‘I was prepared to do whatever’: Woman in Saanich Police privacy breach goes public

The woman at the centre of a major privacy ruling against Saanich Police is going public, saying she participated in sexual messages with the officer involved because she was desperate to be believed.

Erin Booth has identified now-Sgt. Adam Defrane, whose name also appears in official documents related to an Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) ruling. 

In this OIPC decision, it was determined that Defrane used police files on Booth to initiate a casual sexual relationship, while he also “gossiped” about her case to family and friends.

It all stems from a complaint made to Saanich Police by Booth, for which Defrane was the assigned officer. The OIPC ruling determined he used his access to her private information in a way that is inappropriate and unethical. 

“I wanted Defrane to like me so that he would take my complaint seriously,” Erin Booth told Victoria Buzz.

“I was prepared to do whatever I had to in order to get the officer on my file to take my complaint seriously… My entire livelihood was on the line.”

Booth has identified herself as the complainant in OIPC Order F26-65, released July 22nd.

Uncensored documents obtained and reviewed by Victoria Buzz identify the officer as now-Sgt. Adam Defrane.

The documents include Booth’s sworn affidavit, written arguments from Booth and Saanich Police, a statement from Defrane, an Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner (OPCC) decision, emails to police leadership and screenshots of text messages.

The publicly released OIPCorder did not name Booth or Defrane; however, the complainant and officer involved were identified in official records obtained by Victoria Buzz.

Booth says she decided to come forward after years of trying to get answers from Saanich Police.

“SPD didn’t take any of this seriously when I was anonymous,” Booth said. “It’s a lot easier to ignore someone who doesn’t take the steps to make themselves and the issue public. I want accountability.”

How the case began

Booth’s contact with Saanich Police began in June 2022 during a prolonged dispute involving online harassment and impersonation.

Booth says another person created social media accounts, email addresses and phone numbers that appeared to belong to her, resulting in numerous police complaints being made against her.

Booth says she repeatedly tried to convince police that she was being impersonated, but felt officers had already decided she was responsible.

Defrane, then a constable, was assigned to investigate the complaint Booth had brought forward in August 2022 .

An OPCC decision says Defrane took several investigative steps, including obtaining statements, reviewing evidence and forwarding a report to Crown counsel. Booth alleges important steps were missed.

According to the OPCC, another police service later took over an overlapping investigation. Charges against Booth were eventually stayed and charges were laid against the other person.

Booth says the experience left her desperate for someone in policing to believe her.

Messages became sexual

The OIPC found that in May 2023, Defrane told Booth he was interested in pursuing a casual sexual relationship with her.

Booth acknowledges that she found Defrane’s personal phone number on a public Facebook profile and contacted him first. She says she reached out because the harassment was continuing and she still needed police assistance.

She also acknowledges that some of the sexual conversations that followed were mutual.

The OPCC decision notes that Booth participated in the exchanges, but also records her concern that Defrane may have been taking advantage of her during a difficult period.

Booth told Victoria Buzz she was facing criminal charges at the time and believed Defrane could influence whether police took her side of the story seriously.

“I was in a very bad place mentally given everything I was going through,” Booth said.

Booth says the messages included requests for nude images and a casual sexual relationship. She also noted that no sexual or romantic relationship ever took place.

The OPCC noted that proceedings connected to Defrane’s original investigation appeared to have concluded on January 31st, 2023; however, related criminal matters were still being investigated by other officers and Crown counsel contacted Defrane as late as June 2nd, 2023.

Booth says that continuing connection created a clear power imbalance.

“I still needed help,” she said. “I needed the police to believe me.”

‘Everyone in my life knows of you’

The privacy breach came to light during text conversations about keeping a possible sexual relationship secret.

In one message, Defrane wrote that he did not want his former partner or Saanich Police to find out, texting her, “If Saanich police found out I would never get promoted haha.”

When Booth asked whether people in his life knew her, Defrane wrote, “Anybody in my life knows of you.”

He later referred to people asking, “What’s new with the file?” and said he provided updates about “all the drama.”

The OIPC adjudicator found that Defrane had used information from Booth’s police file to gossip with friends and family.

The adjudicator also found that the detailed and ongoing nature of the updates increased the likelihood that identifying information about Booth had been shared.

Saanich Police argued there was no independent way to verify whether the messages were authentic, complete or unaltered.

The adjudicator rejected that position, noting there was no evidence from Saanich Police or Defrane showing that the messages were inaccurate, altered or taken out of context.

The messages were accepted as accurate and unaltered.

An earlier complaint to police leadership

On July 5th, 2023, Booth emailed Chief Constable Dean Duthie and other Saanich Police addresses asking the department to stop Defrane from sending sexual messages and requesting nude images.

Screenshots of the interaction were attached to the email.

Booth says Professional Standards contacted her several weeks later.

The OPCC records show Booth subsequently told the department that she had accepted an apology, that the messages had stopped and that she did not want to pursue an OPCC complaint.

Saanich Police also told the OPCC that Defrane had been instructed to have no further contact with Booth.

Booth now says her response at the time did not reflect how she truly felt.

She says Defrane had begun treating her better after learning she had contacted police leadership and she remained concerned that pursuing a complaint would cost her any chance of receiving his help.

