Search
Full-text search across every published incident. Officer names are never indexed — search hits match the redacted summary, agency name, tribunal citation, and the controlled-vocabulary fields (incident type, finding, disposition).
deces_intervention_policiere_autre · 2024-Q4
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_autre · 2024-Q4
deces_intervention_policiere_autre · 2024-Q4
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_vehicule_implique · 2024-Q2
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_vehicule_implique · 2024-Q2
injury · 2013-Q3
The Independent Investigations Office (IIO) investigated an incident in Vancouver where an adult female, an innocent bystander, sustained a serious injury to her hip while a person was being taken into custody. The Chief Civilian Director of the IIO reviewed the investigation and made a decision regarding whether an officer may have committed an offence. The IIO has reported the matter to Crown Counsel, as required by the Police Act. This public report summarizes the circumstances that led to the IIO asserting jurisdiction and describes the resources deployed during the investigation.
injury · 2013-Q3
The Independent Investigations Office (IIO) is responsible for conducting investigations into all officer-related incidents which result in death or "serious harm" within the province of British Columbia. As the Chief Civilian Director of the IIO, they are required to review all investigations upon their conclusion. If they conclude that an officer may have committed an offence, they are required to report the matter to Crown counsel. This is a supplemental public report related to the investigation into the injury of an adult female that occurred in a city in British Columbia. In the first public report, it was indicated that IIO investigators had interviewed civilian witnesses to this incident.
injury · 2013-Q3
The Independent Investigations Office (IIO) is responsible for conducting investigations into all officer-related incidents which result in death or "serious harm" (as defined in Part 11 of the Police Act) within the province of British Columbia. As the Chief Civilian Director of the IIO, they are required to review all investigations upon their conclusion, in order to determine whether they "consider that an officer may have committed an offence under any enactment, including an enactment of Canada or another province." (See s.38.11 of the Police Act). If they conclude that an officer may have committed an offence, they are required to report the matter to Crown Counsel. If they do not make a report to Crown Counsel, they are permitted by s.38.121 of the Police Act to publicly report the reasoning underlying their decision. In this public report, they may include a summary of circumstances that led to the IIO asserting jurisdiction; a description of the resources that the IIO deployed; a statement indicating that the IIO, after concluding the investigation, has reported the matter to Crown Counsel; or a summary of the results of the investigation if the matter has not been reported to Crown. This is a public report related to the investigation into the injury of an adult male that occurred in the city of Vancouver. The affected person sustained serious injuries after being shot in the hand with a rubber bullet by a member of the Emergency Response Team (ERT) of the Vancouver Police.
injury · 2013-Q3
The Independent Investigations Office (IIO) investigated an incident in which an adult male was injured in the city of Squamish. The affected person sustained a serious injury to their wrist, allegedly sustained while being taken into custody. The Chief Civilian Director of the IIO reviewed the investigation and made a decision regarding whether to report the matter to Crown counsel. This public report outlines the reasoning underlying that decision, including a summary of the circumstances that led to the IIO asserting jurisdiction and a description of the resources deployed. The IIO has concluded its investigation into the incident.
