The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-0491.Samaroo.99-05-25ONTARIO CROWNEMPLOYEES GRIEVANCE ·1111 SETTLEMENT BOARD EMPLOYESDELACOURONNE DEL'ONTARIO COMMISSIONDE REGLEMENT DESGRIEFS 180DUNDASSTREETWEST,SUITE600,TORONTOONM5G1Z8 180.RUEDUNDASOUEST,'BUREAU600,TORONTO(ON)M5G1Z8 INTHEMATTEROFANARBITRATION Under TELEPHONE/TELEPHONE:(416)326-1388 FACS/M/LE/TELECOP/E:(416)326-1396 GSB#0491/94 OPSEU#94B842 THECROWNEMPLOYEESCOLLECTIVEBARGAININGACT Before THEGRIEVANCESETTLEMENTBOARD ,BETWEEN OntarioPublicServiceEmployeesUnion (Samaroo) Grievor -and- TheCrowninRightofOntario (MinistryoftheSolicitorGeneralandCorrectionalServices) Employer BEFORE FORTHE GRIEVOR OwenV.Gray CraigFlood Counsel KoskieMinsky Barristers &Solicitors Vice-Chair -,,-. FORTHE EMPLOYER HEARINGS DavidStrang SeniorCounsel,LegalServicesBranch ManagementBoardSecretariat February23and24,1999 DECISION [1]MydecisionofSeptember15,1999,dealtwithcertainpreliminaryissues raisedbytheemployerconcerningtheevidentiaryeffecttobegiveninthesepro- ceedingstotheresultsofproceedingstakenagainstthegrievorincriminalcourt. Thisdecisionaddressesfurtherissuesofthatsortraisedbytheemployerafter thereleaseofthatdeCision. Backgrou,,!d [2]Thenatureandhistoryoftheseppoceedingsuptoitsdateweredescribed inmydecisionofSeptember15,~999.Idonotintendtocoverallthatground againhere.Thisdecisionshouldbereadtogetherwiththatoneforafullappre- ciationofthecontext. [3]Brieflyput,thegrievorwasdismissedfromhisemploymentasacorrec- tionalofficerinMay1994becausetheemployerhadconcludedthat 1.hehad"engagedinsexualimproprieties"againstfive(5)femaleinmate offendersbetweentheperiodofAugust1993andNovember1993; 2.indoingsohehadseriouslybreachedthetrustplacedinhimasa Peace!lCorrectionalOfficer;and,, 3.hebreachedthesecurityprovisionsoftheinstitutionasoutlinedinthe StandingOrdersbyremovinganinmatefromasegregationcellwithouta back-up. Mr.Samaroothenfiledthegrievancenowbeforeme,allegingthatthedismissal wasunjust. [4]Thefemaleinmateswithwhomthegrievorwasa~legedto have"engaged insexualimproprieties"wereLisaWatson,TracyArmstrong,SusanMaine, PatriciaMitchellandAnnetteQuibbel.Whenhewasdismissed,thegrievorwas -2- awaitingtrialincriminalcourtforsexualassaultofWatson,Armstrongand Maine.Duringtheensuingcriminaltrial,thetrialjudgeadmitted,as"similar fact"'evidence,testimonybyMitchellandQuibbelaboutassaultstheyalleged thatthegrievorhadcommittedonthem.Thegrievortestifiedinhisowndefence. Hedeniedeachoftheallegationsandmaintainedthattheyweretheresultofa conspiracyinitiatedbyoneofthecomplainants.ThetrialjudgefQunp..thatall fivecomplainantswerecredibleandthattheirallegationsweretrue.Hecop.