“At that point, I was concerned that if Defrane didn’t like me, my file was certainly not going to be treated fairly,” Booth said.

The OPCC ultimately found an allegation concerning SPD’s response to her July 2023 concerns inadmissible, citing that she had accepted an apology and did not want an investigation at the time.

That decision is separate from the formal privacy complaint she filed the following year.

Formal privacy complaint went unanswered

On August 7th, 2024, Booth sent a formal privacy complaint to Chief Duthie and other Saanich Police officials.

The letter identified Defrane, included the messages about people receiving updates and asked the department to investigate who had received information from her file.

Booth also asked for an acknowledgment, an apology and mediation.

She says nobody responded. 

Booth says that lack of response is what pushed the matter outside the department. Under the OIPC complaint process, a person must first raise their concern with the public body. If no response is received within 30 business days, the complaint can then be brought to the commissioner.

When an OIPC investigator was assigned in December 2024, Booth says she remained open to resolving the matter through mediation. After months without a resolution, she chose to proceed to a written inquiry.

The OIPC later reached the same conclusion.

“There is no evidence before me that the SPD took any of these steps,” adjudicator Rene Kimmett wrote.

Kimmett found Saanich Police did not even reply to Booth’s letter.

Saanich Police argued that it had notified the OPCC, preserved relevant records and deferred to independent oversight. However, the adjudicator found SPD could not hand its privacy responsibilities to another oversight agency.

“The SPD cannot delegate its responsibilities under FIPPA to the OPCC,” Kimmett wrote.

The adjudicator concluded that Defrane’s use and disclosure of Booth’s personal information were unauthorized.

SPD’s privacy policies, training and response were also found to be “significantly lacking.”

The department was ultimately ordered to stop using or disclosing Booth’s information in violation of provincial privacy law. The adjudicator also strongly encouraged SPD to update its policies, training and practices with help from a privacy expert.

No consequences came to Defrane following the OIPC inquiry. 

Separate allegations sent for external investigation

Booth filed a complaint with the OPCC on October 13th, 2023.

That complaint was initially found inadmissible. However, the OPCC later determined that relevant documents Booth had submitted were not considered during the original review.

The complaint was reconsidered and, on October 23rd, 2025, three allegations were declared admissible:

• Neglect of duty concerning the adequacy of Defrane’s investigation
• Improper disclosure of information from Booth’s police file
• Discreditable conduct involving allegedly inappropriate and sexual text messages

The third allegation includes claims that Defrane propositioned Booth for sex, pressured her to have sex without a condom and referred to sexual material gathered during the investigation.

These allegations have not been proven.

An admissibility decision only means the alleged conduct could constitute misconduct if it is substantiated through an investigation.

The OPCC ordered the Vancouver Police Department to conduct an external investigation, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the need to avoid any reasonable apprehension of bias.

Booth says that investigation has since been suspended while a separate criminal investigation takes precedence. Victoria Buzz has asked Saanich Police to confirm the status and which agency is conducting that investigation.

Defrane declined to provide evidence during the OIPC inquiry, citing ongoing OPCC disciplinary proceedings concerning the same matters. His decision not to participate was not an admission.

A May 2026 document lists him as a sergeant assigned to the Saanich Police Administration Division.

Booth wants an apology

Booth says nobody from Saanich Police has contacted her since the OIPC ruling was released.

She has not received an apology, an explanation or notice that SPD has opened its own privacy investigation.

Booth says the ordeal contributed to her losing her job, home and financial stability.

“The fact that SPD did not care that they got it wrong, and my life was destroyed because of it, has been the most difficult part,” she said.

She says her criticism is now focused largely on Saanich Police leadership and its failure to meaningfully investigate after receiving her complaints.

Booth has also questioned the involvement of Deputy Chief Damian Kowalewich, who previously served as the officer in charge of Professional Standards.

She believes Kowalewich should have ensured her complaint was investigated and says he was involved in SPD’s response to the OIPC.

Records reviewed by Victoria Buzz show Kowalewich was copied on portions of the OIPC correspondence, but do not establish who made each decision concerning SPD’s response. 

Victoria Buzz has asked the department to clarify his role.

Booth says she wants Chief Duthie to meet with her, acknowledge what happened and consider a restorative justice or mediation process.

“Bottom line, take this and me seriously,” she said.

Victoria Buzz provided Saanich Police with detailed questions about Booth’s allegations and the department’s handling of her complaints. The department did not respond to the individual questions, but Deputy Chief Damian Kowalewich provided a brief statement.

“We have received the decision and are carefully reviewing it,” Kowalewich said.

“We respect the role of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the process that has been undertaken. Protecting personal information is a responsibility we take seriously, and we remain committed to maintaining strong privacy practices, policies and training across the organization.”

Booth described Kowalewich’s response as “a public-relations statement containing reassuring words but no accountability and no concrete action.”

“To me, it felt like a slap in the face,” she said.

“This is not about wanting to say that I was ‘right,’” Booth said. 

“It is about what happens when institutions become so confident in their own authority that they stop listening, stop questioning themselves and dismiss the people they are supposed to serve.”