Chu was accused of sexually assaulting the teenager in 1997. No criminal charges were laid, but he was disciplined by the Calgary Police Service (CPS) after being found guilty of disparaging conduct. Chu has previously described the meeting at his home as “consensually emotional.” CBC News is identifying the victim only as HH to protect his identity.
The internal investigation was never completed
On October 15, 2021, a few days before the municipal election, CBC News first broke the news that Chu had sex with a minor, starting a series of media reports on the matter. After that, the Calgary Police Commission committed to looking into how the CPS handled the complaint.
As part of the review, the committee was given access to disciplinary hearing transcripts, appeals transcripts, a trial binder of litigation documents, legal briefs, letters and opinions.
It has now issued an eight-page summary of its findings and recommendations.
The review identified a number of policies that were not properly followed in the years after the alleged assault was reported. It highlighted weaknesses centered around the initiation of the disciplinary investigation and how information was shared with the teenager involved.
More specifically, after prosecutors declined to press charges, HH was assured by the CPS that the agency would immediately begin an internal disciplinary investigation.
“Mistakes” were made.
This disciplinary investigation was not done. “This investigation does not appear to be complete,” the commission’s director of public complaints, Deborah Petriuk, wrote in her report. The “mistakes” made by CPS do not appear to have affected the outcome of the case, commission chairman Shawn Cornett said, but “created significant delay and mistrust in the process.” The commission says the agency “fully cooperated with the review and provided extensive historical records from the case.”
The “unlikely” case would be treated the same now
Ultimately, all four of the Commission’s recommendations have been implemented since 1997. “It is highly unlikely that the issue will be addressed itself in 2022,” Petriuk wrote. Today, the agency automatically investigates when criminal allegations are made against an officer, and it proceeds regardless of whether charges are filed or not. The biggest difference since 1997, Petriuk wrote, is the existence of the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT), which was established in 2008 and is charged with investigating serious or sensitive allegations of police misconduct. In a written statement, the Calgary Police Service thanked the commission for its “careful review of this file” and said it is reviewing the full report. “The complaint process dating back to 1997 in this case would not meet our current standards or expectations of compassionate and professional communication with a complainant, especially in this case a young person,” CPS said.
The alleged attack
Chu has repeatedly said he did not know HH was a minor when he met her in 1997. However, court documents and minutes from his disciplinary hearing suggest the pair had met several times in the previous two years, including when she got into a fight at her school. In August 1997, when Chu met HH and her friend at a restaurant in Calgary, he was 34 and she was 16. Chu had previously described the establishment as a pub where patrons had to be over 18, but in its investigative findings, the commission described the venue as a restaurant.
Timetable
The following is a timeline of the various investigations and appeals reviewed by the Calgary Police Commission:
August 12, 1997: Sean Chu, 34, allegedly sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl (HH) at his home. He later describes the encounter as a “consensual touch.” August 19, 1997: One week after the incident, HH reports the alleged assault to her school official, who refers the matter to the Calgary Police Service. End of August 1997: HH is informed that the case is being examined by the Crown Prosecution Service, “which is the normal procedure when criminal prosecutions are being considered”. January 1998: CPS detectives receive a letter stating that prosecutors will not proceed with the case as “the criminal charges were not supported”. January 1998: HH receives assurances from CPS that the agency will immediately begin an internal disciplinary investigation. February 1998: HH learns she is filing complaints against investigators. July 1998: The CPS dropped the complaints against the investigators. August 1998: HH appeals to the Law Enforcement Review Board (LERB), and although the dismissal of the complaints against the officers is upheld, the LERB directs an internal investigation into Chu’s conduct in 1997. October 1999: Chu appealed, asking the Alberta Court of Appeal to stop the investigation. February 2002: HH formally files a police misconduct complaint against Chu for the 1997 incident. This complaint is being investigated. It is considered a public complaint investigation rather than an internal investigation. March 2002: Chu wins his appeal and the internal investigation goes no further. January 2003: Chu is found guilty of disparaging conduct. A five-year reprimand is placed on his file. He is also ordered to cooperate with the CPS ethics committee.
HH appealed the decision to the Law Enforcement Review Board, but by then she was a young woman at university in another country and unable to attend the hearings. The appeal was dismissed.
