REGINA, Sask. — It was an eventful third day of the Saskatchewan Police Commission hearing into former Regina police chief Farooq Sheikh’s appeal of his firing for cause from his position.
The day saw testimony from Sheikh, as well as from Regina Mayor Chad Bachynski, who was in office as mayor at the time of Sheikh’s removal.
During his testimony, Bachynski spent time explaining the role of the board of police commissioners and that the board of police commissioners has only a single employee, that being the chief of police.
Under questioning from lawyer Mitchell Holash, Bachynski said trust in the police service is “obviously a foundation” of the Regina Police Service. He said trust is “critically important” to serving the organization and achieving the goals of the board of police commissioners.
Bachynski was then questioned at length about a Dec. 12, 2024, in-camera board meeting in which Sheikh’s contract was discussed, a meeting in which expanded vacation and severance for Sheikh were prime topics.
In testimony from investigator Shawn George on Tuesday, it had come to light there was text messaging that went on during the in-camera portion between Sheikh and the complainant, who was in that meeting as a board member. The name of the complainant is subject to a publication ban at this hearing. In those texts, Sheikh expressed impatience about how long the in-camera meeting had gone on and inquired about how things were going: “am I winning?”
Bachynski said he was “never made aware” of the communications that went on between Sheikh and the complainant, saying he only became aware later after learning the results of the investigation.
When asked if he had any knowledge about the relationship between Sheikh and the complainant outside of their professional duties, Bachynski said no.
But Bachynski did say he received what was a “very odd phone call” from Sheikh in the middle of March 2025, about a month after a police drug investigation was launched that involved someone close to the complainant.
He testified that Sheikh had said he had called the complainant and indicated he was worried about her, and had described the complainant as “like a sister to me.”
Bachynski said he was unclear as to why that phone call was made to him, but said, “I have a strong theory now.”
“I believe that based on what we learned through the investigation, that that was a very, very extreme mischaracterization of the relationship,” Bachynski said. “And as well as understanding that we know now that given that relationship, and given what we know about the association of the complainant with the ongoing drug investigation, there is a lot more context to that phone call.”
Bachynski was also asked whether he knew about a Feb. 26, 2025, phone call between police chief Sheikh and the complainant.
“I do now, after the investigation,” said Bachynski.
Bachynski said he learned that “there were conversations, I believe in February [2025], between the complainant and Mr. Sheikh, discussing said investigation, talks about wiretaps, talks about not contacting those involved in the investigation — a lot of items, frankly, that were extremely concerning to us as a board as it comes to the relation of trust and transparency from our chief.”
As for the Dec. 12, 2024, meeting and the text messaging that went back and forth between Sheikh and the complainant, Bachynski said his and the board’s initial reaction was “one of betrayal.”
He noted it was an in-camera meeting to discuss the contract amendments of the police chief.
“To see that there were messages, these messages were going back and forth during that discussion when he was excused from the meeting, is completely inappropriate and completely breaks trust with the board, and obviously with the public … this is not how the public would expect a chief of police to operate.”
When asked if he thought the police chief respected the request for a private meeting, Bachynski said “no.”
“This was a very, very large, a very significant part of our consideration in our decision” to remove him, said Bachynski. He said it “speaks to the lack of trust and accountability to follow directions.”
With respect to professionalism, ethics and transparency, Bachynski said “these actions do not fit at all.”
Sheikh testimony
During the afternoon session, Sheikh took the stand, where he was questioned at length by his counsel Brian Pfefferle. Among the highlights from that testimony were the following:
Sheikh testified that he indeed had both sent and received texts between himself and the complainant in the case. He also confirmed the flirtatious banter that went on, including one line that had been mentioned in testimony a few times throughout the hearing: “do you come here often?”
He said that came from when the two had met in Wascana Park.
“We walked around, she bought a coffee for herself and me, and she said you come here often, and I laughed, and she said, what are you laughing at? I said in England, where I grew up, and that's more of a kind of line that you use when you meet somebody in the bar, and then she — and we're having a banter — she says no it's not, I said it is, and then I said, and we're having a laughing joke about it, and I said, so I screenshot, and I've done a Google search, and I sent you a message to show what we meant in England, and then you just catch part of that, catchphrase, a bit of fun banter. I teased her, she teased me about that line.”
Sheikh described the relationship as “a bit of flirtatious humour and banter, and then it's all fun and cheeky.”
On his desire to have the text messages deleted, Sheikh said he was “embarrassed by my own communication, and I'll delete it because I don't want anyone to think that we're in a relationship.”
He explained the reason was “just the fact that … she was on the board, and she’s a lot younger than I am, and, you know, I loved having the banter with the complainant, you know, the flirtatious banter, and the friendship to support each other, but, you know, I didn't want to be in a relationship.”
But Sheikh did admit that at a Christmas party where they were both in attendance, “I had to go and give grace, and then, after we hugged, she reached and kissed me, and I reciprocated with that kiss.”
When asked if he participated in flirtatious behaviour or sexualized comments, Sheikh said, “If I have to accept that, that I did, yes.”
Sheikh also testified about the Dec. 12, 2024, in-camera meeting, in which he confirmed he had texted both the complainant as well as another member of the board.
He confirmed he texted the other board member the following: “oh my God how long?” and “You would think I was asking for the world.”
When asked if he thought this was appropriate, Sheikh testified he was “getting frustrated because I had my whole command team with me” about how long they were taking to make a decision on his vacation and severance requests. He admitted in hindsight he wouldn’t say that, and he would be more patient.
Sheikh also testified about when it was brought to his attention that the complainant was connected to an individual caught up in a drug investigation. There was then talk around the time about possibly removing the complainant from the board, but Sheikh testified his own initial reaction to the news was “why remove her from the board?” emphasizing it didn’t mean she was necessarily connected to it.
He also confirmed on the stand how he then reached out to the complainant by phone on Feb. 26, 2025. In that testimony, he confirmed he asked the complainant to delete their messages, “because I was embarrassed by it,” Sheikh said.
Sheikh also emphasized again that he had not been and was not interested in a romantic relationship with the complainant.
Sheikh is due back on the stand Thursday morning for cross-examination. Pfefferle indicated Sheikh will be the only witness he will call at the hearing.
