Alberta
Investigation concludes police shooting of suspect holding gun a reasonable use of force
From the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team
RCMP used reasonable force during serious injury incident
On April 29, 2019, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) was directed to investigate the circumstances surrounding injuries sustained by a 33-year-old man during his arrest by members of the Lloydminster RCMP that same date.
On that date, members of the Lloydminster RCMP observed a male driver operating a stolen Dodge Ram 2500 truck within Lloydminster city limits. The truck had been stolen earlier that day during a break and enter at a local vehicle repair shop. Video footage from the repair shop depicted the 33-year-old man as the individual responsible for the break and enter, and at the time, the man was also under investigation in relation to a homicide that had occurred on April 27, 2019.
Police attempted to conduct a traffic stop on the stolen truck, but the truck fled. Officers elected not to pursue the vehicle; however, the vehicle was known to have engine problems and was not expected to be drivable for long. A short time later, two police officers observed the stolen truck in an industrial area of the city. In order to avoid a pursuit, both officers followed the truck from a distance until they observed plumes of smoke emanating from the truck, leading them to believe that the vehicle’s engine had failed.
The two officers stopped their fully marked police vehicles in front of and behind the truck, blocking its path. The man exited the driver’s side door of the truck and fled on foot toward the rear of the truck and into a fenced compound. One of the police officers pursued the man on foot while the second ensured the stolen truck was empty before joining the foot pursuit a short distance behind. As the first officer ran, he called out to the man by name, advising him that he was under arrest. The man continued to run, but soon lost his footing and stumbled on the gravel. The officer drew his conducted energy weapon (CEW) and issued a verbal command for the man to stay down. When the man rose to his feet and began running again, both officers observed a black handgun in the man’s right hand. The first officer radioed that the man had a gun, then drew his service pistol from its holster and issued repeated verbal commands for the man to drop the gun. The man continued running and, as he rounded the corner of a building, he pointed the handgun at the pursuing officer, who then fired his service pistol.
After the officer fired, the man ran behind a parked Volkswagen Jetta. As he turned to get behind the Jetta, still holding the gun in his right hand, the officer fired again. The man ducked behind the car as the officer fired at him through the window of the parked Jetta. The second officer described the man’s actions as a tactical movement to use the vehicle as cover, and after the first officer fired, the man crouched down behind the vehicle. As both officers shouted repeated verbal commands for the man to drop the firearm, the man rose and lifted his firearm. At that moment, the officer fired again – this time striking the man, who fell to the ground, still holding the handgun. Following repeated verbal commands, the man eventually pushed the gun away and rolled over, at which time the second officer placed him in handcuffs.
With the man now in handcuffs, the first officer placed pressure on his wound while the second officer retrieved a first aid kit from the police vehicle. The two officers administered first aid to the man until he was transported by EMS to hospital, where it was confirmed that he had sustained a single penetrating gunshot wound to his left shoulder.
A loaded semi-automatic .22-calibre handgun was recovered from the incident scene, along with other items associated with both the man and the owner of the stolen vehicle. An image of the recovered firearm is not being released at this time, as it relates to a matter that remains before the courts.
Physical and video evidence confirm that five shots were fired during the incident by the first police officer, with approximately 22 seconds elapsing between the first shot and the final shot. Video evidence confirms the placement of the two officers matches the description in their statements, and civilian witness evidence confirms that the man retained possession of the firearm up until the officer’s final shot.
Under Section 25 of the Criminal Code, a police officer is authorized to use as much force as is necessary in order to carry out their lawful duties. In this case, the evidence conclusively establishes that both police officers were on duty, were operating marked RCMP vehicles, and were attired in RCMP uniforms. At the time of the incident, the man was subject to lawful arrest for both the theft and possession of the stolen truck, as well as the flight from police that preceded the incident. In addition to those grounds for arrest, the officer who fired was also aware of the man’s involvement in a homicide incident several days prior, during which a firearm was used. The officer’s knowledge of the man’s involvement and the nature of that incident reasonably elevated the officer’s risk assessment of the situation.
