Edmonton officer cleared in fatal 2023 shooting of woman during wellness call, despite ‘critical inconsistencies’
Posted June 26, 2025 1:56 pm.
An Edmonton police officer who fatally shot a woman during a wellness call in 2023 will not face charges after Alberta’s police watchdog determined the woman reached for a weapon during the interaction, putting the officers at risk.
That weapon, which the two officers in the room believed was a semi-automatic pistol, turned out to be a BB gun, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) revealed in its report detailing the Dec. 6, 2023, shooting at a building complex in southeast Edmonton.
ASIRT says one of the officers used a conducted energy weapon, commonly known as a taser, on the victim when she allegedly reached for her gun, which was on the bed next to her where she was laying down, while the other officer simultaneously fired his service weapon, hitting her in the chest.
“Although the interaction was relatively brief, the action of the (woman) to reach for what appeared to be a real handgun in the face of repeated and clear directions by police to keep her hands up and not reach for the gun, while they themselves had their weapons pointed directly at her, represented a sudden escalation in the threat level (she) presented to the officers,” ASIRT’s assistant executive director wrote in Thursday’s report.
“It was reasonable for the (officer) to believe the (woman) was threatening to use force.”
‘Inconsistencies and omissions’
The police watchdog reached that conclusion despite what it called “critical inconsistencies and omissions” on the part of the officer who fatally shot the woman. Those inconsistencies, when compared with the testimony of the other officer in the room, rendered his evidence “for the most part unreliable.”
One of those inconsistencies included that the woman had been “waving around a gun and wouldn’t put it down and kept reaching for it,” according to the officer who shot her. But the other second officer – the one who used the taser – testified that the woman’s gun only became visible when he pulled down her blanket, and that she never actually handled the weapon.
The woman’s family has long maintained her death was unnecessary, calling into question the Edmonton police officers’ tactics during a wellness check. In the aftermath of the shooting, her parents said their daughter would still be alive if officers had been more gradual and gentler in their approach.
Police were first called to the building on 18 Avenue and 32 Street that morning by someone from an addiction recovery centre, who had been contacted by the woman and determined “she sounded desperate.” The woman had been the subject of multiple mental health complaints and had attempted suicide in the past, ASIRT says.
“Throughout the call, she had made comments to suggest that she was at home alone, drinking quite heavily, had a lot of suicidal thoughts, and did not think she was going to be able to keep herself safe,” the ASIRT report reads.
A toxicology report detected elevated concentrations of alcohol, several benzodiazepine-type medications, including clonazepam, and other over-the counter medications in the woman’s blood.
According to ASIRT, the officers arrived at the woman’s suite, knocked on the door several times with no response, and even tried calling her on the phone before eventually forcing their way into the unit.
The woman, who was lying in bed under the covers, allegedly told the officer to “get the (expletive) out of here” when they made their way inside. After she mentioned the word “gun,” the officers drew their own weapons, and one of the officers pulled off her blanket to reveal the BB gun, which ASIRT described as “similar in size and appearance to an actual Sig Sauer P226 9mm handgun.” That same officer later switched from his handgun to the taser.
Both officers fired when the woman allegedly “made a quick, overt action to turn her torso and reach across her body with her left hand.” The officers believed she was “deliberately reaching for the gun.”
“Based on the evidence, there is no reasonable interpretation other than that the (subject officer) was acting to defend himself” and the other officer “when he fired” at the victim, ASIRT’s report reads.
