Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1089 v. Doug Chalmers Construction Limited

File No.: 0547-00-G Before: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair, and Board Members G. Pickell and A. Haward. Decision of the Board: November 8, 2001

1. Counsel for the responding party advised the Board and the applicant by letter dated October 25, 2001 in accordance with the directions the Board had issued at the last day of hearing in this matter that he intended to introduce some additional documents and “if required,…would have a witness available at the next hearing date to deal with these documents.” That letter also stated that the documents “will be forwarded shortly”. We would observe that unless the parties agree that the Board should receive those documents as evidence without proof a witness would ordinarily be required to prove those documents so that they might be introduced into evidence.

2. Counsel for the applicant, by letter to the Board dated November 1, 2001, states he too had received that letter from counsel for the responding party “advising that he intends to call a witness at the next hearing to adduce further documents upon which his client relies”. Counsel requests that the Board direct the responding party to provide counsel for the applicant with a copy of those documents as soon as possible and to extend the time for informing the responding party and the Board whether he will be calling evidence in reply until after he receives those documents.

3. At the conclusion of the hearing in this matter, after having heard the testimony of the responding party’s first witness, counsel for the responding party was directed to advise the Board on or before October 26^th whether he would be calling any further evidence when the hearing resumed on December 17, 2001 and counsel for the applicant was directed to advise the Board on or before November 2^nd whether he would be calling any evidence in reply.

4. Counsel for the responding party did not identify whom that next witness might be nor did he indicate the nature of the documents that he wished to introduce. Until the applicant is apprised of that information (or at the very least, is provided with a copy of the documents that the responding party wishes to introduce) we accept that the applicant may not be able to determine whether he will be calling any evidence in reply.

5. Therefore, the Board hereby extends the time for the applicant to advise whether any evidence will be called in reply to five days after the date on which the responding party provides the applicant with a copy of the documents it wishes to introduce at the hearing. In any event, the responding party, if it has not already done so, must provide the applicant with a copy of those documents on or before November 16, 2001.

“Harry Freedman”

for the Board