Saskatchewan’s police watchdog has completed its investigation into the death of a man on Fishing Lake First Nation in late 2024.

The Saskatchewan Serious Incident Response Team (SIRT) released its final report Monday, concluding that no offences were committed by the officers involved.

The 34-year-old man, referred to as the “affected person” in the report, died on Sept. 24, 2024, after fleeing a traffic stop in a stolen van and leading officers on a 38-minute, 67-kilometre chase through the community.

During the pursuit, a dangerous-person alert was issued for the First Nation, located 120 kilometres northwest of Yorkton, after the Saskatchewan RCMP learned the affected person was armed.

Information released by RCMP at the time indicated the affected person was wanted on 20 charges related to a series of armed robberies across east-central Saskatchewan, including the theft of several firearms.

Officers had been in the community that day to arrest him on outstanding warrants.

SIRT’s report states the affected person died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

The event

On the day of the incident, RCMP received information that the affected person was on Fishing Lake First Nation. At 1 p.m., officers visited a home in the community and spotted a white van nearby, believed to be driven by the affected person.

Officers attempted to stop the van, but the driver sped away. At 1:05 p.m., they reported they were in a pursuit.

At 1:15 p.m., RCMP received a 911 call reporting the affected person had stolen a 15-passenger van belonging to the local school and that he was believed to be armed.

Over the next 38 minutes, the van led police on a chase through Fishing Lake Cree Nation at speeds between 100 km/h and 140 km/h. Officers were authorized to use spike strips, but the only opportunity to deploy them was unsuccessful as the suspect maneuvered around the device.

At 1:41 p.m., a police vehicle from the RCMP Emergency Response Team (ERT) caught up to the van.

According to the report, the ERT officer discovered the affected person had parked across the road, blocking it, and was attempting to raise a shotgun from the driver’s side window. The officer drew their pistol and fired several shots through the vehicle’s windshield, hitting the affected person in the left arm.

The officer radioed “shots away,” though subsequent radio messages varied between “shots away” and “shots fired,” causing confusion about whether the affected person had fired at officers.

After the first shooting, the van circled a nearby home and continued toward police. By 1:42 p.m., a second police vehicle carrying two more ERT officers arrived.

One officer fired multiple shots from a service carbine, hitting the van but missing the affected person.

The van continued through the field and down a rough ATV trail, leading to another residential area of the First Nation. As the van approached the area, it veered to the right and slowed down.

It’s at this point, the affected person died as the result of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head, according to the report.

Officers, who were maintaining their distance due to the firearm, reached the van at around 1:43 p.m. The lead RCMP vehicle hit the van’s rear bummer and dragged it to a stop. Believing the suspect was still armed, officers surrounded the vehicle and ordered him out.

When there was no response, a drone was deployed, followed by officers with ballistic shields and a police dog.

At 1:57 p.m., RCMP removed the affected person from the van, discovering a 20-gauge pump-action shotgun underneath him.

Paramedics arrived on the scene shortly after 2 p.m., and the affected person was pronounced dead at 2:20 p.m.

Verdict

According to the report, the witness told police that shortly before the incident, the affected person had made comments about “ending his own life.”

The autopsy confirmed that the affected person died from a self-inflicted single shotgun wound to the head. SIRT found in their evaluation, that the shots fired by officers did not cause or contribute to his death. However, the use of force was investigated all the same.

SIRT found that officers acted reasonably, given that the affected person had stolen firearms and was confirmed to be armed during the pursuit.

Referencing the first incident, SIRT determined the affected person pointing a shotgun at an officer met the criteria for use of force under Section 25 of the Criminal Code.

“The act of the affected person raising a firearm towards the first subject officer, regardless of the affected person’s intentions, created a reasonably perceived risk of death or grievous bodily harm on the part of the subject officer, who was lawfully entitled to take action responsive to that danger,” the report read.

The second incident, which saw an officer fire on the van but not strike the affected person, was slightly affected by the miscommunication over whether the suspect had fired at police – but ultimately was justified.

“During that encounter, the second subject officer acted in response both to the risk presented by the affected person raising the firearm towards the first subject officer, and the reasonably-apprehended future risk both to police and the community should the affected person have been able to continue the incident, particularly in light of the (now known to be) misapprehension that the affected person had fired at the first subject officer,” the report read.

SIRT concluded there were “no reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed by any police officer during the incident.”

“As a result of the application of the facts established by the evidence to the standard established by law, no charges will be laid,” the report concluded.