Investigation concludes suspect convinced girlfriend to lie to police

News Release from ASIRT (Alberta Serious Incident Response Team)

Investigation concluded into use of force during EPS arrest

On Aug. 1, 2018, pursuant to Section 46.1 of the Police Act, the Director of Law Enforcement (DLE) assigned ASIRT to investigate the circumstances surrounding a vehicle pursuit and subsequent arrest of a 31-year-old man. The man had been arrested by members of the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) on July 30 following a brief vehicle pursuit which had resulted in serious injury to an uninvolved pedestrian, and was terminated by intentional contact made by two EPS vehicles.

As is required by the Police Act, these events were reported to the DLE and, based on the information that was known at the time, EPS was directed to maintain conduct of the investigation. Several days later, while being interviewed in relation to that investigation, the man alleged that he had been assaulted during the course of his arrest and had sustained several injuries. This additional information was again reported to the DLE, and ASIRT was directed to assume conduct of the investigation into both the pursuit and any force used during the subsequent arrest of the affected person.

On July 30, 2018, at approximately 12:30 a.m., EPS members operating a marked police vehicle conducted a database check on a red Buick Rendezvous SUV, which revealed the vehicle’s licence plate had been reported stolen. Members followed the vehicle without activating their emergency equipment until the SUV stopped and the driver, later identified as the 31-year-old man, exited. Police then activated their vehicle’s emergency equipment, but the man re-entered the SUV and drove away at a high rate of speed.

Police followed the SUV with emergency equipment activated, and observed the SUV run a red light at 101 Street and 107 Avenue. At this point, several other EPS vehicles had entered the area and additional members were able to observe the SUV. During its flight from police, the vehicle mounted the sidewalk at 102 Street and struck a female pedestrian and a light post. Officers who observed the collision formed the opinion that the collision with the pedestrian was deliberate. Overt action had been required to mount the sidewalk and strike the pedestrian, who was standing in a well-lit area. As well, the man’s vehicle had had an unobstructed path forward with no observable reason or cause to leave the roadway and mount the sidewalk.

After striking the pedestrian and the pole, the SUV continued east on 107 Avenue, with police continuing pursuit. A second EPS vehicle remained at the scene of the collision to render aid to the female pedestrian, who had sustained numerous serious injuries. Having witnessed what appeared to be the deliberate use of the SUV to strike a pedestrian, the driver of the lead EPS vehicle indicated that he believed it was necessary to attempt to end the criminal flight using deliberate vehicle contact. He deliberately struck the rear driver’s side of the SUV, but this tactic failed to stop the vehicle. A marked police van subsequently made deliberate contact with the SUV, this time striking it head-on, and brought the SUV to a halt. The man exited the driver’s seat of the SUV and fled on foot southbound on 103 Street.

Three police officers pursued the man on foot. During this pursuit, the lead officer deployed his conducted energy weapon (CEW), which was successful in bringing the man to the ground. The officer verbally commanded the man to roll onto his stomach, as he had turned onto his back. The man was initially compliant, but resisted when officers attempted to handcuff him. The officer reactivated the CEW, and the man was handcuffed while the CEW was still activated.

Once in custody, the man was observed to be sweating profusely, making spastic movements and acting in a manner that indicated to the arresting officers that he was under the influence of methamphetamine. Accordingly, after searching him, EMS transported the man to hospital.

Medical records obtained during the course of the ASIRT investigation confirmed that at the time of his examination at hospital, the man had a two-centimetre laceration to his forehead which was not actively bleeding, two abrasions on his shoulder area and mild swelling of the front of his head. A CT scan revealed the presence of an age-indeterminate nasal fracture, meaning that doctors were unable to determine whether the nasal fracture had occurred during this event or earlier. Medical staff determined that the man was fit for incarceration, and released him from hospital that same day.

As previously indicated, shortly after he was incarcerated, EPS interviewed the man in the course of their investigation. During that interview, the man described his arrest, discussed his injuries, and asked the interviewer about the condition of the woman he had hit during the incident. Once ASIRT assumed conduct of the investigation, the man was interviewed again – this time by an ASIRT investigator. The man described his flight from police and the collision with the pedestrian but stated that a police vehicle had struck him before the collision with the pedestrian. He also stated that he did not remember hitting anyone.

