• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Calgary police woman alleges horrific sexual harassment

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,277
Points
1,060
Pretty rough story out of Calgary.


Corbella: Calgary police woman alleges horrific sexual harassment

Const. Kim Prodaniuk filed a 132-page affidavit at the Court of Queen’s Bench in Calgary last week that is filled with so many salacious allegations of police misconduct and sexual harassment, this column comes with a warning that disturbing content will follow.

Prodaniuk, 40, has been on stress leave from the Calgary Police Service since March 17, 2017 after she made repeated complaints of sexual harassment and intimidation over the years against members of the CPS and allegedly faced disguised discipline as a result while those who sexually harassed her, in some cases, were promoted.

“What I’ve found so far 12 years into my career is that there are a lot of very honourable police officers upholding the law and who do genuinely care about the community,” says Prodaniuk during an interview at her Springbank home.

“But I’ve also seen a dark side with abuses of power, brutality in attitude, and sexual harassment,” adds Prodaniuk, who has a Bachelor of Applied Justice Studies degree and first worked as a correctional officer at the Calgary Remand Centre — including time spent as one of the few female officers in Alberta to become a member of its tactical team.
More at link
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/corbella-calgary-police-woman-alleges-horrific-sexual-harassment

Sounds like some pretty horrendous treatment.


CPS trying to squash it because the complaint wasn't lodged within 60 days probably won't go over too well.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
859
Points
1,040
Jarnhamar said:
CPS trying to squash it because the complaint wasn't lodged within 60 days probably won't go over too well.

Totally normal move actually.....where I work its 30 days.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,241
Points
890
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Totally normal move actually.....where I work its 30 days.

Except she claims she did report within 60, but her union said (paraphrased) "We don't do blue on blue unless it's management".
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
859
Points
1,040
Also true.....grievances only.  Those allegations should be investigated by management, not the Union.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
779
Points
1,010
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Also true.....grievances only.  Those allegations should be investigated by management, not the Union.

Which of course then means the union defends the pathetic/corrupt/incompetent officers and protects their jobs instead of the one who should be defended, the victim.  Classic union.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
859
Points
1,040
Underway said:
Which of course then means the union defends the pathetic/corrupt/incompetent officers and protects their jobs instead of the one who should be defended, the victim.  Classic union.

Nice try Sunshine....but no cigar.  Management investigates Union members.  Full stop...
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,277
Points
1,060
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Totally normal move actually.....where I work its 30 days.
Normal but policy may need updating?

I think civilian sexual harassment statute of limitations is 1 year.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
859
Points
1,040
Sexual harassment is way too much for a grievance...a grievance is more work related in regards to how a policy may be interpreted.  A grievance is NOT against a person, but how a manager and you disagree about a policy.  My GUESS would be what got dismissed is anything that she wrote on a grievance form, I could be almost 100% positive an investigation is going ahead full steam.

Lets assume the demeaning things that happened were written into the course standards, that would be grounds to file a grievance within the 60 days, if not then we are talking about more of a criminal/civilly investigation and that would not apply.
 

TCM621

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
170
Points
430
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Totally normal move actually.....where I work its 30 days.

Looks bad though.

It seems like the majority of the complaints stem from experiences during the sex worker undercover course. I would think that part of the training would be to desensitize the student to the types of things she is complaining about. Is her claim that they shouldn't do that or that they went to far?

I don't know how far is too far but if a John asks how much to pee in your mouth, you have to act like you have seen it before. Could that have been the motivation behind the training? As for the trainers enjoying making the students uncomfortable, that has been super common in my career but to fair, the subject matter was a lot more innocuous.

I don't know the truth based on one article, obviously, put I think it is possible to see another side to this that hold the CP's in a better light. Regardless, I think a conversation as to whether desensitization training has worth, and if it can be done in a manner that prevents these kinds of problems, has to be had
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
779
Points
1,010
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Nice try Sunshine....but no cigar.  Management investigates Union members.  Full stop...

I never said they didn't.  I said when the union member is investigated, the union then defends the member being investigated...  And of course, then protect said union member even though they were harming another member.  It just helped to demonstrate my point, that as soon as you saw "union criticism" you went  attack mode instead of considering the criticism/actually reading the post or perhaps giving examples of how unions protect members from abuse within their own ranks.

I've seen it played out dozens of times over my working career, including when I was a member of a union.  And you can see it played out in public every time an NHL player cripples another one with a dirty hit.  So perhaps you should read the actual post before inferring your own bias' and not so subtly trying to undermine my position with the infantilizing "sunshine" label. 
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
859
Points
1,040
They do it because that's their job.....they don't "protect", that's the part of your post I found laughable, they defend.  Just as a lawyer you hire doesn't say, "I had a bad night, throw the book at my client Your Honour.", instead he defends your rights, but if management/prosecution does their job properly, then you're still guilty.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,323
Points
1,060
What a nightmare. It reads like 'The Choirboys'.

I find it hard to believe that she was so gullible, though. Oh well, I guess that want 'due process' is all about....
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
779
Points
1,010
Bruce Monkhouse said:
They do it because that's their job.....they don't "protect", that's the part of your post I found laughable, they defend.  Just as a lawyer you hire doesn't say, "I had a bad night, throw the book at my client Your Honour.", instead he defends your rights, but if management/prosecution does their job properly, then you're still guilty.

Isn't work safety part of the union's job? Who in the union will "defend" the member under abuse?  No one.  Laughable is correct.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
859
Points
1,040
Underway said:
Isn't work safety part of the union's job? Who in the union will "defend" the member under abuse?  No one.  Laughable is correct.

Due process might not mean anything to you but to some folks it's a very important thing......
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
238
Points
710
Unfortunately, and to my mind, sickeningly, an asshole doesn't stop being a union member because he's an asshole. He's still entitled to all the services of the union, just like any other member.  How it works when both parties are members baffles me though.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
377
Points
1,130
Target Up said:
How it works when both parties are members baffles me though.

One gets transferred to Scarborough.  :) < I kid. I kid.
 
Top