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

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.

Related Topics:Alberta Serious Incident Response Team ASIRT

Up Next

Deck the Hall (of Fame) – Free admission for supporting your community this Christmas

Don't Miss

Red Deer family hosting fundraiser for single mom battling cancer for last 11 years

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

Carney government should apply lessons from 1990s in spending review

International / 1 week ago

CBS settles with Trump over doctored 60 Minutes Harris interview

armed forces / 2 weeks ago

Canada’s Military Can’t Be Fixed With Cash Alone

Alberta

Median workers in Alberta could receive 72% more under Alberta Pension Plan compared to Canada Pension Plan

Published on July 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Joel Emes

Moving from the CPP to a provincial pension plan would generate savings for Albertans in the form of lower contribution rates (which could be used to increase private retirement savings while receiving the same pension benefits as the CPP under the new provincial pension), finds a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Due to Alberta’s comparatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes, and younger population, Albertans would pay a lower contribution rate through a separate provincial pension plan while receiving the same benefits as under the CPP,” said Tegan Hill, director of Alberta policy at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Illustrating the Potential of an Alberta Pension Plan.

Assuming Albertans invested the savings from moving to a provincial pension plan into a private retirement account, and assuming a contribution rate of 5.85 per cent, workers earning the median income in Alberta ($53,061 in 2025) could accrue a stream of retirement payments totalling $454,741 (pre-tax)—a 71.6 per cent increase from their stream of CPP payments ($264,968).

Put differently, under the CPP, a median worker receives a total of $264,968 in retirement income over their life. If an Alberta worker saved the difference between what they pay now into the CPP and what they would pay into a new provincial plan, the income they would receive in retirement increases. If the contribution rate for the new provincial plan was 5.85 per cent—the lower of the available estimates—the increase in retirement income would total $189,773 (or an increase of 71.6 per cent).

If the contribution rate for a new Alberta pension plan was 8.21 per cent—the higher of the available estimates—a median Alberta worker would still receive an additional $64,672 in retirement income over their life, a marked increase of 24.4 per cent compared to the CPP alone.

Put differently, assuming a contribution rate of 8.21 per cent, Albertan workers earning the median income could accrue a stream of retirement payments totaling $329,640 (pre-tax) under a provincial pension plan—a 24.4 per cent increase from their stream of CPP payments.

“While the full costs and benefits of a provincial pension plan must be considered, its clear that Albertans could benefit from higher retirement payments under a provincial pension plan, compared to the CPP,” Hill said.

Illustrating the Potential of an Alberta Pension Plan

Due to Alberta’s comparatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes, and younger population, Albertans would pay a lower contribution rate with a separate provincial pension plan, compared with the CPP, while receiving the same benefits as under the CPP.
Put differently, moving from the CPP to a provincial pension plan would generate savings for Albertans, which could be used to increase private retirement income. This essay assesses the potential savings for Albertans of moving to a provincial pension plan. It also estimates an Albertan’s potential increase in total retirement income, if those savings were invested in a private account.
Depending on the contribution rate used for an Alberta pension plan (APP), ranging from 5.85 to 8.2 percent, an individual earning the CPP’s yearly maximum pensionable earnings ($71,300 in 2025), would accrue a stream of retirement payments under the total APP (APP plus private retirement savings), yielding a total retirement income of between $429,524 and $584,235. This would be 22.9 to 67.1 percent higher, respectively, than their stream of CPP payments ($349,545).
An individual earning the median income in Alberta ($53,061 in 2025), would accrue a stream of retirement payments under the total APP (APP plus private retirement savings), yielding a total retirement income of between $329,640 and $454,741, which is between 24.4 percent to 71.6 percent higher, respectively, than their stream of CPP payments ($264,968).

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Joel Emes

Senior Economist, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Alberta ban on men in women’s sports doesn’t apply to athletes from other provinces

Published on July 15, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Alberta’s Fairness and Safety in Sport Act bans transgender males from women’s sports within the province but cannot regulate out-of-province transgender athletes.

Alberta’s ban on gender-confused males competing in women’s sports will not apply to out-of-province athletes.

In an interview posted July 12 by the Canadian Press, Alberta Tourism and Sport Minister Andrew Boitchenko revealed that Alberta does not have the jurisdiction to regulate out-of-province, gender-confused males from competing against female athletes.

“We don’t have authority to regulate athletes from different jurisdictions,” he said in an interview.

Ministry spokeswoman Vanessa Gomez further explained that while Alberta passed legislation to protect women within their province, outside sporting organizations are bound by federal or international guidelines.

As a result, Albertan female athletes will be spared from competing against men during provincial competition but must face male competitors during inter-provincial events.

In December, Alberta passed the Fairness and Safety in Sport Act to prevent biological men who claim to be women from competing in women’s sports. The legislation will take effect on September 1 and will apply to all school boards, universities, as well as provincial sports organizations.

The move comes after studies have repeatedly revealed what almost everyone already knew was true, namely, that males have a considerable advantage over women in athletics.

Indeed, a recent study published in Sports Medicine found that a year of “transgender” hormone drugs results in “very modest changes” in the inherent strength advantages of men.

Additionally, male athletes competing in women’s sports are known to be violent, especially toward female athletes who oppose their dominance in women’s sports.

In February, Andres ranted about why men should be able to compete in women’s competitions, calling for “the Ontario lifter” who opposes this, apparently referring to powerlifter April Hutchinson, to “die painfully.”

Interestingly, while Andres was suspended for six months for issuing death threats, Hutchinson was suspended for two years after publicly condemning him for stealing victories from women and then mocking his female competitors on social media. Her suspension was later reduced to a year.