rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Health professionals, not police, should be responsible for conducting wellness checks

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca for as little as $5 per month!

Ejaz Choudry. (Image: Submitted)

"Wellness check" does not immediately evoke the sense of a looming threat or danger. But as more news stories globally emerge about the fatal outcome of these checks, at the hands of police, that might change. 

Following the tragic death of Ejaz Choudry, 62, killed in his apartment during a wellness check on June 21, the Muslim Council of Peel is calling for an "independent inquiry" into the exact role police played in his death. 

More specifically, the council demands that this inquiry be conducted "outside the role of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU)," the civilian body that, technically separate from police, investigates any incident in Ontario where police are responsible for the death of a civilian. 

There remains uncertainty, however, as to how impartial the SIU actually is, especially after Ontario's ombudsman published "Oversight Undermined" in 2011, a comprehensive report identifying and addressing biases that undermine fair investigations on the part of the SIU. The author of the report and then-Ontario ombudsman André Marin himself has stated: "There's no doubt in my mind that the SIU investigation is one which is currently done through blue coloured glasses." 

I called the executive director of the Council Rabia Khedr to get a better understanding of the proposed independent inquiry. She told me it would be one completely separate from the SIU or any police-affiliated body, and undertaken instead by the Ontario government. 

At the same time, the council is anticipating, albeit skeptically, the results of the ongoing SIU investigation into the death of Choudry. Khedr mentioned that the council has little faith in the SIU, given its seemingly preferential treatment of law-enforcement officers. The officer who shot and killed Choudry, who had schizophrenia and was in mental distress during the wellness check, has not been arrested.

It is hard to imagine that had a civilian done the same, they would be permitted the same freedom. My brief discussion with Kedhr gave me pause: Do we, as a society, take for granted that when police officers kill, they are "just doing their job"?  

Whatever the results of the SIU investigation, the tragic death of Choudry is but another instance of why police should be defunded. Though not all is known about what happened inside his apartment when he was killed, one thing is certain: he should not have been on the receiving end of any violence whatsoever, let alone shot. 

He was a vulnerable person. What he required was care and sensitivity, such as from  mental crisis intervention teams, which Peel Region has but apparently were operating elsewhere at that time. They can effectively de-escalate situations where vulnerable persons, in distress, may be a danger to themselves or others. Such teams, such as the well-known CAHOOTS unit in Eugene, Oregon, are doing just this and so are non-violently able to cancel this danger. 

What's more, they, unlike in Toronto, are first responders to vulnerable people during wellness checks, even when a weapon might be involved (police generally arrive at the scene in cases involving weapons first). Their non-threatening presence, carrying no weapons themselves and working in civilian clothing, makes it more likely that vulnerable people will co-operate with them, avoiding the possibility that a situation will escalate -- with harmful or fatal consequences. 

Currently, the motion to defund the police in Toronto, put forward by city councillors Kristyn Wong-Tam and Josh Matlow, stresses -- in its fifth recommendation -- the need for a portion of the police budget to be reallocated to crisis intervention, so that trained health-care workers, similar to CAHOOTS, can de-escalate non-criminal situations where vulnerable persons are in mental distress. 

This is promising and if implemented properly will not only save lives but promote trust and healthy relationships between community and those who respond to its vulnerable members with care, rather than force. Even the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), earlier this week, released a statement advocating for mental health workers to be first responders, defusing potentially violent situations.

Emphasizing this, the statement reads: "Mental Health is Health. This means that people experiencing a mental health crisis need health care. Police should not be the first responders when people are in crisis in the community. Police are not trained in crisis care and should not be expected to lead this important work."  

At the moment I am butting heads with a police officer friend of mine. Whenever I bring up the topic of defunding police, he is rather defensive, telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. He did invite me, however, for a ride-along to see what police have to face daily, and I will take him up on the offer. Perhaps I will learn more about what he does and where police responsibly interact with vulnerable populations. 

Still, I believe he fails to see what statistics and recent reports show, namely that police all too often do the opposite of what they are technically mandated to do: protect the vulnerable. 

It is high time we change the current system that allows this to continue. Some of those in mental distress are, through no fault of their own, unable to stop themselves from acting dangerously or aggressively. The use of aggressive force and the presence of police won't assist those experiencing such distress. A person in mental distress needs to know they will be ok, safe. 

That's how you save a life.  

Paul Salvatori is a Toronto-based photojournalist and writer.

Image: Submitted

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.