During his interview, the man denied any intention to harm police; however, it is clear from the evidence that throughout the incident he repeatedly refused to follow verbal commands and maintained possession of a firearm until after the officer’s final shot. The man’s actions during the incident, combined with the information available to the officer, were more than sufficient to establish an objectively reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm on the part of the officer, and to justify a use of force proportionate to that threat.
While the man sustained an injury during the arrest, his actions gave the officer reasonable cause to believe that his life was endangered; therefore, the force that he used to address that danger was also reasonable. Accordingly, there are no grounds to believe that an offence was committed by any police officer, and no charges will be laid.
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.
Alberta
Housing in Calgary and Edmonton remains expensive but more affordable than other cities
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.
Alberta
Danielle Smith slams Skate Canada for stopping events in Alberta over ban on men in women’s sports
From LifeSiteNews
The Alberta premier has denounced Skate Canada as ‘disgraceful’ for refusing to host events in the province because of a ban on ‘transgender’ men in women’s sports.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has demanded an apology after Skate Canada refused to continue holding events in Alberta.
In a December 16 post on X, Smith denounced Skate Canada’s recent decision to stop holding competitions in Alberta due to a provincial law keeping gender-confused men from competing in women’s sports.
“Women and girls have the right to play competitive sports in a safe and fair environment against other biological females,” Smith declared. “This view is held by a vast majority of Albertans and Canadians. It is also common sense and common decency.”
Women and girls have the right to play competitive sports in a safe and fair environment against other biological females.
This view is held by a vast majority of Albertans and Canadians. It is also common sense and common decency.
Skate Canada‘s refusal to hold events in… pic.twitter.com/n4vbkTx6B0
— Danielle Smith (@ABDanielleSmith) December 16, 2025
“Skate Canada‘s refusal to hold events in Alberta because we choose to protect women and girls in sport is disgraceful,” she declared.
“We expect they will apologize and adjust their policies once they realize they are not only compromising the fairness and safety of their athletes, but are also offside with the international community, including the International Olympic Committee, which is moving in the same direction as Alberta,” Smith continued.
Earlier this week, Skate Canada announced their decision in a statement to CBC News, saying, “Following a careful assessment of Alberta’s Fairness and Safety in Sport Act, Skate Canada has determined that we are unable to host events in the province while maintaining our national standards for safe and inclusive sport.”
Under Alberta’s Fairness and Safety in Sport Act, passed last December, biological men who claim to be women are prevented from competing in women’s sports.
Notably, Skate Canada’s statement failed to address safety and fairness concerns for women who are forced to compete against stronger, and sometimes violent, male competitors who claim to be women.
Under their 2023 policy, Skate Canada states “skaters in domestic events sanctioned by Skate Canada who identify as trans are able to participate in the gender category in which they identify.”
While Skate Canada maintains that gender-confused men should compete against women, the International Olympic Committee is reportedly moving to ban gender-confused men from women’s Olympic sports.
The move comes after studies have repeatedly revealed what almost everyone already knew was true, namely that males have a considerable innate 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.
Last August, Albertan male powerlifter “Anne” Andres was suspended for six months after a slew of death threats and harassments against his female competitors.
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.
-
Business13 hours agoCanada Hits the Brakes on Population
-
Crime2 hours agoBrown University shooter dead of apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound
-
Business2 days agoOttawa Pretends To Pivot But Keeps Spending Like Trudeau
-
Energy2 days agoLiberals Twisted Themselves Into Pretzels Over Their Own Pipeline MOU
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy15 hours agoCanada Lets Child-Porn Offenders Off Easy While Targeting Bible Believers
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoHow Wikipedia Got Captured: Leftist Editors & Foreign Influence On Internet’s Biggest Source of Info
-
International1 day agoBondi Beach Shows Why Self-Defense Is a Vital Right
-
Crime1 day agoThe Uncomfortable Demographics of Islamist Bloodshed—and Why “Islamophobia” Deflection Increases the Threat


