€¦ · Web viewTHE ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE. Respondent. HELD BEFORE: ... 15 interview transcript that was audio taped ... Thank you very much. 25 Mr. Tapp. - 58

Tribunal File No.: 2010-07633-I

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

MD/lms B E T W E E N: MICHAEL JACK Applicant - and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO, AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF COMMUNITY SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND OPERATING AS THE ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE Respondent

HELD BEFORE: Keith Brennenstuhl, Vice-Chair HELD AT: Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 655 Bay Street 14th Floor Toronto, Ontario HELD ON: September 7, 2016

A P P E A R A N C E S: LLOYD TAPP -- for the Applicant MIMI SINGH } -- for the Respondent HEIDI BLUTSTEIN }

ALSO PRESENT: Michael Jack

- 2 -

INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS

PAGE NUMBER

General Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 57

MELVILLE RONALD JEROME CAMPBELL, affirmedExamination-in-Chief by Mr. Tapp . . . . . . . . 58 - 177

General Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 - 179

Index of Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 - 181Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

- 3 - General Discussion

1 --- upon convening at 9:30 a.m.

2 --- upon commencing at 9:40 a.m.

3

4 GENERAL DISCUSSION:

5 THE VICE-CHAIR: My name is Keith

6 Brennenstuhl. I'm vice-chair here at the Tribunal.

7 This is a matter that started in 2010. We're now

8 2016. I'm frankly quite concerned about the length

9 of time that has transpired from the time we first

10 started hearing this case until now. Memories fade

11 over a period of six years. I've had the parties...

12 Counsel, you may not know this, I've had the parties

13 in mediation, med-adj, two times, not successful.

14 I'm going to suggest we try one more time.

15 I don't see an end to this process, and,

16 frankly, I'm concerned. We have bifurcated this.

17 So we haven't heard anything with respect to remedy.

18 We're dealing with liability only. I've indicated

19 this before. I just want to reiterate it. My term

20 as a vice-chair here at the Tribunal expires in

21 eleven months. I'm not so sure we will be able to

22 complete this case the way it's going within eleven

23 months.

24 I'm not sure what the Rules are with respect

25 to what happens when my term expires. In this case,


1 it's still outstanding. Do I continue with it? I

2 would have to be reappointed, I suppose. Or does it

3 have to start over again with a new member? I'm not

4 sure what the Rules are around that. You may know

5 better than I do. I'm not sure.

6 Anyway, that's the situation. I invite the

7 parties to try med-adj again. What are your

8 thoughts, Mr. Tapp?

9 MR. TAPP: Certainly, Mr. Vice-Chair, I

10 appreciate you giving me the opportunity to comment.

11 Is this an appropriate time to deal with any

12 preliminary issues that arose at the conclusion of

13 the last set of dates or after proposed mediation?

14 THE VICE-CHAIR: After proposed

15 mediation...

16 MR. TAPP: And before the commencement?

17 THE VICE-CHAIR: Yes.

18 MR. TAPP: Okay. In that case, I can

19 reassure you that these are the...counsel undertook

20 to bring the six crucial witnesses, and this has been

21 decided on during at least two case management

22 telephone conference calls. I can assure you it is

23 our intention to complete them, possibly even before

24 the end of...following week, Friday, which is why we

25 specifically requested for a rather lengthier block


1 of time than the usual five days. And you were

2 gracious enough to accommodate that. So, keeping in

3 line with that, I reiterate our assurance, subject to

4 what counsel has to say.

5 THE VICE-CHAIR: But the question is

6 mediation at this point.

7 MR. TAPP: Certainly we will try it. We

8 have entertained it in the past.

9 THE VICE-CHAIR: I mentioned that we have

10 gone into med-adj at least two times.

11 MR. TAPP: Absolutely.

12 THE VICE-CHAIR: Counsel, med-adj?

13 MS. SINGH: Yes, Mr. Vice-Chair. In

14 fact, I have clients here who are in a position to

15 instruct, and the OPP would be most open, obviously,

16 to participating in med-adj.

17 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay, very good. So

18 we're going to spend some time in med-adj. You know

19 the routine. I'm going to find another room, and we

20 will have separate rooms, and I will do some shuttle

21 diplomacy. And maybe to the surprise of everyone, we

22 can find some sort of resolution. So let me get

23 another room. We have signed med-adj agreements...

24 MR. TAPP: In the past.

25 THE VICE-CHAIR: ...in the past. I'm


1 going to consider that as sufficient for this

2 med-adj. Let me find another room. Like I said,

3 there is water at the back of the room. There is

4 water outside in the lobby area. In terms of

5 washrooms, I mention this because this is a bit of a

6 maze. People tend to get lost.

7 MR. TAPP: For the purpose of these

8 people behind me here today, I do not want them

9 present during mediation if they're not for the...

10 THE VICE-CHAIR: They won't be present.

11 MR. TAPP: Okay. Thank you.

12 MS. SINGH: Yes, Mr. Vice-Chair, just one

13 point of order here. I understand that there was an

14 issue about the document that was signed by the

15 applicant on the last occasion, the med-adj

16 agreement, and was not prepared to reflect on that

17 agreement that it was voluntary.

18 THE VICE-CHAIR: Right.

19 MS. SINGH: So it may be de rigueur to

20 ask the applicant whether he would re-sign to

21 indicate that it's a voluntary process, and he will

22 be participating in it, with his representative's

23 endorsement, on a voluntary basis.

24 THE VICE-CHAIR: I have no problem with

25 that. Do you have any problem signing the...


1 MR. TAPP: Mr. Vice-Chair, you know our

2 sentiments from the last one. We are entertaining it

3 solely on your request, but, on our own, we are not

4 voluntarily agreeing to this.

5 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. It only works if

6 you're prepared to mediate on a voluntary basis.

7 That doesn't mean you have to resolve anything or

8 settle anything. All it means is that you're

9 prepared to commit to the process on a voluntary

10 basis. And if we don't settle...we haven't in the

11 past...so be it, we continue with the hearing.

12 MR. TAPP: Do you have anything to say,

13 Mr. Jack? Well, in that case, Mr. Jack would like to

14 sign a new document, please.

15 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay.

16 MR. TAPP: Or just endorse the previous

17 one.

18 THE VICE-CHAIR: Well, we can have a new

19 one signed. Could I get someone just to fill out

20 this document while I go looking for a...all I need

21 is the style of cause and you will see the file

22 number in there.

23 MS. SINGH: Yes.

24 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. I will be back

25 momentarily.


