Court File and Parties
4199-97-G International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen and The Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen and International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Local 20, Oshawa, Applicant v. Gay Construction Limited and Gay Company Limited, Richard H. Gay Holdings Ltd. c.o.b. as Gay Property Management and Jarigay Investments Limited, Responding Parties.
4200-97-R International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen and The Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen and International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Local 20, Oshawa, Applicant v. Gay Construction Limited and Gay Company Limited, Richard H. Gay Holdings Ltd. c.o.b. as Gay Property Management and Jarigay Investments Limited, Responding Parties.
3028-99-G Lake Ontario District Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Applicant v. Gay Construction Company Limited, Gay Company Limited, Richard H. Gay Holdings Ltd. c.o.b. as Gay Property Management, Jarigay Investments Limited, Responding Parties.
3030-99-R Lake Ontario District Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Applicant v. Gay Construction Limited, Gay Company Limited, Richard H. Gay Holdings Ltd. c.o.b. as Gay Property Management, Jarigay Investments Limited, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 9, 2000
Decision
1At the conclusion of the examination in chief of the responding parties’ first witness on May 29th, the applicants requested an adjournment of the next day of hearing in order to prepare for their cross-examination of that witness. Counsel for the responding parties initially opposed the request but subsequently, during discussions among counsel outside of my presence, agreed to the applicants’ request. The Board had attempted to canvass dates for the continuation of the hearing, but the parties were unable to agree to the seven days of hearing that the Board and the parties estimated would be necessary to finish the hearing of this matter. Subsequently, the Registrar advised the parties of the Board’s available dates and asked them to agree to seven days.
2Counsel for the applicants advised the Board that the parties had been able to agree to only three days at the beginning of January and needed four more days fixed. Counsel for the responding parties responded by indicating that his office had erred when it had indicated availability at the beginning of January and also submitted that scheduling all seven days in close proximity to one another was more efficient for the Board and the parties. Counsel for the responding parties also pointed out that the parties’ agreement with respect to continuing liability for damages was something that had not been brought to the Board’s attention when the parties had agreed to the adjournment of the hearing. Under these circumstances, whatever agreement the parties reached with respect to continuing liability for damages is irrelevant to my consideration of the parties’ position with respect to fixing additional dates for hearing.
3Counsel for the responding parties advised that his next witness would not be available over the winter. He said that the witness would not be available during January, February or March, 2001. Counsel for the applicants suggest that the cross-examination of the responding parties’ first witness could be completed in January and then the matter would continue when that witness was available. In my view, since the case would not be completed in any event until the spring of 2001, there is no utility in scheduling three days of hearing in January. While I recognize that the applicants are justifiably concerned about delay, scheduling three days in January over the objection of counsel for the responding parties would not significantly shorten the time by which the case would be completed.
4Since the cross-examination can take place before the responding parties’ next witness is available, I have fixed the following dates for hearing at the end of March and the beginning of April. The hearing in these matters are now fixed for March 29 and 30, April 2, 3, 4, 10, 11 and 12. If either counsel have any objection to the dates fixed, they must advise the Board within two days of the date of this decision.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board