Manitoba’s police watchdog has announced that no charges will be 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 recommended additional training for the officer on the use of non-lethal force, as stated in its recently released report.
According to the report, the incident occurred when a Manitoba First Nations Police Service officer was attacked by a dog while attempting to make an arrest at a residence in Swan Lake First Nation in June 2025. After being bitten, the officer went back to the property and shot the dog, which was chained up, despite there being family members and children present in the house at the time.
The report reveals that the officer had initially requested to search the property for a missing family member before stating he would return with a warrant. Subsequently, he returned, claiming the dog had bitten him and that it needed to be euthanized due to a prior biting incident involving someone else the day before, which was verified by the watchdog’s investigators.
Approximately 10 minutes later, the officer returned to the residence and used a high-powered rifle to shoot the dog. Witnesses inside the house mentioned taking precautions, such as closing curtains and moving children away from the window, upon seeing the officer with the rifle.
The report further details that investigations indicated the dog was in close proximity to the home’s deck steps when it was shot, aligning with the front window of the residence. Although the officer declined to be interviewed by the police watchdog, he provided a written account of the events, explaining that the dog had lunged at him initially, prompting him to kick the animal and retreat back into the house.
The officer stated that he shot the dog in a safe manner upon his return to prevent endangering the public, knowing that there were children inside the house at the time. While a report from the police service justified the officer’s actions based on the dog’s aggressive behavior, it also highlighted the lack of consideration for non-lethal alternatives and recommended further training.
Although the Crown expressed concerns about the officer’s actions, the evidence did not support the filing of criminal charges under the Criminal Code or the Animal Care Act. Consequently, the civilian director of the agency did not recommend charges based on the opinion of the prosecution service, given the circumstances.
The watchdog acknowledged the dog’s aggressive behavior but emphasized the importance of considering all available options, including non-lethal methods, before resorting to lethal force, aligning with the recommendations outlined in the police service’s report.