VPD inspector's smack on colleague's buttocks deemed discreditable conduct

A tap on the hip or a slap on the bum?

A hotly contested 'he said/she said' incident involving a veteran Vancouver police inspector accused of smacking an aspiring constable on the buttocks has resulted in a finding of discreditable conduct under the Police Act.

Retired provincial court judge Carol Baird Ellan — in her capacity as a police complaints adjudicator — rejected Insp. John de Haas' explanation for a situation which began when he scolded the complainant for having her hands in her pockets.

"I find the member's description of the nature of the contact as an inadvertent tapping of the hip to be disingenuous and unnatural," Baird Ellan wrote.

"The member clearly realized that he had acted inappropriately. He said as much, while attempting at the same time to deny it. The member's version of events and subsequent characterizations of the incident are simply not credible."

'I probably shouldn't have done that'

The incident occurred in April 2017 while the complainant was a special constable working at the jail under de Haas' supervision. She had applied to be a regular constable but had yet to be accepted.

According to Baird Ellan's ruling, the woman was volunteering at a graduation ceremony and talking with two other officers when de Haas approached from behind.

"Someone came up from behind her and pulled her hands out of her pockets and said something like, 'don't put your hands in your pockets,'" Baird Ellan wrote.

"He then 'smacked' her right buttocks cheek, which shocked and upset her. The member said 'Oops, I probably shouldn't have done that.' The complainant said 'No, probably not,' and the member said 'Sorry.'"

'Sorry' an explanation, not an apology

According to Baird Ellan's decision, de Haas claimed he was the most senior member of the department, celebrating his 40th year as a police officer the day after he testified at the public hearing into his conduct.

He claimed to have been irritated that a member of his jail staff was ignoring policy at a public event by standing with her hands in her pockets.

He claimed that he "gently grabbed her forearms, pulled her hands out of her pockets, and placed them at her sides."

De Haas said that as he spoke "he realized that he tapped the complainant on the hip on her right side, an inch or two below the belt. He said this was an unconscious motion and he felt it was inappropriate. He said something like, 'I should not have done that, sorry.'"

He denied slapping the woman and said that he was very disturbed after hearing that allegation for the first time as he "considered it to be an allegation of sexual harassment."

Complicating matters was de Haas' decision to write an email to all the inspectors in the police department after an internal investigation that led to his transferral out of the jail; it was entitled "My punitive transfer and constructive dismissal."

De Haas claimed that when he said, 'sorry,' "it was intended as an explanation, not an apology."

He also denied that his email could be considered obstruction of justice.

"The member stated that he did not want rumours out there damaging him or his reputation," Baird Ellan wrote. "He wanted the inspectors to know the truth."

'Highly ill-considered'

In assessing the situation, Baird Ellan wrote that the case turned on credibility.

She noted that one of two other constables present saw a motion "consistent with a smack or a slap" and his reaction of being "very shocked" fit with the woman's version of events.

"In addition, the complainant made several open complaints to those present and appeared upset, after complaining via text to her friend and superior," Baird Ellan wrote.

"I find those actions to be more consistent with genuine upset than with some ulterior motive."

Baird Ellan found the act of physically removing the woman's hands from her pockets in itself constituted discreditable conduct in a department which prohibits "unwanted touching."

She also found de Haas' sending of the email to be "highly ill-considered."

"The member with his level of experience and knowledge of the context, ought to have known the potential impact of the email on those involved in the incident," Baird Ellan wrote.

"If it is not obstruction of justice, I agree that it comes close, and in my view it established discreditable conduct."

The next step in the process is the consideration of disciplinary or corrective measures.