injury · 2013-Q3
The Independent Investigations Office (IIO) conducted an investigation into an officer-related incident that resulted in serious harm to an adult female in the city of West Vancouver. The affected person sustained a serious injury to her head, allegedly while being transported by officers. The Chief Civilian Director of the IIO reviewed the investigation and determined whether an officer may have committed an offence. Pursuant to the Police Act, the CCD may publicly report the reasoning underlying the decision if the matter is not reported to Crown Counsel. This public report summarizes the circumstances and results of the investigation.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes. In early 2025, police officers, including the subject officer, attended at a campsite in a provincial park. A park warden had contacted police for their assistance. A short period prior, the park warden, at the campsite in connection with a noise complaint, had witnessed one of the campers - the affected person - slap the park warden in the face. The subject officer and another officer took custody of the affected person and handcuffed them behind the back without incident. The affected person was searched and placed in the rear of the police cruiser for transportation to the detachment. At the detachment, the affected person was lodged in a cell and held there until their release from custody later that morning. The affected person returned to the park to meet with the park warden in violation of a no-contact condition of their release from custody. They subsequently attended hospital that same day and were diagnosed with two broken ribs.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, a subject officer and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, a subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the evening of late 2025, police officers, including two subject officers, attended an apartment in the area of a city. The resident – the affected person – had contacted police to report that an inebriated person was in her apartment and she wanted them removed. The officers entered the apartment and approached the person in the living room. They were seated on a sofa and speaking on the phone with a police call-taker. After a period, the person ended their conversation on the phone, stood up from the sofa and walked a short distance towards the door. Just before the door, the officers took hold of their arms. The person attempted to free their arms and the officers maintained their grip. Other officers intervened and the person fell forward to the floor, striking their head off the edge of a wall in the process. Officers fell with the person and landed on top of them. They were handcuffed in quick order and taken into custody. Following their arrest, the person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a reduced level of consciousness and a scalp laceration with emphysema and subgaleal hematoma.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and the subject officer, and other police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In the early morning of November 2025, an officer, on patrol in a marked vehicle, came across a pick-up truck stopped for a red light in Oakville. When the light turned green, the pick-up did not move. The officer exited their cruiser to check the driver and noticed them asleep with their head slumped forward. After banging on the window for a period, the officer was able to rouse the driver and directed them to pull over on the other side of the intersection. The driver was the affected person. With them in the front passenger seat was another person. The affected person proceeded south through the intersection, put on their four-way flashers as if they were going to stop, and then accelerated away. The officer radioed what had happened and began to pursue the truck. Other officers heard the transmissions and headed in the area of the pursuit to assist, including another officer in an unmarked police vehicle. The officer would come to occupy the lead cruiser in pursuit, in front of the first officer. The subject officer, also operating an unmarked police cruiser, intervened as well. The pursuit continued at speed for about 12 minutes. The affected person disregarded multiple red lights, as did police officers. A spike belt was deployed in front of the pick-up truck at one point, causing damage to the truck’s front driver side tire. As the pursuit turned onto eastbound Lakeshore Road West from Winston Churchill Boulevard in Mississauga, the three vehicles closest to the affected person’s truck – the officers – decided to perform a rolling block. In the area of the roadway’s intersection with Avonhead Road, the subject officer overtook the truck and began to slow in front of it. The affected person brought the truck to an abrupt stop in front of the officer. Another officer stopped their cruiser alongside the driver side of the truck and another officer directly behind. The subject officer exited their vehicle and approached the front of the other officer’s cruiser, pointing their semi-automatic pistol at the affected person in the driver’s seat of the truck. The officer was joined by other officers, who each fired their CEWs at the affected person through the open driver’s door window. Orders were shouted at the affected person to exit the vehicle. The subject officer holstered their gun and took out their OC canister, which they sprayed at the affected person. Shortly after, the subject officer climbed on top of the hood of the other officer’s cruiser, grabbed a hold of the affected person’s leg, which had appeared through the driver’s window, and, with the help of other officers, pulled the affected person out of the truck onto the hood. The affected person had their arms together by their chest and was on their right side on top of the hood when the subject officer punched them three times to the upper torso / head area. The affected person was pulled off the hood onto the ground in front of the officer’s cruiser. There were now about six officers surrounding the affected person. Among them, the subject officer punched in the direction of the affected person’s torso five times and another officer dropped their knee onto the upper body and head area two or three times. The subject officer then stood up and kicked at the affected person’s right hip area six times. Shortly after, the affected person was handcuffed, stood up and lodged in the backseat of one of the cruisers. