Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-1391.Khadr.00-09-07 Decision o NTARW EMPU) YES DE LA COURONNE CROW"! EMPLOYEES DE L 'ONTARW . . GRIEVANCE COMMISSION DE SETTLEMENT REGLEMENT BOARD DES GRIEFS 180 DUNDAS STREET WEST SUITE 600 TORONTO ON M5G 128 TELEPHONBTELEPHON~ (416) 326-1388 180 RUE DUNDAS OUEST BUREAU 600, TORONTO (ON) M5G 128 FACSIMILBTELECOPIE. (416) 326-1396 GSB #1391/99 OPSEU # OCC-398 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT Before THE GRIEVANCE SElTLEMENT BOARD BElWEEN Umted Steelworkers of Amenca (Khadr) Grievor - and - The Crown 111 RIght of Ontano (Ottawa Congress Centre) Emplover BEFORE N DIssanavake Vice Charr FOR THE Robert Henderson UNION USW A Staff Representative FOR THE Jacques A. Emond EMPLOYER Counsel Emond HanIden Barnsters & SohcItors HEARING April 13 Juh 31 August 24 and August 30 2000 DECISION This lS a grievance wherein, the grlevor, Mr Gamal Khadr, alleges that he was discharged without just cause When the hearing commenced on April 13, 2000, the parties engaged In discussions as a result of which the grlevor signed a statement to the following effect On May 29, 1999, JP Miner and I had a verbal argument while working In the corridor In front of the Housemen.s office I finished my shift shortly afterwards and was met by Miner outside near the parking lot We resumed our argument, and it quickly became more heated than was the earlier exchange At one point, a shoving match ensued, and I responded by punching him A full-blown fight then ensued At no time was it my intent to cause JP any lnJ ury, and I regret that such an lnJury may have occurred In the 8 (eight) years that I have worked at the Congress Centre, I have never before been involved In such an incident, and I am confident that it will never happen agaln For its part, the employer stipulated at the hearing as follows In Vlew of the letter dated April 13, 2000 submitted by the grlevor and without admission of any liability with regard to any outstanding lssues, the employer agrees to reinstate the grlevor in his former position effective April 13, 2000 His name would be placed on the part-time seniority list in the seventh 2 position He will be entitled to accept available work on the schedule posted on Tuesday April 18, 2000 for work commenclng the week of April 23, 2000 On consent, the Board ordered that the grlevor be reinstated In accordance with the foregoing The employer having complied, the Board proceeded to deal with the outstanding lssues which were two-fold (1 ) Whether the Board should find the grlevance to be inarbitrable because it did not comply with the time restrictions set out In the collective agreement (2 ) If the grlevance was arbitrable, whether there was just cause for any discipline and if so what the appropriate discipline was By way of background, the Ottawa Congress Centre lS a facility that rents out banquet facilities and provides food and beverages for conventions, weddings, trade shows, etc The grlevor was employed as a part-time banquet waiter He had approximately 8 years of serVlce with the employer at the time of his discharge, which was effected by the following letter dated June 2, 1999 3 On Saturday, May 29, 1999, while on your scheduled shift with the banquet department, an altercation occurred between yourself, Chad Khadr, and Jean Pierre Miner At the start of the altercation, pushing and shoving was observed between yourself and Jean Pierre This resulted in a verbal argument between the two of you and Chad Khadr Other waiters intervened at this point to settle you down and prevent further incidents Since you were finishing your shift, you punched out and went to change When you were leaving the building, you were observed by other individuals to agaln being involved In an altercation with Jean Pierre which resulted in a fight occurring between the two of you According to witnesses statements and after review of our video footage of the incident, it lS our understanding that you instigated the fight and with the aid of Chad Khadr, knocked Jean Pierre to the ground and injured Jean Pierre Other individuals observing the fight stepped In to break up the incident and you and Chad subsequently left the property On Monday, May 31, 1999, you arrived at work and were asked to provide details of the incident to Michael Marko The unlon steward, Mario St-Amand, was also present at this meeting You were then asked to leave the property and told that you would be suspended pending the results of the investigation of the incident Several hours later on Monday, May 31, you returned to the Centre with a written statement of your version of the events on Saturday, May 29, 1999 Your statement contradicts the information we have received from the witnesses to this incident It lS the policy of the Ottawa Congress Centre that employees may be subject to discipline, including discharge, for fighting threatening or verbally abus ing, ' , , another employee section or lnJurlng as per 26 of the Personnel Policy and Procedure Manual We have now completed our investigation of this incident after revlewlng your statement, the statements of all the witnesses, and the video tape 4 footage Effective June 2, 1999, your employment with the ottawa