ASIRT finds reasonable grounds in Calgary police use of force probe but Alberta Crown declines charges
ASIRT found reasonable grounds that three Calgary officers used force during a June 8, 2018 arrest, but the Alberta Crown did not recommend criminal charges.
A provincial watchdog has concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe three Calgary Police Service officers committed an offence during a June 8, 2018 arrest, yet prosecutors decided not to pursue charges. The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team’s finding on the Calgary police use of force was forwarded to the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service under the Police Act. The Crown reviewed the investigation and determined the evidence did not meet its test for a reasonable likelihood of conviction nor did it favour a public prosecution.
Details of the June 8, 2018 arrest
Four members of the CPS Tactical Unit in unmarked vehicles approached a man wanted on outstanding warrants on 69 Avenue S.E. in Calgary. The officers say they announced themselves as police and ordered the man to the ground, while the man maintains the officers did not identify themselves and that he fled because he feared for his safety. During his flight the man jumped a fence and fell roughly seven feet, landing awkwardly before continuing to run.
Allegations by the arrested man
The man accused officers of striking him with an unmarked police vehicle, though neither the officers nor independent witnesses reported seeing the vehicle make contact. He also alleged he did not resist when two officers confronted him and that they nonetheless struck him and directed racial or derogatory remarks. He further claimed he requested an ambulance at the scene and was denied medical attention until after he sought counsel.
Physical interaction and medical treatment
According to the ASIRT report, two officers then engaged the man in a physical struggle that ended with him handcuffed. One officer is reported to have struck the lower left side of the man’s body and applied pressure to his head and eye area, while a second officer delivered multiple strikes to the leg and abdomen before handcuffing was complete. Tactical Emergency Medical Services attended, and the man initially declined an on-scene medical assessment but later requested care and was taken to Foothills Hospital, where a cast was applied to his right arm.
ASIRT’s investigative conclusion
ASIRT’s investigation reached the threshold under the Criminal Code test used by investigators, concluding there were reasonable grounds to believe an offence was committed by three officers involved in the arrest. That assessment reflects ASIRT’s role as an independent investigative body tasked with determining whether actions by police meet the statutory elements of a criminal offence. The finding prompted the required referral to prosecutors as provided for in Alberta’s Police Act.
Alberta Crown’s review and decision
Upon receiving ASIRT’s file, the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service reviewed the evidence and opted not to recommend criminal charges against the officers. The Crown’s decision rested on its statutory prosecutorial standards, which include an assessment of whether the evidence gives a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether proceeding would serve the public interest. In this instance the ACPS judged that those criteria were not met.
Why ASIRT and the Crown can reach different outcomes
Differences between ASIRT’s finding and the Crown’s decision reflect the distinct legal thresholds and institutional roles each body carries. ASIRT applies an investigative standard focused on whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect a criminal offence under the Criminal Code. The Crown, by contrast, must be satisfied not only that an offence could be proven but that a conviction is reasonably likely and that a prosecution aligns with public-interest considerations. These separate beds of analysis often produce divergent results in sensitive use-of-force cases.
Witness statements and evidentiary disputes
Investigators noted that witness accounts largely aligned with the officers’ version of events, a factor that influenced the Crown’s assessment of evidentiary strength. The file contains competing claims about whether the man resisted, whether the vehicle struck him, and whether racial comments were made, leaving factual disputes for which the Crown found proof would be uncertain at trial. That uncertainty weighed heavily in the decision not to advance criminal charges despite ASIRT’s conclusion that reasonable grounds existed.
The ASIRT finding and the Crown’s refusal to proceed highlight the complexity of police oversight and criminal prosecutions in Alberta. The case underscores how investigative conclusions and prosecutorial judgments can diverge even when an independent watchdog identifies potential wrongdoing.
Public trust in policing and accountability mechanisms often turns on transparent explanations of such outcomes, and both ASIRT and the Alberta Crown have outlined their respective roles and standards in this matter. The June 8, 2018 incident on 69 Avenue S.E., the medical follow-up at Foothills Hospital, and the subsequent legal review remain part of an ongoing public record that officials and community members will likely scrutinize as questions about use of force and oversight continue to be debated.