- victedthegrievorofsimpleassaultonSusanMaineandsexualassaultonLisa WatsonandTracyArmstrong,andsentencedhimtotwomonths'incarceration followedbytwoyears'probation.Thegrievorappealedtheconvictions.Thatap- pealwasdismissedbyajudgeoftheOntarioCourt,GeneralDivision(asitwas thenknown)inlateMarch1996. [5].Mr.Samaroo'sgrievancefirstcameonbeforemeforhearingonDecem- ber18,1996.ThecoursetheseproceedingstookbetweenthenaIldFebruary 1998isdescribedinmydecisionofFebruary25,1998.Atleastpartofthedelay inbringingthismatterbackonforhearingresultedfromtheparties'agreement toawaittheoutcomeofanapplicationtotheDivisionalCourtforjudicialreview oftheOctober15,1996decisionoftheBoard(differentlyconstituted)inWhite, 810/95(Dissanayake).Inthatcase,theCourtlaterconcludedthattheboardwas , obligedtotreatagrievor'sconvictionasprimafacieevidencethathecommitted thecrimeofwhichhehadbeenconvicted:RetheQueeninRightofOntarioas representedbytheMinisterofConimun-ityandSocialServicesandOntario CrownEmployeesGrievanceSettlementBoardetal.(1997),32O.R.(3d)572 (hereafterreferredtoas"White"). [6]WhenthehearinginthismatterresumedonFebruary18,1998,employer counseltookthepositionthatthisgrievor'sconvictionsshouldbetreatedascon- clusive,irrefutableproof,notmerelyprimafacieevidence,thathecommittedall fiveoftheallegedassaultsforwhichhewasdismissed,notjustthethreeas- saultsforwhichhewasconvicted.Theunionconcededthatthethreeconvictions registeredagainstthegrievorcouldbereceivedasprimafacieevidencethathe -3- hadcommittedthemisconductforwhichhewasconvicted:thesexualassaults onLisaWatsonandTracyArmstrongandthesimpleassaultonSusanMaine.At theemployer'srequest,thefollowingissuesbecamethesubjectofapreliminary determination: •whetherissueestoppelappliedsoastoprecludetheunionandthe grievorfromdisputinginthisproceedingthecriminaltrialjudge's findingsofmisconductbythegrievortowardthefivefemaleinmates, thatis,thethreeincidentsofmisconductthatwerethesubjectofcon- victionsplusthetwoincidentsofmisconductthatwerethesubjectof the"similarfact"evidenceatthecriminaltrial, •whethertheunionandthegrievorwereorshouldbeprecludedfrom disputinginthisproceedingthecriminaltrialju,dge'sfindingsofmis- conducttowardthefivefemaleinmates,thatis,themisconductfor whichthegrievorwasconvictedandthemisconductwhichwasthe subjectofthe"similarfact"evidenceatthecriminaltrial,onthebasis thatdisputingthosefindingswouldbean-<<abuseofprocess",and •iftheansweronthefirsttwoissueswas"no"withrespecttothe criminaltrialjudge'sfindingsofmisconducttowardPatriciaMitchell ,andAnnetteQuibbel,whetherthosefindings,whichwerenotthe subjectofconvictions,couldorshouldbereceivedasprirrwfacieevi- denceofthatmisconduct. [7]Thereweretwodaysoftestimonyonthesepreliminaryissues,followedby adayofargument.Forreasonssetoutinmydecision'ofSeptember15"1998,1-' ,', concludedthatwhilethegrievor'sconvictionsforsexualassaultsonLisaWatson andTracyArmstrongandsimpleassaultonSusanMainewere primafacieevi- dencethathehadcommittedthosecrimes(astheunionhadconceded),they wereneitherproofnorevidencethathehadsexuallyassaultedPatriciaMitchell andAnnetteQuibbel,andfurther,thatthegrievorwasnotprecludedbydoc- " -4- trinesofissueestoppelorabuseofprocessfromattemptingtorebuttheallega- tionsofwhichtheconvictionsdidconstituteprimafacieevidence. [8]Inviewoftheissuesnowbeforeme,Inotethatoneofthebasesforem- ployercounsel'sargumentthatanyattempttorebuttheresultofthecriminal triaJwouldbeanabuseofprocessinthiscasewasthatitappearedthatthe