HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-0534.Hunt et al.12-02-21 Decision
Crown Employees
rieva
nce Settlement
oard
1Z8
l. (416) 326-1388
x (416) 326-1396
t des griefs
es employés de la
t
Z8
l. : (416) 326-1388
léc. : (416) 326-1396
UNION#2001-0551-0001, 2003-0999-0023, 2008-0526-0018
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
ETWEEN
G
B
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G
Te
Commission de
règlemen
d
Couronne
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Oues
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1
Té
Té
Fa
GSB#2001-0534, 2003-2944, 2008-3397
B
Ontario Public
(Hunt et al) Union
(Ministry of Attorney General) Employer
Service Employees Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
BEFORE Randi H. Abramsky Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
olmes LLP
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Tim Hannigan
Ryder Wright Blair and H
Barristers and Solicitors
Services
ractice Group
Omar Shahab
Ministry of Government
Labour P
Counsel
HEARING February 13, 2012.
- 2 -
Decision
[1] A dispute has arisen between the parties concerning the Employer’s request for production
of the transcript invoices and tax returns of the Court Reporters that the Union intends to
call to give reply evidence. The Employer seeks these documents prior to the witnesses’
testimony and the Union opposes that request.
[2] The Union intends to call a number of Court Reporters, in reply, concerning the number of
transcript pages, per hour, that they prepare, including what goes into preparing a transcript
and how fast they can do so. The parties agree that the legal standard to be applied to the
Employer’s request is whether the documents are “arguably relevant” to the issues in
dispute.
[3] Having considered the facts, arguments and the case law provided, I conclude that the
Employer is entitled to the witnesses’ transcript invoices (for the years they would be
testifying about) but not to their tax returns.
[4] I conclude that the transcript invoices are “arguably relevant” because they shed light on
the Court Reporter’s experience preparing transcripts as well as the quantity or volume of
transcripts that they have produced. This information would be of assistance in
determining the witnesses’ experience in regard to transcript production as well as in
determining how quickly (or slowly) transcripts were produced.
[5] The tax returns, however, are not “arguably relevant”. The Employer primarily seeks the
tax returns in order to determine if the transcript income reported to Canada Revenue
Agency matches the individual’s private transcript invoices (and Ministry invoices), with
the idea that if they do not match and the employees’ underreported their transcript income,
presumably for financial benefits, their credibility regarding the speed at which they
prepare transcripts should be negatively impacted. It argues that it would establish,
potentially, “similar fact” evidence which the Employer could then rely upon. In my view,
with respect, that is an improper “fishing expedition” as well as barred by the collateral fact
rule. Re OPSEU (Hunt) and Ministry of the Attorney General, GSB No. 2001-0534 (Nov.
4, 2004, Abramsky)
[6] If, at a later time, the same Court Reporter seeks compensation, their tax returns in so far as
transcript income would be relevant and would have to be produced. Re OPSEU (Hunt)
and Ministry of the Attorney General, GSB No. 2001-0532 (Sept. 1, 2010, Abramsky).
That is not the present situation. The fact that a document may become “arguably relevant”
at some future point in a litigation does not mean that a party may have access to it before
then.
- 3 -
Conclusion
1. The Employer is entitled to production of the witnesses’ transcript invoices for the years
for which they will be testifying.
2. The Employer is not entitled to the witnesses’ tax returns.
Dated at Toronto this 21st day of February 2012.
Randi H. Abramsky, Vice-Chair