Congress Centre lS terminated The Centre cannot condone this type of violent incident In the workplace You will be provided with your final pay, including any outstanding vacation pay and your record of employment on the next regularly scheduled pay Timeliness and Arbitrability The employer argued that the present grlevance lS inarbitrable because of a number of defects The relevant provlslons of the collective agreement are as follows Article 8 - Grievance Procedures 8 01 It lS the mutual desire of the parties hereto that complaints of employees shall be adjusted as quickly as possible step 4 In the event the grlevance lS not settled at step 3, the party having carriage of the grlevance may apply within twenty (20) working days of the date the decision was received to the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board for a hearing of the grlevance Article 9 - Discipline/Discharqe cases 9 02 A claim by an employee that he or she has been discharged without just cause shall be treated as a grlevance and shall commenced at step 2 of article 8 01 provided a written grlevance signed by the employee lS 5 presented to Human Resources within five (5) working days after the discharge A union steward or Local Union Officer will be permitted to attend the meeting held pursuant thereto, with Human Resources Failure to slqn the qrlevance Article 9 02 envlsages that a claim that an employee has been discharged without just cause shall be treated as a grlevance provided a written grlevance -signed by the employee- lS presented The evidence lS that the grlevance herein was In writing but unsigned by the grlevor It was only signed by a union official The employer submits that In the circumstances there lS no valid grievance before the Board Assuming, without finding that the employer-s posi tion would otherwise have merit, In light of the evidence I find that In any event such an irregularity has been waived by the employer The evidence lS clear that the objection to an unsigned grlevance was not raised any time prlor to the commencement of this hearing In several pleces of correspondence to the unlon the employer reserved the right to object to the arbitrability of the grlevance on the grounds of untimeliness However, there was no mention whatsoever of any irregularity based on the fact 6 that the grlevor had not signed the grlevance This objection therefore lS dismissed Timeliness of referral to arbitration The time limits for referral of a grlevance to the Grievance Settlement Board for arbitration are set out In article 8 01 - Step 4 The employer did not allege, and there lS no evidence to establish that the instant grlevance was not filed within 20 working days of the date the employer gave its decision at Step 3 However, the employer made an argument -by analogy- based on the judgement of the Ontario Divisional Court In Service Employees International Union, Local 204 v Leisureworld Nursinq Homes Ltd judgement dated April 17, 1997 In that case the court held that the jurisdiction conferred on arbitrators under S 48 (16) of the Labour Relations Act, to grant relief from time limitations regarding grlevances did not include jurisdiction to grant relief from time limitations regarding arbitration referrals As I understand it, the employer-s argument -by analogy- to that judgement lS as follows There was delay In filing the grlevance Had the unlon filed In a timely 7 fashion, the subsequent steps In the grlevance procedure would have occurred In accordance with the collective agreement at dates earlier than what actually happened Had that been done, the 20 working day limitation In step 4 for referral to arbitration would have expired at a much earlier time By delaying the filing at the front end, the union breached all of the subsequent time limits including the time limit for referral to arbitration, because the entire process was delayed In Re Leisureworld, the court drew a fundamental distinction between grlevances and arbitration It also drew a distinction between delays with regard to grlevances and delays In referring to arbitration It was held that while an arbitrator may extend time-limits under S 48 (16) with regard to the former, there was no such jurisdiction with regard to the latter The employer-s argument that by failing to file a grlevance In a timely manner, the union -in effect- failed to meet the time limits for referral to arbitration 19nores this fundamental distinction recognized by the court The collective agreement lS very specific about the time limits for referral to 8 arbitration, l e 20 days from the date of the step 3 decision There lS no evidence that the unlon had failed to meet that time-limit Indeed the Board has no evidence as to when the referral to arbitration was made Therefore, the employer-s argument fails The untimeliness related only to the grlevance stage and S 48 (16) applies The Board should proceed to consider whether it ought to exerClse its jurisdiction thereunder In the particular circumstances Delay In Filinq The grlevor was discharged on Wednesday June 2, 1999 Article envlsages that a grievance will be presented -within five (5) working days after the discharge- Thus counting 5 working days (week days) the grlevance