Ottawa’s own Detective Helen Grus, a standout investigator with an impeccable record, has been found guilty of “Discreditable Conduct” after a grueling three-year disciplinary hearing that wrapped up last month. Her supposed offense? Daring to ask hard questions about suspicious infant deaths coinciding with the rollout of the novel mRNA COVID-19 vaccines — questions that, let’s be honest, still linger.

The hearing officer, retired Superintendent Chris Renwick, ruled that Grus launched an “unauthorized investigation” driven by personal interest. But her lawyer, Bath-Sheba van den Berg, argues that the decision is riddled with errors and that the case law Renwick leaned on actually proves Grus’ innocence.

In fact, Grus didn’t go rogue, as claimed. Testimony and cross-examination revealed she repeatedly tried to raise her concerns up the chain of command, only to be met with intimidation and silencing from the upper brass. Yet, Renwick still pinned her with guilt.

Van den Berg calls foul, pointing to Renwick’s own reliance on Supreme Court of Canada case law in R. v. Beaudry, which states, “Police policies speak to the manner in which police should carry out their responsibilities, but do not define or limit those responsibilities.”

The translation is that Grus was well within her duty to investigate, while Renwick’s reliance on this case is shaky (at best).

“It shouldn’t have been quoted to limit police discretion,” says van den Berg, quoting paragraph 51 which reads “police discretion is an essential component of our criminal justice system. It would therefore be paradoxical to say that conduct that tends to defeat the course of justice can at the same time be justified as an exercise of police discretion.”

Van den Berg asserts that Renwick’s relying on this case and subsequent decision shows an “undermining and defeating [of the] course of justice.”

It hints at a larger pattern and issue in the Canadian judiciary, where those who question the prevailing narrative are silenced, slandered and smeared.

Grus, a first-class constable in the robbery unit since 2022 and eligible for promotion, now faces a penalty hearing where the prosecution is gunning for a demotion. Van den Berg calls it “cruel and unusual,” especially given Grus’ stellar track record.

When a top-tier detective like Grus gets dragged through a disciplinary marathon, her exemplary service tossed aside, all for raising red flags that were squashed by the powers that be, what implications does this have for other officers who are supposed to protect the public and preserve life?

Even though the evidence backs Grus, she seems more like the scapegoat.

As this case heads toward its next chapter, it’s hard not to wonder: who’s really being discredited here?

Donate Now!

Support Rebel News Field Reports! Your contribution helps our fearless journalists travel across the country to report on the stories mainstream media refuses to cover. Whether it's exposing government overreach, giving a voice to the voiceless, or documenting on-the-ground protests and events, Rebel News is dedicated to bringing you the unfiltered truth. With your help, we can continue to challenge censorship and provide Canadians with real, independent journalism. Please donate today to keep our Field Reports team on the frontlines!

Optional email code

Amount

$25

$50

$75

$100

$250

$500

$1,000

$2,500

Other

$

One-time

Monthly

DONATE