Sask. RCMP cruiser that struck teen on Kawacatoose First Nation was avoiding other police vehicle

SIRT has released its findings on an April 2025 incident where a teen was hit by an RCMP vehicle on Kawacatoose First Nation.

Saskatchewan’s police watchdog has cleared the officers involved in a 2025 incident that saw a teen on Kawacatoose First Nation be struck and seriously injured by an RCMP vehicle.

Just after 11 p.m. on April 8, 2025, Saskatchewan’s Serious Incident Response Team (SIRT) was alerted of an incident on Kawacatoose First Nation.

Around an hour earlier, Punnichy RCMP received the first of a “series of calls” for service on the First Nation involving a “disturbance involving firearms.”

Two officers responded to the incident in two marked RCMP vehicles. The detachment received several more calls for service as the two officers made their way northbound to the scene.

• Download the CTV News app to get breaking news alerts sent to your device

At 10:12 p.m., the first RCMP vehicle was signalled to stop by a 16-year-old male, referred to as the “affected person” in the report, as he stood on the roadside.

The affected person was then struck by the second RCMP vehicle while it was travelling in the southbound lane of the road on the First Nation.

The two officers called for EMS and provided first aid to the affected person. The affected person was eventually airlifted to a hospital in Regina by STARS.

According to the report, they sustained “serious injuries.”

Over the course of its investigation, SIRT reviewed all available video and audio evidence in addition to witness testimony – while also utilizing a collision reconstructionist.

Both vehicles featured video systems, and both officers were wearing body cams at the time of the incident.

Data from the vehicle which struck the affected person showed the cruiser was travelling approximately 123 km/h when braking began and had slowed to around 89 km/h when it struck the affected person.

The cruiser involved in the collision was deemed roadworthy following an inspection after the incident.

The findings

SIRT found the initial calls for service described a situation which was both serious and urgent. However, the information relayed in the initial call to police, which included a claim of a “shootout” was eventually found to be erroneous and inaccurate.

Police officers are granted certain authorities when it comes to using emergency vehicles under The Traffic Safety Act. However, SIRT noted the circumstances must warrant actions such as excessive speeding.

Regardless of what the nature of the call turned out to be, SIRT recognized that at the time, the officers believed they were responding to a serious incident involving firearms.

“While the speeds of the involved RCMP vehicle would undoubtedly be considered excessive in the context of normal civilian travel, or even routine police duties, the nature of the call to which the involved RCMP members were dispatched warranted a rapid response and required travel in excess of typical speeds,” the report read.

As for the cause of the collision, SIRT found the first police vehicle created a considerable dust cloud that affected the second vehicle’s line of sight of the road.

The wall of gravel dust, paired with the flashing of emergency lights, effectively hid the fact the first RCMP cruiser had abruptly stopped when it was flagged down by the affected person.

The second officer, not realizing the first vehicle had stopped, was forced to brake at the last second and turn into the southbound lane to avoid hitting the first vehicle.

“While the collision with the affected person was an unexpected and serious outcome, it occurred in the context of a police response to an emergent and potentially life-threatening situation which required urgent action and cannot be viewed in isolation,” the report read.

“The totality of the circumstances, including the call for service and the overall environmental and traffic condition both justified and allowed for a rate of travel which exceeded that permissible in more routine circumstances.”

Taking into account the full context of the incident, SIRT found there were no grounds to believe any offence was committed by the officers involved.