to be timely ought to have been filed on or before June 10, 1999 Ms Fiona Livingstone, Controller of the ottawa Congress Centre, testified that when she returned to work from vacation on July 26, 1999 she first found the grlevance (which was undated) along with several other grlevances and an undated coverlng letter from Mr Chris Proulx, local unlon chair, addressed to Banquet Manager, Mr Glen McCallum On the basis 9 of that evidence, it was suggested that the grlevance was filed only on July 26 However, Mr Proulx unequivocally testified that he personally presented the instant grlevance to Mr McCallum on July 2, 1999 because Ms Livingstone was on vacation at the time Mr McCallum did not testify to contradict Mr Proulx In the circumstances, I conclude that the grlevance was filed on July 2, 1999 Given the earlier finding that article 9 02 envisaged that the grievance be filed by June 10, 1999, the grlevance was still untimely The unlon readily accepted that I note that the union did not argue that the time limit In article 9 02 was not mandatory Its sole argument was that despite the untimeliness, I should selze jurisdiction In the circumstances In effect, the unlon was seeking an extension of time limits under S 48 (16) of the Labour Relations Act That provision reads Except where a collective agreement states that this subsection does not apply, an arbitrator or arbitration board may extend the time for the taking of any step In the grlevance procedure under a collective agreement, despite the expiration of the time, where the arbitrator or arbitration board lS satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the extension and that the 10 opposite party will not be substantially prejudiced by the extension The union led evidence as to the reasons for not filing the grlevance In a timely manner Two explanations were offered First, the ' , of Mr Proulx handling lnexperlence In grlevances generally, and particularly In handling discharge grlevances Secondly, the concern Mr Proulx had that if he grieved on behalf of the grlevor, the employer may respond by also discharging Mr Miner, the other employee who was involved In the incident with the grlevor The evidence was that because of that concern, Mr Proulx kept postponing the filing of the grlevance, and only did so after he was instructed to do so by another union official Employer counsel submitted that the foregoing explanations do not constitute -reasonable grounds for extension- within the meaning of S 48 (16) He submitted that the union-s conduct had been so irresponsible that it had probably failed in its duty of fair representation under the Labour Relations Act, and that neither excuse offered had any validity In addition, counsel pointed out that the employer had in fact been prejudiced by the union -s failure to file the grlevance In a timely manner First, 11 he pointed to the evidence that because no timely grievance had been filed, the employer had not taken steps to preserve a video tape produced by a surveillance camera which had captured part of the altercation between the grlevor and the other employee It was submitted that this tape contained evidence relevant to support the employer-s case and that it was deprived of that evidence because of the delay on the union-s part Second, it was submitted that as a result of the union-s delay, the employer may become liable to a greater amount of compensation for lost wages, if the grlevance succeeds Counsel submitted that before an extension lS granted under S 48(16), the union must meet a two-fold test The Board must be satisfied (1 ) that there are reasonable grounds for the extension (2 ) that the opposing party will not be substantially prejudiced by the extension It was submitted that here neither test was met because the union offered no reasonable excuse and there was evidence of prejudice to the employer Thus, according to the employer, the unlon had not met either condition for an extension of time limits under S 48 (16) 12 I agree with the employer that the explanations provided by the unlon do not justify the delay The unlon was clearly negligent In that regard Similarly there has been some prejudice to the employer However, that lS not dispositive of the lssue S 48 (16) has not been interpreted as mandating a rigid two-fold test as suggested by the employer In a recent award In Re Reqional Municipality of Sudbury, (Dissanayake) dated August 30, 2000, I reviewed and adopted the interpretation placed on S 48 (16) by arbitrator Burkett In Re Becker Milk Company Ltd , (1978) 19 LAC (2d) 217 at pp 4-5 I wrote when exerclslng the discretion under section 48 (16) In circumstances where a time limit In a collective agreement had been breached, there must be a consideration and balancing of many factors Specifically, the fact that one party lS blameworthy and responsible for the delay, does not necessarily lead to a refusal to exerClse the discretion At p 219, the arbitrator set out the purpose of the section as follows The section lS designed to permit a hearing on the merits notwithstanding the terms of the collective agreement, where the conditions precedent to the exerClse of arbi tra tores discretion under the section have been satisfied Then