Police-Encounters-With-People-In-Crisis

have a mental illness or a developmental disability.” My understanding is that the
identification of these three categories of person within the mandate of the Review
derives from this legislative requirement.
26. It was identified during the early stages of the Review that separate
considerations may apply to persons who are cognitively impaired (whether as a result
of dementia, developmental disability or other causes) as distinct from persons suffering
from mental illness or emotional crisis. While much of what is addressed in this Report
will apply to police encounters with those who are cognitively impaired, a discrete
treatment of the issues raised uniquely by cognitive impairment is beyond the scope of
the Review.
27. Based on the information I have considered as part of the Review, it has become
clear that, at the moment that a police officer encounters a member of the public who is
exhibiting erratic, threatening or assaultive behaviour, the reason for the behaviour is
not always immediately apparent. The police officer cannot always tell whether the
person is experiencing a mental or emotional disturbance, or a cognitive impairment. It
may be only after the incident that it is determined that the person was mentally ill, or
impaired by drugs or experiencing an emotional crisis. Thus, while the focus of this
Review is on individuals who fall into the three categories described in the mandate,
that is not the exclusive focus. Much of what follows in this Report is relevant to any
encounter by police with a person where lethal force may be considered.
4. Terminology
28. As is discussed throughout this Report, there are many different stakeholder
groups with an interest in the inter-relationship between policing and mental health.
There are likewise as many perspectives on the appropriate terminology to use when
describing members of the public whose mental or emotional crisis brings them into
contact with police.
29. In police vocabulary, the most commonly used term is “emotionally disturbed
person” or EDP. The term “emotionally disturbed person” derives from legislation
(section 13 of O. Reg. 3/99 under the Police Services Act as noted above) and is
entrenched in the TPS lexicon. In TPS Procedure 06-04 (“Emotionally Disturbed
Persons”), an emotionally disturbed person is defined as including “any person who
appears to be in a state of crisis or any person who is mentally disordered.”
30. However, the term “emotionally disturbed person” is viewed by some
stakeholders within the mental health community as being somewhat pejorative. Others
feel that the term focuses attention unduly on the behaviour of the person (“disturbed”)
rather than on the person himself or herself, and the person’s entitlement to be treated
with dignity regardless of mental or emotional condition. Other stakeholders within the
mental health community (including those who fall within the scope of the term) have
confirmed to the Review team that they find the terminology acceptable and neutral.
31. Another terminological concern relates to the terms “mental illness,” “mentally
disturbed” and “mentally disabled.” Not all people who are experiencing an emotional or
Police Encounters With People in Crisis |48