In a January 22, 2026 decision, BC’s Police Complaint Commissioner applied the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) to interpret the Police Act, and to permit reconsideration of remedial measures relating to the unjustified arrest and handcuffing of an Indigenous child and her grandfather in 2019.
See earlier news articles on the case here (CBC), here (CBC), and here (CBC video).
This new decision highlights the problem of regulatory processes which fail to provide Indigenous-specific remedies consistent with UNDRIP.
(1) The misconduct
In December 2019, an Indigenous man and his 12-year-old granddaughter, both members of Heiltsuk Nation, were trying to open a bank account for her, when bank staff questioned their identification and called the police. Within minutes of arriving, police removed them from the bank, arrested them on a public sidewalk, and handcuffed both without reasonable grounds. As revealed in a prior decision, the child’s age appeared on identification already in police hands, yet neither officer confirmed it before proceeding. The suspected fraud that prompted the call was later found to be unfounded, and both were released the same day.
A discipline authority later found the officers had abused their authority, exposing the family to trauma and fear and leaving them with a deep sense of unfairness in their treatment by police. Those findings stand and have not been revisited.
(2) The remedial orders
When the discipline authority turned to sanctions, the focus extended beyond punishment. Alongside suspensions and training, the authority ordered written apologies and required the officers to offer oral apologies “at a time and in a manner agreeable to the parties.”
The disciplinary authority’s goal was to bridge the gap between police and the complainants, restore confidence, and address harms experienced by Indigenous people in police encounters.The authority also recognized that written words alone would not suffice. Meaningful repair required face-to-face engagement and an opportunity for the officers to hear directly from those they had harmed.
When setting sanctions, the discipline authority declined to order an in-person apology, based on two assumptions. First, the officers had represented that they were willing to meet the complainants in person. Second, the authority believed the complainants’ willingness to receive an in-person apology was uncertain and that he could not compel the complainants to receive an in-person apology.
Both assumptions turned out incorrect.
(3) A collision of Crown process and Indigenous culture
From the complainants’ perspective, an in-person apology was always essential, but not just any apology. Under Heiltsuk law (called Gvilas), accountability and healing require a washing ceremony, conducted in community and according to Heiltsuk legal and cultural protocols. A washing ceremony is not symbolic. It is a legal and cultural process through which responsibility is acknowledged, harm is addressed publicly, and relationships are restored so the community can move forward.
After the disciplinary decision, Heiltsuk Nation organized a washing ceremony in Bella Bella so the officers could apologize in a manner consistent with Heiltsuk law. Representatives of the Vancouver Police Board and the Vancouver Police Department attended. The officers did not.Under Heiltsuk law, no one may stand in the place of the wrongdoer. Without the officers’ presence, the ceremony could not proceed. What was meant to repair harm instead left the matter unresolved for the family and the community.
Years passed. The written apologies did not achieve the repair the discipline authority intended. No washing ceremony occurred. From the complainants’ perspective, the officers’ refusal to attend the ceremony deepened the harm and signalled a refusal to respect Heiltsuk law.
(4) “New evidence” about Indigenous laws
That failure led to an application under s. 139 of the Police Act, which allows reconsideration where new, substantial, and material evidence emerges. The Police Complaint Commissioner agreed that this threshold was met.
The new evidence concerned first, the fact that the officers had declined to attend, and second, Heiltsuk law, and in particular, the role of washing ceremonies within Heiltsuk legal traditions, why personal attendance by the wrongdoer is required, and why an apology delivered outside that process cannot achieve repair or resolution under Heiltsuk law.
The evidence was new because it arose after the original proceedings and after the apology process broke down. It was material because it shows that the apology order—crafted without information about Heiltsuk law—failed to achieve its remedial purpose. This was not about revisiting misconduct, but about fashioning a meaningful Indigenous-specific remedy.
(5) How the decision reopens the remedy order for reconsideration
The Commissioner decided that the failure of the remedy, viewed in the light of new evidence about Heiltsuk law and the refusal of the officers to attend, justified reopening the matter in the public interest. An adjudicator, Honourable Wally Oppal, K.C., will now decide—on a fuller record that includes evidence of Heiltsuk legal practices—whether an oral apology should be required, and if so, on what terms.
(6) The relevance of UNDRIP The Commissioner applied UNDRIP as an interpretive lens when exercising statutory discretion. UNDRIP shaped how the Commissioner assessed the adequacy of remedies, the relevance of Indigenous law, and the public interest in police accountability. Evidence about Heiltsuk law was legally relevant to whether a remedy addressed the harm it was meant to repair. In short, UNDRIP did not answer the remedial question, but ensured that the right questions will now be asked.
(7) When the Police Act, Indigenous law, and reconciliation collide
For Indigenous communities, the decision confirms that reconciliation cannot occur on someone else’s terms. The harm here was not only the arrest of a child and her grandfather, but the refusal to take responsibility in a way that respected Heiltsuk law. By ordering reconsideration, the Commissioner affirmed that Indigenous legal processes matter and that Canadian institutions must make space for them if remedies are to be meaningful.
Lisa C. Fong, KC and Michael Ng