Ottawa Police Tribunal Biased To The Core Against Detective Helen Grus

Natural Justice Denied: The Fix is In

Hearing Continues January 8, 2024

• Detective Grus Not Allowed to See Her Own Handwritten Duty Book
• Tribunal Refuses to Allow Expert Defense Witnesses
• Tribunal Allows Prosecutor’s Conflict of Interest: Sister-in-Law is Prosecution Witness.
• Tribunal Allows Dishonest Prosecution Strategy of Preventing Cross-Examinations

There is little doubt that “The Fix Is In” for the trial of Ottawa Police Detective Helen Grus – who is charged with Discreditable Conduct for conducting an alleged ‘unauthorized’ investigation into a potential connection between mothers’ mRNA injections and the deaths of breastfeeding infants in a cluster of nine infant deaths.

For many observers, the final straw occurred when Hearing Officer Chris Renwick refused to allow Grus to examine her own hand-written duty book for January 30, 2022.

The prosecution alleges that Detective Grus’s on-duty investigative phone call to the father of a deceased infant on January 30, 2022 was improper. Grus made notes that day in her Duty Memo Book – but the Tribunal refuses to allow the veteran Detective to see her own official notes she made on the very day that the prosecution alleges she committed an on-duty offense.

Please read the above paragraph again so you can fully comprehend the injustice and illegitimacy of process faced by Detective Grus and her defense lawyers.

While the Memo Book Decision is a prime example of the Hearing Officer’s bias and unfair conduct, it is only one of many biased and unfair decisions – major and minor – that Superintendent Renwick made during the initial ten days of the Grus disciplinary hearing. The hearing continues January 8, 2023.

Every day of the hearing so far has seen multiple instances where the Tribunal’s bias was so open that the public gallery often gasped or guffawed at the outrageousness of it all. Each day journalists and the public also witnessed institutional and personal biases that further stacked the deck against Detective Grus.

Natural Justice Denied

The principle of Natural Justice is a cornerstone of Canadian society. In short, Natural Justice means that a court has a duty to act fairly.

There are principles of Natural Justice that cannot be violated without bringing a legal process into disrepute. These principles include…

• An unbiased court and decision maker.
• Just and Fair procedures and rules, known and applied fairly.
• The accused’s right to know the case against them.
• The right to be heard, to be allowed to present an unobstructed defense, and to have access to information and evidence that might support a defense.
• The right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, and to not be unfairly obstructed.
• The right to a decision and rationale for that decision.

To protect an accused’s fundamental right to a fair trial in our adversarial system of justice, both prosecution and defense must have equal footing. The court should not be biased in its decisions or in its application of court procedures.

In the Detective Grus trial, the hostile bias has been so open that the coming verdict is already evident to many observers – even before the defense rises to present its case on January 8, 2024.

Ontario Superior Court Denies Defense Motion – Refuses to Interfere Until Tribunal Finishes

I have obtained from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certain public documents filed with the court by both Detective Grus’s defense lawyers and by the Ottawa Police Service lawyers.

To the extent that I can without violating bans on publishing names of involved families and other Identity Information, I will be publishing redacted copies of all publicly available court documents on my website at the Grus Case List.

Public observers and journalists await the continuation of the hearing on January 8, 2024 – for what promises to be the most biased and out-of-control legal procedure that most of us have ever seen.

Defense lawyers had asked a Court for a Judicial Review and other relief, but as is the norm the Court refuses to interfere with a Tribunal that is in-progress. In short, the current outrageously-biased hearings will have to finish before Grus’s lawyers are allowed to take steps towards overturning the coming verdict that is now completely evident.

Here is a paragraph from a court document filed by defense on November 27, 2023…

“The disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant concerning one count of discreditable conduct have been riddled with procedural unfairness towards the Applicant from the outset. The Applicant has been subjected to constant and continuing denial of disclosure by both the Prosecutor and the Tribunal as well as partiality of the Tribunal, which has become apparent in a ruling made on November 26, 2023 with respect to the Applicant’s request for expert witnesses to support her defence.

This context is important because it sets the stage for understanding why this Judicial Review is not premature and should be allowed based on the exceptional circumstances of a breach of natural justice, apprehension of bias, and want of jurisdiction. Further, Christopher Renwick ought to remain as a respondent in the Judicial Review for the reason that his submissions will assist the Court in being fully informed.”

From November 27, 2023 defense submission: APPLICANT RESPONSE TO ‘FACTUM OF THE RESPONDENT/MOVING PARTY, CHIEF OF POLICE, OTTAWA POLICE SERVICE’

Future articles will publish extensive details of the Tribunal’s and Ottawa Police Service’s incredibly open bias against Detective Grus. The Tribunal’s open bias will undoubtedly form the foundation of an appeal that must be filed should Hearing Officer Renwick convict Detective Grus.

This week I’ll be bringing daily coverage of the continuation of the hearing where Detective Helen Grus is not allowed to effectively defend herself.

For now, I’ll leave you with this observation from the first ten days of hearings…

Hearing Officer Chris Renwick’s approval of Prosecutor Vanessa Stewart’s outrageous conflict of interest and weaponization of objections to protect her sister-in-law – a prosecution witness – brought the entire legal process and the Ottawa Police Service into disrepute.

Prosecutor Stewart continually interrupted the defense lawyers’ cross-examinations of prosecution witnesses – even objecting to questions before the defense even started to speak the question. This weaponization of objections was and is a purposeful strategy to deny Detective Grus’s right to cross-examine the witnesses against her.

During the first ten days of public hearings Stewart’s outrageous behaviour, theatrics, and visible contempt for defense lawyers – and occasionally even rudeness to the Hearing Officer -was unhindered. The transcripts I made from my recordings are unbelievable to anyone with any court experience.

Public observers and journalists await the continuation of the hearing on January 8, 2024 – for what promises to be the most biased and out-of-control legal procedure that most of us have ever seen.