Lack of communication
CPS was responsible for muddying the waters and causing a five-year delay for HH by failing to explain the difference between a public complaint and an internal investigation, the commission found. An internal investigation is triggered by any complaint from someone within the agency, the director of law enforcement or the attorney general. A public complaint is a formal allegation of police misconduct made by a citizen. “It is believed that this lack of communication on some key points [was] the cause of future issues,” the committee report said.
“It wasn’t okay”
The commission said its recommendations have all been addressed by the CPS in the years since the alleged sexual assault. Information about the complaints process is now on the CPS website. Regular meetings are held between the professional standards unit and the police chief and internal investigations are automatically triggered when criminal charges are brought against an officer. The committee also addressed the 2002 requirement that Chu contribute to the development of the ethics course. Now, officers who need additional training “no longer have a duty to assist in the training of other officers in the matter for which they were disciplined.” “A teenage girl came to the agency with serious allegations about an officer, and the agency did not provide her with the compassionate support she needed to navigate a complex and intimidating process,” said Cornett, the police commission chairman. “It wasn’t okay then, and it wouldn’t be okay now.”
title: " Mistakes Made In Coun. Sean Chu Sexual Assault Investigation Police Commission Review Klmat" ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-16” author: “John Johnson”
Chu was accused of sexually assaulting the teenager in 1997. No criminal charges were laid, but he was disciplined by the Calgary Police Service (CPS) after being found guilty of disparaging conduct. Chu has previously described the meeting at his home as “consensually emotional.” CBC News is identifying the victim only as HH to protect his identity.
The internal investigation was never completed
On October 15, 2021, a few days before the municipal election, CBC News first broke the news that Chu had sex with a minor, starting a series of media reports on the matter. After that, the Calgary Police Commission committed to looking into how the CPS handled the complaint.
As part of the review, the committee was given access to disciplinary hearing transcripts, appeals transcripts, a trial binder of litigation documents, legal briefs, letters and opinions.
It has now issued an eight-page summary of its findings and recommendations.
The review identified a number of policies that were not properly followed in the years after the alleged assault was reported. It highlighted weaknesses centered around the initiation of the disciplinary investigation and how information was shared with the teenager involved.
More specifically, after prosecutors declined to press charges, HH was assured by the CPS that the agency would immediately begin an internal disciplinary investigation.
“Mistakes” were made.
This disciplinary investigation was not done. “This investigation does not appear to be complete,” the commission’s director of public complaints, Deborah Petriuk, wrote in her report. The “mistakes” made by CPS do not appear to have affected the outcome of the case, commission chairman Shawn Cornett said, but “created significant delay and mistrust in the process.” The commission says the agency “fully cooperated with the review and provided extensive historical records from the case.”
The “unlikely” case would be treated the same now
Ultimately, all four of the Commission’s recommendations have been implemented since 1997. “It is highly unlikely that the issue will be addressed itself in 2022,” Petriuk wrote. Today, the agency automatically investigates when criminal allegations are made against an officer, and it proceeds regardless of whether charges are filed or not. The biggest difference since 1997, Petriuk wrote, is the existence of the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT), which was established in 2008 and is charged with investigating serious or sensitive allegations of police misconduct. In a written statement, the Calgary Police Service thanked the commission for its “careful review of this file” and said it is reviewing the full report. “The complaint process dating back to 1997 in this case would not meet our current standards or expectations of compassionate and professional communication with a complainant, especially in this case a young person,” CPS said.
The alleged attack
Chu has repeatedly said he did not know HH was a minor when he met her in 1997. However, court documents and minutes from his disciplinary hearing suggest the pair had met several times in the previous two years, including when she got into a fight at her school. In August 1997, when Chu met HH and her friend at a restaurant in Calgary, he was 34 and she was 16. Chu had previously described the establishment as a pub where patrons had to be over 18, but in its investigative findings, the commission described the venue as a restaurant.