1 --- DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD

2

3 MS. SINGH: Mr. Vice-Chair, the court

4 reporter had a discussion with us and before we rose

5 to participate in this process, Mr. Jack had

6 indicated that he would re-sign the med-adj

7 agreement...

8 THE VICE-CHAIR: Right, okay.

9 MS. SINGH: ...on the basis that it...to

10 reflect that it was voluntary.

11 MR. TAPP: I'm the representative for the

12 applicant, and this Tribunal has requested again at

13 the commencement of this final batch of proceedings

14 that we entertain mediation. As in the past, the

15 applicant's position has been that we are not

16 voluntarily doing this. However, we understand the

17 constraints of the Tribunal and we will entertain it

18 for the sole purpose of this being a requirement of

19 the Tribunal. That's it. Mr. Jack, do you want to

20 add anything?

21 MR. JACK: No.

22 MR. TAPP: Thank you.

23 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. Why don't we sign

24 the document and then we will talk. So, for the

25 record, the mediation-adjudication agreement has been


1 signed by all the parties, including Mr. Jack and Mr.

2 Tapp.

3

4 --- upon recessing at 9:57 a.m.

5 --- A BRIEF RECESS

6 --- upon resuming at 10:50 a.m.

7

8 THE VICE-CHAIR: There are some

9 preliminary matters you wanted to deal with?

10 MR. TAPP: Yes, that's correct, Mr.

11 Vice-Chair.

12 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. We better exclude

13 the witness, sorry. We will call you in shortly.

14 Thank you.

15 MR. TAPP: Mr. Vice-Chair, at the close

16 of the proceedings on the last day of the last block

17 in February 2016, previous counsel had indicated that

18 he was consenting...he wanted to look over and did

19 consent to three...five documents that we were

20 seeking to introduce as exhibits. And the three

21 documents that he did consent to were the PSB

22 investigation transcript, the PSB investigation

23 report, the Local Focus interview, and the

24 confidential report on the second background

25 investigation.


1 Previous counsel did object to the

2 background report on Mr. Jack on the basis that it

3 contained character evidence and he also objected to

4 the interview assessment report of Mr. Jack by the

5 very same people who were involved even in the second

6 one. But, nonetheless, I'm just reminding this

7 Tribunal of his objection.

8 However, we also entered as exhibits..."we",

9 as the applicant, played an audio recording of

10 witness Duignan. His testimony has been entered and

11 the transcript provided and his audio was also

12 entered. Counsel had disclosed a recording of their

13 own that they had, and it was prepared by witness

14 Marc Gravelle of Duignan. That portion also was

15 prepared, was played and entered as an exhibit.

16 However, at the conclusion of that date, the

17 applicant specifically requested from counsel to

18 provide the date of that recording that they

19 provided. And, Mr. Vice-Chair, we have an excerpt of

20 page 139 of the transcript of the proceeding at that

21 late hour of the day, where you, Mr. Vice-Chair,

22 specifically asked, did we learn when this recording

23 was made, to which the applicant asked the same

24 question of counsel, and counsel indicated it would

25 be on the threads to e-mail to counsel.


1 Counsel did undertake to provide us the date

2 of when that recording was made, and specifically

3 counsel stated, "We will look into that." We readily

4 anticipated, like much of the disclosure we have been

5 getting from counsel, that we would get an e-mail

6 with that date. To this date, we have not.

7 So, also, in keeping with the court reporter

8 and the transcripts, we have requested to provide a

9 transcript of the two recordings that were played.

10 It has been shared...


12 MR. TAPP: ...electronically to counsel

13 and this Tribunal and the court reporter. So those

14 two...three recordings, transcripts, that is, the PSB

15 interview transcript that was audio taped...audio

16 recorded on CD, and the recording that was played of

17 Duignan that the applicant did, and the recording...

18 the transcript of the recording that the respondent

19 made of Duignan. So we have those three transcripts.

20 They have been disclosed and also disclosed to the

21 reporter. So we need to enter those as...those

22 exhibits; altogether six items that need to be

23 entered.

24 Now, with respect to the two documents that

25 counsel did object to...


1 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. Let's deal with

2 the...

3 MR. TAPP: Okay, with these three, okay.

4 THE VICE-CHAIR: The first three.

5 MR. TAPP: Yes. The first three, I'm

6 going to give them to you. We will show them to

7 counsel and counsel already has this.

8 MS. SINGH: I think two of the documents

9 that the applicant has provided to the Tribunal we

10 have agreed to have admitted. The first being

11 the...it has got a big 55 on the top of it. The

12 second document has a big 60 on it.

13 MR. TAPP: Maybe just read the heading,

14 because we're going to take those sticky notes off,

15 just the title.

16 MS. SINGH: The investigation report

17 dated September 11th, 2009 by the OPP we have agreed

18 can be admitted. The Corporate Services confidential

19 internal briefing report we have also agreed can be

20 admitted. However, with respect to the Local Focus

21 interview document, I'm advised that my predecessor

22 was not prepared to admit this document on the same

23 basis that he was not prepared to admit the interview

24 assessment of the applicant. It's character evidence

25 and hearsay, and, as such, should not be admitted


1 into evidence. It is not relevant, and so we object

2 to that for the same reasons. But the other two we

3 admitted.

4 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. Well, let's enter

5 those other two before...

6 MR. TAPP: Right now.

7 THE VICE-CHAIR: So let me just enter

8 these. I'm entering the Professional Standards

9 Bureau investigation report as Exhibit 135.

10

11 --- EXHIBIT NO. 135: Professional Standards Bureau

12 investigation report

13

14 MR. JACK: How many pages, do you know?

15 THE VICE-CHAIR: Five pages. I'm

16 entering Corporate Services confidential internal

17 briefing report as Exhibit 136, comprised of three

18 pages.

19

20 --- EXHIBIT NO. 136: Corporate Services confidential

21 internal briefing report

22

23 MR. TAPP: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.

24 That dealt with those documents. I am providing to

25 counsel the two that we were seeking to also


1 introduce. These are two documents prepared by OPP's

2 investigators. They do not contain the character

3 evidence. We understand the objection and your

4 denial of entering the one particular document that

5 contains character evidence. However, these two

6 documents we were seeking to introduce, and counsel

7 said he would look over them and provide a response.

8 So we haven't received a response. So I have given a

9 copy to counsel right now to look over them, and we

10 can deal with the matter of entering them. They are

11 prepared by OPP officers on Mr. Jack.