grievormighthavenoevidencetoofferintheseproceedingsthathadnotbeen putbeforethecriminalcourt.Imadetheseobservationsaboutthatargument:' [44lTheemployerarguesthatitisanabuseofprocessforthegrievorto seektoprovethathedidnotcommitthecrimesofwhichhewasconvictedif hehasnofreshevidenceor'evidenceoffraudorcollusiontooffer.This appearstoconfusetheabuseofprocessissuewithanotherissuethatmay wellariseinthiscasebutisnotyetproperlybeforemefordetermination. [45)TheremarksofAssociateChiefJusticeMacKinnoninDemeter (quotedaboveatparagraph[37))indicatethatcivilproceedingsinitiated withoutanyapparentinterestintheoutcome,withtheintentionof challengingapriorconviction,may notamounttoanabuseoftheprocessof thecivilcourtiftheplaintiffoffersfr!,!shevidenceorevidenceoffraudor collusionthatmeetsacertainstandard.Inotherwords,proceedingsthat wouldotherwisebeanabuseofprocessmaynotbesoiftheplaintiffoffers ,suchevidence.Itdoesnotfollowthatthefailuretoofferthatkindoffresh evidenceorevidenceoffraudo~collusiontransformsproceedingsintoan abuseofprocessiftheywouldnototherwisebeso,havingregardtothe convictedperson'smotivationinthoseproceedings.Ihavefoundthatthe grievor'smotivationinchallengingtheconvictiondoesnotbringthismatter withintheambitoftheabuseofprocessdoctrine.Inthosecircumstances,the apparentabsenceoffreshevidenceorevidenceoffraudorcollusiondoesnot maketheseproceedingsanabuseofprocess. [46]InWhite,theDivisionalCourtdirectedthattheBoardreceivea certificateofconvictionasprimafacieevidencethatthe"'grievorhad committedthecrimeofwhichhehadbeenconvicted.TheCourtdidnotsay whatstandardrebuttalevidencewouldhavetomeetinordertooutweighthe primafacieeffectthatpublicpolicyrequiredthattheBoardgivetothe certificate.Ifagrievorattemptstorebutacertificateofconvictionby presentingthesameevidencethatthecriminalcourtrejectedinconvicting him,andnothingmore,wouldtreatingthatevidenceashavingshiftedthe burdenof,persuasionbacktotheemployeramounttodoingwhatthe DivisionalCourthassaidtheBoardcouldnotdo-ignorearelevant determinationmadeinacriminaltrial?Thatquestionwillhavetobe answeredinthiscaseif,indeed,thisgrievorhasnoevidencetoofferin, rebuttalthatthecriminalcourtdidnothear.Itis notoneofthepreliminary issuesI,undertooktoaddressinthisphaseoftheproceedings,however. [9]Whenthehearingresumed,thepartieswereindisputeabouttheorderin whichtheyshouldpresenttheirevidenceonthe'meritsofthegrievance.Itap- -5- pearedthatthedeliveryofparticularsbytheunionwouldassistmeinresolving thatdispute,andmightleadthepartiestosettleit.Iorderedthedeliveryofpar- ticularsbytheunion,aswellasfurtherproductionofdocumentsbybothparties. Mtertheparticularshadbeendelivered,~ounselthen actingfortheemployer advisedthebO'ardthattheemployerwaspreparedtopresent.itscasefirst,which wasconsistentwiththeunion'spositiononthisproceduralissue. [10]Onthenexthearingday,counselfortheemployersaidthat-itwouldnot leadevidencewithrespecttoitsallegationsthatthegrievorengagedinsexual improprietiesagainstAnnetteQuibbelandPatriciaMitchell,norwithrespectto theallegedbreachofsecurityprovisionsreferredtointhedischargeletterof May19,1994.Shereiteratedthattheemployerwaspreparedtopresentitscase first.Withrespecttothemisconductofwhichthegrieverhadbeenconvicted,she saidtheemployerreliedontheconvictionsandtheevidenceledinconnection withthepreliminaryissues,anddidnotproposetoleadanyfurtherevidence. Employercounselcalledonewitnessontheissueofbreachoftrust.