Lawyers Group Wants a Criminal Probe of Edmonton’s Top Cop

The Criminal Trial Lawyers’ Association has asked Alberta’s justice minister to order a criminal investigation of Edmonton Police Service Chief Warren Driechel and EPS legal director Megan Hankewich for their attempt to publicly pressure the province’s Crown Prosecution Service to repeal a plea agreement in a high-profile, child-manslaughter case.

The Tyee has learned this is the second request to Justice Minister Mickey Amery for a criminal investigation. There also have been at least three complaints filed against Hankewich to the Law Society of Alberta.

And the Edmonton Police Commission is reviewing a complaint that asks it to determine whether Driechel’s “continued tenure [as chief] serves the public interest and supports confidence in the independence and integrity of the justice system.”

In a 23-page letter sent Tuesday to Amery, the Criminal Trial Lawyers’ Association, or CTLA, contends Hankewich and Driechel should be investigated for obstruction of justice, intimidation of a justice system participant, extortion and conspiracy to commit the alleged offences.

Tom Engel, writing for the CTLA, asks Amery to direct the province’s Police Review Commission, an independent civilian-led agency, to conduct the criminal investigation. Engel also asked for the completed investigation to be transferred to the attorney general of another province for a decision on whether charges should be laid.

“I make this request because Premier Danielle Smith publicly supported the impugned conduct,” Engel states in the letter, which lays out the chronology of events.

A spokesperson for the office of the justice minister told The Tyee, “We are reviewing the letter and are unable to comment further at this time.”

A threat and a backlash

The CTLA’s request for a criminal investigation stems from an unprecedented decision by Driechel and Hankewich. On Sept. 8, 2025, Driechel sent a letter, which the Edmonton Police Service later made public, to Kimberley Goddard, the assistant deputy minister of justice in charge of the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service. Goddard has since been appointed as a provincial court judge.

The letter urged Goddard to conduct a review of decisions being made by prosecutors on a homicide file “that we believe would constitute a significant miscarriage of justice.”

To their “shock and horror,” they said they had learned the Crown had agreed to a guilty plea for manslaughter, and to an eight-year sentence for Ashley Rattlesnake.

Rattlesnake had initially been charged with first-degree murder in the death of eight-year-old Nina Napope Dumais, although that charge had been reduced to second-degree murder before the manslaughter plea was eventually accepted.

The EPS asked Goddard to use her authority to review the strength of the evidence, the seriousness of the case, and the prosecuting Crown’s decision, “and if you ultimately agree with our assessment that this deal is not proper, to act to resile from the plea agreement.”

But if Goddard didn’t agree and allowed the plead deal to proceed, “we will share significant information from our investigation with the public so that they can properly assess whether this prosecution and plea agreement were conducted appropriately and advocate in the public forum for a stronger prosecution service,” stated the letter, which had been signed by Hankewich and sent by Driechel.

Goddard declined Hankewich’s request.

At a Sept. 10, 2025, news conference, Hankewich told journalists she intended to follow through on the threat and would release the additional information once the sentencing process was completed.

That same day, Premier Danielle Smith expressed support for the EPS, saying she was “glad” they intervened in the case, and she too applied pressure to the Crown.

“People are tired of seeing a lax-on-crime kind of approach,” she said. “People want to see that people are going to be punished to the maximum capable under the law, and sometimes that can only happen with a trial. So I look forward to hearing the Crown Prosecution Service justify, publicly, their reasons.”

There was immediate backlash from associations representing prosecutors and lawyers, including an allegation by the CTLA that the Edmonton Police Service was employing “extortion tactics” on the Crown.

In a Sept. 19, 2025, statement, the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel, or CACC, said: “Either the EPS has demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the independent roles of police and prosecutors in Canada, or the EPS has engaged in a blatant attempt to bully Alberta prosecutors into complying with how the police think that file should be handled rather than exercising their independent, legal discretion.

“Whatever the underlying cause or motivation, the CACC considers the action by the EPS to be shocking.”