12 MS. SINGH: Yes. As I have previously

13 indicated, my predecessor, you know, advised the

14 Tribunal, I believe, that these are not admissible,

15 neither report...I do have copies, I have looked them

16 over...as constituting hearsay and character

17 evidence. And for those reasons, again, I would

18 repeat the objection that I would not...object to

19 having these entered as exhibits.

20 MR. TAPP: Mr. Vice-Chair, I'm going to

21 ask that you at least look into it, because you did

22 indicate that you will look it over to make sure it

23 didn't contain character evidence.

24 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. How many

25 documents are we talking about at this point?


1 MR. TAPP: Two documents.

2 THE VICE-CHAIR: Two?

3 MR. TAPP: Two.

4 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. Why don't you

5 give those two to me. I'm not going to enter them as

6 evidence and I will put it aside for now and I will

7 take a look at them.

8 MR. TAPP: Thank you. Now, last, in the

9 matter of old issues, if I might call them, is the

10 issue of the transcripts. We have heard the PSB

11 interview, audio recording. We have heard the audio

12 recording provided by counsel of witness Duignan, and

13 we have heard the audio recording from the applicant

14 of the same witness, Constable Duignan.

15 Those three audio recordings have been

16 entered, but we were requested to provide the

17 transcripts. The transcript of the PSB interview was

18 provided by the OPP. We've got it, and counsel has

19 been shared a copy of that, and this Tribunal, too.

20 So that has to be entered as an exhibit. Counsel

21 also has a transcript...I'm sorry, I'm just reminded

22 by the applicant we transcribed all of them, which is

23 why we provided them well in advance to counsel and

24 this Tribunal, to compare it and...compare it to the

25 audio recordings.


1 So we have received no objections. I'm

2 going to suggest that these three transcripts, which

3 have already been disclosed, be entered as exhibits

4 however Mr. Vice-Chair wants to title them, because

5 they go with the audio recordings.

6 THE VICE-CHAIR: And the audio recordings

7 have been entered, haven't they?

8 MR. TAPP: Yes.

9 MR. JACK: No. They have been heard,

10 listened, but not entered.

11 MR. TAPP: Pardon me. Mr. Jack has

12 reminded me they have been heard but not entered,

13 which is why when the transcripts were provided back

14 in April, I believe, to counsel and this Tribunal,

15 they've had more than enough time to listen to it and

16 compare it to expedite the matter of entering them

17 into an exhibit.

18 MR. TAPP: You have looked at these

19 transcripts, Counsel?

20 MS. SINGH: Mr. Vice-Chair, I do have a

21 copy of...I wouldn't even call it a transcript. I

22 mean, you know, there's a problem...there was a

23 problem with the recordings, I'm advised, first of

24 all. And it was, you know...people were unable to

25 attribute voices to people. There was an issue about


1 that. Subsequently, Mr. Tapp has arranged for

2 somebody to prepare some document that, you know,

3 suggests that it is an accurate record of a recording

4 where we can't even determine necessarily who was

5 saying what and attribute it to that person.

6 And so, Mr. Vice-Chair, I do object, and I

7 think I'm repeating what my predecessor...or I'm

8 advised that I'm repeating what my predecessor had

9 advised Mr. Tapp, that, in fact, they should not be

10 admitted. They're not evidence. They're not

11 reliable documents. And so we do have a problem with

12 those documents.

13 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. We have heard the

14 recordings, haven't we?

15 MR. TAPP: Yes, we have.

16 THE VICE-CHAIR: Were they part of the

17 transcript?

18 MR. TAPP: Yes, they were part of the

19 transcripts, and we were specifically asked by the...

20 MR. JACK: No, no...

21 MR. TAPP: Okay. They were part of the

22 transcripts.

23 THE VICE-CHAIR: I don't have the

24 transcripts with me.

25 MR. TAPP: Mr. Vice-Chair, the witnesses


1 were on the stand. The witnesses identify their

2 voices. They identify the audio recordings as

3 theirs. I'm saying counsel has had more than enough

4 time to play...

5 THE VICE-CHAIR: Don't worry about

6 counsel. Let's get this settled. Is that part of

7 the transcript?

8 MR. TAPP: There is reference made to the

9 audio recording, but it's not in the actual

10 transcript. It just says "Audio recording played".

11 Now, the difficulty we have, yes, we had to

12 transcribe them because the recordings were played.

13 There were specific references made to the recording

14 that was played.

15 THE VICE-CHAIR: And those recordings

16 were never entered?

17 MR. TAPP: The recordings itself were

18 never entered, but it's on the transcript as being

19 played. I mean, I could suggest let counsel play the

20 recordings, compare it to what is written.

21 THE VICE-CHAIR: Yes. Well, I would

22 really like a transcript. I understand your

23 problems...

24 MR. TAPP: I mean, for all it's worth...

25 THE VICE-CHAIR: ...attribution problems,


1 but I think there is a specific setting and...I'm not

2 sure. I can't remember the contents of those

3 recordings. But if I recall, certainly Mr. Jack's

4 name is involved.

5 MR. TAPP: Mr. Jack's name was involved

6 and there was a lot of derogatory comments towards

7 Mr. Jack, and we heard that on the recording,

8 specifically, "If he couldn't speak English, why the

9 fuck did they hire him?" Those were Duignan's quote

10 on the...


12 MR. TAPP: ...on the record. So, yes,

13 there is a very real relevance and connection to this

14 transcript.

15 MS. SINGH: Yes...

16 MR. TAPP: And the PSB investigation, we

17 heard the key component...

18 THE VICE-CHAIR: I don't doubt you. I

19 recall...

20 MS. SINGH: Yes. And, Mr. Vice-Chair,

21 I'm advised that only certain portions of the

22 recording were played, that there were other officers

23 present. I'm advised that Mr. Tapp is now

24 attributing words to a witness, which in fact it

25 was...did not, you know, claim in fact to be his own.


1 And it's a problem, quite frankly. It's not in the

2 transcript. The transcript does not reflect the

3 recording, and the recording...only part of the

4 recording was played.

5 And so, to seek now to better whatever was

6 heard before this Tribunal, that portion of what was

7 heard, in my respectful submission, is not

8 appropriate and is not, you know, consistent with the

9 Rules of Evidence. And I would be very concerned to

10 have it now be said that witnesses did make certain

11 comments and attribute those comments to them, and in

12 particular in relation to a transcript, I'm advised,

13 that was taken outside of the place of employment.

14 And so it was not even in the employment

15 setting, it was outside of the employment setting.