(Theunion concedesthatthemisconductofwhichthegrievor-JYas;:ponvictedwouldconsti- tuteabreachoftrustifthegrievorhadcommittedit.)EmployercounseLalsoan- nouncedthatsheproposedtobringam0tion,thedetails~ndscope ofwhichshe hadyettoworkout,thatraisedbutmightnotbelimitedtotheissueIhadiden- tifiedinparagraph46ofmydecisionofSeptember15,1998.Thehearingwas thenadjournedtofurtherdates,ontermsconfirmedinmydecisiondatedNo- vember30,1999. TheEmployer'sMotion [11]Thereafter,theemployerchangedcounsel.InearlyFebruary1999itsnew counseldelivereda5pagenoticeofmotionaskingthattheboard a)determinewhethertheevidencethattheunionproposestopresent inrebuttaloftheprimafacieeffectofthegrievor's.convictions "raisesatriableissuethattheboardoughtnottorelyonthecrimi- nalconviction;" b) -6- rulethatitwillnotseektoreviewacriminalconvictionbasedon evidencewhichwaspresentedatthecriminaltrialorwas,with reasonablediligence,availabletobeproducedbythedefe:q.ceatthe criminaltrial; ! .c)rulethatit"willnothearevidencewithrespecttocriminalconvic- tionsonthebasisofallegedfreshevidencewhichcouldnotreason- ablebeexpectedtohaveinfluencedthedecisioninthecriminal trial;" d)rulethatnotriableissueexistswithrespecttothereliabilityofthe convictions; e)dismissthegrievancetotheextentitpurportstodisputethatthe grievorcommittedsexualassaultsonLisaWatsonandTracyArm- strongandsimpleassault 0!lSusanMaine. [12]Argumentoftheemployer'smotionoccupiedtwohearingdays.Idonot proposetorecitehereallofthesubmissionsputbeforeme.Itissufficientfor purposesofthisdecisiontoidentifythemainthemesoftheirsubmissionsand theauthoritiestowhichtheyreferred. [13]Ishouldfirstnotethattheunion'sproposedrebuttaldoesnotfitthe,hypo- theticalaboutwhichIspokeinparagraph46ofmydecisionofSeptember15, 1998.Itisnot"thesameevidencethatthecriminalcourtrejectedinconvicting him,andnothingmore."Theunionproposestoaddtotheoriginaldefence.Some oftheaddedallegationsandproposedevidenceconcernmattersknown~o the grievororhiscounselatthetimeofhistrial.Forexample,theunionwillassert thattheInternalInvestigationUnitreportonwhichtheemployerreliedindis- missingthegrievor,andwhichwaslater-producedtohiscounselinconnection withthecriminalproceedingsbutnotputintoevidenceinthecriminaltrial,is inconsistentinvariousrespectswithevidencetenderedbytheprosecutionatthe criminaltrial.Theonly~;~ew"allegationorevidenceofwhichthegrievorclaims tohavebeenunawarebeforeorduringthetrialandappealisthatcorrectional -7- staffmembersafterwardscongratulatedeachotherfortheircontributionsto- wardsthegrievor'sdismissal,whichhadincludedleakingnewsofthecharges againsthimtothepresspriortohisdismissal.Thatallegation,togetherwith otherfactsknowntothegrievoratthetimeofhistrial,arereliedonbytheun- ioninsupportofthepropositionthatinformation·obtainedfromcertainstaff