‘Beyond what is acceptable conduct’: judge

In February 2026, Court of King’s Bench Justice Jody Fraser sentenced Rattlesnake to eight years in prison for manslaughter. Fraser reduced the sentence from nine years to eight directly due to the behaviour of the police in the case.

In his original oral judgment, Fraser assured everyone present in the courtroom that he had made his decision “without any fear of the Edmonton Police Service’s possible actions.”

“However, I do find that their actions go so far beyond what is acceptable conduct by the police service, that it should be considered at least a somewhat mitigating factor on sentence.”

Fraser called the actions of the EPS “reprehensible” and made it clear that he also felt threatened and that the police may have crossed the line into criminality.

“The veiled threat that they may release more information about this matter if they are not happy about the sentence I impose comes dangerously close, and may actually cross the line, into an attempt to wilfully obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,” Fraser said in his ruling.

“In Canada,” Fraser said, “it has long been recognized that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are separate entities. When that separation is not present, miscarriages of justice can happen.”

The Criminal Trial Lawyers’ Association, in its letter to Amery, stresses that although Hankewich authored the letter to Goddard, the justice official, Driechel was “a party to the conduct in question” and should be investigated.

The CTLA letter details its legal justification for the investigation into potential charges of obstruction of justice, intimidation, extortion and conspiracy.

Alleged obstruction of justice

The CTLA alleges that “Hankewich and Driechel attempted to obstruct the proper administration of justice by threatening the Crown Prosecution Service and demanding a repudiation of a plea agreement.”

Any action that has a tendency to obstruct the course of justice breaches the Criminal Code, and the CTLA contends the threat contained in the Edmonton Police Service letter to release case information provides the basis for the specific intent to cause obstruction.

Hankewich and Driechel chose to publicize a private disagreement between the Crown and the EPS “to interfere in a plea agreement or negotiations between the accused and the Crown.”

“They threatened to publicize the otherwise private and confidential information contained within the police investigation to damage public confidence in the Crown Prosecution Service, if their demands were not met.

“This conduct is obstructive because it seeks to interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”

Alleged intimidation

The Criminal Trial Lawyers’ Association alleges the letter and public statements issued by the two “sought to intimidate” the people involved in the case.

“Criminal intimidation of a justice system participant occurs where a person takes acts without lawful authority, targeting a justice system participant, and intending to impede the performance of the justice participant’s duties and invoke a state of fear,” the CTLA alleges, citing a 2015 Alberta case that involved an alleged Freeman on the Land.

“The letter and public statements did all of these things, targeting the Edmonton Crown Prosecution Service, the assigned Crown Prosecutor, and ADM Goddard. The letter threatens action ‘if this plea agreement is allowed to go through.’”

Engel, writing for the CTLA, points out that Fraser, the judge in the case, perceived the threat “as targeting his role in the process,” and to his “judicial independence.”

“Hankewich and Driechel communicated the consequences of deciding on the appropriate sentence. Justice Fraser perceived this as a threat to his decision-making power and felt it necessary to assure the public that he made his sentencing decision without any fear of the Edmonton Police Service’s possible actions.

“This should have been foreseeable to Hankewich and Driechel.”

Alleged extortion and conspiracy

The Criminal Trial Lawyers’ Association argues there is no reasonable justification or excuse for the conduct of Hankewich and Driechel in this case.

They could have simply requested that Goddard review and assess the Crown’s decision. That alone might be considered by some to be improper, but it would not be criminal.

“However, a threat to undermine the decision itself and public confidence in the Crown Prosecution Service attracts criminal liability. Such a threat is extortive in nature, contrary to the [Criminal] Code, and should be investigated accordingly.”

In threatening to release more information to the public unless their demands were acceded to, Hankewich and Driechel “sought more than a decision to revoke a plea deal; they sought a prosecution that aligned with the Edmonton Police Service’s assessment of the moral culpability of the accused,” and “they threatened to undermine the fundamental independence of the Crown Prosecution Service in order to achieve their goal.”