at pp 220-21, he went on to explain the considerations involved In exerclslng the discretion under S 48 (16) as follows The exerClse of the equitable discretion vested In an arbitrator under S 37 (5a) of the Act requlres a consideration of at least three factors These are (i) the reason for 13 the delay given by the offending party, (ii) the length of the delay (iii) the nature of the grlevance If the offending party satisfies an arbitrator, notwithstanding the delay, that it acted with due diligence, then if there has been no prejudice the arbitrator should exercise his discretion in favour of extending the time-limits If, however, the offending party has been negligent or lS otherwise to blame for the delay, either In whole or In part, the arbitrator must nevertheless consider the second and third factors referred to above in deciding if reasonable grounds exist for an extension of the time-limits In so far as Re Pamour Porcup~ne M~nes Ltd (Schumacher D~ v~s~on) and U S W (1976) , 12 LAC (2d) 122 (Dunn) , stands for the proposition that the only factor to be considered lS the -reasonableness of the excuse- for the delay, I respectfully disagree The purpose of the section lS to alleviate against technical bars If the offending party has been negligent In its processlng of the grlevance but the delay has been of short duration an arbitrator would be permitted to rely on the short period of delay as constituting reasonable grounds for an extension If the grlevance involves the termination of an employee as distinct from some lesser form of discipline, this lS also an equitable consideration which must be taken into account, in deciding if there are reasonable grounds to extend the time-limits One arbitrator has gone so far as to state that In a discharge grlevance, there would have to be a very clear case of unexcused, unreasonable delay and prejudice to the employer before it would be proper to deprive the grievor of the right to a hearing on the merits 14 See Re L~ncoln Place Nurs~ng Home and Serv~ce Employees Un~ on, unreported, July 8, 1977 (Rayner) The term -reasonable qrounds for the extension- as found In S 37(5a) of the Act lS not synonymous with the reasonableness of excuse advanced by the offendinq party Havinq reqard to the purpose of the section the term carrles a broader siqnification which requlres the arbitrator to weiqh a number of facts, includinq but not necessarily restricted to those which have been set out above (Emphasis added) In the present case there are some relevant facts which weigh In favour of not exerclslng the Board-s discretion The lssue lS whether the Board should refuse to exerClse its discretion, when balancing these factors with other factors that favour extension as suggested In the case law The union -s conduct was clearly unjustified There lS no getting around that The Board does not attach much weight to the fact that the employer was deprived of the video tape evidence The evidence lS that as a matter of routine the surveillance videos are kept by the employer only for 30 days If a tape contained evidence relevant to an incident which led to the discharge of two bargaining unit employees as was the case here, it was not prudent for the employer to have destroyed that evidence despite any representations and delays on the part 15 of the unlon In filing a grlevance It should have known that despite the delays, the unlon may change its mind, file an untimely grlevance, and seek relief under S 48 (16) from the Grievance Settlement Board Besides, the Board does not find that the loss of that tape resulted In any real (or to use the language of S 48 (16) -substantial-) prejudice to the employer On all accounts the video showed the grlevor and Mr Miner argulng and shoving as they moved out of the camera range Mr Horace Roxborough, a Security Officer, testified clearly that he viewed the tape several times and that it did not show the grievor punch Mr Miner He testified that had he seen that, he would have included that In his occurrence report and taken steps to preserve the evidence Even if the Board lS to prefer Ms Livings tone-s tes timony, that was to the effect that the tape showed the grlevor take a swing but that the intended victim was outside the range of the camera The fact lS that at arbitration the union did not deny that the grievor punched Mr Miner, cutting his lip Nor did it dispute that the two men were shoving and arguing Therefore the admission of the taped evidence would have added very little 16 The prospect of additional liability lS a potential prejudice However, it lS not a real or insurmountable one because it can be dealt with by the Board taking into account the union-s delay In determining the quantum of damages if the grlevance were successful See, Re British Columbia Institute of Technoloqy, (1986) 27 LAC (3d) 56 (Kelleher) On the other side of the ledger, there are several factors which favour an extension of time limits First, the delay lS very short - approximately 3 weeks Most significantly, this lS a discharge grlevance On balance the Board concludes that In all of the circumstances it ought to exerClse its discretion and extend time limits S 48 (16) does not refer to any prejudice It envlsages that