memberswasandisunreliablebecausethosestaffmemberswerebiasedagainst thegrievor.Theuniondoesnotallegethatanysuchstaffmembertestifiedinthe criminaltrial,butdoesallege,amongotherthings,thatcomplainantArmstrong changedherallegationaboutwhenthegrievorassaultedheraftersomeonegave herinformationaboutthetimingofthegrievorbeingonherfloor. [14]Employercounselarguedthattheallegationsandevidenceonwhichthe unionproposestorelyto·countertheevidentiaryeffeCtoftheconvictionswere eitherputbeforethecourtthatconvictedthegrievororwereknowntothe grievororhiscounselatthattimeor,inthecaseoftheallegationsagainstother staffmembers,couldnothaveaffectedtheoutcomeofthetrialinanyevent. Counselsubmitsthattomakeafindingcontrarytothatofthecriminalcourton-. thebasisofsuchevidencewouldamounttoignoringthefindingofthatcourt. This,hesubmitted,wouldbecontrarytotheobservationoftheDivisionalCourt· inWhite(32O.R.(3d)at573)that Asamatterofimportantpublicpolicy,itisnotpermissibleforaboardinthe exerciseofitsdutiessimplytoignorearelevantdeterminationmadeina criminaltrial,sustainedbyourCourtofAppeal,astotheaccusedhaving committedacertainkindofassault. [15]Employercounselsubmittedtha>t,'asusedbythecourtinWhite,th~ phrase''primafacieevidence"didnotmeanabitofevidencethatifunchallenged I. wouldcarrythedaybutoncechallengedbyotherrelevantevidencehasno weight,nordiditsignifyevidencethatmerelyshiftstheburdenofprooforthe. burdenofpersuasion.CounselarguedthatitmeantmorethanthOSethings,that onceevidenceofaconvictionisbeforeanarbitrator,theissueisnotwhatfinding thearbitratorshouldmakeaboutwhethertheconvictedperson'sguiltbut, rather,whatauthorityheorsheshouldgivetothefindingofthecourt.Inthat -8- regard,hes~bmittedthatthearbitratorshouldnotlookatwhetherthedecision wascorrect,thatthearbitratorcannotentertainanysuggestionthatthecourt failedtodoitsjob'properlyandthatthearbitratorcannotgobehindtheconvic- tion,becauseanarbitrator'sdoingsowouldunderminethecriminaljusticeproc- ess.Accordingly,heargued,itwouldbeimproperforanarbitratortoentertaina rebuttalthatdidnotrestonevidencethatwasnotandcouldnothavebeenbe- I forethecriminalcourt. [16]InadditiontoauthoritiesmentionedinmydecisionofSeptember15, 1999,inthecourseofhisargumentemployercounselreferredtoJorgensenv.' NewsMedia(Auckland)Limited[1969]N.Z.L.R.961,Kennedyv.Tomlinsonat al.(1960)20D.L.R.(2d)273(Ont.C.A.),Holtv.MacMaster[1993]A.J.No.50l (Alta.Q.B.),Kuinv.238682AlbertaLimited,[1997]A.J.No.115(AltaQ.B.,Mas- ter),G.v.Chaykowski[1998]'A.J.No.725(AltaQ.B.),appealallowed[1998]A.J. No.1239(AltaC.A.),Re aSolicitor(TheTimes18.3.96)[1996]NLORNo3208, ConroyElectronicsInc.v.Websteretal.(1989)33C.P.C.279(Ont.H.C.),Cana- dianTireCorporation,Limitedv.Summersetal.(1JL95),23O.R.(3d)106(Ont. Ct.Gen.Div.),Stolar,v.TheQueen(1988),40C.C.C.