Criminal conspiracy arises where two or more parties agree to pursue an unlawful act. In this case, the CTLA alleges Hankewich signed the letter and Driechel distributed it.

The letter “constitutes obstructive, intimidating, and extortive conduct, contrary to the [Criminal] Code.”

More complaints to justice minister and police commission

On Sept. 19, 2025, less than two weeks after Driechel sent the letter authored by Hankewich, Edmonton city council voted unanimously to hire Driechel as the city’s next police chief.

Driechel had been serving as an interim chief since former chief Dale McFee had left to become deputy minister of executive council in the United Conservative Party government of Premier Danielle Smith.

Asked about the letter at a news conference, Driechel was unrepentant, saying he hoped he didn’t have to do it again.

“It was a last resort for us to try to get some kind of traction or motion forward. This was about us trying to open up that dialogue,” Driechel said.

The Edmonton Journal reported that the day before Driechel was announced as chief, Edmonton Police Commission chair Ben Henderson said he couldn’t comment on the letter because the commission might have to adjudicate a complaint.

Henderson, however, told the Journal he considered the move an operational decision, which is outside the police commission’s authority.

Neil LeMay is Alberta’s former deputy chief sheriff and a former RCMP major crimes/homicide investigator with more than 44 years of policing and public security experience. LeMay was shocked by the actions of Driechel and has filed detailed formal complaints to Justice Minister Mickey Amery and the police commission requesting independent investigations.

In a March 30 letter to Amery and Public Safety Minister Mike Ellis, who is a former Calgary police officer, LeMay said that information already in the public realm provides enough evidence on the face of it to justify a criminal investigation.

“The issue is not simply whether the conduct was improper or ill-judged. The issue is whether a senior police official, through a public intervention directed at a live prosecution, intentionally attempted to pressure, influence, or distort the course of justice,” LeMay wrote.

“The seriousness of the matter is amplified by the institutional context. Prosecutorial independence is fundamental to the administration of justice.

“Where a police chief publicly attempts to reverse or disrupt a plea resolution and couples that effort with a threatened release of investigative information, the matter raises a rule-of-law concern that should not be left to informal handling, internal review, or purely administrative response. Public confidence requires visible independence.”

LeMay told Amery and Ellis that they should ensure the preservation of all relevant records, including letters, drafts, internal emails, text messages, legal memoranda and communications between the Edmonton Police Service and Crown officials and Alberta Justice.

No police service in Alberta, including the RCMP, should be assigned to conduct the investigation to eliminate any perception of conflict of interest, LeMay said.

Neither Amery nor Ellis responded to LeMay’s letter.

Police chief’s judgment questioned

In his initial March 2 email to the police commission, LeMay asked members “to formally revisit the continued leadership of Chief Warren Driechel.”

“This request is not made lightly. The office of chief of police carries with it an inherent presumption of judgment, integrity, restraint, and respect for institutional boundaries. Public confidence in the office depends not simply on rank or appointment, but on the consistent exercise of those qualities in moments of pressure and controversy.

“In my respectful view, that confidence has been materially weakened.”

Whether Driechel’s decision “was motivated by frustration, principle, or public pressure, it represented a serious lapse in judgment,” LeMay told the commission.

“It blurred the boundary between investigation and prosecution and risked undermining public confidence in the fairness and independence of the justice process.”

The commission should be concerned by the court’s criticism of the Edmonton Police Service, he said.

“When a judge finds the conduct of a police service to be so improper that it becomes relevant to sentencing, the matter can no longer be dismissed as a communications misstep or a difference of opinion. It becomes a governance issue. It becomes a question of fitness for leadership.”

LeMay told the commission that it exists precisely to deal with difficult issues like this one.

“Civilian oversight is not measured by how a commission performs when circumstances are easy or politically comfortable. It is measured by whether the commission is prepared to exercise independent judgment when confidence in police leadership has been shaken.”