16 There were a variety of different players that were

17 there. They were having conversations. There were

18 many players, there were many conversations. There

19 is no way to test the reliability of that recording

20 for purposes of determining any accuracy and

21 attribution to witnesses of the OPP.

22 And so, again, in my respectful submission,

23 these should not become part of the evidence before

24 this Tribunal.

25 MR. TAPP: Mr. Vice-Chair, that...


1 THE VICE-CHAIR: The problem is it

2 already is evidence.

3 MR. TAPP: Yes.

4 THE VICE-CHAIR: We listened to the

5 recordings...

6 MR. TAPP: I can suggest, you can review

7 it, you can...if your notes reflect...you can

8 highlight specific portions that you're going to

9 introduce, let us know.

10 MS. SINGH: Yes. And I'm advised that a

11 witness...portions of it were played, they were put

12 to a witness. That is captured in a transcript.


14 MS. SINGH: So the evidence that is

15 before the Tribunal is captured in a transcript and

16 the witness did their best to give evidence that is

17 reliable and that was tested before the Tribunal.


19 MS. SINGH: The rest of the recording,

20 this attempt at transcribing a portion of the

21 recording in a way that is not even in any way

22 reliable, that, in my respectful submission, is not

23 evidence before the Tribunal and should not be

24 admitted.

25 MR. TAPP: All I can say is the


1 transcripts do clearly reflect audio recording, and

2 my concern is not everything is in the transcript

3 that was played.


5 MR. JACK: I can pull it out.

6 THE VICE-CHAIR: Pardon me?

7 MR. JACK: I can pull it out, but it says

8 audio recording is played. It's played, that's it.

9 In the transcript it just says one line "Audio

10 recording is played", with the witness on the stand

11 speaking in this audio recording. And then at your

12 own request we transcribed it.

13 THE VICE-CHAIR: Well, I want the

14 transcription of those since we have heard it. Do

15 you have any suggestions in terms of...I mean,

16 this...we have heard the tapes. I need...I want a

17 transcription. I don't care who makes...well, I do

18 care who makes the transcription. And if there are

19 comments that cannot be attributed, I would want to

20 know that as well.

21 MS. SINGH: Yes.

22 THE VICE-CHAIR: But if I recall

23 correctly, there was reference to Mr. Jack. There

24 were derogatory terms used with respect to Mr. Jack

25 on the tape. I don't know who said those things, and


1 that is part of your issue, I think.

2 MS. SINGH: Yes.

3 THE VICE-CHAIR: But it would be helpful

4 to know the context.

5 MS. SINGH: But the witnesses are not

6 here.

7 THE VICE-CHAIR: No, I understand that.

8 MS. SINGH: The witnesses are not here to

9 provide you with any evidence about those tapes and

10 about those recordings or to let you know whether in

11 fact they were said, whether anything else was being

12 said, the context, and so on and so forth. And so it

13 is very prejudicial to the OPP to today ask that a

14 tape, only portions of which were put to a witness,

15 now be transcribed, attribution be made, or

16 conjecture about attribution, quite frankly.

17 I think that Mr. Tapp had his opportunity

18 when the witness was here to make his argument, to

19 put the whole portion of the tape to the witness, to

20 bring other witnesses that he believed were making

21 those comments, and he did not take that opportunity,

22 and instead is coming back to the Tribunal today and

23 suggesting that some transcription of that tape now

24 go before the Tribunal as evidence. And that is very

25 prejudicial.


1 In the balance, in terms of its probative

2 value versus the prejudicial effect...first of all,

3 in terms of probative value, I think I have outlined

4 why it is that that tape, not that I've heard it, is

5 extremely problematic for my client. To the extent

6 that portions of the tape were heard by the witness,

7 the witness gave evidence, which is set out in a

8 transcript, and there was an opportunity to test the

9 witness's evidence as he was giving it.

10 To then look at the prejudicial effect of

11 trying to put in a non-certified copy without

12 attribution and without the opportunity, quite

13 frankly, from my client to provide evidence in

14 relation to those comments, the prejudice for my

15 client is enormous. And given that there is no

16 particular probative value in terms of that tape, I

17 would strongly urge you, Mr. Vice-Chair, to not

18 entertain this issue going forward any further.

19 THE VICE-CHAIR: The problem, Counsel, is

20 that the tape was played. It is part of the

21 evidence.

22 MS. SINGH: I'm told that only a portion

23 of the tape was played...

24 THE VICE-CHAIR: And I accept that.

25 MS. SINGH: ...and there were questions


1 put to the witness about that portion. So we have

2 evidence about a portion...literally a hearsay

3 document, a tape recording, and a witness then, you

4 know, giving evidence about what they were able to

5 tell you, sir, in relation to that recording. There

6 is no more value in that recording, unless there is a

7 witness to give evidence about it. Otherwise, that

8 recording, in and of itself, is of no value.

9 There is no probative value and it is not a

10 reliable document. And yet, the prejudice to my

11 client is enormous, because there is a suggestion

12 that in fact attribution is being made, and there is

13 no opportunity for the witness to provide context to

14 comment, to give any evidence about whether this in

15 fact was said, the context that it was said, who said

16 it, where it was said, et cetera.

17 And so, again, the fact that it was played

18 to a witness, the fact that a physical piece of

19 evidence is put to a witness and the witness is

20 asked, "Do you recognize this piece of evidence,"

21 that may become a piece of evidence or it may not

22 become a piece of evidence. The tape itself, you

23 know, to the extent that it was made evidence at the

24 time, is not evidence. The tape is not evidence.

25 What is evidence is what the witness can say


1 about the tape. And that is part of the transcript.

2 And so, in my respectful submission, we can't better

3 that tape without a witness, without the witnesses,

4 without attribution, without cross-examination, the

5 opportunity for cross-examination, the opportunity

6 for examination-in-chief, and so on.

7 And it's unfortunate that Mr. Tapp did not

8 make his argument at the time, did not put the entire

9 recording to all of the witnesses that were there at

10 the time. But I would suggest that what he is

11 seeking today is not fair and inappropriate.

12 THE VICE-CHAIR: What I'm going to

13 suggest is that we table this issue for the moment.

14 I would like you to provide me with the transcript

15 that touches on these tapes, and then I will take it

16 from there.

17 MR. TAPP: I will do that, Mr.

18 Vice-Chair, but counsel is entirely wrong over there

19 by saying...because they were the ones that provided

20 us the recording that Marc Gravelle did of Duignan,

21 and we played those portions. Duignan acknowledges

22 that it's his voice, he acknowledges it. He

23 remembers making those comments.