Timetable
The following is a timeline of the various investigations and appeals reviewed by the Calgary Police Commission:
August 12, 1997: Sean Chu, 34, allegedly sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl (HH) at his home. He later describes the encounter as a “consensual touch.” August 19, 1997: One week after the incident, HH reports the alleged assault to her school official, who refers the matter to the Calgary Police Service. End of August 1997: HH is informed that the case is being examined by the Crown Prosecution Service, “which is the normal procedure when criminal prosecutions are being considered”. January 1998: CPS detectives receive a letter stating that prosecutors will not proceed with the case as “the criminal charges were not supported”. January 1998: HH receives assurances from CPS that the agency will immediately begin an internal disciplinary investigation. February 1998: HH learns she is filing complaints against investigators. July 1998: The CPS dropped the complaints against the investigators. August 1998: HH appeals to the Law Enforcement Review Board (LERB), and although the dismissal of the complaints against the officers is upheld, the LERB directs an internal investigation into Chu’s conduct in 1997. October 1999: Chu appealed, asking the Alberta Court of Appeal to stop the investigation. February 2002: HH formally files a police misconduct complaint against Chu for the 1997 incident. This complaint is being investigated. It is considered a public complaint investigation rather than an internal investigation. March 2002: Chu wins his appeal and the internal investigation goes no further. January 2003: Chu is found guilty of disparaging conduct. A five-year reprimand is placed on his file. He is also ordered to cooperate with the CPS ethics committee.
HH appealed the decision to the Law Enforcement Review Board, but by then she was a young woman at university in another country and unable to attend the hearings. The appeal was dismissed.
Lack of communication
CPS was responsible for muddying the waters and causing a five-year delay for HH by failing to explain the difference between a public complaint and an internal investigation, the commission found. An internal investigation is triggered by any complaint from someone within the agency, the director of law enforcement or the attorney general. A public complaint is a formal allegation of police misconduct made by a citizen. “It is believed that this lack of communication on some key points [was] the cause of future issues,” the committee report said.
“It wasn’t okay”
The commission said its recommendations have all been addressed by the CPS in the years since the alleged sexual assault. Information about the complaints process is now on the CPS website. Regular meetings are held between the professional standards unit and the police chief and internal investigations are automatically triggered when criminal charges are brought against an officer. The committee also addressed the 2002 requirement that Chu contribute to the development of the ethics course. Now, officers who need additional training “no longer have a duty to assist in the training of other officers in the matter for which they were disciplined.” “A teenage girl came to the agency with serious allegations about an officer, and the agency did not provide her with the compassionate support she needed to navigate a complex and intimidating process,” said Cornett, the police commission chairman. “It wasn’t okay then, and it wouldn’t be okay now.”
title: " Mistakes Made In Coun. Sean Chu Sexual Assault Investigation Police Commission Review Klmat" ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-04” author: “Vivian Ellington”
Chu was accused of sexually assaulting the teenager in 1997. No criminal charges were laid, but he was disciplined by the Calgary Police Service (CPS) after being found guilty of disparaging conduct. Chu has previously described the meeting at his home as “consensually emotional.” CBC News is identifying the victim only as HH to protect his identity.
The internal investigation was never completed
On October 15, 2021, a few days before the municipal election, CBC News first broke the news that Chu had sex with a minor, starting a series of media reports on the matter. After that, the Calgary Police Commission committed to looking into how the CPS handled the complaint.
As part of the review, the committee was given access to disciplinary hearing transcripts, appeals transcripts, a trial binder of litigation documents, legal briefs, letters and opinions.
It has now issued an eight-page summary of its findings and recommendations.
The review identified a number of policies that were not properly followed in the years after the alleged assault was reported. It highlighted weaknesses centered around the initiation of the disciplinary investigation and how information was shared with the teenager involved.
More specifically, after prosecutors declined to press charges, HH was assured by the CPS that the agency would immediately begin an internal disciplinary investigation.
“Mistakes” were made.
This disciplinary investigation was not done. “This investigation does not appear to be complete,” the commission’s director of public complaints, Deborah Petriuk, wrote in her report. The “mistakes” made by CPS do not appear to have affected the outcome of the case, commission chairman Shawn Cornett said, but “created significant delay and mistrust in the process.” The commission says the agency “fully cooperated with the review and provided extensive historical records from the case.”
The “unlikely” case would be treated the same now
Ultimately, all four of the Commission’s recommendations have been implemented since 1997. “It is highly unlikely that the issue will be addressed itself in 2022,” Petriuk wrote. Today, the agency automatically investigates when criminal allegations are made against an officer, and it proceeds regardless of whether charges are filed or not. The biggest difference since 1997, Petriuk wrote, is the existence of the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT), which was established in 2008 and is charged with investigating serious or sensitive allegations of police misconduct. In a written statement, the Calgary Police Service thanked the commission for its “careful review of this file” and said it is reviewing the full report. “The complaint process dating back to 1997 in this case would not meet our current standards or expectations of compassionate and professional communication with a complainant, especially in this case a young person,” CPS said.
