessary services, including filing a Reimbursement Action Plan for doing so developed in concert with Health Canada. In total, Alberta was reimbursed $20.5 million after Health Canada determined the provincial government had “successfully” implemented elements of its approved plan.

Perhaps in response to the risk of further deductions, or taking a lesson from the Reimbursement Action Plan accepted by Health Canada, the province has gone out of its way to make clear that these new privately funded scans will be self-referred, that any patient paying for tests privately will be reimbursed if that test reveals a serious or life-threatening condition, and that physician referred tests will continue to be provided within the public system and be given priority in both public and private facilities.

Indeed, the provincial government has stated they do not expect to lose additional federal health care transfers under this new policy, based on their success in arguing back previous deductions.

This is where language matters: Health Canada in their latest CHA annual report specifically states the “medical necessity” of any diagnostic test is “determined when a patient receives a referral or requisition from a medical practitioner.” According to the logic of Ottawa’s own stated policy, an unreferred test should, in theory, be no longer considered one that is medically necessary or needs to be insured and thus could be paid for privately.

It would appear then that allowing private purchase of services not referred by physicians does pass the written standard for CHA compliance, including compliance with the latest federal interpretation for diagnostic services.

But of course, there is no actual certainty here. The federal government of the day maintains sole and final authority for interpretation of the CHA and is free to revise and adjust interpretations at any time it sees fit in response to provincial health policy innovations. So while the letter of the CHA appears to have been met, there is still a very real possibility that Alberta will be found to have violated the Act and its interpretations regardless.

In the end, no one really knows with any certainty if a policy change will be deemed by Ottawa to run afoul of the CHA. On the one hand, the provincial government seems to have set the rules around private purchase deliberately and narrowly to avoid a clear violation of federal requirements as they are currently written. On the other hand, Health Canada’s attention has been aroused and they are now “engaging” with officials from Alberta to “better understand” the new policy, leaving open the possibility that the rules of the game may change once again. And even then, a decision that the policy is permissible today is not permanent and can be reversed by the federal government tomorrow if its interpretive whims shift again.

The sad reality of the provincial-federal health-care relationship in Canada is that it has no fixed rules. Indeed, it may be pointless to ask whether a policy will be CHA compliant before Ottawa decides whether or not it is. But it can be said, at least for now, that the Smith government’s new privately paid diagnostic testing policy appears to have met the currently written standard for CHA compliance.

Nadeem Esmail

Director, Health Policy, Fraser Institute

Mackenzie Moir

Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Lauren Asaad

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Housing in Calgary and Edmonton remains expensive but more affordable than other cities

Published on December 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Austin Thompson

In cities across the country, modest homes have become unaffordable for typical families. Calgary and Edmonton have not been immune to this trend, but they’ve weathered it better than most—largely by making it easier to build homes.

Specifically, faster permit approvals, lower municipal fees and fewer restrictions on homebuilders have helped both cities maintain an affordability edge in an era of runaway prices. To preserve that edge, they must stick with—and strengthen—their pro-growth approach.

First, the bad news. Buying a home remains a formidable challenge for many families in Calgary and Edmonton.

For example, in 2023 (the latest year of available data), a typical family earning the local median after-tax income—$73,420 in Calgary and $70,650 in Edmonton—had to save the equivalent of 17.5 months of income in Calgary ($107,300) or 12.5 months in Edmonton ($73,820) for a 20 per cent down payment on a typical home (single-detached house, semi-detached unit or condominium).

Even after managing such a substantial down payment, the financial strain would continue. Mortgage payments on the remaining 80 per cent of the home’s price would have required a large—and financially risky—share of the family’s after-tax income: 45.1 per cent in Calgary (about $2,757 per month) and 32.2 per cent in Edmonton (about $1,897 per month).

Clearly, unless the typical family already owns property or receives help from family, buying a typical home is extremely challenging. And yet, housing in Calgary and Edmonton remains far more affordable than in most other Canadian cities.

In 2023, out of 36 major Canadian cities, Edmonton and Calgary ranked 8th and 14th, respectively, for housing affordability (relative to the median after-tax family income). That’s a marked improvement from a decade earlier in 2014 when Edmonton ranked 20th and Calgary ranked 30th. And from 2014 to 2023, Edmonton was one of only four Canadian cities where median after-tax family income grew faster than the price of a typical home (in Calgary, home prices rose faster than incomes but by much less than in most Canadian cities). As a result, in 2023 typical homes in Edmonton cost about half as much (again, relative to the local median after-tax family income) as in mid-sized cities such as Windsor and Kelowna—and roughly one-third as much as in Toronto and Vancouver.

To be clear, much of Calgary and Edmonton’s improved rank in affordability is due to other cities becoming less and less affordable. Indeed, mortgage payments (as a share of local after-tax median income) also increased since 2014 in both Calgary and Edmonton.

But the relative success of Alberta’s two largest cities shows what’s possible when you prioritize homebuilding. Their approach—lower municipal fees, faster permit approvals and fewer building restrictions—has made it easier to build homes and helped contain costs for homebuyers. In fact, homebuilding has been accelerating in Calgary and Edmonton, in contrast to a sharp contraction in Vancouver and Toronto. That’s a boon to Albertans who’ve been spared the worst excesses of the national housing crisis. It’s also a demographic and economic boost for the province as residents from across Canada move to Alberta to take advantage of the housing market—in stark contrast to the experience of British Columbia and Ontario, which are hemorrhaging residents.

Alberta’s big cities have shown that when governments let homebuilders build, families benefit. To keep that advantage, policymakers in Calgary and Edmonton must stay the course.