24 THE VICE-CHAIR: Well, let me see the

25 transcript, okay?


1 MR. TAPP: Okay.

2 THE VICE-CHAIR: Not right now.

3 MR. TAPP: Not right now. Okay. So, at

4 your own request, we produced those transcripts. We

5 will review them again and take out the portions...

6 regarding the transcripts, we will refer to the

7 portions that were played. And then we have to deal

8 with counsel's failure to provide us with when...

9 well, rather, answer to your question when that

10 recording that they provided and we played, was made.

11 And counsel still...if counsel hasn't listened to

12 that recording...she has taken over the case, then

13 she should be able to answer for previous counsel

14 when that recording was made.

15 MS. SINGH: I'm advised that the witness

16 has no memory of when it was made.

17 MR. TAPP: No, no, look at the

18 transcript. Mr. Manuel says it would be on the

19 threads through an e-mail, so that is documentary

20 evidence. Come on. And Mr. Manuel says:

21 "...We will look into that..."

22 That is on line 17 of page 139.

23 MS. SINGH: Yes. And perhaps you

24 misunderstood me, Mr. Tapp, because what I was trying

25 to suggest to you is that, in fact, what my


1 predecessor said was that, you know, it was provided

2 to us on the date that it was provided to us. That's

3 the only date. But in terms of any date when it was

4 actually recorded or whatever, the witness has no

5 recollection...

6 MR. TAPP: That is speculation on your

7 part. You can't speak...

8 MS. SINGH: No...

9 THE VICE-CHAIR: Hold on, let...

10 MS. SINGH: ...it is not speculation. My

11 predecessor went to the witness and asked the

12 witness, "Do you have a recollection of when this

13 recording was made?" The witness has no

14 recollection. So the only thing that we can tell you

15 is that the recording was received by e-mail...

16 MR. TAPP: So show me that communication

17 being sent to the applicant's representative.

18 THE VICE-CHAIR: Well, hold on, hold on,

19 hold on. The only date is the date you received it?

20 MS. SINGH: Correct. Yes, Mr.

21 Vice-Chair.

22 MR. TAPP: This is ridiculous, Mr.

23 Vice-Chair. She can say whatever she wants.

24 THE VICE-CHAIR: Well, so can you. How

25 relevant is the date?


1 MR. TAPP: It really isn't, because our

2 recording was done after 2009. It is clear from the

3 recording, and if counsel listened to it, that

4 recording that counsel provided to us, disclosed, was

5 also done after 2009. But what is materially

6 relevant in counsel's recording, as opposed to our

7 recording, is the derogatory references of Mr. Jack

8 that Duignan makes. And he acknowledges making those

9 comments.

10 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. Again, that

11 should be on the transcript.

12 MR. TAPP: Well, the reference is...all

13 that is in there is referred to "Audio recording

14 played". That's the difficulty we have. We can play

15 this...we can give the transcription of the specific

16 portion, because we have it on file, the specific

17 time portion that was played. We can give you that

18 specific transcript, but...and then I can understand

19 counsel's objection of the rest of the audio

20 recording. But, fine, we are able to contend with

21 that. Let us enter the specific portion that was

22 played.

23 MS. SINGH: Sir, I do have that portion

24 of the transcript, and if you would like me to read

25 it back to you, it's on page 133 of the transcript


1 from February 8th, 2016. And a question of Mr. Tapp

2 to Mr. Gravelle:

3 "...Well, hold on, in that recording you do

4 acknowledge nicknames. In fact, you gave

5 him a nickname as a 'complainer' and

6 laughed..."

7 Answer:

8 "...No. I can't confirm that, because there

9 was three or four, maybe five or six other

10 members in that dressing room, and I believe

11 that that was a member of another police

12 service that did that..."

13 Question by Mr. Tapp:

14 "...So if we were to play just that specific

15 portion with your voice and you saying that

16 he was a complainer, right, and laughing

17 about it, at least you should ought to be

18 able to acknowledge that is your voice, not

19 everything else in there, just that

20 portion?..."

21 Answer:

22 "...I don't recall saying that..."

23 MR. TAPP: Okay. Well, counsel can also

24 turn and read page 138, line 9.

25 THE VICE-CHAIR: Why don't you read 138,


1 line 9?

2 MR. TAPP: Okay. Question:

3 "...Mr. Gravelle, is your voice in the audio

4 recording? You would know, you recorded it.

5 Is your voice there at any time, aside from

6 what we just played?..."

7 Response:

8 "...Maybe. It has been quite a while since

9 I have listened to it, but, yes, it could be

10 there..."

11 MS. SINGH: And if we could just continue

12 with that, sir.

13 THE VICE-CHAIR: Please, please.

14 MS. SINGH: "...Mr. Gravelle, was it

15 recorded with all those involved, their full

16 knowledge?..."

17 Answer:

18 "...No. Some who were present at the time

19 were notified after it was recorded. But

20 the reason for the recording was it was

21 alleged, or I was informed that I was

22 alleged that I had created the nickname

23 "Crazy Ivan". And this was a means of

24 putting that argument to rest, because that

25 is not the nickname or anything that I came


1 up with for Mr. Jack..."

2 MR. TAPP: My concern is on page 139,

3 line 23:

4 "...Mr. Gravelle, so you would agree that it

5 was recorded surreptitiously among

6 colleagues that you worked with?..."

7 And the subsequent response on page 140:

8 "...One colleague that I worked with...two

9 colleagues that I work with, yes..."

10 Question:

11 "...And you have indicated the reason for

12 that recording, right?..."

13 Answer:

14 "...Correct..."

15 Now, these are police officers witnessing a recording

16 that the respondent provided. This is not a

17 recording that the applicant made. This is crucial.

18 Duignan recognized his voice. It's in the...we're

19 saying it's in the portion of the audio tape.

20 THE VICE-CHAIR: Has this recording been

21 entered, the physical...

22 MR. TAPP: No. It has been disclosed.

23 THE VICE-CHAIR: It has been disclosed?

24 MR. TAPP: It hasn't been entered as an

25 exhibit because we only played a portion of the


1 recording. So that's why I'm suggesting, let us at

2 least exchange the portion that was played. And, Mr.

3 Vice-Chair, if you remember we kept looking at the

4 clock. Yes, we were restrained...there were time

5 restraints. We were restrained from playing the

6 whole portion. Had we not been restrained, we would

7 have played the whole portion. But, for argument's

8 sake, at least allow us to enter that portion that

9 was played.

