GSB#2014-2613, 2014-2614, 2014-2615, 2014-2616, 2014-2617, 2014-2637, 2014-2638
UNION#2014-0108-0046, 2014-0108-0047, 2014-0108-0048, 2014-0108-0049,
2014-0108-0050, 2014-0108-0053, 2014-0108-0054
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
BETWEEN
Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Langford et al)
Union
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Employer
BEFORE
Barry Stephens
Vice-Chair
FOR THE UNION
Ed Holmes Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel
FOR THE EMPLOYER
Omar Shahab Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel
HEARING
July 17, 2015
Decision
1At the beginning of the hearing on July 9, 2015 I was advised there was a media representative from the CBC present in the hearing room. He has attended all subsequent hearing dates. I was also advised that there has been a publication ban issued by the criminal court with respect to related criminal proceedings.
2It would not be appropriate for the grievance arbitration process to undermine a court-ordered ban, and potentially prejudice the criminal proceedings. Therefore, I ordered a ban on the publication of any of the evidence presented in the hearing before me. I issued an interim order on July 10, 2015 confirming an interim publication ban, pending a review of the actual court order.
3I have now had an opportunity to review the terms of the court order, which was issued under s. 486(1) of the Criminal Code, and which was endorsed on the information submitted by the police in the criminal proceedings. I have confirmed that the order deals with the criminal matter that is the subject of the grievance before me, i.e. the death of inmate Adam Kargus on October 31 or November 1, 2013. The order also relates to the criminal proceedings involving one of the grievors in the case before me. Although the order relates to one grievor, the evidence under consideration is part of one continuous narrative. It is reasonable to expect that much of the same narrative would form part of the criminal trial. It is my view that the publication of any evidence, even evidence restricted to the actions of others that form part of the narrative, would have the effect of undermining the publication ban as ordered by the criminal court. A copy of the court order is attached. At the request of the union, I have redacted the names of those involved in the court proceeding. The employer did not oppose the union’s request to redact the names.
4These names are part of the court record.
5The publication ban with respect to the matter before me is hereby confirmed for the duration of the criminal trial publication ban. The parties made no submissions with respect to a ban on the publication of evidence for any reason other than the criminal trial ban, and this order does not impact any other legal issues, should they arise at some later point in these hearings.
6The hearing will continue on the dates previously scheduled with the parties.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 28th day of July 2015.