The alleged attack
Chu has repeatedly said he did not know HH was a minor when he met her in 1997. However, court documents and minutes from his disciplinary hearing suggest the pair had met several times in the previous two years, including when she got into a fight at her school. In August 1997, when Chu met HH and her friend at a restaurant in Calgary, he was 34 and she was 16. Chu had previously described the establishment as a pub where patrons had to be over 18, but in its investigative findings, the commission described the venue as a restaurant.
Timetable
The following is a timeline of the various investigations and appeals reviewed by the Calgary Police Commission:
August 12, 1997: Sean Chu, 34, allegedly sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl (HH) at his home. He later describes the encounter as a “consensual touch.” August 19, 1997: One week after the incident, HH reports the alleged assault to her school official, who refers the matter to the Calgary Police Service. End of August 1997: HH is informed that the case is being examined by the Crown Prosecution Service, “which is the normal procedure when criminal prosecutions are being considered”. January 1998: CPS detectives receive a letter stating that prosecutors will not proceed with the case as “the criminal charges were not supported”. January 1998: HH receives assurances from CPS that the agency will immediately begin an internal disciplinary investigation. February 1998: HH learns she is filing complaints against investigators. July 1998: The CPS dropped the complaints against the investigators. August 1998: HH appeals to the Law Enforcement Review Board (LERB), and although the dismissal of the complaints against the officers is upheld, the LERB directs an internal investigation into Chu’s conduct in 1997. October 1999: Chu appealed, asking the Alberta Court of Appeal to stop the investigation. February 2002: HH formally files a police misconduct complaint against Chu for the 1997 incident. This complaint is being investigated. It is considered a public complaint investigation rather than an internal investigation. March 2002: Chu wins his appeal and the internal investigation goes no further. January 2003: Chu is found guilty of disparaging conduct. A five-year reprimand is placed on his file. He is also ordered to cooperate with the CPS ethics committee.
HH appealed the decision to the Law Enforcement Review Board, but by then she was a young woman at university in another country and unable to attend the hearings. The appeal was dismissed.
Lack of communication
CPS was responsible for muddying the waters and causing a five-year delay for HH by failing to explain the difference between a public complaint and an internal investigation, the commission found. An internal investigation is triggered by any complaint from someone within the agency, the director of law enforcement or the attorney general. A public complaint is a formal allegation of police misconduct made by a citizen. “It is believed that this lack of communication on some key points [was] the cause of future issues,” the committee report said.
“It wasn’t okay”
The commission said its recommendations have all been addressed by the CPS in the years since the alleged sexual assault. Information about the complaints process is now on the CPS website. Regular meetings are held between the professional standards unit and the police chief and internal investigations are automatically triggered when criminal charges are brought against an officer. The committee also addressed the 2002 requirement that Chu contribute to the development of the ethics course. Now, officers who need additional training “no longer have a duty to assist in the training of other officers in the matter for which they were disciplined.” “A teenage girl came to the agency with serious allegations about an officer, and the agency did not provide her with the compassionate support she needed to navigate a complex and intimidating process,” said Cornett, the police commission chairman. “It wasn’t okay then, and it wouldn’t be okay now.”
title: " Mistakes Made In Coun. Sean Chu Sexual Assault Investigation Police Commission Review Klmat" ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-02” author: “Gwendolyn Peachey”
Chu was accused of sexually assaulting the teenager in 1997. No criminal charges were laid, but he was disciplined by the Calgary Police Service (CPS) after being found guilty of disparaging conduct. Chu has previously described the meeting at his home as “consensually emotional.” CBC News is identifying the victim only as HH to protect his identity.
The internal investigation was never completed
On October 15, 2021, a few days before the municipal election, CBC News first broke the news that Chu had sex with a minor, starting a series of media reports on the matter. After that, the Calgary Police Commission committed to looking into how the CPS handled the complaint.
As part of the review, the committee was given access to disciplinary hearing transcripts, appeals transcripts, a trial binder of litigation documents, legal briefs, letters and opinions.
It has now issued an eight-page summary of its findings and recommendations.
The review identified a number of policies that were not properly followed in the years after the alleged assault was reported. It highlighted weaknesses centered around the initiation of the disciplinary investigation and how information was shared with the teenager involved.