10 THE VICE-CHAIR: Do we know what portion

11 it is?

12 MR. TAPP: The recording that was played

13 was an entirety of the two recordings. The portion

14 that was played partial was the PSB investigation

15 only, because that was more than half an hour in

16 duration. That would have taken a long time. The

17 two audio recordings at the most they lasted was

18 three to four minutes, or five minutes tops, but we

19 were pressured of time restraints. And rather than

20 play the whole PSB portion, we only played a specific

21 portion.

22 MS. SINGH: Mr. Vice-Chair, just turning

23 to page 141, there is an exchange between my

24 predecessor, Mr. Manuel, and yourself and Mr. Tapp in

25 relation to entering the audio recording.



2 MS. SINGH: And Mr. Manuel says:

3 "...No. We are not going to let you enter

4 the audio recording..."

5 Mr. Vice-Chair:

6 "...We have entered..."

7 Mr. Tapp:

8 "...A portion that...

9 Mr. Vice-Chair:

10 "...Yes. Hopefully the court reporter

11 picked it up. It will be in the

12 transcript..."

13 Mr. Manuel:

14 "...Well, with respect, Mr. Vice-Chair, it

15 hasn't been authenticated as coming from

16 this witness..."

17 Mr. Vice-Chair:

18 "...Well, I know, but it will be in the

19 transcript..."

20 Mr. Manuel:

21 "...That is fine..."

22 Mr. Tapp:

23 "...The whole recording is only three to

24 four minutes at the most, and he has already

25 authenticated it as being his recording,


1 so..."

2 Mr. Manuel:

3 "...Doesn't make it relevant..."

4 Mr. Vice-Chair:

5 "...Yes, okay..."

6 Mr. Tapp:

7 "...Okay. Mr. Vice-Chair, as you are

8 writing, the whole recording is, at the

9 most, three and a half minutes. The

10 relevance will make it very clear if we were

11 to just listen to the three and a half

12 minutes..."

13 Mr. Vice-Chair:

14 "...I would suggest, if you give us a

15 transcript of it, and I can determine

16 whether it is relevant..."

17 MR. TAPP: And we have the transcript.

18 That's what...

19 MS. SINGH: Mr. Tapp:

20 "...Okay. Thank you very much. We will..."

21 Mr. Vice-Chair:

22 "...And, of course, we would have to know

23 who recorded it and when it was recorded..."

24 And so, in my respectful submission, Mr. Vice-Chair,

25 clearly from the beginning the respondent has


1 objected to this recording. It is not clear who

2 recorded it. We have not heard all of it. There

3 cannot be attribution. The witness has come and

4 gone. The date of the recording we are unclear of.

5 Perhaps I would suggest sometime after 2009, not in

6 the context of Mr. Jack's employment by the OPP in

7 2009.

8 And so, for a variety of different reasons,

9 and I don't want to repeat them, having to do with

10 the reliability of this evidence, again I would

11 suggest that we move forward. We have the transcript

12 of what the witness was able to say about the

13 recording, and leave it at that. Its prejudice to

14 the respondent is very high, and its probative value,

15 there is no probative value beyond what the witness

16 was able to testify in relation to that recording.

17 MR. TAPP: Mr. Vice-Chair, that's

18 hogwash. Listen, we know when we did our recording

19 and that has been done. But we do not know...we know

20 who did counsel's recording, Marc Gravelle, but we do

21 not know when it was done. We know when ours were

22 done, who did it. I did it, because counsel asked

23 and I turned around, "You mean you surreptitiously

24 recorded it," and I said, "Yes, I surreptitiously

25 recorded him."


1 THE VICE-CHAIR: I have asked for the

2 transcript.

3 MR. TAPP: Yes, you have.

4 THE VICE-CHAIR: So I will take what you

5 have. Whether it's relevant at the end of the day is

6 another issue. I'm not entering it as an exhibit,

7 but I do want it because I asked for it. And I

8 understand your argument, Counsel, about relevance

9 and probative value and so on and so forth.

10 MR. JACK: That's the one that's

11 disclosed by the counsel.

12 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. So this is not

13 going to be entered as an exhibit. I will review it,

14 keeping in mind counsel's argument.

15 MR. TAPP: Okay. These are the other two

16 transcripts that we're saying should be entered as an

17 exhibit...

18 THE VICE-CHAIR: And who made those?

19 MR. TAPP: ...and this is the PSB...we

20 did the transcripts, okay, on the PSB interview.

21 Counsel can't say that she can't discern the voices

22 of the PSB interview, because they are OPP

23 detectives, supposedly. They did the interview.

24 MS. SINGH: I am advised again that we

25 have objected to the those interviews. They're not


1 certified copies of a transcript.

2 MR. JACK: Then make one.

3 MR. TAPP: Take it, listen to it and make

4 one.

5 THE VICE-CHAIR: Continue, Counsel.

6 MS. SINGH: And, you know, for that

7 reason again they should not be admitted. We do not

8 know whether in fact, you know, this is accurate.

9 MS. BLUTSTEIN: There is also a full copy

10 of the transcript that's there, and only a very small

11 portion was played at the hearing. But that's the

12 full copy of the recording.

13 MS. SINGH: But, in any event, I mean,

14 sir, I don't even...

15 THE VICE-CHAIR: Whose recording is this?

16 MS. SINGH: ...suggest that this is

17 relevant.

18 MR. TAPP: Their recording, OPP's

19 recording.

20 MS. SINGH: You know, this is a

21 transcript...well, it's not even a transcript.

22 THE VICE-CHAIR: No.

23 MS. SINGH: You know, it's an effort at a

24 transcript of an interview of Mr. Jack, and Mr. Jack

25 has given his evidence. I'm told that Mr. Jack has


1 given evidence for a long time, and he has had every

2 opportunity to provide evidence about, you know, this

3 interview that he had with the Professional Standards

4 Bureau regarding its investigation of him and his

5 associations at the time. And so, the relevance of

6 this, sir, you know, in terms of whether in fact this

7 purported transcript in any way has any probative

8 value in terms of the issue in this case, I would

9 suggest to you it has none.

10 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. This is your...

11 well, it's not your transcript...

12 MS. SINGH: No.

13 THE VICE-CHAIR: ...but it's your tape?

14 MS. SINGH: Yes.

15 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. It was disclosed

16 at some point in time?

