A seasoned detective at the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) is facing a two-year demotion due to misconduct following a disciplinary review that found her guilty of breaching families’ privacy by inappropriately accessing deceased children’s files and questioning a parent about a mother’s vaccination status.
Constable Helen Grus was suspended in 2022 for allegedly undertaking an unauthorized project by accessing case files not assigned to her. Additionally, she was accused of interfering in an investigation by contacting the father of a deceased infant to inquire about the COVID-19 vaccination status of the child’s mother.
Grus was found guilty of discreditable conduct in March 2025 and recently received a 24-month demotion from first-class constable to second-class constable as the penalty. Retired OPS superintendent Chris Renwick, who issued the demotion, emphasized the importance of addressing abuse of power and bias-motivated actions within the police force.
Renwick expressed concerns over Grus’s actions, stating that unauthorized inquiries and accessing protected medical records for personal reasons, especially regarding sensitive topics like infant deaths, could severely tarnish the OPS’s reputation. He criticized Grus for her actions, citing that she failed to grasp the seriousness of her independent decisions.
Prosecutors advocated for the two-year demotion, highlighting Grus’s blatant disregard for protocols and the necessary checks and balances in place for police officers. Demotion is considered the second most severe disciplinary action after dismissal.
Despite drawing support from vaccine skeptics nationwide, Grus maintained that she struggled to see the discreditable nature of her actions. Her defense team suggested that the disciplinary process was retaliatory for whistle-blowing, though the tribunal found no evidence to support this claim.
The 24-month demotion will result in a loss of approximately $30,000 in income for Grus, along with an additional $25,000 in missed opportunities since her initial suspension. Renwick also criticized the conduct displayed during the hearing, pointing out poor decorum, name-calling, and unnecessary objections that prolonged the proceedings.