Manitoba’s police oversight body has announced that there will be no charges brought against an officer who fatally shot an aggressive dog that had bitten him on a southern First Nation reserve last year. The Independent Investigation Unit of Manitoba has endorsed a recommendation for the officer to undergo additional training on the use of non-lethal force, as stated in a report made public on Monday.
The incident occurred when a Manitoba First Nations Police Service officer visited a residence in Swan Lake First Nation in June 2025 to make an arrest and was bitten by a dog as he was leaving the property. The officer later returned to the home and shot the chained-up dog, resulting in its death, with family members and children present inside the residence.
According to the report, the homeowner informed the watchdog that the officer had initially asked to search the property for a missing family member before mentioning that he would return with a warrant. The officer came back shortly after, claiming that the dog had bitten him and needed to be euthanized due to a prior biting incident involving someone else the day before, a fact corroborated by the watchdog’s investigators.
Approximately 10 minutes later, the officer returned to the home and used a high-powered rifle to shoot the dog. Witnesses inside the residence mentioned that they took precautions by closing curtains and moving children away from the window upon seeing the officer with the rifle.
An investigation of the scene, including measurements and photographs, revealed that the dog was in close proximity to the home’s deck steps when it was shot, aligning it with the front window of the house. The officer, who declined an interview with the police watchdog, provided his account of the events in a written report, claiming that the dog had lunged at him initially, resulting in him kicking the animal and seeking refuge inside the house.
The officer stated that he returned to the detachment to address his injury before going back to the residence to shoot the dog in a manner that ensured public safety, considering there were two children present at the time. While a report from the police service defended the officer’s actions based on the dog’s aggressive behavior, it also highlighted the failure to explore less lethal alternatives and recommended further training.
Although the Crown expressed concerns about the officer’s actions, it was determined that the evidence did not warrant criminal charges under the Criminal Code or the Animal Care Act. The civilian director of the oversight agency concurred with the decision not to pursue charges based on the opinion of the prosecution service.
The watchdog emphasized that the dog displayed aggressive behavior, noting that while the use of lethal force was justified, it agreed with the police service’s assessment that the officer should have considered all available options, including non-lethal measures.