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with multiple facial fractures.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, the subject officer and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In the afternoon of a day in late 2025, the subject officer and their partner were on the lookout for the affected person. The affected person was wanted for a number of break and enters, and subject to an outstanding arrest warrant. The officers located the affected person at a gas station in a rural area. The affected person was pumping gas into a vehicle. The officers pulled up in their unmarked vehicle, and exited. The subject officer approached the affected person and advised them they were under arrest. The affected person walked around the front of their vehicle away from the subject officer and towards the driver’s door. They confronted the partner officer beside the door and pushed them out of the way, attempting to enter the vehicle. The partner officer pushed back against the driver’s door to prevent it opening. The subject officer moved to assist. There followed a struggle in the course of which the subject officer used force against the affected person multiple times. With the assistance of civilians on scene, the officers overcame the affected person’s resistance and handcuffed them. The affected person was transported to hospital where diagnostic imaging was unable to rule out injuries.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes. In the morning of late 2025, the police received a call from hospital security reporting that a patient who had been discharged and escorted out of the hospital – the affected person – was in the parking lot, refusing to leave. The subject officer and another officer of the Emergency Response Team were dispatched. Upon arrival, the officers spoke with security and confirmed the information provided in the call. Security advised that the affected person had been discharged and provided with medication but refused to leave the hospital. They had to physically escort them out of the building; however, they still would not leave the property and wanted to return to the hospital. They were trespassed. Hospital staff did not want them back inside and wanted them removed. The briefing did not include information indicating that the affected person had a particular medical condition. The subject officer approached the affected person and informed them that they were required to leave the premises. The affected person stated that they wanted to return to the hospital because they were in pain. They were advised that they could seek care at another hospital, that they had been trespassed from this one, and that they must either leave or be arrested and removed from the premises. During the conversation, the affected person moved away from the vehicle where they had been standing and proceeded in the direction of the hospital doors. As they walked past, the subject officer asked where they were going and took hold of their arm. As the subject officer began to turn them around, an audible cracking sound was heard and the arm appeared to rotate in an abnormal manner consistent with having snapped. The affected person was permitted to re-enter the hospital so that their injury could be addressed. They were diagnosed with, and subsequently treated for, a comminuted and displaced fracture of the left distal humerus.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the subject officer and another police eyewitness, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. In the evening of late 2025, police officers, including the subject officer, were dispatched to a location in a town. A resident of the multi-unit location had contacted police to report concern with the wellbeing of a male – the affected person – causing a disturbance at the property. He had been talking to himself and threatening to kill someone. The subject officer arrived on scene, joined by other officers. They attended at a unit of the building and arrested the affected person on a warrant in effect for their arrest for breach of a probation order. They were handcuffed behind the back, escorted outside and searched by the officers beside a cruiser. A number of items were seized. The affected person was subsequently placed in the backseat of a cruiser and read their rights by an officer. An officer exited the cruiser, leaving the affected person alone. They and another officer returned to the unit to search the residence for firearms. Left alone in the cruiser, the affected person slipped their handcuffed arms below their legs and repositioned them to the front. They subsequently reached towards the crotch area of their pants, retrieved a bag and ingested a substance it contained. Shortly after the affected person’s consumption of the substance, the subject officer began to monitor them from outside the cruiser using the lights from their cruiser and a flashlight. The affected person brought their hands up to their mouth area on several occasions. Having concluded the search of the unit, an officer returned to their cruiser and checked on the affected person in the rear. The affected person was shaking and pale. Noting that the handcuffs were now to the front, and suspecting a drug overdose, the officer requested EMS. The affected person was removed from the cruiser, administered two doses of Narcan and placed in the recovery position pending the arrival of paramedics. EMS arrived and the affected person was taken to hospital and treated for drug overdose.