Did novel COVID vaccines contribute to infant deaths in the Ottawa region? The public may never know.
Detective Helen Grus, the only Ottawa Police Service (OPS) member seeking to rule out a connection between experimental COVID vaccines and a series of local infant deaths between 2021 and the beginning of 2022, was found guilty last week of professional misconduct for her efforts.
Based on “clear and convincing evidence”, Ottawa police superintendent Chris Renwick writes in his decision that Grus’ conduct satisfied all elements of the charge against her; initiating an unauthorized project; interfering in investigations for which she was not the lead investigator; contacting the father of a deceased infant to determine the COVID vaccine status of the mother; then failing to keep an adequate record of it all.
Grus testified earlier this year in her defense that criminal negligence could be at play given that public officials endorsed the drugs as safe.
While the disciplinary tribunal heard testimony that Grus was an exceptional investigator within OPS’ sex assault and child abuse (SACA) unit and was in line for promotion, adjudicator Renwick was less than impressed with her COVID inquiries.
“What Det. Grus describes (in her testimony) demonstrates, at best, a poorly thought-out criminal negligence investigation, kept from her chain of command, and with national implications far beyond her individual capabilities and resources,” he writes.
“She applied her own personal views on the risks and dangers…formed by her self-initiated research and her strong opposition to (OPS COVID vaccine mandates). Det. Grus allowed her personal beliefs and opinions to seep into her professional responsibilities and cloud her judgment and, ultimately, her professional conduct.”
Renwick’s penultimate paragraph in his 34-page decision concludes that, “a reasonable person would understand the community’s collective…concern should they have learnt that such unauthorized criminal negligence inquiries on public officials were being undertaken by a criminal investigator within SACA.”
Renwick’s decision also quotes professional standards (PSU) unit Sgt. Jason Arbuthnot’s investigative report of Grus, which ultimately led to the charge being laid in July of 2022.
“Asking a potentially guilt-induced question of a parent about a medical choice they made possibly contributing to the death of their infant was inappropriate,” Arbuthnot writes, similarly worried as is Renwick for how others might react to uncomfortable information.
And by accepting OPS prosecutor Jessica Barrow’s argument that the charge against Grus “was essentially a labour relations matter between employer and employee,” Renwick avoided contemplating anything too upsetting, like serious COVID vaccine adverse events – even among OPS members – or how many babies died after their mothers took the shot during the first 10 weeks of Pfizer’s BioNTech COVID vaccine rollout.
Renwick caged this approach to deliberations as an “intent to focus on the evidence, testimony, and submissions that speak directly to the matter before me—the actions and alleged misconduct of Det. Grus.”
Detective Grus’ lawyer Bath-Sheba van den Berg had argued that the Police Services Act (PSA) charge is regulatory in nature, providing avenues for a more fulsome defence. However, Renwick disagreed and noted his decision on this point “thus removes the ability of Det. Grus to pursue a defence of due diligence and a mistaken belief in facts.”
In other words, whether Grus acted in good faith and with reasonable care was irrelevant to Renwick and the matter at hand, as was any evidence such as autopsy reports and live testimony by medical experts – all denied by Renwick at the hearing phase – which might provide further insight for her inquiries.
“Canadian public health leadership on the approvals and implementation of vaccinations, (and) the science pertaining to vaccinations… are out of the scope of relevance to the PSA charge before me,” adds Renwick in his decision.
Throughout the tribunal’s 23 hearing days, which began in August of 2023 and spanned nearly 18 months, Renwick’s decisions regarding evidence and testimony he would allow often became flashpoints.
Renwick selectively documents this tension in his decision under the heading “Hearing Decorum” and describes the “frequency and level of objections while witnesses were testifying…as unprecedented.”
Not mentioned, however, was the occasion Renwick ordered Grus to stop her testimony as she was answering a question about how many babies died during the initial global rollout of Prizer vaccines. The answer is that of 32 post-injection pregnancy outcomes Pfizer was able to track, only one baby survived yet Renwick would not allow Grus to provide this information for the hearing.
“At one heated point, two counsel stood in protest of a ruling and refused to continue until after a recess to regain composure,” writes Renwick about another incident, again providing no particulars.
The dispute in question arose over an allegedly threatening email that then-PSU inspector Hugh O’Toole sent to Grus just before she was to begin her testimony. Keep in mind it was PSU which initiated the investigation against Grus and ultimately laid the charge.
Renwick also ignored the defence’s allegations of obstruction and witness tampering related to the offending email, denied Grus access to her own duty book and would not consider OPS’ failure to investigate internal leaks to CBC Ottawa, without which the matter would have remained an internal affair.
Grus has since sued the CBC for publishing “false and malicious statements” contained in a pair of March 2022 articles three months before she was formally charged.
Renwick also found little purchase in the reason she circumnavigated immediate superiors after they told her to cease all COVID talk in the SACA office, and took her concerns about infant deaths and the novel COVID vaccine to then-chief Peter Sloly at a January 2022 townhall style meeting.
“Det. Grus considered this as implied consent from her ‘next opportunity’ or ‘ad hoc’ chain of command,” Renwick writes, again noting she made scant notes, had made no investigation action reports nor even had a case number to reference.
“The conclusion drawn by this evidence is that Det. Grus made a deliberate effort to conceal her activities as she was aware that approval would be required, and it would be denied.”
With the litigation deck seemingly stacked against Grus – what van den Berg described throughout the hearing as her client being denied basic procedural fairness – Renwick writes in his decision that it is actually Grus’ conduct which could “be viewed as an attempted weaponization/politicalization of police powers to exert pressure on municipal, provincial, and federal health officials.”
The penalty phase of Grus disciplinary tribunal will occur on a yet-to-be-determined date and the 20-year OPS veteran and mother of three could face demotion and/or a financial penalty. Currently, Grus has been reassigned to OPS’ robbery unit where she continues to work as an investigator.
Van den Berg told True North that her client intends to appeal and said the disciplinary decision to find Grus guilty could “forever change the face of policing in Canada if officers now need permission to initiate investigations.”
“This decision also tells Canadians that the Ottawa police have been compromised at the most senior level and that they are not interested in protecting the most vulnerable.”