ASIRT finds “confluence of errors” in Calgary police dog bite of nine-year-old
A detailed ASIRT report says a Calgary police dog bite that injured a nine-year-old girl during a stolen-vehicle pursuit in February 2025 resulted from a “confluence of errors,” and investigators found no reasonable grounds to charge the handler. The Calgary police dog bite remains under scrutiny as the report outlines how a fleeing suspect, an open gate and a lost line of sight combined to send the dog into a public green space where the child was walking.
ASIRT’s finding and legal conclusion
ASIRT concluded the outcome was “serious and extremely unfortunate” but stopped short of recommending criminal charges against the dog handler. The report explains investigators considered whether the handler’s conduct met the legal threshold for criminal negligence causing bodily harm and found no evidence of a marked departure from what a reasonably prudent person would have done.
The watchdog underscored that police dog handlers can face criminal charges if they deploy animals outside established training or guidelines. In this case ASIRT determined the information available to the handler at the time supported the decision to deploy the canine to apprehend a fleeing suspect.
How the pursuit unfolded
According to the report, officers were pursuing a suspect in a stolen vehicle when the person fled on foot and refused to stop for police. A Calgary police service dog was released to pursue the fleeing suspect while other units provided aerial support and radio updates.
The handler, who had been with the canine unit for a decade, lost visual contact with the dog during the pursuit and could no longer issue commands. The dog chased the suspect through a backyard opening, across an alley and into a green space where children were present, including the nine-year-old girl.
The moment the dog encountered the child
ASIRT’s account says the dog initially ran past the child but then turned and pursued her when she started to run away in the opposite direction. The animal leapt, grabbed at her backpack and hair, and then bit her thigh after she fell to the ground.
First responders assisted the child at the scene and she waited in a police vehicle for paramedics to arrive. The report notes the dog released the child only after the handler arrived and issued the call to stand off.
Injuries and hospital treatment
Medical records included in the report show the girl suffered five puncture wounds to her thigh, one of which extended deep to the muscle. She was transported to the Alberta Children’s Hospital, where clinicians treated the wounds and assessed the extent of soft-tissue injury.
ASIRT described the physical effects as significant and emphasized the emotional impact on the child, who reportedly told an officer at the scene, “This is why I hate dogs.” The report documents both the physical and psychological consequences of the incident in its assessment.
Operational factors cited by ASIRT
Investigators identified several operational factors that combined to create the unintended outcome, including the handler’s temporary loss of sight of the dog and the presence of an open gate at the back of the property. ASIRT noted the handler did not know there was an open green space beyond the yard where children could be present when the dog was deployed.
The watchdog also referenced radio transmissions from aerial units indicating the dog had entered a field with children, which alerted the handler only after the animal had already left the immediate pursuit pathway. Those gaps in situational awareness were central to ASIRT’s conclusion that the event resulted from multiple errors rather than criminal conduct by the handler.
Accountability, standards and next steps for policing
ASIRT reiterated that criminal liability for police dog handlers requires proof of a marked and substantial departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent person. The investigation’s finding that available evidence did not meet that standard means no criminal charges will be recommended against the handler in this matter.
The report does not preclude administrative review or changes to operational practice by the Calgary Police Service. ASIRT’s role is investigative and fact-finding; decisions about policy adjustments, training updates or disciplinary measures fall within the police service’s internal processes and municipal oversight structures.
Community safety and oversight implications
The incident has prompted renewed attention to how canine units balance the need to apprehend suspects with risks to bystanders, particularly children in residential green spaces. Families, neighbourhood associations and public safety advocates are likely to press for clearer protocols on risk mitigation during foot pursuits that may traverse private yards and open spaces.
Calls for greater transparency around canine deployment decisions and for strengthened coordination between ground handlers and aerial units may grow as the community digests ASIRT’s findings. The report underscores the challenges police face operating in densely populated urban areas where property configurations and public pathways can alter the dynamics of a pursuit.
Calgary Police Service resources and training context
The report notes the handler involved had ten years’ experience with the Calgary police canine unit, indicating a level of institutional training and familiarity with deployment protocols. ASIRT’s review focused on whether the handler’s conduct deviated from those accepted practices and concluded it did not meet the criminal standard.
The incident nonetheless raises operational questions about situational awareness tools, line-of-sight procedures and how canine teams are briefed when pursuits may enter residential properties. Any updates to training or procedure will be a matter for the Calgary Police Service and municipal oversight to consider in the months ahead.
The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team’s review provides a detailed factual account of the February 2025 incident and its aftermath, and it concludes that the nine-year-old was an unintended target who suffered significant injuries. The legal threshold for criminal prosecution was not met, but the circumstances highlighted by the report are likely to prompt public discussion and internal policy review about canine deployments in residential areas.
