VPD did not contact IIO because injured person suffered only ‘minor’ brain bleed, report says

Photo by CTV Vancouver's Pete Cline in Chopper 9 on Monday, June 4, 2018.

Vancouver police officers should have notified the civilian office that investigates police use of force in B.C. after a man lost consciousness and began bleeding heavily from the head during an incident on Granville Street last year.

That was one of the conclusions of Jessica Berglund, chief civilian director of the Independent Investigations Office of B.C., in a report the agency released Friday.

Berglund’s report describes the Vancouver Police Department’s failure to notify the IIO of the incident as “concerning,” but concludes that there is no evidence to suggest any officer involved in the situation had committed a crime.

Urinating man assaulted

The incident occurred on the afternoon of Oct. 21, 2024. The injured man – referred to throughout the report as the “affected person” or “AP” – was inside a small restaurant he ran with another family member when they saw a man urinating on the patio outside.

According to the document, a customer from the restaurant, upset by the man’s behaviour, “ran after the man and pushed him down onto the sidewalk outside a neighbouring store.”

A police officer was driving by at the time and saw the fight, describing it to the IIO as one person – the customer – on top of and punching another man, who was not resisting.

The officer recognized the alleged urinator as “someone with whom he had had previous dealings,” according to the IIO report. Based on his observations of the fight and a brief statement he took, the officer concluded that the person being punched “was only guilty of a bylaw offence,” while the restaurant customer had committed assault and should be arrested.

The customer “was belligerent and aggressive,” witness officers told the IIO, adding that both the affected person and his family member approached the scene of the arrest, allegedly attempting to intervene.

A ‘minor’ brain bleed

As the affected person was approaching the officers arresting his customer, one of the officers stood up, turned toward the affected person and pushed him away. At the same time, another officer was approaching the affected person from behind “and deflected the AP’s backward movement with his upraised arms,” according to the IIO report.

“The AP fell to the side, striking his head on a metal plate in the sidewalk,” the report reads. “The AP was knocked unconscious for approximately a minute, and officers attended to him as he regained consciousness, bleeding heavily, and tried to sit up.”

Paramedics were called, and the affected person was taken to hospital, where he was diagnosed with “significant trauma, including an intracerebral hemorrhage and injuries causing permanently reduced hearing on one side,” according to the document.

While the restaurant customer who was arrested reported the incident to the IIO after it happened, the report notes, his injuries did not meet the Police Act‘s definition of serious harm, and the office declined to investigate.

The VPD did not report the affected person’s injuries to the IIO, and it wasn’t until he reported the incident himself in January of this year that the investigation began.

“The reason provided by VPD for not notifying the IIO at the time of the incident was that they understood the AP had only suffered a ‘minor’ brain bleed and ‘would be fine,’” the IIO report reads.

Unfortunate, but not unreasonable

Witness accounts of how the affected person came to fall on the metal plate were unclear, according to the report, which bases its conclusion on what happened on body-worn camera video from one of the officers involved, as well as from surveillance video from nearby businesses.

From these videos and the other evidence she reviewed in the case, Berglund concluded it was reasonable for police to attempt to keep the affected person and his family member away from the arrest, and that there was no indication that they had used more force than was necessary to do so.

“While the AP viewed (his customer’s) arrest as inappropriate, it was appropriate from the police perspective, and the AP and (his family member) were obstructing the officers in the execution of their lawful duty when they attempted to intervene,” the report reads.

The document describes the timing of the officer’s shove and the location of the metal plate as “unfortunate,” but concludes neither officer who came in contact with the affected person had used unreasonable force.

“None of the officers at the scene, in the circumstances, thought the AP’s head injury was sufficiently serious to warrant a notification to the IIO,” the report concludes.

“Given that the AP experienced a period of unconsciousness and significant bleeding, and was transported from the scene by ambulance, it would have been reasonable to suspect that he had suffered serious head trauma. Officers are required by the Police Act to notify the IIO immediately in such circumstances. While this omission is concerning, it does not, in this case, amount to an offence."