(3d)1(S.C.C.)andR.v. Palmer,[1980]1S.C.R.759. [17]Unioncounseltookthepositionthattheemployer'smotionshouldbe dismissed.Hearguedthat''primafacieevidence"doesnothavethemeaning proposedbytheemployer,whichwouldgivetheconvictionsconclusiveeffect.He alsosubmittedthatto,granttheorderssoughtwouldbetorefusetoentertain relevantandadmissibleevidenceonamatterindisputeintheseproceedings, thatthearbitr,atorhastheexclusivejurisdictiontodeterminethedisputesub- mittedtoarbitration,thatitisnotthepreferredpracticeofarbitratorstomake sq.chordersandthatinanyeventitwouldamounttoawrongfuldeclinationof .( jurisdictiontograntthemotion.Hesubmittedthatinthecircumstancesofthis case,thepropercourseatthisstagewouldbetoheartheunion'sevidenceand determineitseffectattheendofthehearing,ratherthanonapreliminarymo- tion. -9- [18]InadditiontoauthoritiesreferredtoinmydecisionofSeptember15, 1999,andthosecitedbycounselfortheemployer,inthecourseofhisargument unioncounselreferredtoWeberv.OntarioHydro(1995),125D.L.R.(4th)693 (S.C.C.), ReOntarioPublicServiceEmployeesUnionanq,theQueeninRightof Ontario(MinistryofCommunityandSocialServices)(1995),27O.R.(3d)135 (ant.Div.Ct.),RobervalExpressLtd.v.TransportDrivers,Warehousemen& GeneralWorkersUnion,Local106etal.(1982),144D.L.R.(3d)673(S.C.C.), Syndicatdesemployesprofessionelsdel'UniversiteduQuebecaTrois-Rivieresv. l'UniversiteduQuebecaTrois-Rivieres;Laroqueetal.,mise'ncause(1993),101 D.L.R.(~th)494(S.C.C.),ReGreaterNiagaraTransitCommissionandAmalga- matedTransitUnion,Local 1582(1987),43D.L.R.(4th)71(Ont.Div.Ct.),Re SudburyMineWorke~s,iocal598&FalconbridgeNickelMinesLtd.(1955),6 L.A.C.263(Bigelow), ReCorporationoftheCityofTimmins(GoldenManor HomefortheAged)andCanadianUnionofPublicEmployees,Local1140(1995), 43L.A.C.(4th)35(Betchet:man),ITTContinentalBakingCompanyandBakery andConfectioneryWorkersInternationalUnionofAmerica,Local372-B 72-2 ARB18490(High),Babcock&Wilcox60LA778(Dworkin),RothandRothv. Roth,RothandStephens(1991)4O.R.(3d)740(Ont.Ct.,Gen.Div.);QandQv. MintoManagementLtd.etal.(1984),46O.R.(2d)756(Ont.H.C.),ReBarber HydraulicTurbineLtd.andUnitedSteelworkers(1978),19L.A.C.,(2d)247 (O'Shea),White,supra,decisiondatedJuly7,1997(Dissana~ake),R~Boardof EducationfortheCityofNorthYorkandOntarioPublicSchoolTeachers'Fed- eration,NorthYorkDistrict,unreportedawarddatedFebruary27,1997(Ken- nedy),CityofTorontoandCanadianUnionofPublicEmployees,Local79,unre- portedawarddatedDecember1,1998(Stanley),ReCanadaPostCorporation andCanadianUnionofPostalWorkers(Leavere)(1998),73L.A.C.(4th)129(M. Picher),andSopinka,LedermanandBryant,TheLawofEvidencein'Canada (Butterworths)at69ff. -10- Decision [19]InWhite,theemployerarguedbeforetheBoard(differently·constituted) thatagrievor'sconvictionforsexualassaultshouldbetreatedasconclusive proof,oralternatelyaspr~mafacieevidence,thathewasguiltyofthatcrime. Theboardruledth~tthe convictionswouldbere.ceivedi~to evidence,butnotas .conclusiveproofnor,itseemed,asprimafacieevidenceofguilt.TheDivisional Courtheldthatarulingthattheconvictionswouldnotbetreatedasprimafacie evidenceofguiltflewinthefaceofthedecisionsoftheOntarioCourt'ofAppeal _inDemeterv.BritishPacificLifeInsuranceCo.(1984),48O.R.(2d)266andRe DelCoreandOntarioCollegeofPharmacists(1985),51O.R.