The man stated that his girlfriend ran away from police following the collision but stopped to watch his arrest. He stated that she told him that at one point six police officers were beating him. The man stated that he did not remember this, but recommended that ASIRT interview his girlfriend. He further stated that at the time of the incident he was under the influence of methamphetamine, which he had used approximately five hours before the incident. He stated that his girlfriend was under the influence of heroin, which she had consumed approximately one hour before the incident.

The man’s girlfriend was interviewed twice during the course of this investigation, once by EPS and once by ASIRT. During the first interview by EPS, she stated that she had been the lone passenger in the vehicle being operated by her boyfriend. She indicated that he had lost control of the vehicle while turning and began to drive on the sidewalk before striking a lamppost. She stated that neither of them was aware at the time that they had struck a pedestrian. During the statement, she indicated that when the final collision with the police vehicle occurred, the man jumped out of the vehicle first and was pursued by police. She stated that she ran from the scene to a friend’s house, where, through a third party, she contacted her boyfriend in jail, but advised that they did not discuss the incident. In addition to describing the events, she confirmed the man’s statements regarding her use of heroin prior to the incident.

The next day, after the case was assigned to ASIRT, the man’s girlfriend was interviewed again by ASIRT investigators. During this interview, she confirmed that she had recently spoken to her boyfriend and now suggested that the police had struck the SUV, causing the collision with the pedestrian and minimizing the man’s role in the incident. She now stated that following the final collision, she ran and hid under a car that was approximately 10 to 20 metres away. As she watched her boyfriend’s arrest, she alleged she saw police assault him.

As a result of the discrepancies between their various versions of the incident and the conversations that took place between them after the man’s arrest, ASIRT investigators took the unusual step of obtaining a judicial authorization for access to the man’s communications while in custody at the Edmonton Remand Centre. The recorded calls revealed repeated attempts by the man to influence the evidence of his girlfriend in conversations directly with her and with other parties. On several occasions, the man referenced the impact that her assistance would have on his chances of getting bail on the charges arising from the incident. During two of the calls, the man’s girlfriend described the striking of the pedestrian, saying that she remembered her being in the way, running and screaming. The man advised her to downplay that aspect of the story when dealing with the police, and to state that she was not sure of the details.

During the calls, the man repeatedly exaggerated the extent of his dealings with police, stating that he had smashed four police vehicles, that he had four CEWs used upon him, had received four broken bones in his face during the incident, and had sustained dog bites during his arrest. His girlfriend’s response to these statements clearly demonstrated that she had not witnessed the arrest. It appeared that in a number of the exchanges, the man attempted to instil fear in his girlfriend in order to ensure her cooperation, and encouraged her to turn herself in to police, which he repeatedly suggested would help him.

In addition to the recorded calls, the independent evidence of three civilian witnesses and CCTV video from an area business confirmed that the man’s girlfriend did not witness his arrest as described in her second statement, but rather had immediately fled the area as she had initially described.

Despite being under no obligation to do so, each of the three police officers directly involved in the arrest of the man provided voluntary statements to ASIRT for use during the investigation. One officer acknowledged deploying his CEW during the foot pursuit of the man, which resulted in the man falling to the ground. When the man continued to struggle on the ground, and was described as actively resistant, the officer reactivated his CEW, which allowed him, with the assistance of the other two involved officers, to place the man in handcuffs. The three officers directly involved in the man’s arrest, along with all witness officers interviewed, denied participating in or witnessing any significant use of force as described by the man and his girlfriend.

On the basis of the information available to police during this incident, they were lawfully placed to arrest the man in relation to a number of Criminal Code offences, including possession of stolen property and criminal flight causing bodily harm. As the officers were engaged in the lawful execution of their duty, they were authorized by Sec. 25 of the Criminal Code to use a reasonable amount of force necessary to carry out their duties.

While the description of the amount of force used during the incident varies widely between the descriptions provided by police and the man and his girlfriend, when looking at the evidence in this matter as a whole, it is impossible to place any weight whatsoever on the versions offered by the man and his girlfriend.

In addition to the significant inconsistencies between the versions offered by both the man and his girlfriend in their own multiple statements, which would on their own significantly compromise the ability to rely upon their evidence, the recorded attempts by the man to influence the evidence of his girlfriend in hopes of convincing her to tailor her evidence to match his own is fatal to the credibility of both witnesses. Independent evidence conclusively established that the girlfriend was not present to witness the arrest.

