GSB#2012-3907

UNION#2013-0338-0001

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Grievor)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Ken Petryshen

Vice-Chair

FOR THE UNION

Christopher Bryden Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Barristers and Solicitors Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Robert Fredericks Ministry of Government Services Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

July 3, 2014

Decision

1The grievance before me concerns the termination of the Grievor’s employment in 2012. The Grievor had been employed as a Probation & Parole Officer. This proceeding has had many hearing days thus far and will require a number of additional hearing days. The Employer has completed its evidence.

2At the hearing on July 3, 2014, the Employer requested that I not entertain certain evidence that the Union intends to call on July 10, 2014, the next scheduled hearing date. Union counsel had advised counsel opposite that the Union would be calling a police officer as its first witness on July 10, as well as the nature of the testimony he expected to elicit from this witness. I heard extensive and thorough submissions from each counsel on the question of whether I should permit the Union to call the police officer having regard to the testimony she is expected to give, the timing of relevant events and the issues that are before me in this proceeding. In support of the Employer’s position that the evidence the Union intends to call is not relevant, cogent or helpful in determining the issues in dispute, Employer counsel relied on Re Laurentian Hospital and Ontario Nurses’ Assn. (1997), 1997 CanLII 25110 (ON LA), 67 L.A.C. (4^th) 289 (Pineau) and Re Greater Niagara Transit Commission and Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1582, 1987 CanLII 4267 (ON HCJ), [1987] O.J. No. 835 (Div. Ct.). The Union takes the position that the testimony of the police officer is important to certain aspects of its case and is at least arguably relevant. In addition to referring me to section 48(1) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, Union counsel relied on the following decisions: Université du Québec à Trois‑Rivières v. Larocque, 1993 CanLII 162 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 471; OPSEU (Union) and Ministry of Government Services (2012), GSB No. 2002-2441 (Petryshen); OPSEU (Sin) and Liquor Control Board of Ontario (2008), GSB No. 2005-3601 (Dissanayake) and Re Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital and Ontario Nurses’ Assn. (2010), 195 L.A.C. (4^th) 383 (Crljenica).

3I have taken the time to carefully review and consider the submissions on the Employer’s motion to exclude the testimony of the police officer. Given that July 10 will soon be upon us and a quick decision on the motion is required, I have accepted the invitation of both parties to provide a ruling on the motion without reasons. I will therefore not set out the anticipated testimony of the police officer, the factual context for the motion and the detailed submissions of counsel.

4The essential question before me on this motion is whether the testimony the Union intends to elicit from the police officer is arguably relevant. It is my conclusion that the testimony at issue is at least arguably relevant. The Employer’s motion is hereby dismissed. Of course, counsel will have the opportunity during final argument to comment on the weight, if any, to be given to the testimony of the police officer.