(2d)1.Itsaidthat ...theBoardoughttohavemadeitclear'thattheconvictionwouldbe receivedandstandasprimafacieevidenceofthesexualassault..'. ThecourtdidnotdirectthattheBoardtreattheconvictionasconclusiveevi- denceofthatthegrievortherewasguiltyofthecrimeofwhichhehadbeencon- victed.Itdidnotsaywhatitmeantby''primafacieevidence."Thatmustbein- ferredfromth~court'sreferencetothedecisionsof-theOntarioCourtofAppeal inDemeterandDelCore. -....'. [20]Thecombinedeffect.ofthedecisionsofMr.JusticeOslerandtheCourtof AppealinDemeteristhatacertificateofconvictionisadmissibleinasubsequent civilproceedingasprimafacieproofthattheconvictedpersonwasguiltyofthe crimeofwhichthatpersonwasconvicted.Thatevidenceis"subjecttorebuttal, bythe[convictedperson]onthemerits"unlessthecivilproceedingconstitutes anabuseofprocess,inwhichcasethecivilcourtwillrefusetoentertainarebut- talunless"allegedfreshevidenceorevidenceoffraudor.collusion"bringsthe casewithinanexceptiontotheabuseofprocessdoctrine:seepa:r:agraphs34to 37ofmydecisionofSeptember15,1998. [21]InDelCore,theCourtofAppealheldthatadisciplinecommitteeacted properlywhenittreatedacertificateofconvictionasevidenceoftheconvicted person'sguilt.Thecourtwasdividedaboutwhethersuchevidencewouldhave -11- opentorebuttalinthecircumstances(therehavingbeennoattempttorebutit intheproceedingsbeforethedisciplinecommittee).Themajoritythoughitwas opentorebuttal.Mr.JusticeBlairagreedwithMr.JusticeHouldenthatthecer- tificateofconvictionwasprimafaciebutnotconclusiveevidenceinotherpro- ceedingsofthecommissionofthecrime,andadded(atp.22)that Sinceevidenceofpriorconvictionsaffordsonlyprimafacie.proofofguilt itfollowsthatitseffectmaybecounteredinavarietyofways.Forexample, theconvictionmaybechallengedoritseffectmitigatedbyexplanationofthe. circumstancessurroundingtheconviction.Itisbothunnecessaryand impI:udenttoattemptanyexhaustiveenumeration.ThelawofOntariois onlynowemergingfromthelongshadowcastoveritbythedeCisionin Hollingtonv.Hewthorn,supra.Itwouldbehighlyundesirabletoreplacethis arbitraryrulebyprescribingequallyrigidrulestoreplaceit.Thelawshould remainflexibletopermititsapplicationtothevaryingcircumstancesof particularcases. [22]TheDivisionalCourtdecisioninWhitewentonestepbeyondDelCore, holdingthatanadministrativetribunalnotonlycanbutmusttreatacertificate ofconvictionasprimafacieevidenceofthecommissionofthecrime.Idonot thinkthephrase''primafacieevidence"inthatdecisioncanbetakentomean anythirigdifferentfromwhatitmeantinDemeterandthemajorityjudgmentsin DelCore:evidencethatisopentorebuttal"onthemerits."IdonotthinktheDi- visionalCourt'sreferencetopublicpolicycanbetakenasqualifyingwhatthe CourtofAppealhassaidabouttheopportunitytocountertheeffectofaconvlc- tion. [23]Theemployerarguesforarulethattheevidenceaffordedbyaconviction cannotberebuttedexceptbyevidencethatwasunavailabletotheconvictedper- sonatthetimeofthetrialoranyappeal.Theexistenceofsucharulewould largelyeliminatethedistinctionthattheCourtofAppealhasmadebetweena proceedinginwhichtheattempt~.qrebuttal isanabuseofprocessandonein whichitisnot.Itsexistencewouldalsobeinconsistentwiththeadmonitionof