GSB# 2025-00746; 2025-00977

UNION# 25-0108-007; 2025-0108-0007

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Kennett et al)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General)

Employer

BEFORE

Brian P. Sheehan

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Alex Andrews Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Danielle Rose Treasury Board Secretariat Employee Relations & Negotiations Employee Relations Advisor

HEARING

October 8, 2025

Decision

1The Employer and the Union at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre (EMDC) agreed to participate in the Expedited Mediation/Arbitration process in accordance with the negotiated Protocol. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire Protocol. Suffice to say, that the parties have agreed to a True Mediation/Arbitration process wherein each party provides the Arbitrator with their submissions setting out the facts and the authorities they respectively will rely upon. This decision is issued in accordance with the Protocol and with Article 22.16 of the collective agreement; and it is without prejudice or precedent.

2Ryan Basdeo and Lucas Kennett (the “Grievors”) are Correctional Officers (COs) employed at the EMDC. They were both issued 5-day suspensions for an incident involving an inmate on December 22, 2024.

3The Grievors were working together on that day in the Male Admitting and Discharge Department. At approximately 5PM, they were involved in admitting and performing a search on an inmate (Inmate C).

4In their respective Use of Force Occurrence Reports, both Grievors indicated that Inmate C had a history of bringing illegal substances into the EMDC.

5As part of the admission process, CO Basdeo oversaw a strip search of Inmate C in the Male Strip Bay. As the strip search was concluding, and initially unbeknownst to CO Basdeo, Inmate C threw a small plastic bag beside a rolled-up white towel that was on a bench behind him. When the Grievors became aware of the plastic bag and confronted Inmate C, according to the Grievors, he grabbed the bag and placed a substance in his mouth.

6CO Kennett moved towards Inmate C and, according to his Use of Force Occurrence Report, “utilized a closed fist distraction strike” to Inmate C’s face to “attempt to save his life as I thought he was trying to kill himself.” CO Basdeo, in his Use of Force Occurrence Report, claimed that he “provided a closed fist distraction strike” to the left side of Inmate C’s face “in an attempt to get him to spit out the substance.”

7In both of their Occurrence Reports, the Grievors indicated that they acted because they were of the view that Inmate C may have been trying to commit suicide by ingesting the substance in question.

8The Employer set out three grounds for issuing the five-day suspensions to the Grievors: First, with respect to the strikes to Inmate C’s face, it was found that they constituted an unnecessary and excessive use of force, and that there were other options that the Grievors could have used if they were of the belief that the inmate was ingesting a substance.

9Secondly, it was claimed that the Use of Force Occurrence Reports they respectively completed failed to provide an accurate and precise description of the incident, as both reports “failed to report or adequately report the inmate’s actions, your partner’s actions and your rationale for using force.” With respect to this allegation, the Employer cited the fact that common to both reports, was the failure to report the strike administered by their respective partners.

10The third cited reason for the issued suspensions was that it was alleged the Grievors engaged in “Code of Silence” behaviour by colluding in their reporting that Inmate C “was attempting suicide by ingesting drugs to justify their use of force.” Supporting this finding, the Employer pointed out that the Grievors at the time of the incident failed to report to the Area Sergeant their belief that Inmate C was trying to commit suicide and also neglected to follow up by having Inmate C seen by a nurse regarding the alleged suicide attempt.

11Even after multiple viewings of the relevant video, both in real time and slow motion, a complete picture of the Grievors’ use of force against Inmate C during the conclusion of his strip search remains not entirely clear. That being said, the video does suggest the following:

• The search was primarily conducted by CO Basdeo.

• Inmate C proceeded to remove all his clothes, except for a knee brace on his left leg.

• Unbeknownst to CO Basdeo, as Inmate C removes the brace, he throws the small plastic bag that lands beside a white towel on the bench behind him.

• Pursuant to the request by CO Basdeo, Inmate C opens his mouth wide to demonstrate that he is not hiding anything.

• Inmate C then turns around and with his back to CO Basdeo, picks up the small plastic bag next to the towel.

• CO Basdeo apparently notices Inmate C picking up the bag as he moves towards Inmate C, who slowly turns around and hands the bag to CO Basdeo.

• Inmate C then turns around again, and although it's not clear, it appears he may be doing something with his hands.

• CO Basdeo begins moving towards Inmate C. CO Kennett, who has now come into view, also advances towards Inmate C. An intense struggle then erupts between the Grievors and Inmate C.

• Inmate C is pushed into a corner, and it appears that the Grievors are looking down towards Inmate C’s hands.

• The plastic bag falls to the floor near CO Basdeo, who kicks it to his left. It is then picked up by CO Kennett.

• As the struggle continues, CO Kennett moves directly towards Inmate C and throws a short, deliberate strike at Inmate C’s jaw.

• CO Basdeo then throws a punch to the side of Inmate C’s face, causing Inmate C to slump onto the bench.

• The struggle then persists for a while, with Inmate C on the ground.

• Inmate C is then picked up to his feet by the Grievors and appears to be verbally admonished by CO Kennett, after which, the Grievors and Inmate C leave the Male Strip Bay.

12It is accepted that the Grievors may have genuinely believed that Inmate C was still concealing contraband after handing over the plastic bag to CO Basdeo; however, based on a balance of probabilities, it has been determined that the video does not support the Grievors' claim that Inmate C ingested something. While the ability to fully see Inmate C is somewhat limited at times due to the positioning of the Grievors, there is no evidence suggesting that Inmate C put something in his mouth. Moreover, the video definitively disproves CO Kennett’s claim that immediately after Inmate C became aware that the presence of the plastic bag had been detected, he reached and “placed the unknown substance in his mouth.” The video also does not support CO Basdeo’s claim that Inmate C “opened the bag close to his face and ingested some of the substance.” As previously outlined, the video indicates that Inmate C handed the bag to CO Basdeo, and that when the bag initially fell to the ground after the start of the struggle, it was still intact.

13The aftermath of the struggle also does not support the Grievors' claim that Inmate C was ingesting a drug-like substance. At the end of the struggle, neither the Grievors nor Inmate C reacted in any manner, whatsoever, that would suggest Inmate C had ingested such a substance. There is no evidence of Inmate C spitting out anything, nor any indication that the Grievors addressed the possibility that Inmate C had just swallowed a drug. In this regard, the Grievors did not immediately seek medical assistance for Inmate C, nor did they report to their Area Sergeant that he may have, in their view, been attempting to commit suicide.

14It is also not readily apparent how striking Inmate C in his face would have necessarily caused him to spit out the substance he had purportedly ingested.

15It is accepted that the Grievors were dealing with a difficult situation. Not only was Inmate C attempting to bring contraband into the institution surreptitiously, but even after being caught doing so, he continued to act in a suspicious manner. However, it has been concluded that the Grievors' striking of Inmate C was, in the circumstances, an unnecessary and excessive use of force.

16Additionally, as suggested in the above discussion, the Use of Force Occurrence Reports submitted by the Grievors presented a narrative that is fundamentally inconsistent with the nature of the incident shown on the video.

17Arguably, the most revealing aspect of the questionable nature of the Use of Force Occurrence Reports submitted by the Grievors is that their respective reports do not indicate that their partner also struck Inmate C.

18Based on the above, it has been determined that the five-day suspensions issued to the Grievors were appropriate and reasonable. Therefore, the grievances are hereby dismissed.