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-Q3
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_autre · 2024-Q3
blessure_grave_intervention_policiere_autre · 2025-Q4
deces_intervention_policiere_autre · 2025-Q2
deces_intervention_policiere_autre · 2024-Q3
injury · 2013-Q3
The Independent Investigations Office (IIO) conducted an investigation into an incident where an adult female was injured 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 their decision if they do not report the matter to Crown Counsel.
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, in order to determine whether they consider that an officer may have committed an offence under any enactment. 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 to publicly report the reasoning underlying their decision. This is a supplemental public report related to the investigation into the injury of an affected person that occurred in the city of Chilliwack. In the initial 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" 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. 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 to publicly report the reasoning underlying their decision. 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 of the police service.
injury · 2013-Q3
The Independent Investigations Office (IIO) conducted an investigation into an incident where 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 summarizes the circumstances surrounding the incident and the IIO's investigation.
injury · 2013-Q3
The Independent Investigations Office (IIO) conducted an investigation into an incident where an adult female was injured in the city of Vancouver. The affected person was an innocent bystander who sustained a serious injury while a person was being taken into custody. The Chief Civilian Director of the IIO reviewed the investigation and determined whether an officer may have committed an offence. The IIO has reported the results of the investigation, and the Chief Civilian Director is permitted to publicly report the reasoning underlying the decision.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant 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 a witness officer as their passenger, stopped a vehicle in a rural area. The complainant was driving the vehicle. Police officers had been on the lookout for the complainant 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 complainant accessed a knife and used it to inflict a serious laceration across the left side of their neck. The subject officer and the witness officer observed the wound, contacted paramedics, and attempted to apply first aid. When the complainant tried to prevent the officers from helping them, they were handcuffed to allow the subject officer and the witness officer to provide emergency care. The complainant was transported to hospital and treated for a serious neck wound.
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 subject officer's cruiser for transportation to a 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.
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 two other officers. The officers 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. A number of items were seized. The affected person was subsequently placed in the backseat of a police cruiser and read their rights by an officer. An officer exited the cruiser, leaving the affected person alone. The officers 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. 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 the 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.
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 a female. 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. 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, the vehicles closest to the affected person’s truck decided to perform a rolling block. The affected person brought the truck to an abrupt stop. The officers stopped their cruisers and the subject officer exited their vehicle and approached the front of another 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 another officer's cruiser, grabbed a hold of the affected person’s leg, which had appeared through the driver’s window, and, with other officers' help, 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. 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 and another officer dropped their knee onto the upper body and head area. The subject officer then stood up and kicked at the affected person’s right hip area. 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.
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.
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 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, such that their vehicle was adjacent to the affected person's vehicle, and exited their vehicle. 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 the partner officer. There followed a protracted struggle in the course of which the subject officer used force against the affected person multiple times. With the assistance of three civilians on scene, the officers overcame the affected person’s resistance and handcuffed them behind the back. The affected person was transported to hospital where diagnostic imaging was unable to rule out undisplaced fractures to the 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, an 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 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's police custodians, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officials did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the afternoon of late 2025, the affected person was arrested in connection with a stolen automobile. They were searched at the scene and transported to the police headquarters where they were lodged in a cell at about 5:45 p.m. They told police that they had consumed heroin a couple of hours before their arrest and explained they would become sick in their cell once the effects of the drug wore off. The affected person was monitored by special constables while in cells. They appeared to sleep for most of their time in custody. At about 7:40 a.m., the affected person had just woken when they started to vomit. They were removed from the cell and transported to hospital. The affected person was taken to hospital and treated for opioid withdrawal.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, and video footage that largely captured the events in question, 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 morning of December 2025, acting on the authority of a Form 2 issued under the Mental Health Act, officers attended an apartment in London. The form, authorizing police to compel the affected person’s attendance at hospital for a psychiatric examination, had been obtained. Concerns had been raised for the affected person’s well-being. Arriving at the apartment door, officers attempted to have the affected person exit the apartment. They explained who they were and why they were there. The affected person adamantly refused to leave the apartment. Behind a barricaded front door, the affected person variously threatened police that they would jump from the balcony and harm them or themselves if they entered the residence. Officers, including a member of the service’s crisis team, continued to negotiate with the affected person attempting to dissuade them from harming themselves or others. They assured them that they would not face criminal charges, and that they would simply be escorting them to hospital. The affected person remained unreceptive. With information that the affected person might jump from the balcony and was repeatedly threatening their life and those of the officers, the service deployed the emergency response unit to the scene. The plan was to have officers rappel from the roof to the affected person’s balcony, preventing them from using it to jump from the building. Officers arrived and were harnessed and ready to descend from the rooftop. As the officers were reaching the balcony railing, they were confronted by the affected person. With an aluminum baseball bat in hand, the affected person began to swing at the officers as they were still hanging from their rappel lines, striking one of them. An officer managed to land on the balcony and immediately became engaged in a struggle with the affected person. The two punched at each other, and the affected person fell to the ground. An officer deployed their CEW and another officer delivered a single punch to the face of the affected person as they lay on the ground. Following the strike, the affected person’s hands were handcuffed. The affected person was taken to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with multiple facial fractures.
custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The material events in question, clear on the evidence collected by the SIU, may briefly be summarized. In the morning of early 2025, police officers, including two subject officers, were dispatched to an area in Hamilton, following a call to police about a violent incident. The affected person, in violation of a no-contact order, had visited the person they were ordered not to contact and struck them in the face. The affected person and the person they struck had left by the time of the officers’ arrival. The officers interviewed witnesses and determined there were grounds to arrest the affected person for assault. The affected person and the person they struck had traveled to the affected person’s residence and were there when the officers arrived on scene. The officers heard a female screaming from inside and alerted the other officers. Led by one of the subject officers, the officers knocked on the door and directed the affected person to come out. The affected person refused to allow them entry, asserting it was their home and they needed a warrant. The officers explained that they had exigent circumstances and demanded that they open the door or they would force their way inside. When the affected person continued to refuse, one of the subject officers used a baton to smash the door’s glass window. Shortly after the window was broken, the affected person opened the door. The officers quickly grabbed the affected person and pulled them forward. The affected person stepped from the floor to ground level, landing awkwardly on their foot and fracturing it in the process. They were placed in a prone position on the ground and handcuffed without incident. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and treated for their foot fractures.