the employer will be -substantially prej udiced- The evidence does not support of finding that the employer will be substantially prejudiced because of the absence of the tape The only real prejudice to the employer will be addressed In assesslng damages if the union-s grlevance lS successful 17 It follows from all of the foregoing that the employer-s objection to arbitrability lS denied Issue of lust cause While this lS a discharge grlevance, as a result of the parties- agreement the grievor has been reinstated The dispute about just cause has therefore changed The employer no longer asserts just cause for the grievor-s discharge Rather, its position lS that the gr ievor-s conduct on May 29, 1999 constituted just cause for treating the period between the gr i evo res discharge on June 2, 1999 and April 13, 2000 when he was reinstated as a period of suspension without pay The union on the other hand submits that the Board should find that there was no just cause for any discipline The grievops discharge followed an incident which occurred on May 29, 1999 between the grlevor and a co-worker Mr J P Miner The union-s position lS based on an allegation that the employer had treated the grlevor In discriminatory fashion In that he was discharged, while Mr Miner received no discipline at all It lS the union-s position that both men were equal 18 participants In a physical and verbal altercation and that the grlevor deserved no harsher treatment than Mr Miner The Board agrees with the general proposition that if two employees were equally blameworthy and if other relevant considerations are e qu a I , they ought to be disciplined equally The lssue here lS whether that was the situation here I do not reVlew the evidence In any great detail It suffices to observe that following the incident the employer conducted an investigation which included the obtaining of witness statements from the grlevor and Mr Miner, as well as from several other employees who were In the vicinity at the time of the altercation Mr Miner.s statement substantially mirrored the testimony he gave before the Board on critical areas The grlevor did not testify However, he had provided a written statement to the employer in which he had essentially portrayed Mr Miner as the aggressor who initiated the whole altercation and himself as the victim reacting In self-defence Ms Livingstone testified that of all of the statements received, the gr i evo r.s statement was the only one that contradicted Mr Miner.s verSlon It concluded that In fact it 19 was the grievor who had been the aggressor who had initiated the altercation, and that Mr Miner was a victim who was defending himself Therefore, the employer decided to discharge the grievor but took no disciplinary action against Mr Miner Mr Miner was a casual employee with approximately 3 years of serVlce His testimony as to the incident was to the following effect The employees were clearing a banquet hall following a function He was carrYlng a tray In one hand and a tray jack In the other, and proceeding out of the banquet hall The grlevor was following behind Some people were obstructing the hallway which caused Mr Miner to slow down When this happened, the grievor pushed Mr Miner from behind Mr Miner laid down what he was carrying and pushed the grievor back The grlevor started to call Mr Miner names, which were described as -not very nice- Mr Miner replied in kind, calling names at the grlevor At this point a co-worker, Mr Chad Khadr, who was the gr i evo res nephew, joined In and warned Mr Miner not to -me s s with us or e I s e- The grlevor invited Mr Miner to step outside Mr Miner testified that at this point he was agitated also, but not as much as the grlevor His immediate reaction was to accept the grievor-s challenge He decided that he should clock 20 out if he was going outside He did so and followed the grlevor out According to Mr Miner as he went out he realized that it was foolish for two adults to behave this way He also became concerned about what the consequences would be on his job if he engaged in a fight He decided to calm the grievor down once he got outside and to -make peace- He tried to tell to the grlevor that they should resolve their dispute like adults and tried to calm him down However, the grlevor continued the verbal abuse and agaln started to push and shove him He pushed back the grievor also Then the grievor punched him, cutting his lip and causlng it to bleed Mr Miner testified that at this point he -really got mad- and decided that he should -attack back to protect myself- He grappled with the grlevor until they both ended up rolling on the ground At this point Mr Chad Khadr joined In the fray and kicked at Mr Miner, hitting him once on the head and twice on the back Some people intervened and broke up the fight The unlon conceded that the grlevor initiated the incident but argued that it was irrelevant Its emphasis was on the fact that both employees had equally shoved, pushed, hurled verbal 21 abuse, thrown punches and grappled Therefore, according to the unlon, both men were equally guilty and equally blameworthy I have no reason to not believe the uncontradicted evidence by Mr Miner as to what occurred In fact, I found him to