Constable Helen Grus' defence counsel said on Friday that it had documentation proving the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) had electronically surveilled their client by intercepting communications on her phone.
Superintendent Chris Renwick, the hearing officer operating as a de facto judge overseeing the tribunal prosecuting Grus for misconduct in Ottawa, denied the defence's request to introduce evidence that their client was "wiretapped," possibly unlawfully.
Renwick said any evidence of Grus being "wiretapped" was "completely irrelevant."
He further denied the defence's request to question the prosecution's witnesses during cross-examination in relation to alleged digital surveillance or a broader OPS criminal investigation of Grus.
Renwick said such information would be "inflammatory" and bring disrepute upon the OPS, as part of his rationale for denying the admission of any evidence or the asking of any questions related to electronic interceptions of Grus' digital communications.
Blair Ector and Bath-Sheba van den Berg, Grus' counsel, said they had documented evidence of the OPS's digital surveillance of their client between February 18 and 19, 2022.
The warrant authorizing law enforcement's electronic interceptions of Grus' communications was obtained via Section 188(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, which allows for circumvention of standard requirements listed within Section 186 on the basis of "an urgent need to do so."
Angela Stewart, the lead prosecutor, claimed that any publicly disclosed information about a criminal investigation connected to Grus or methods of electronic surveillance would potentially violate "executive privilege" and risk compromising law enforcement operations.
After repeated pre-emptive objections from the prosecution and interruptions from Renwick upon the introduction of evidence to be used as the basis for questioning witnesses via cross-examination, both Ector and Van den Berg asked if they should submit questions to the prosecution or hearing officer for pre-approval before being asked.
"Should we submit questions to you before we ask [them] for your approval?" Van den Berg asked Renwick.
Sergeant Jason Arbuthnot, the primary OPS investigator of Grus who works in the OPS's professional standards unit, insisted that a broader criminal investigation related to Grus is somehow entirely separate from the investigation of her alleged discreditable misconduct. He said the criminal investigation "had nothing to do" with the charges currently before the tribunal.
While Renwick did not expressly prohibit the introduction of medical information or invitation of expert witnesses by the defence regarding adverse effects associated with the mRNA injections dubbed as "COVID-19 vaccines," he voiced his unwillingness to examine harms linked to the novel medical technology.
"I can't allow [the tribunal] to be a venue for theories and studies [on] the medical debate [over] vaccinations," Renwick held.
One of the prosecution's witnesses, a colleague of Grus' within the OPS's sexual assault and child abuse (SACA) unit and sister-in-law of the lead prosecutor, said during cross-examination that Grus placed her colleagues at risk by not being "vaccinated."
"She was the only one who wasn't vaccinated," the witness said of Grus, adding that Grus described the "COVID-19 pandemic" as a "socialist conspiracy."
The first two days of Grus's disciplinary hearing saw her direct supervisor testify that he had expressly prohibited her from discussing anything related to the "vaccines” or COVID-19 at work.
Grus' disciplinary hearing is tentatively scheduled to resume on October 30.