17 MS. SINGH: Yes.

18 THE VICE-CHAIR: I would assume pursuant

19 to the Tribunal's Rules...

20 MS. SINGH: Yes, sir.

21 THE VICE-CHAIR: ...as arguably relevant?

22 MS. SINGH: Yes.

23 THE VICE-CHAIR: On that basis, I would

24 like to have the tape. I don't need the transcript.

25 MS. SINGH: Yes.


1 THE VICE-CHAIR: But, if I can have the

2 tape that was disclosed, I will listen to it and

3 decide whether it should be entered...

4 MS. SINGH: Thank you, sir.

5 THE VICE-CHAIR: ...on the understanding

6 that it's your tape to begin with.

7 MS. SINGH: Thank you, sir.

8 MR. TAPP: Okay. And we have...on that

9 PSB one, we have highlighted in yellow the portion

10 that was played, and we're giving you a copy of that.

11 Next, we still have to address my conversation...

12 recording with Duignan. We have addressed counsel's

13 one with Duignan, but mine with Duignan.

14 THE VICE-CHAIR: Did we hear that?

15 MR. TAPP: Yes, we did, and we heard it

16 in entirety.


18 MR. TAPP: And we've got that transcript

19 right there, and I can hear counsel saying that,

20 "Yeah, I'm not a licensed court reporter or

21 anything," but we've got nothing to hide. Take the

22 transcript, listen...it's only three to four minutes.

23 Listen to it, turn up the volume, compare it

24 line-for-line with what's written, verify what's

25 written, and then we will tender it. I'm suggesting,


1 you've got the three audios over there, let's enter

2 those three audios as exhibits.

3 THE VICE-CHAIR: So I have here April

4 2012, audio recording of Duignan.

5 MR. TAPP: That's mine and I identify the

6 date. Counsel's, you can see, has nothing...

7 THE VICE-CHAIR: PSB interview, Michael

8 Jack.

9 MR. TAPP: That's with the OPP and Mr.

10 Jack. That's about...a little more than half an

11 hour. So they should have no problem.

12 THE VICE-CHAIR: This is what was

13 disclosed?

14 MR. TAPP: That has been disclosed

15 through the arguably relevant...albeit, it was only

16 disclosed, I mean, a year and a half ago.

17 MR. JACK: No, no, no, in the spring

18 of...

19 MR. TAPP: In the spring of 2012.

20 MR. JACK: ...or maybe 2012 sometime.

21 MR. TAPP: Anyways, it doesn't matter.

22 It came through their arguably relevant...

23 MR. JACK: No, not arguably relevant...

24 MR. TAPP: Specifically, we have a letter

25 from counsel dated April 17th, 2012, identifying the


1 additional disclosure.

2 "...Please find enclosed a CD with Mr.

3 Jack's interview with Ontario Provincial

4 Police Professional Standards Bureau. PSB

5 interview with Mr. Jack..."

6 There you go, as provided by counsel, and it is dated

7 April 17th, 2012. So we cannot see any objection to

8 at least their interview being entered.

9 THE VICE-CHAIR: I'm going to enter the

10 PSB interview. I haven't heard...I haven't read

11 this. I don't recall hearing it, but that's okay, it

12 was months and months and months ago. I am going to

13 enter it and you can argue relevance, probative

14 value, and I will have to make a determination as to

15 whether I give it any weight.

16 MS. SINGH: Just of the audio, sir?

17 THE VICE-CHAIR: Just of the audio.

18 MS. SINGH: Thank you.

19 MR. TAPP: We heard from Constable Karen

20 German and we played that portion that she

21 acknowledges.

22 THE VICE-CHAIR: That will be Exhibit 137.

23

24 --- EXHIBIT NO. 137: Professional Standards Bureau audio

25 recording


1 THE VICE-CHAIR: And this is your

2 recording?

3 MR. TAPP: No. The PSB is OPP's...

4 THE VICE-CHAIR: No, no. I am...

5 MR. TAPP: April 2012?

6 THE VICE-CHAIR: ...pointing to the April

7 2012.

8 MR. TAPP: Yes, that's correct. I

9 identify the date and...

10 THE VICE-CHAIR: And we listened to this?

11 MR. TAPP: Yes. And we listened to that

12 in entirety.

13 THE VICE-CHAIR: So I'm going to enter

14 that as 138.

15

16 --- EXHIBIT NO. 138: April 2012 audio recording

17

18 THE VICE-CHAIR: And then there is the

19 Gravelle audio recording?

20 MR. TAPP: That's the one we don't know a

21 date. Mr. Manuel indicated he's...and we have heard

22 counsel's interpretation of her...what Manuel's

23 direction was, but we listened to that in entirety,

24 because that also is a very brief one like the first

25 one, like the one I did, three to four minutes.


1 THE VICE-CHAIR: I'm going to enter the

2 April 2012 as 138, and I'm going to enter this other

3 one, that would be Gravelle audio recording, as 139.

4

5 --- EXHIBIT NO. 139: Gravelle audio recording

6

7 THE VICE-CHAIR: And I'm very conscious

8 of counsel's submissions with respect to the value of

9 these tapes. Now, can we move on?

10 MR. TAPP: Okay. Mr. Vice-Chair, before

11 we continue, these are the issues that were left at

12 the end of the close of that day, some of which we

13 just addressed. But these are...the respondent was

14 again advised about disclosure of Mr. Jack's e-mails

15 and notes. Anyways, this Tribunal has repeatedly

16 been reminded of the request by the applicant for his

17 notes, all of his notes, and the e-mails for the

18 year. Before the commencement of this hearing in

19 2012 and after the disclosure of arguably relevant

20 documents in April 2012, the applicant discovered...

21 we discovered that many of his officer notes were

22 missing and only eight to ten e-mails were provided

23 for that whole year.

24 The applicant subsequently requested the

25 counsel to disclose the withheld material, and


1 specifically requested from counsel to provide a copy

2 of all his e-mails again. On April 2nd, 2012,

3 counsel furnished the applicant with a cover letter,

4 and that contained notations...this is April 2nd,

5 2012 cover letter from counsel that the production of

6 all his e-mails would be a costly endeavour.

7 Counsel also said if there are specific

8 e-mails that Mr. Jack can recall that are arguably

9 relevant, please provide them. This simple request

10 from counsel did not make sense, due to the fact that

11 counsel was able to produce the e-mails of so many

12 officers...and this is what we're going to tender...

13 so many officers...this is just the index of their

14 arguably relevant material. The index of the e-mails

15 of so many officers for that year.