Based on the available reliable evidence, the force used to arrest the man was both reasonable and necessary. Once restrained in handcuffs, there were no additional uses of force, and the man was taken into custody without further incident. Furthermore, it is clear from an assessment of all the evidence in this matter that the cause of the initial collision with the pedestrian was the man’s deliberate driving pattern and that there was no physical contact with the SUV by any police vehicle before the pedestrian was struck.

There are no reasonable grounds, nor reasonable suspicion, to believe that any of the officers committed any Criminal Code offence(s). The officers were lawfully placed in their actions with the man, and the force employed was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances. As such, no charges are appropriate, and ASIRT’s involvement in the matter is concluded.

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, as well as serious or sensitive allegations of police misconduct.

Related Topics:#AlbertaSeriousIncidentResponseTeam #EdmontonPoliceService ASIRT EPS feature

Up Next

New opinion surveys reveal overwhelming majority of Canadians support our Oil and Gas industry

Don't Miss

Olympic Champion Mark Tewksbury unveils new exhibit at Alberta Sports Hall of Fame – The Halftime Report

Todayville Edmonton

www.todayville.com/edmonton/

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

Alberta’s environmental leaders recognized

Community / 1 year ago

Family Day fun in City Hall & Churchill Square

Alberta / 1 year ago

Nominate an Alberta artist or arts collective for 2023 Distinguished Artist Award

Alberta

Parent and gender dysphoria groups granted intervenor status in New Brunswick school policy case

Published on May 9, 2024

Todayville

News release from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is pleased to announce that two groups, Gender Dysphoria Alliance and Our Duty Canada, have been jointly granted intervenor status in a constitutional challenge to a New Brunswick education policy. The policy requires that parents be notified when their child intends to undergo a gender transition by using a different name and pronouns at school.

On August 17, 2020, the New Brunswick government created Policy 713, which prohibited teachers from informing parents that their child had adopted a new name or pronouns at school (unless the child consented to such disclosure).

On June 8, 2023, the government changed the policy to require that parents of students under 16 years of age be notified by the school before the formal use of a different name or pronoun. “Formal” refers to the use of names and pronouns in the classroom and in school records.

The change to Policy 713 brought a firestorm of criticism and media coverage because it was the first of its kind in Canada to support parental rights on this issue. New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs stated that he believes he has the support of parents in the province on this issue.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) brought a constitutional challenge against the Province of New Brunswick as represented by the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, on September 6, 2023. The CCLA argues that Policy 713 infringes the students’ rights to freedom of expression, to equality, and to life, liberty and security of the person.

“The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has filed a court challenge against the right of parents to be fully informed about what is happening with their own children at school,” stated John Carpay, President of the Justice Centre.

“The Supreme Court of Canada explained in B.(R.) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto that the parental interest in bringing up, nurturing and caring for a child, including medical care and moral upbringing, is an individual interest of fundamental importance to our society,” continued John Carpay.

On May 2, 2024, Justice Richard Petrie of the New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench granted intervener status to two groups: Gender Dysphoria Alliance is comprised of transsexual adults who seek to promote an evidence-based approach to gender dysphoria. Our Duty Canada is a peer support network for parents of children struggling with gender dysphoria and transgender ideation. As intervenors, they now have the right to present evidence to the court. The Justice Centre is providing for the legal representation of both groups, which seek to uphold the constitutionality of the amended Policy 713.

Prior to granting intervenor status, on March 5, 2024, Justice Petrie ordered that any proposed intervenors file the evidence they intend to present.

Gender Dysphoria Alliance and Our Duty Canada submitted the following testimonies as evidence:

The written testimony of a New Brunswick mother whose child underwent a social transition in school, about which she was not informed;
The written testimony of a young woman from Alberta who began to adopt new pronouns at school without her parents’ knowledge; she ultimately reversed course (detransitioned) after her parents became aware of her situation and were able to assist her;
The written testimony of the young woman’s father.

Karin Litzcke of Our Duty Canada says, “[Our] members are pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to the development of jurisprudence in this area. What has happened to us could happen to any parents under policies that promote secrecy from families. We are grateful to the Justice Centre for its assistance in advocating for the interests of children and parents in court.”

Speaking on behalf of Gender Dysphoria Alliance, Aaron Kimberly says, “The Gender Dysphoria Alliance is pleased with the decision to grant us intervention status in this case. We believe New Brunswick’s policy is an important safeguarding measure for children experiencing gender incongruence, since we know that most kids with this experience turn out to be gay or lesbian, not trans. Prematurely labelling kids “trans” and socially transitioning them is a psychosocial intervention that risks putting pre-gay kids onto an unnecessary medical pathway.”

