Vancouver police should apologize for laughter after Indigenous woman shot with beanbag, B.C. judge finds

A retired judge has ruled that several Vancouver police officers should say they are sorry for the way a woman was treated on the Downtown Eastside.

A retired B.C. judge has decided three police officers should face corrective measures for laughing following the arrest of an Indigenous woman who was shot with a beanbag in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

Retired judge Brian Neal, acting as a discipline authority for the Office of the Police Commissioner, said while the officers stated they weren’t laughing at the woman and didn’t intentionally create that perception, public reaction was “clearly to the contrary,” adding the substantiated misconduct was “reckless.”

After considering submissions from the officers’ legal counsel and the complainant, Neal determined Const. Sophie Thompson, Const. Mohit Dogra and Const. Daniel Ungvari must each receive a written reprimand and prepare an apology to the woman.

Neal also ordered that Ungvari undergo further training and education with respect to policing in vulnerable communities.

CTV News contacted the Vancouver Police Department for comment, and was told the OPCC process is confidential.

‘Horrendous act’

Alice Kendall, the executive director of the Downtown Eastside Women’s Centre, said the corrective measures don’t go far enough.

“This act is a horrendous act,” she said.

“I don’t care if they were laughing at something else. You don’t stand over somebody’s hurt body and laugh at them and think that an apology is going to mean anything anyway.”

Kendall added that incidents like this only further erode the relationship between law enforcement and those who live in the community.

“The consequences are that when people actually do need help from the police, they don’t trust them, they can’t go to them,” she said.

“And if they did go to them, they’re not going to get the response that they require anyway.”

The incident

Video obtained by CTV News shows a VPD officer shooting the woman with a beanbag projectile in an alley on the Downtown Eastside on April 6, 2022.

She screams in pain and is told by officers to get on the ground.

As she lies face down on the pavement, officers stand above her, and begin to engage in conversation, audibly laughing.

When asked about the video weeks after the incident, Sgt. Steve Addison, a media relations officer with the VPD, said the woman pleaded guilty to possession of a weapon.

The complaint

A member of the public submitted a complaint to the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner on April 17, 2023, highlighting concerns with officers’ conduct.

The OPCC found the complaint admissible, pointing to the alleged use of force and the officers’ laughter.

Initially the VPD conducted its own investigation, and concluded that allegations – of abuse of authority and discourtesy – were unsubstantiated.

Following the VPD’s findings, the complainant submitted a request to the OPCC to have a retired judge review the investigation report and make an independent decision on the matter.

Prabhu Rajan, the police complaint commissioner, agreed, stating there was a reasonable basis to believe the finding that the officers’ conduct did not constituting discourtesy was incorrect.

The decision

On Jan. 22, Brian Neal provided the “Decision on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures.”

He said the officers were each found to have admitted substantial allegations of misconduct by way of disciplinary breaches of public trust. Specifically, the misconduct substantiated against the officers was discourtesy with respect to the woman arrested, who is referred to as the “Affected Person” in the decision.

A second allegation of neglect of duty with respect to each of the officers was not substantiated.

The judge found the constables' testimony provided important context to the video recording of events, “confirming that there had in fact been no neglect of duty in ensuring that the Affected Person required no urgent medical care, and further, that an admitted error in judgment had been made in laughing in the circumstances of the arrest that took place.”

‘Did not express regret’

Neal said he was satisfied that both Thompson and Dogra accepted responsibility for the misconduct, and added that both showed insight into the discourtesy and circumstances of the Affected Person.

“I am fully satisfied that both members are willing and able to take appropriate steps to ensure that such misconduct never occurs again,” he wrote. “Such a finding is a mitigating factor in these proceedings for both officers.”

But Neal said he did not have the same confidence when it came to Ungvari.

He pointed to the constable’s comments within the discipline decision, noting that Ungvari’s “response was strained” after being asked to address the discourtesy issue, and that while he admitted “the laughing reflected poorly on the members present,” he also did not “express regret for the actions taken.”

He added, “I find that (Ungvari) was credible in his testimony. However, his lack of candor with respect to the discourtesy issue raises other concerns as to his complete understanding of the misconduct alleged. His commentary on the discourtesy misconduct allegation was perfunctory, and really limited to admitting misconduct, but confirming that the Affected Person was not the subject of the laughter. “

Neal concluded that after considering the evidence and submissions of the parties, his request was that VPD’s Professional Services make a reasonable effort to locate the woman and deliver the apology letters.

Review possible

In an email to CTV News, the OPCC said the complainant and the members have a right to request a review of the retired judge’s decision. “The Commissioner may also order further adjudicative review whether a request is received, or not,” the email continued. The OPCC said the final outcome, including the proposed discipline, is not imposed until the expiry of the review period and confirmation from the OPCC. “As this matter is now before the Commissioner, no further information can be provided until the review is completed,” it added.