VPD officer won’t face charges for arrest that left mischief suspect with serious facial injuries: IIO

Police cars are seen parked outside Vancouver Police Department headquarters in Vancouver, on Saturday, Jan. 9, 2021. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck

A Vancouver police officer will not face charges for an arrest on a downtown street that left a woman with "serious injuries to her face," according to the province's police watchdog.

The Independent Investigations Office issued a report on the 2023 arrest Tuesday.

"The reality is that the investigation has resulted in two competing accounts," civilian director Ronald MacDonald wrote.

"This is a case where the available evidence does not give me reasonable grounds to determine what actually occurred," he added.

The woman was arrested on the morning of Feb. 12 last year. The officer being investigated, referred to as the subject officer or "SO," gave the IIO access to his written report but did not provide a statement to the IIO, saying he "has only limited recollection of the incident." Officers that are the subject of an IIO investigation are not required to provide notes or testimony, the report says. 

A civilian witness provided one account of what unfolded, telling the IIO that she saw an officer pull over and approach the woman, referred to as the affected person or "AP" in the report, and speak with her for about 30 seconds.

"She said SO bent AP forward over the hood of the vehicle, and appeared to be controlling her hands behind her back," the report says.

"She said that SO then 'slammed' AP's upper body down onto the hood, saying something about 'ground.' (The witness) said that AP did not seem to be resisting. (The witness) described SO then holding AP by her hands and lifting her bodily off the ground 'like a ragdoll.' She said he turned to his left and 'body-slammed' AP to the ground, her head landing close to (the witness') feet as she walked past on the sidewalk. (The witness) said she heard a crunch, as if a bone had broken. She said that SO was still holding AP's hands behind her back."

The witness also described AP's face as "bloody." The IIO report does not contain any details about the injuries to the woman's face beyond describing them as serious.

This account, MacDonald said, could lend itself to a conclusion that the issue of force was unnecessary or excessive. However, it was not the only one provided.

The officer's written report said he pulled over when he saw AP hitting the window of a car with an object between six and eight times.

"He said AP was yelling and he concluded that AP was attempting to break into the vehicle. He concluded there were grounds to arrest AP for mischief," the report says, adding that when he pulled over the woman was walking away and that she resisted arrest and that he had difficulty cuffing her because of her "bulky jacket."

The officer's report also said he saw AP "holding a sharp black metal object" and that he "feared she was about to use it as a weapon against him."

When he used a "leg sweep" to take the woman down, he said a black hatchet "fell from her person," according to the report.

Two other police officers who attended in response to a call for backup gave statements to the IIO, saying they "formally arrested AP for mischief and possession of a dangerous weapon" when they arrived. They both said there was a "small hatchet" at the scene.

They also said they did not interview any witnesses. The IIO issued a public appeal for witnesses to the arrest in August of 2023. 

Ultimately, those officers said the mischief charge was not pursued further because "any damage to the car was insignificant and the owner was not concerned." The owner confirmed to the IIO that he saw scratches on his vehicle but did not "wish to co-operate" with a criminal investigation.

The civilian witness account did not describe anything that AP did that was grounds for arrest or that would "seem to justify the forceful manoeuvre by which SO took AP to the ground and injured her," the report says.

But that account also may not have reflected the "entirety of the interaction" MacDonald said, noting the witness did not mention seeing AP hitting the car or wielding the small hatchet. In addition, the witness described the woman as wearing a tank top on a cold, winter day which was contradicted by other evidence that AP was wearing a jacket.

"These two issues with (the witness') evidence impact the reliability of that evidence to a certain extent," MacDonald wrote.

In contrast, SO's account was "corroborated to a certain extent" by other "objective" evidence – including that there were marks on a car, that a small hatchet was seized, and that the description of what AP was wearing matched what she was seen wearing on video when she was booked into cells.

"I do not consider that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an officer may have committed an offence under any enactment and therefore the matter will not be referred to Crown counsel for consideration of charges," MacDonald concluded.