Hatim Kheir, lawyer for both groups, says, “The Supreme Court has affirmed that parents in Canada have the right to guide the moral upbringing of their children. This case provides an opportunity for the Court to apply those rights to issues surrounding gender which are becoming increasingly relevant in our society.”

Alberta

Canadian Christian chiropractor fights ‘illegal’ $65,000 fine for refusing to wear mask

Published on May 7, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Dr. Curtis Wall went against the College of Chiropractors of Alberta’s COVID mask mandate in 2020 and the organization has been pursuing disciplinary action ever since.

The legal team for Dr. Curtis Wall, a Canadian chiropractor who was recently fined $65,000 by his medical college for not wearing a mask in 2020 despite the fact public health orders last year were nullified by a court, has vowed to fight the “illegal” fine, saying that Wall was targeted because he is a “Christian man of integrity and principle.”

“Dr. Wall should not pay any fines or costs when the public health orders he was charged with not following have been declared void by the courts,” said Wall’s legal team, Liberty Coalition Canada (LCC), in a press release.

“He is a Christian man of integrity and principle — attributes that make him a target for government overreach in the era of COVID.”

Wall was practicing in Calgary in 2020 when the COVID crisis was gearing up, went against Alberta’s public health orders and chose not to wear a mask during patient visits. Many of his patients also decided to not wear masks during their visits, which quickly drew the ire of College of Chiropractors of Alberta, which had mandated that all chiropractors wear masks.

Wall, who has been seeing patients for the last 25 years with a pristine record, was then targeted by the College, which tried to strip him of his license to practice. The College was unable to strip Wall of his license and he continued to practice, sans mask in 2021 and 2022.

In 2021, the College had brought against Wall, as per the LCC, “a long list of charges of unprofessional conduct against Dr. Wall, most of which related to Dr. Wall not wearing a mask while treating patients and permitting his patients to not wear a mask.”

Wall was then brought before a disciplinary hearing Tribunal to mediate his case, which went well into 2022, and had placed a publication ban on all “identities of all witnesses,” including Wall’s.

James Kitchen, Wall’s lawyer from the LCC, was successful in getting the publication ban lifted, as the LCC noted due to the College “wishing to avoid likely defeat before the courts” regarding keeping the ban in place.

Fined chiropractor says college did not recognize his ‘Christian convictions’

The Tribunal’s decision noted the LCC is “riddled with errors of fact and law and is so poorly decided it is an embarrassment to the chiropractic profession.”

Wall spoke with LifeSiteNews and observed that while in his point of view he does not feel his fines and costs imposed on him by the college “are a direct result of my Christian faith,” he did note that the tribunal did “not recognize my honest Christian convictions as a valid reason for my not wearing a mask.”

“They put placed no merit in the argument that as a Christian I believe I am created in the image of God,” Wall said.

“My face is an expression of Him. Having man arbitrarily mandate that I cover my face is an affront to that expression and signifies that I am living in the fear of man, not by faith. So, in all, I don’t feel directly persecuted as a Christian, but certainly indirectly.”

Wall told LifeSiteNews that in his opinion the college could have “handled this issue much differently.”

“There must always be room for exceptions to a rule. I did present a doctor’s note to verify my inability to wear a mask. They did not place any weight on that note. They blamed me for ‘self-diagnosing’ my problem,” Wall said.

“Number one, I’m a doctor. I think eight years of schooling has given me some wisdom to diagnose my own signs and symptoms. Number two, if someone eats a peanut and their throat swells shut, can they not diagnose themselves and stay away from nuts? It’s not a problem to self-diagnose.”

Wall said that despite his legal team presenting four expert witnesses to demonstrate “the obvious inadequacy and lack of efficacy in mask-wearing, not to mention the harms as well,” the college “did not cite the record once in their verdict.”

He noted that “common sense, science and past and present studies overwhelmingly demonstrate” the lack of efficacy regarding mask-wearing.

The LCC noted that although both Kitchen and Wall hoped for an “unbiased decision from the tribunal,” they knew it was more “likely the tribunal members would lack the courage to oppose the government’s COVID narrative by accepting the scientific evidence masks are utterly ineffective at preventing the transmission of COVID and harmful to wearers.”

