BURSTA report released Friday by B.C.’s police watchdog found no reasonable grounds to believe Prince George RCMP officers committed an offence in connection with a man’s death in August 2025.
According to the Independent Investigations Office of B.C. (IIO) report, around 4:54 a.m. on Aug. 24, 2025, a civilian witness called 911 to report the sounds of someone “screaming and smashing stuff” in a neighbouring home.
First on scene were three officers wearing body cameras who were let inside by the occupants after locating the residence.
According to the report, two officers went to a bedroom door, where a person could be heard gasping inside and blood was visible from under the door. The police officers knocked on the door that was locked from the inside. Officers annouced they were police, but there was no audible response, according to the report.
“After additional attempts by police to get the (person) to open the door, he could be heard to say, ‘I’m dying’, and said he could not open it,” the IIO report reads.
One officer told the person that if they didn’t open the door, the police would kick it. The officer then kicked the door open and it apparently hit the person, who was lying on the floor inside, read the report.
“The officers could now see that there was a lot of blood on the (person’s) body, and (witness officer) immediately radioed for an ambulance to ‘start rolling’,” the report reads.
The second officer leaned into the room, illuminating it with a flashlight. The report stated that the person “rapidly picked up” an object that was on the floor beneath his left arm and held it up in both hands in the direction of the officer.
“The object can be clearly seen for several seconds on police body-worn camera video,” the report reads. “It appears to be a dark brown wooden dowel or stick slightly longer than the (person’s) forearm. A flat silver metal plate or bracket extending sideways several centimetres is attached to one end.”
According to the report, the second officer then jumped backwards and the person closed the door, apparently with their foot. The first officer advised the others that the person had produced a weapon and referred to it as an axe.
A civilian witness, who had seen into the bedroom while the door was open, told IIO investigators that the person had been holding a broken table leg in both hands.
“I guess exactly how you hold an axe, probably. I mean, that’s why they assumed it was an axe,” the report read.
The report read that officers could hear thrashing and moaning from the bedroom as they repeatedly told the man to “drop the axe” and come out so they could get him an ambulance.
Officers called for an ambulance and stated they believed the person was under the influence of drugs. The IIO investigators were told that it appeared unsafe for officers to enter the room, as they would be confronting a person armed with a weapon in a dark, confined space.
The report stated that several other officers arrived at the scene, with one Mountie climbing a ladder and attempting to see inside the bedroom through the broken window at 5:19 a.m., however, they were unable to see the person.
“He reported seeing blood all over the bedroom walls,” the report reads. “After approximately 5:20 a.m., no further sounds were heard from the (person).”
RCMP tried again to force the bedroom door open, but found it blocked. Officers called for a drone to be inserted through the window to see inside the room. At this time, officers expressed concern that the incident was getting “a little long in the tooth now,” and that the person may have become unresponsive and needed help.
A supervisor then told officers not to try to enter the room due to the concern that the person was armed with a weapon. The supervisor also told officers to wait for a view inside the room via the drone’s camera.
The report said officers brought a drone to the scene at 5:35 a.m., but found its battery dead. Emergency Response Team members were also unavailable at the time.
The door to the bedroom was eventually forced far enough open to pull the person out onto the patio, however, they were unresponsive.
“Officers began performing CPR and paramedics were called to attend as quickly as possible,” stated the report.
The police watchdog said the person’s autopsy report listed the cause of death as “mixed drug toxicity (cocaine, quetiapine and diphenhydramine).” It also noted multiple sharp force injuries to the person’s head and limbs, which “did not cause or contribute” to their death. It also stated the person had no significant internal injuries.
IIO investigators asked the pathologist to give an opinion on whether the person’s death might have been prevented if medical interventions had been provided earlier and they said the “death might have been preventable if he did not use cocaine and was not in a state of agitation.”
The report stated that cocaine, quetiapine and diphenhydramine can be toxic to heart muscle cells, particularly when combined, increasing the risk of abnormal heart rhythms, cardiac arrest and death.
The pathologist added that if an automated external defibrillator was available on site or if paramedics were on the scene immediately, it is possible, although not certain, that any abnormal heart rhythm might have been corrected, and he possibly – but not certain – could have been successfully resuscitated.
According to the pathologist’s report, about 10 per cent of people who suffer a cardiac event outside a hospital survive to be discharged.
The report read that prompt medical intervention or access to an automated external defibrillator may have changed the outcome, but the effect is uncertain. The pathologist said they could not comment on the officers’ first aid training.
The police watchdog is mandated to investigate any incident that occurs in the province in which an affected person has died or suffered serious physical harm and there appears to be a connection to the actions, or sometimes inaction, of police.
The IIO chief civilian director, Jessica Berglund, said in her report this case did not involve the use of force by police, or any other action by an officer that may have directly caused the person’s death.
She stated potential police culpability would hinge on inaction that delayed medical care, with any offence requiring negligence that amounted to a marked and substantial departure from the expected standard of care.
Berglund added that it may be that it would have been possible for police to force their way into the bedroom, overpower the person and extricate them into the care of paramedics. However, she recognized that police are not required to take risks such as those that would have been involved.
“Entering the bedroom in the first instance would have involved going ‘hands on’ in what the video shows was a dark, restricted space, with a person in crisis, armed with an object perceived by officers to be a weapon,” she said in the report.
“Taking time to try and reason with (the person) and have him open the door and come out voluntarily was not an unreasonable alternative approach.”
Berglund said none of the officers acted negligently under the circumstances during the incident.
“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 BCPS (BC Prosecution Service) for consideration of charges.”
She, however, expressed concerns that police might have misinterpreted the IIO’s investigative jurisdiction in this case. The IIO wasn’t informed of the incident until Sept. 22, 2025, almost a full month after it took place.
The Police Act states that the police watchdog must be notified immediately of any incident “where it appears that a person may have died or suffered serious harm as a result of the actions of an officer or detention guard, whether on or off duty.”
“Police presence and some degree of involvement during an incident resulting in death or serious harm requires notification to the IIO. Police failure to notify in this case caused material evidence to be lost (the item held by the person, described by police as an axe but more likely a table leg),” her report reads.
“Inability of IIO investigators to examine the scene shortly after an incident and to seize, examine and document all relevant evidence compromises the investigation and the reliability of its conclusions.”
She pointed out the significant additional evidence provided by police body-worn camera video recordings, adding that “such objective evidence is a very useful supplement to the recollections of civilian witnesses and involved officers.”
“It is particularly valuable where, as here, physical evidence has been lost and is no longer available for examination.”