A Quesnel Mountie was found to be not negligent in the incident that later caused a man’s death last year, according to a release by the Independent Investigations Office of B.C. (IIO) on Wednesday, May 13.
In the early morning hours of Oct. 27, 2025, Quesnel RCMP received a report alleging that a man was present outside a homeless shelter on Carson Avenue, in breach of a court-ordered condition that he not be at that address. It was also reported that he had defecated in his clothes.
According to the IIO report, a staff member on the night shift of the shelter wrote in the logbook that shelter clients were complaining that the man was “putting their health at risk by spreading excrement on the ground.”
The shelter staff member stated she tried to convince the man to let her “call an ambulance for him, but he had refused to engage with her, despite being alert and responsive.” She told IIO that the individual wasn’t supposed to be there and called the police to come take the man, “somewhere safer where everyone isn’t so mad at him.”
A witness officer told the police watchdog that he had previously arrested the man for mischief at the shelter about two weeks earlier and said, despite the court-ordered condition placed on the man, “some staff members still allowed him to be there.” The witness officer added that the man would often decline when offered the opportunity to call an ambulance.
The IIO report states that in response to the call from the shelter staff member, the subject officer arrived at the outside of the shelter at 1:49 a.m.
The subject officer wrote that he attempted to help the man, but he couldn’t stand on his own. The man was asked multiple times by the subject officer if he wanted to see Emergency Health Services, to which he declined each time. Then, shelter staff stated that the man “is okay to stay on the sidewalk.”
According to the report, video surveillance footage from the shelter showed that at about 2:19 a.m., the subject officer approached the individual again and appeared to administer nasal naloxone to the man. The officer helped the man to his feet once more, and then the man looked able to remain standing. Both the man and the subject officer moved to the entrance of the shelter.
About five minutes later, the subject officer was seen exiting the shelter holding something in a plastic sandwich bag. According to the report, the man was kneeling on the ground by the entrance. The subject officer helped him into a position against the outside wall of the shelter and gave him the plastic bag. The subject officer then drove away, and the man appeared to eat something from the bag.
“Neither of the video recordings show any use of force by the (subject officer) other than what appeared to be attempts to help the (man) get up and remain standing, and possible administration of naloxone,” the report reads, stating that the investigation was unable to confirm whether naloxone was administered.
The report states that between 2:239 and 3:36 a.m., multiple civilians interacted with the man. One of them told the police watchdog that he offered to call an ambulance for the man, who the declined it. Another shelter staff member added that in the past she had called an ambulance for the man about 50 times and “he had only agreed on one occasion to go with the paramedics.”
According to the report, the subject officer returned to the location at 3:36 a.m. and watched from his police vehicle as a civilian witness helped the man sit up, tried with limited success to share a coffee with the man, and brought him a blanket.
The subject officer drove away at 3:53 a.m., after speaking with the man for several minutes. The officer did not activate his body-worn camera or make any further notes.
In the hours that followed, both shelter clients and staff members checked on the man multiple times. Another staff member told the police watchdog that staff checked on the man at 6:30 a.m., at which time he was responsive.
Later that morning, at 8:29 a.m., paramedics responded to a 911 call from a concerned civilian who had reported the man was not moving or responding. The man was then transported by ambulance and was later declared deceased at the hospital.
According to the police watchdog, the man’s medical records indicate a history of repeated hospitalizations, characterized by his non-cooperation and habitual self-discharge against medical advice.
“His autopsy report noted the cause of death as ‘best ascribed to a right-sided pneumonia,’ but also mentioned ‘other significant conditions contributing to death’ including mixed drug intoxication; pulmonary emphysema; cachexia (wasting of the skeletal muscles); blunt force head injuries consistent with falls; homelessness and hypothermia,” the report reads.
The toxicology report also stated that the man’s blood contained “methamphetamine at a level at which recreational use overlapped with recorded fatalities.” The report also said the level of para-fluorofentanyl (a potent synthetic opioid) measured was also consistent with fatalities.
According to weather records for Oct. 27, 2025, it indicates that outdoor temperatures in Quesnel dipped to about -2 C by 8 a.m.
The IIO chief civilian director, Jessica Berglund, said in her report that the subject officer was placed in a difficult position.
“Video and civilian eyewitness evidence establishes that the (subject officer) approached the (man) in a concerned and caring manner, simply trying to assist him in moving to a location where he would not be in breach of his conditions,” she stated in her report.
“When the (man) appeared unable or unwilling to cooperate, the tolerance displayed by shelter staff made it impractical to arrest him for the breach, so the only remaining course of action would have been to call an ambulance.”
She added the officer would have been aware of the man’s unwillingness to submit to hospitalization and evidence shows that he was not willing to go in an ambulance.
Berglund said there was no evidence that the subject officer, who stayed with the man for a significant time and returned later to check on him further, displayed any degree of negligence.
“I do not consider that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an officer may have committed an offence under any enactment, and the matter will not be referred to the B.C. Crown Prosecutors for consideration of charges.”