“Nonetheless, it is shocking the lengths the tribunal went to dismiss the evidence of Dr. Wall, three of his patients, and his four expert witnesses while blithely accepting all the evidence of the College.”

Wall’s charges laid despite a recent court ruling nullifying all Alberta COVID health orders

According to LCC, the charges brought against Wall show that the College of Chiropractors of Alberta has “ignored the law” relating to non-criminal COVID-era charges handed out in the province.

As reported by LifeSiteNews before, last year a judge from Alberta ruled that politicians violated the province’s health act by making decisions regarding COVID mandates without authorization. This ruling came from the Alberta’s Court of Kings Bench’s Ingram v. Alberta decision, which put into doubt all cases involving those facing non-criminal COVID-related charges in the province. In effect, the ruling struck down and nullified all health orders issued by Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Alberta’s former chief medical officer of health.

As a result, multiple people facing charges, such as Dr. Michal Princ, pizzeria owner Jesse Johnson, café owner Chris Scott, and Alberta pastors James Coates, Tim Stephens, and Artur Pawlowski who were jailed for keeping churches open under then-Premier Jason Kenney, have had COVID charges against them dropped due to the court ruling.

The Alberta’s Court of Kings Bench’s Ingram v. Alberta decision put into doubt all cases involving those facing non-criminal COVID-related charges in the province.

As a result of the court ruling, Alberta Crown Prosecutions Service (ACPS) said Albertans facing COVID-related charges will likely not be convicted but instead have their charges stayed.

However, last year, the College, and of important note after the Ingram ruling, ordered Wall to pay $65,000 in fines and costs “under threat of immediately losing his license to practice if he does not pay,” the LCC said.

Chiropractor’s lawyer to fight fine tooth and nail

According to the LCC, the College’s new complaints director said she will enforce the tribunal’s court-defying order and mandate Wall pay the $65,000.

Because of this, Kitchen submitted an application to the College “to prevent this injustice” against Wall, the LCC noted.

“The Application will be heard on June 21. It will be heard virtually and is open to public, although the College has erected a number of barriers to people attending its hearings. For one, people must register with the hearings director and must do so many days in advance,” he told LifeSiteNews.

“The Tribunal elected to ignore the Ingram decision despite issuing its decision over two weeks after Ingram was released by the Court.”

Kitchen noted that the Tribunal had a lawyer advising it who was being paid some $700 an hour. He told LifeSiteNews that “Tribunals can do whatever they want and often do.”

“Only if the affected person takes further legal action can they hold the Tribunals accountable. And even then, that’s very difficult because the first appeals are to the councils of the Colleges, which almost always rubber stamp whatever the Tribunals decide. Real accountability isn’t had until the impugned professional is able to reach the Court of Appeal, which of course takes years and an enormous amount of funding for lawyer fees,” Kitchen said.

Kitchen is working Wall’s case at discounted rates and noted that high legal costs in such cases dealing with tribunals, who can drag things on for years, to him appear to be a tactic the Colleges count on for “avoiding accountability.”

The LCC estimates the College, which is funded through payments from all chiropractors, paid some $600,000 in legal fees to fight Wall.

“LCC asks supporters to donate toward Dr. Wall’s case so he and Mr. Kitchen can hold the College of Chiropractors of Alberta accountable and bring an end to the unjust persecution of Dr. Curtis Wall. Liberty Coalition Canada is assisting Dr. Wall with his legal expenses through the Legal Defense Fund.”

Kenney quit after losing the confidence of his United Conservative Party (UCP) members for backtracking on his promise to not impose a COVID vaccine passport. Under Kenney, thousands of businesses, notably restaurants and small shops, were negatively impacted by severe COVID restrictions, mostly in 2020-21, that forced them to close their doors for a time. Many never reopened. At the same time, as in the rest of Canada, big box stores were allowed to operate unimpeded.

Under Kenney, thousands of nurses, doctors, healthcare and government workers lost their jobs for choosing to not get the jabs, leading Premier Danielle Smith to say – only minutes after being sworn in – that over the past year the “unvaccinated” were the “most discriminated against” people in her lifetime.

Recently, LifeSiteNews reported on how Alberta-based Rath & Company is in the process of putting together a class-action lawsuit against the Alberta government on behalf of many business owners in the province who faced massive losses or permanent closures from what it says were “illegal” COVID public health orders enacted by provincial officials.