What happens when police use of force is justified, but investigators find reasonable grounds to believe an officer committed a criminal offence during the same encounter?
An Alberta police-oversight decision demonstrates why accountability cannot be reduced to whether charges are laid.
On October 7, Alberta’s Police Review Commission published the findings of an Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) investigation involving RCMP officers responding to a domestic disturbance in Sylvan Lake on July 4, 2024.
The individual had barricaded himself in a bathroom, threatened self-harm and was armed with scissors. A physical struggle followed, during which an officer was injured and the individual sustained a neck injury.
ASIRT concluded that the officers’ use of force was reasonable, necessary and proportionate.
But it reached a different conclusion about threatening comments made by one officer.
ASIRT found reasonable grounds to believe the officer had committed the Criminal Code offence of uttering threats.
The Alberta Crown Prosecution Service subsequently recommended against laying charges, applying its separate prosecution standard. ASIRT accepted that recommendation.
The investigation also raised concerns about the professionalism of communications by other officers and examined whether the medical response following the arrest constituted a criminal breach of duty. No criminal breach relating to medical care was established.
These findings raise questions that extend well beyond this incident.
Accountability Is Not All or Nothing
Police encounters are sometimes portrayed as having only two possible outcomes: the officer acted appropriately, or the officer committed wrongdoing.
Frontline policing is rarely that simple.
An officer can be legally justified in using force while other conduct warrants scrutiny. Investigators may find reasonable grounds to believe an offence occurred without charges ultimately being pursued.
And behaviour can raise legitimate professional concerns without meeting the criminal threshold.
Criminal liability, professional misconduct and organizational learning are different questions, governed by different standards and processes.
Confusing them serves neither public confidence nor procedural fairness.
Understanding ASIRT’s Jurisdiction
ASIRT investigates serious incidents and potential criminal or statutory offences involving police officers in Alberta. It does not have general authority to investigate or adjudicate non-criminal professional misconduct.
Under Alberta’s current framework, the Police Review Commission handles certain non-criminal misconduct complaints involving municipal and First Nations police officers.
The Sylvan Lake incident, however, involved RCMP members.
Non-criminal complaints involving RCMP conduct fall under federal complaints and internal conduct processes, including the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP. Formal discipline is addressed separately through RCMP conduct procedures.
ASIRT’s decision not to lay charges was not a finding that every aspect of the officers’ conduct met professional standards.
Equally, concerns raised during an investigation should not be treated as established misconduct without an appropriate finding.
The published ASIRT decision does not establish whether separate RCMP conduct proceedings occurred.
Context Matters — But It Is Not an Excuse
The circumstances surrounding the arrest were volatile.
Officers confronted an individual who had threatened self-harm and was armed with scissors. During the struggle, an officer was injured.
ASIRT considered those circumstances when examining the officer’s threatening comments.
That context matters.
Police officers regularly make decisions under extraordinary pressure. Fear, adrenaline, pain and rapidly changing threats can influence behaviour.
Recognizing those realities does not mean abandoning professional standards.
Context should inform accountability. It should neither automatically excuse conduct nor be ignored when evaluating it.
A fair investigation must examine the totality of the circumstances, not isolate a few seconds of behaviour from everything that preceded them.
Professionalism Matters, Even When Conduct Is Not Criminal
ASIRT also identified concerns about frequent profanity and a confrontational communication style among certain officers, including the potential for escalating tensions.
These observations did not establish criminal wrongdoing.
But they raise an important leadership question.
What responsibility do police organizations have to examine conduct that may fall below the criminal threshold but still affect public confidence, operational effectiveness or professional standards?
The answer should not automatically be punishment.
It should begin with an objective assessment of the circumstances, applicable policies, training and opportunities for improvement.
Learning from an incident and assigning blame are not the same thing.
The same principle applies to the medical response. ASIRT examined whether transporting the injured individual to the RCMP detachment for medical assessment constituted a criminal failure of care. It concluded that the evidence did not establish a criminal breach of duty.
That finding should be respected. It does not prevent an organization from considering whether its procedures could be improved.
Psychological Safety Does Not Mean Freedom From Accountability
Advocating for psychological safety is sometimes mistaken for protecting employees from consequences.
It is not.
Psychological safety means creating environments where people can report concerns, acknowledge mistakes, seek assistance and participate honestly in investigations without unnecessary humiliation, retaliation or institutional harm.
Accountability remains essential.
The stronger model is straightforward:
Accountability without unnecessary harm.
Rigorous investigations and recognition of occupational stress, trauma exposure and human performance under pressure are not competing objectives.
Organizations that understand these factors are better positioned to identify risks, improve performance and prevent future harm.
The Psychological Cost of Prolonged Investigations
The Sylvan Lake incident occurred in July 2024.
ASIRT’s final decision was published in October 2026.
More than two years later.
The matter was referred to the Crown in March 2026, and the Crown issued its recommendation against prosecution in June.
Independent investigations must be thorough, evidence-based and free from inappropriate interference.
But prolonged uncertainty can carry psychological consequences for affected individuals, officers, families and organizations.
There is insufficient information to conclude that the duration of this particular investigation was unreasonable.
Nevertheless, the broader principle remains.
Timeliness is not simply an administrative objective. It is an important component of procedural fairness.
Thoroughness and timeliness should reinforce one another, not compete.
Oversight Must Be Independent — and Fair
Alberta’s oversight framework changed significantly with the establishment of the Police Review Commission in December 2025.
ASIRT now operates within that independent civilian-led structure, while retaining its distinct criminal investigative mandate.
These changes provide an opportunity to examine not only how accountability is administered, but how those involved experience the process.
Effective oversight must be:
Independent. Thorough. Transparent. Timely. Psychologically informed. Procedurally fair.
None of these principles should come at the expense of another.
Together, they strengthen public confidence.
What Good Oversight Should Accomplish
Having served for more than a decade as a police disciplinary Hearing Officer, I understand the importance of maintaining professional standards and ensuring allegations are examined fairly.
Accountability is essential to public trust.
But it also requires objectivity, restraint and respect for established legal processes.
The Sylvan Lake decision illustrates why these distinctions matter.
ASIRT found the officers’ use of force justified.
It separately found reasonable grounds to believe one officer committed the offence of uttering threats.
The Crown recommended against prosecution.
Other aspects of the encounter raised professionalism concerns, while the medical response did not establish a criminal breach of duty.
Reasonable grounds to believe an offence occurred are not proof of guilt. Equally, the absence of criminal charges is not a disciplinary finding that all conduct was appropriate.
Both principles are fundamental to fairness.
The larger question for police leadership is what happens after the criminal investigation concludes.
Are organizations prepared to examine opportunities for improvement without presuming misconduct?
Can oversight processes remain rigorous without creating unnecessary psychological harm?
And can accountability systems protect public confidence while respecting the people who must participate in them?
Accountability should never be confused with punishment for its own sake.
Its purpose is to establish facts, uphold standards, protect rights and strengthen institutions.
When we understand that distinction, accountability and psychological safety stop being competing priorities.
They become essential parts of the same responsibility.
That is where meaningful reform begins.
Beyond Resilience Canada
Advancing psychologically safer, evidence-informed approaches to mental health, leadership and organizational accountability across Canada’s policing and public-safety professions.