More specifically, after prosecutors declined to press charges, HH was assured by the CPS that the agency would immediately begin an internal disciplinary investigation.
“Mistakes” were made.
This disciplinary investigation was not done. “This investigation does not appear to be complete,” the commission’s director of public complaints, Deborah Petriuk, wrote in her report. The “mistakes” made by CPS do not appear to have affected the outcome of the case, commission chairman Shawn Cornett said, but “created significant delay and mistrust in the process.” The commission says the agency “fully cooperated with the review and provided extensive historical records from the case.”
The “unlikely” case would be treated the same now
Ultimately, all four of the Commission’s recommendations have been implemented since 1997. “It is highly unlikely that the issue will be addressed itself in 2022,” Petriuk wrote. Today, the agency automatically investigates when criminal allegations are made against an officer, and it proceeds regardless of whether charges are filed or not. The biggest difference since 1997, Petriuk wrote, is the existence of the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT), which was established in 2008 and is charged with investigating serious or sensitive allegations of police misconduct. In a written statement, the Calgary Police Service thanked the commission for its “careful review of this file” and said it is reviewing the full report. “The complaint process dating back to 1997 in this case would not meet our current standards or expectations of compassionate and professional communication with a complainant, especially in this case a young person,” CPS said.
The alleged attack
Chu has repeatedly said he did not know HH was a minor when he met her in 1997. However, court documents and minutes from his disciplinary hearing suggest the pair had met several times in the previous two years, including when she got into a fight at her school. In August 1997, when Chu met HH and her friend at a restaurant in Calgary, he was 34 and she was 16. Chu had previously described the establishment as a pub where patrons had to be over 18, but in its investigative findings, the commission described the venue as a restaurant.
Timetable
The following is a timeline of the various investigations and appeals reviewed by the Calgary Police Commission:
August 12, 1997: Sean Chu, 34, allegedly sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl (HH) at his home. He later describes the encounter as a “consensual touch.” August 19, 1997: One week after the incident, HH reports the alleged assault to her school official, who refers the matter to the Calgary Police Service. End of August 1997: HH is informed that the case is being examined by the Crown Prosecution Service, “which is the normal procedure when criminal prosecutions are being considered”. January 1998: CPS detectives receive a letter stating that prosecutors will not proceed with the case as “the criminal charges were not supported”. January 1998: HH receives assurances from CPS that the agency will immediately begin an internal disciplinary investigation. February 1998: HH learns she is filing complaints against investigators. July 1998: The CPS dropped the complaints against the investigators. August 1998: HH appeals to the Law Enforcement Review Board (LERB), and although the dismissal of the complaints against the officers is upheld, the LERB directs an internal investigation into Chu’s conduct in 1997. October 1999: Chu appealed, asking the Alberta Court of Appeal to stop the investigation. February 2002: HH formally files a police misconduct complaint against Chu for the 1997 incident. This complaint is being investigated. It is considered a public complaint investigation rather than an internal investigation. March 2002: Chu wins his appeal and the internal investigation goes no further. January 2003: Chu is found guilty of disparaging conduct. A five-year reprimand is placed on his file. He is also ordered to cooperate with the CPS ethics committee.
HH appealed the decision to the Law Enforcement Review Board, but by then she was a young woman at university in another country and unable to attend the hearings. The appeal was dismissed.
Lack of communication
CPS was responsible for muddying the waters and causing a five-year delay for HH by failing to explain the difference between a public complaint and an internal investigation, the commission found. An internal investigation is triggered by any complaint from someone within the agency, the director of law enforcement or the attorney general. A public complaint is a formal allegation of police misconduct made by a citizen. “It is believed that this lack of communication on some key points [was] the cause of future issues,” the committee report said.
“It wasn’t okay”
The commission said its recommendations have all been addressed by the CPS in the years since the alleged sexual assault. Information about the complaints process is now on the CPS website. Regular meetings are held between the professional standards unit and the police chief and internal investigations are automatically triggered when criminal charges are brought against an officer. The committee also addressed the 2002 requirement that Chu contribute to the development of the ethics course. Now, officers who need additional training “no longer have a duty to assist in the training of other officers in the matter for which they were disciplined.” “A teenage girl came to the agency with serious allegations about an officer, and the agency did not provide her with the compassionate support she needed to navigate a complex and intimidating process,” said Cornett, the police commission chairman. “It wasn’t okay then, and it wouldn’t be okay now.”