be a credible witness He did not attempt to exaggerate the conduct of the grlevor and candidly admitted that he retaliated in kind Particularly In Vlew of the grievor-s failure to testify, I accept Mr Miner-s verSlon of events That verSlon establishes that the grlevor was clearly the aggressor and the initiator of verbal abuse and physical violence The employer-s conclusion In that regard was the correct one The Board disagrees that that fact lS irrelevant as the unlon suggests To illustrate, X lS gOlng about his business when y punches him once X retaliated by punching Y back once It lS ridiculous to suggest that the blameworthiness lS equal on both parties merely because each had thrown one punch The fact lS that had it not been for the gr i evo res conduct, there would have been no cause for Mr Miner to react There would have been no incident at all Based on his own evidence, Mr Miner was not totally blameless He was not an innocent and passive victim at the hands of the grlevor Once the grlevor initiated violence Mr Miner was provoked He 22 lost his temper and fought back not necessarily in self-defence Had the employer elected to do so, it would have had cause to lmpose some discipline on Mr Miner also However, that lS a far cry from the union-s position that Slnce Mr Miner received no discipline, the employer was not entitled to lmpose any discipline on the grlevor also The employer-s obligation lS only to treat equal culpability In similar fashion The level of culpability attributable to the grlevor far exceeds that attributable to Mr Miner The employer was entitled to tolerate an employee-s conduct In reacting to a violent attack by responding In kind, but treating as much more serlOUS the individual who precipitated the whole episode by initiating violence It lS trite to state that violence In the workplace lS a serlOUS and intolerable offence The grlevor not only engaged In such serlOUS misconduct but has Slnce shown little or no remorse I find the written statement he provided to the employer soon after the incident to be a total fabrication That lS a clear indication of an absence of a willingness to accept responsibility for his actions His first and only 23 expresslon of regret came when he provided a statement after this hearing commenced He cannot be given much credit for that because it came after it became very clear that his reinstatement hinged squarely on his preparedness to express some regret Even In that statement his expreSSlon of regret appears to be very reluctant He had the opportunity at the hearing to accept full responsibility for his conduct and to assure the employer and the Board that his conduct would not be repeated He did not take that opportunity The unlon submitted that at the time of the fight both men had clocked out It was also argued that the fight occurred outside the employer-s premlses On that basis the unlon attempted to depict the misconduct as off duty conduct occurrlng outside of the workplace, which lS less serlOUS The Board disagrees -The of f-du ty- and -off-premises- considerations are not technical requirements The rationale for the distinction lS that if misconduct lS engaged in by an employee while he lS off duty and In a location away from the workplace, it lS unconnected to his work and less of a concern to the employer This would be the case for example, where an employee engages In a brawl at a bar on his off day That rationale does not 24 apply here The whole incident commenced while Mr Miner was clearly working The grlevor was at the workplace at the time and therefore presumably also working The Board has no evidence about that Even if both men had clocked out before the final fight took place that does not make it off duty conduct for purposes of assesslng its serlousness Similarly, even if the union lS correct that the exact spot where the final fight took place was not legally part of the employer-s property it lS irrelevant The altercation clearly started inside the employer-s building before it continued outside Regardless of who owned legal rights to the exact spot where the fight took place, the evidence lS that that area was right outside the employer-s building and used exclusively by the employer-s employees The fact that technically, on a legal survey, it may have been just outside the employer~ premises lS irrelevant It does not make the fight -off-premises- for purposes of assesslng culpability I have considered the gr ievor-s discipline free serVlce of some 8 years However, I do not find that sufficient reason to order back wages In his favour I find that considering the serlousness of his misconduct and the gr ievor-s apparent lack of 25 wi llingnes s to accept responsibili ty for his mi sconduct, a substantial penalty was justified Also considering the need to provide a general deterrence against violence In the workplace, I find that the employer lS justified In treating the period from June 2, 1999 to April 13, 2000 as a period of suspenSlon without pay and without accumulation of seniority In the result, this grlevance lS hereby dismissed Dated at Hamilton, Ontario, this 7th day of September, 2000 ~p ":"110- ...... ~ . ~~ , ~ ..~ . -- - ~ ~ .. .... - Nimal V Dissanayake, Vice-Chair 26