A retired Toronto policeman says “the fix is in” against an Ottawa detective facing potential discipline after investigating a possible connection between COVID-19 vaccination and infant deaths.Helen Grus is undergoing hearings for 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.The prosecution alleges Detective Grus’ 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 hearing officer Chris Renwick refused to allow her to see them.In an online article, retired Toronto policeman Donald Best called this “a prime example of the hearing officer’s bias and unfair conduct,” but “only one of many biased and unfair decisions, major and minor” that has occurred in the hearings, which resumed January 8.“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,” Best said.“During the first ten days of public hearings, Prosecutor Stewart’s outrageous behaviour, theatrics and visible contempt for defence lawyers and occasionally even rudeness to the Hearing Officer, was unhindered.”Detective Grus was denied the ability to see her own handwritten duty book in her defence and denied the ability to call in expert defence witnesses that would support the legitimacy of a possible link. The prosecutor’s sister-in-law is a prosecution witness. Also, cross-examinations of witnesses have been prohibited.Best said the tribunal is "biased to the core" and that principles of natural justice can’t be violated without bringing a legal process into disrepute, but that this is happening. Such principles, he said, include the following.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 defence, and to have access to information and evidence that might support a defence.The right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and to not be unfairly obstructed.The right to a decision and rationale for that decision.Defence lawyers began their presentations January 8. They previously asked a court for a judicial review and other relief. On November 27 last year, the defence stated the following in a court filing.“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.”Regardless, the court refused to interfere with the tribunal. Best said the hearings promise to be “the most biased and out-of-control legal procedure that most of us have ever seen.”“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,” Best said.
A retired Toronto policeman says “the fix is in” against an Ottawa detective facing potential discipline after investigating a possible connection between COVID-19 vaccination and infant deaths.Helen Grus is undergoing hearings for 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.The prosecution alleges Detective Grus’ 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 hearing officer Chris Renwick refused to allow her to see them.In an online article, retired Toronto policeman Donald Best called this “a prime example of the hearing officer’s bias and unfair conduct,” but “only one of many biased and unfair decisions, major and minor” that has occurred in the hearings, which resumed January 8.“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,” Best said.“During the first ten days of public hearings, Prosecutor Stewart’s outrageous behaviour, theatrics and visible contempt for defence lawyers and occasionally even rudeness to the Hearing Officer, was unhindered.”Detective Grus was denied the ability to see her own handwritten duty book in her defence and denied the ability to call in expert defence witnesses that would support the legitimacy of a possible link. The prosecutor’s sister-in-law is a prosecution witness. Also, cross-examinations of witnesses have been prohibited.Best said the tribunal is "biased to the core" and that principles of natural justice can’t be violated without bringing a legal process into disrepute, but that this is happening. Such principles, he said, include the following.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 defence, and to have access to information and evidence that might support a defence.The right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and to not be unfairly obstructed.The right to a decision and rationale for that decision.Defence lawyers began their presentations January 8. They previously asked a court for a judicial review and other relief. On November 27 last year, the defence stated the following in a court filing.“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.”Regardless, the court refused to interfere with the tribunal. Best said the hearings promise to be “the most biased and out-of-control legal procedure that most of us have ever seen.”“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,” Best said.