The commission’s formal review, LeMay said, should determine whether Driechel “continues to possess the judgment, restraint, and credibility necessary to lead the Edmonton Police Service at this time.”

Specifically, he asked the commission to consider whether Driechel’s role in the court case “was consistent with the standards of leadership expected by the commission,” and whether “corrective action, formal direction, or leadership change is warranted.”

LeMay said the commission should provide the public with a transparent explanation of its conclusions and whatever steps it takes in response.

“Public trust in policing is hard won and easily lost,” he said. “Once the public comes to believe that senior police leadership can overstep institutional boundaries without consequence, confidence in both the service and its oversight body is diminished.”

LeMay wrote to the commission again a few weeks later after he read Driechel’s comments about the Rattlesnake case in an interview with Blue Line, which bills itself as Canada’s only independent law enforcement magazine.

In the Blue Line interview, Driechel said the Crown over the years has dropped or withdrawn charges and has not provided reasons to police.

“So, it’s hard to motivate an entire organization to continue doing this work when I constantly hear, ‘Well, the Crown isn’t going to prosecute anyway,’” Driechel said.

“This could eventually lead to de-policing, where members aren’t arresting, not charging and not getting involved because they don’t feel supported. So there is a larger strategic issue that needs to be addressed.”

LeMay told the commission that Driechel “largely reframed the issue as one of poor communication between police and prosecutors, organizational frustration, and a broader strategic concern about morale and ‘de-policing.’”

‘Language of institutional combat’

It is troubling, LeMay said, that Driechel appears to have no “genuine recognition of the real error” he committed — even after criticism from the judge, and associations representing Crown counsel, lawyers and civil liberties advocates.

Driechel is “still attempting to justify an improper course of action by redescribing it as necessary dialogue.”

“The suggestion that disagreement with prosecutorial decisions could lead to ‘de-policing,’ where officers stop arresting, stop charging, or stop engaging because they ‘don’t feel supported,’ is not a serious answer to the problem. It is speculative, unsupported in the interview, and misdirected,” LeMay told the police commission.

“The proper leadership response to disagreement with prosecutorial outcomes is not to politicize the police service or normalize public brinkmanship,” Lemay told the commission.

“It is to improve the quality of investigations, strengthen case preparation, enhance communication through proper channels, and ensure that members understand the distinct role of police within a constitutional justice system.

“A professional police leader should be directing energy toward investigative excellence and institutional restraint, not rhetorical escalation.”

LeMay said Driechel’s response is a serious mistake that sends a damaging message to the rank-and-file members.

“It suggests that if police are sufficiently convinced of the righteousness of their position, institutional boundaries may be treated as obstacles rather than safeguards. It encourages members to see prosecutorial independence as disloyalty instead of as a constitutional protection. That is not guardian-style leadership. It is the language and instinct of institutional combat.”

Driechel’s response to the criticism raises an unavoidable question for the police commission, LeMay said.

“What does this episode say about the likely quality and professionalism of future decision-making? A single error of judgment can sometimes be corrected by forthright acknowledgment, reflection, and changed conduct. What is more concerning is an error of judgment followed by rationalization.”

The police commission confirmed it was reviewing LeMay’s emails but gave no indication it intended to act on his request for a review of Driechel’s continued leadership of the Edmonton Police Service.

When the controversy first erupted in September, Justice Minister Amery’s only response to direct questions about the conduct of the EPS in the Rattlesnake case was to express his continued support for an independent prosecution service.

Amery apparently has done nothing on the file in the intervening six months. Amery likely has felt little impetus to act, notes CTLA spokesperson Engel, because “Premier Danielle Smith approved of what the Edmonton police did.”

“But I'm hoping that by going public with this, there is going to be pressure on Amery to do the right thing,” Engel said.

If you have any information for this story, or information for another story, please contact Charles Rusnell in confidence via email.

*The main photo for this article has been changed because the original one showed the wrong person. The Tyee apologizes for the error.