A Calgary police officer who responded to a situation at the home of a 12-year-old autistic boy will not face criminal charges after the youth suffered a skull fracture during the incident, a police watchdog organization says.
The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) released its decision Aug. 26 on the 2018 incident, which left the boy with a basal skull fracture after the officer took him to the ground outside his home.
ASIRT found there were reasonable grounds to believe the officer had committed an offence. However, the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service concluded in May 2026 that there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction and recommended that no charges be laid.
The ASIRT said the agencies operate by different standards, with the Crown prosecutors considering whether there is sufficient evidence for a conviction.
The Case
Investigators interviewed witnesses including the boy’s mother, his father, and neighbours. The officer involved in the incident declined to speak with ASIRT, the report said.
The incident took place on Aug. 21, 2018, when the boy’s mother called 911 because her son was extremely upset, damaging items inside the home, and had not taken his medication for five days, according to the report.
She warned police that her son was autistic and told the dispatcher: “I’m not sure how he’s going react. He will probably get aggressive if he sees you.”
The family wanted police to help take the boy to Alberta Children’s Hospital for crisis intervention and assistance with his medication.
Two officers attended the home, and after the boy “resist[ed] and struggled to remain inside the house,” the officers brought him outside to the police vehicle by force, with the parents accompanying them, according to the report.
Surveillance video of the incident showed one officer using “a rapid twisting motion combined with a downward movement” to bring the boy to the pavement, and “a loud impact could be heard,” according to the report.
The officer initially told the family and the other officer that the boy “fell,” and later said, “He spun up over my leg,” the report said.
The boy was taken to Alberta Children’s Hospital and diagnosed with a basal skull fracture, the report said. He did not require surgery.
In a subsequent interview with a forensic psychologist, the boy said the officer had “aggressively forced” him against the police vehicle before pushing or throwing him over his leg, the report said. It added that they boy recalled waking up in the ambulance, coughing up blood, vomiting, and feeling dizzy.
Use of Force
Section 25 of the Criminal Code permits police officers “to use as much force as is necessary for execution of their duties,” while members must “perform the action in the administration or enforcement of the law, must have acted on reasonable grounds in performing the action, and must not have used unnecessary force,” ASIRT said.
“Proportionality requires balancing a use of force with the action to which it responds,” the report noted.
ASIRT said that because the officer was dealing with a 12-year-old child and brought him forcefully to the pavement, an “injury is predictable,” with the head “a very likely spot for this injury.”
“All blows to the head risk serious injury,” the report said. “Another officer was present and only a meter away if the [accused officer] required assistance.”
Crown Prosecution’s Opinion
ASIRT said there were “reasonable grounds” that the officer had committed an offence, so under the Police Act, it referred the matter to the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service (ACPS) in September 2025 for an opinion.
After considering the situation, the ACPS recommended on May 14, 2026, that no charges be laid against the officer.
“It is important to note that ASIRT and ACPS are bound by different standards when assessing the viability of charges arising out of an investigation,” the report said.
ASIRT explained that it applies a Criminal Code standard to determine whether “reasonable grounds exist” that someone committed an offence, while ACPS considers whether there is a “reasonable likelihood” of conviction and whether prosecution is in the public interest.
“As is evident in this case, the application of these two different standards to the same investigation will, in some cases, result in different conclusions regarding the same file,” the decision said.