Mr.JusticeBlairinDelCoreagainstadumbratingrigidrulesaboutthewaysin whichtheevidentiaryeffectofaconvictioncanorcannotbecountered.Iamnot persuadedthatIamboundbyaruleofthesortcontendedforbytheemployer. j -12- [24]Havingsaidthat,whatremainsoftheemployer;smotionamountstoan invitationtoassesswhetheritwillbeatallpossiblefortheuniontocounterthe evidentiaryeffectoftheconvictionsbypresentingarebuttalofthe'sortcontem- platedbytheparticularsithasdelivered.Iacceptthattheboard'sdiscretion withrespecttoprocedureisbroadenoughthatIcouldenterintothatassess- ! mentifIthoughtitappropriatetodoso.Ihaveconcludedthatthatwouldnotbe anappropriateprocess. [25]AccordiiJ.gtotranscriptsputbeforemebytheemployer,thegrievor'strial incriminalcourtbeganinJune1994,followingtwoattendancesonpreliminary motionsinMay1994.BetweenJuneandNovember1994,inclusive,thecourt heardtheevidenceoftheprosecutionandthedefenceoverthecourseofsixtrial dates,andargumentsabouttheadmissionofevidenceononeotherdate.Final submissionsoccupiedoneortwofurtherdays,andthetrialjudge'sfindingsof guiltwerepronouncedonMarch27,1995.Bycontrast,thisproceedingbeganin December1996,hasthusfaroccupiedninehearingdays,andhasnotconcluded. Twoofthosehearingdayswerespenthearingevidencewithrespecttoprelimi- naryissues,someofwhichmayalsobearonthemerits,andpartofanother,day wasspenthearingtheonewitnesscalledbythe'employeraspartofitscasein chief.Theother6hearingdayshavebeenexpendedonproceduralandprelimi- narymattersarisinginonewayoranotherfromtheemployer'scontinuedinsis- tencethattheunionshouldbeprecludedorrestrictedinitsattempttocounter theevidentiaryeffectofthegrievor'sconvictions. [26]Asamatterofprocess,andfromalabourrelationsperspective,Ithink theappropriatecoursenowistohearanyrelevantevidencethattheunionhas tooffertorebuttheconvictions(aswellasevidenceconcerningissuesotherthan thegrievor'sguilt),andanyproperreplyevidenceofferedbytheemployer,and onlyafterwardsdeterminewhetherornottheevidentiaryeffectoftheconviction hasbeencounteredbytherebuttal.Thatispreferabletoruminatingnowabout r whethertheunioncoulddosoifgiventheopportunity. -13- [27]Theextenttowhichtheunion'srebuttalevidencewasalsobeforethe judgewhoconvictedthegrievorwillbearelevantconsiderationinmakingthat .determination.Dependingonthecircumstances,theweighttobegiventorebut-. talevidencenotpreviouslyputbeforethatjudgemaybeaffectedbywhetherthe grievorcouldhaveputitbeforehim.Thesematters,andthepossiblesignificance ofmattersthatthegrievorclaimsnottohaveknownatthetimeofhiscriminal trial,arebestassessedaftertheevidenceisin. [28]Forthesereasons,onMay14,1999Iadvisedcounselbyfaxthat· Forreasonstobedeliveredatalaterdate,IamnotpersuadedthatIshould makeanyoftherulings,determinationsororderssoughtbytheemployerin Mi'.Strang'sNoticeofMotionandhissubmissionsatthehearingsof February23and24,1999.Thegrievor'sconvictionsareprimafacie,butnot conclusive,evidencethatthegrievorcommittedthecrimesforwhichhewas. convicted.Whenthehearingresumes,theunionwillhaveanopportunityto rebutthatevidence.. DatedatTorontothis25thdayofMay,1999.