Canada - Nothing left but a bad smell

OFF THE WIRE
Robert Howard
 http://www.thespec.com/
Nothing left but a bad smell
A cloud of mystery hangs above the most recent — and probably final — chapter of the Kevin Dhinsa affair like toxic exhaust at a stoplight. There’s nothing left but a bad smell and a queasy stomach.
If you were left puzzled by this week’s reports of a settlement that ended a human-rights complaint, a lawsuit and a union grievance — all to do with complaints of sexual harassment against the Hamilton police sergeant — you were not alone.
The confidential settlement involves 12 women — 11 officers and a civilian employee — who had complained of sexual harassment by Dhinsa only to see the resulting 24 Police Services Act charges thrown out because a filing deadline was missed by eight days. The women had filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights tribunal against the Hamilton Police Services Board, the Hamilton Police Association (which had funded Dhinsa’s legal costs but not theirs), and Dhinsa. Two of the women had filed a $2-million lawsuit against then-chief Brian Mullan, a police lawyer and the police services board. The women had also filed grievances with the police association.
All of that is now dead. The settlement effectively closes all the files.
Was there payment involved? No information available.
In the settlement, did the police service or the police services board make any commitments to improve the workplace for female officers or prevent similar cases? None of our business.
Did Dhinsa — a highly paid veteran officer who never lost a day’s pay and who is now working with an RCMP multi-agency unit in Stoney Creek — admit to any wrongdoing or contribute in any way to the settlement? Not a word.
Was taxpayer money involved in the settlement? Shrug.
That last item is the most infuriating. When confidential settlements shield the possible expenditure of taxpayers’ money, that’s outrageous. The law should not allow it.

The Dhinsa affair was a debacle, staining Mullan’s legacy as chief. The missed filing deadline was never explained: Was it negligence, sloppiness, bad legal advice or a matter of someone looking after a fellow member of the “blue brotherhood?” The police association (i.e. the union), effectively took sides against the 12 complainants. Dhinsa was suspended — on full pay — from 2006 to 2009. Legal costs footed by taxpayers were $20,000 three years ago and are undoubtedly much higher now. We said in this space in 2008 that the handling of the Dhinsa affair stunk — that it reeked of incompetence, double standard and the old boys’ network.
This settlement almost three years later does not dispel that still-lingering smell. What does anyone learn about tolerance and intolerance of sexual harassment and gender bias in so-called police culture? There is no vindication, after a difficult six-year public battle, of the 12 women who complained, nor is there any clarity on whether any bad acts were actually committed.

This is a case that needed — that demanded — a public airing.
Finally, there is a sense of disappointment. The 12 women initiated their complaints because it was a matter of workplace safety and integrity. They appealed the dismissal of charges all the way to the Supreme Court, as a matter of principle. No one but them knows the pressure they have been under since breaching the “blue wall” to complain against a fellow officer. They faced disbelief, ostracism, criticism. No one should judge them for their decisions.
But any chance of a hearing or a ruling that might have changed things for the better for subsequent generations of women officers now disappears with a signature, and perhaps a cheque, behind closed doors. That’s a shame.
One thing is virtually certain: If this issue remains unaddressed, it will arise again.
Robert Howard