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and a police eyewitness, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the afternoon of late 2025, the subject officer, operating a police cruiser with another officer as their passenger, stopped a vehicle in Haldimand County. The affected person was driving the vehicle. Police officers had been on the lookout for the affected person after they expressed suicidal ideations when they came to learn, earlier that day, that they were the subject of a sexual assault investigation. As the officers exited the cruiser to make their way to the vehicle, the affected person accessed a knife and used it to inflict a serious laceration across the left side of their neck. The subject officer and the other officer observed the wound, contacted paramedics and attempted to apply first aid. When the affected person tried to prevent the officers from helping them, they were handcuffed to allow the officers to provide emergency care. The affected person was transported to hospital and treated for a serious neck wound.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes. In the afternoon of October 2025, the subject officer was off-duty and attending an appointment at a business, located in a strip mall in Thunder Bay. While there, they observed a man – the affected person applying orange spray paint to the front door of the business. They alerted the owner, and the owner ran after the affected person, with the subject officer following. As the affected person fled along the sidewalk, they lost their footing and fell forward onto the sidewalk, striking their face. The owner and the subject officer reached them within moments where they had fallen. The owner attempted to secure the affected person’s legs, during which the affected person kicked at them. The subject officer reached towards the affected person’s upper body as they attempted to gain control of them, the affected person continued to kick. The subject officer positioned the affected person onto their right side, and as they applied physical control, including the use of their bodyweight, the affected person came to rest in a prone position. The subject officer maintained control over the affected person’s upper back. The subject officer and the owner then brought the affected person’s hands behind them and continued to restrain them until police arrived. Several bystanders had gathered, and one contacted police. A police officer responded, arrested the affected person for mischief, assisted them to their feet, and transported them to the police station. The following day, the affected person attended hospital and was diagnosed with bilateral nasal bone fractures of indeterminate age.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the evening of late 2025, the affected person was on their way home from work travelling east in Brampton. They had just taken the on-ramp to a highway when they were pulled over by a RIDE program set up on the ramp. The affected person was approached by an officer who asked them to pull ahead for further questioning. Another officer approached and asked the affected person to continue forward and stop their vehicle on the ramp shoulder in front of a police vehicle. They did so. The officer asked the affected person to step out of their vehicle and escorted them to the back of the vehicle. They were joined at this time by the subject officer. The affected person was angry about being pulled over. They would not allow the officer to fully read them a breath test demand and insisted the officer simply administer the test. The officer explained that they needed to read the demand in full and ensure they understood it. They told the affected person that refusing to take the test would constitute a criminal offence. The subject officer tried to calm the affected person but to no avail. When the affected person began to walk to the driver’s door of their vehicle, the officer grabbed and pushed them back towards the rear of the vehicle and a snow-covered area past the ramp shoulder. The affected person fell backwards over the ramp curb. They attempted to stand back up but were forced to the ground by the subject officer. There followed a struggle between the affected person and several police officers. The affected person was eventually handcuffed and placed in the rear seat of a police cruiser. The affected person attended hospital the next day and was diagnosed with a concussion.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and the subject officer, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. In the late afternoon of a day in late 2025, police officers were dispatched to an address in Hamilton, following a call to police about domestic abuse. A person reported that the affected person had threatened them earlier in the day and attended at their apartment where they caused a domestic disturbance. The subject officer, in the company of another officer, arrived at the address. They were aware that there were warrants in effect for the affected person's arrest on firearm-related charges. A person spoke with the officers and indicated that the affected person was possibly at the rear of the residence. The subject officer walked to the side of the house and located the affected person sitting in a chair. They directed the affected person not to move, told them to stand up and then grabbed their arm, lifting them from the chair. The affected person immediately began to resist the officer. The two exchanged punches to the head before falling to the ground where the struggle continued. The subject officer yelled out for the other officer's help, and they appeared quickly and joined in the struggle. The affected person flailed their legs and refused to release their arms to be handcuffed. The subject officer and the other officer punched the affected person multiple times but could not sufficiently subdue them to take control of their arms behind the back. Another officer arrived on scene about two minutes after the altercation started and assisted in eventually handcuffing the affected person. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with injuries.