16 During the applicant's time with the OPP and

17 after his time with the OPP, at the start of this

18 hearing May 22nd, 2012, the applicant reminded this

19 Tribunal of the demand he made via section 17 of the

20 application for a copy of all his e-mails and his

21 notes. The hearing was adjourned until it resumed

22 November 1st to November 7th, 2012.

23 A month prior to the resumption of the

24 hearing on September 26th, 2012, counsel provided the

25 applicant with another batch of the applicant's


1 notes, and shortly thereafter on October 4th, 2012,

2 with a letter that stated, "Disclosure in the context

3 of human rights proceedings is ongoing and

4 continuous." Fine. To that, the applicant took it

5 to mean that, at some point in time, he will be

6 getting a copy of all his e-mails, because they were

7 able to provide a copy of all the e-mails of all

8 those officers for that entire year.

9 However, the applicant's e-mails were never

10 provided as per the obligations of section 17 of the

11 application. During the case management

12 teleconference call, shortly prior to the resumption

13 of the hearing, the applicant again requested for a

14 copy of all his notes and e-mails. This request,

15 when not followed through, was again reiterated at

16 the start of the resumption.

17 THE VICE-CHAIR: So, Mr. Tapp, what are

18 you looking for?

19 MR. TAPP: To this date, the respondent

20 has failed to comply with section 17 and provide a

21 copy of the applicant's e-mails for that year. Many

22 of the e-mails would be damaging to the respondent's

23 position. The respondent claims they have disclosed

24 all of its notes. However, contrary to their belief,

25 the applicant is missing notes for 2009 for the


1 entire month of May, and January 2009, I can give an

2 itemized list of what is missing.

3 When examining what is missing, ironically,

4 there is information that would be detrimental to the

5 respondent's position.

6 MS. SINGH: Mr. Vice-Chair, just out of

7 an abundance of respect for the Tribunal, you know,

8 we're talking about the applicant's e-mails. The

9 applicant is in the best position and has given

10 evidence to this Tribunal. He had a recollection of

11 the events. He still has a recollection of the

12 events and was able to tell the Tribunal in his

13 testimony, which I understand went on for many, many

14 days, as well as in his response to the no reasonable

15 prospect motion, all of his recollections, all of his

16 recollections of any e-mails that were sent.

17 The e-mails do nothing more than potentially

18 corroborate his evidence. If his recollection

19 is...you know, if he needed the e-mails for purposes

20 of recollection, then he could certainly say so, "I

21 don't recall. I don't recall." And so, in my

22 respectful submission, we should move on. The

23 respondent has complied with their continuous and

24 continual obligations, their disclosure obligations.

25 And it makes no sense in 2016, after the applicant


1 gave evidence in 2012, to now be going back to this

2 issue about his e-mails at the time. He has given

3 his testimony. And those e-mails would only serve to

4 corroborate his evidence if he needed to have his

5 evidence refreshed.

6 And so, in my respectful submission, this is

7 not an issue and we should simply move forward.

8 MR. TAPP: I disagree with that, Mr.

9 Vice-Chair.

10 THE VICE-CHAIR: No, I know you disagree

11 with that.

12 MR. TAPP: Yes, because this is all about

13 the applicant's recollection. As you have indicated,

14 Mr. Vice-Chair, over time, memories fade. So those

15 e-mails are crucial, because they do provide, as

16 counsel indicated, evidence. They are documentary

17 evidence and will substantiate a lot of his

18 positions.

19 THE VICE-CHAIR: If you have specific

20 e-mails, then please note them. Otherwise, this is

21 more like a fishing expedition.

22 MR. JACK: For example, e-mails to my

23 coach officer?

24 THE VICE-CHAIR: Give a date.

25 MR. JACK: Seven years ago.


1 THE VICE-CHAIR: There you go, that's the

2 problem we're facing.

3 MR. JACK: But they never provided them

4 to...

5 MR. TAPP: And if they had complied with

6 that section, we would have them. It wouldn't be...

7 THE VICE-CHAIR: Well, they only have to

8 provide arguably relevant material.

9 MR. TAPP: Okay. What about the notes?

10 They provide all the other notes, but not some of

11 these crucial notes. We've got an itemized list over

12 there that is missing. Here, we've got an itemized

13 list. We don't have an itemized list for the

14 e-mails...

15 THE VICE-CHAIR: And how are those

16 arguably relevant?

17 MR. TAPP: Okay. Mr. Jack testified in

18 his testimony that was unshaken on cross about...or,

19 rather, he was...it was touched upon on cross about

20 how his health was jeopardized over the OPP's refusal

21 to...GHQ, general headquarters, to refuse him to

22 allow him to go and see his medical specialist, his

23 dentist. When he did end up going, the dentist told

24 him, "Had you come a couple of days later, you would

25 not be here. You would have died from an brain


1 aneurysm."

2 Now, that is an appointment that he had with

3 the dentist, and he noted the dentist's remarks.

4 Yet, conveniently, we get a copy of his notes for

5 that date with all the portion of the dentist's

6 appointment and his comments redacted. Why is that?

7 Tell me.

8 THE VICE-CHAIR: Well, how do you know

9 it's redacted?

10 MR. TAPP: He knows what he wrote down.

11 THE VICE-CHAIR: And he testified to that

12 effect. We've got that testimony. We have that

13 evidence.

14 MR. TAPP: He wrote that in his notes.

15 Why redact that?


17 MR. TAPP: It's damaging information.

18 That's why they redacted it.

19 THE VICE-CHAIR: Well, you don't know why

20 they redacted it.

21 MR. JACK: Well, let's see.

22 THE VICE-CHAIR: We're going to move on.

23 MR. TAPP: Okay. So we're asking at

24 least for a copy of those notes, the unredacted

25 version of Monday, 12th of January. Surely if they


1 provided that, they got the notebook in their

2 possession, just on one of the next days, January

3 13th, 2009.

4 THE VICE-CHAIR: But Mr. Jack has

5 testified about the dentist. The evidence is there.

6 Can we move on? We have to get to the merits of

7 this.

8 MR. TAPP: You see, the issue we have is

9 there are crucial officers coming here to take the

10 stand. We are missing a significant number of notes

11 for October, November and December of the applicant.

12 And these officers that are going to be testifying,

13 we're going to be crossing them. I will be dealing

14 much with October, November and December, amongst

15 other months. And we are deprived of the applicant's

16 notes to put it forward to some of these officers

17 that take the stand to question the validity of their

18 testimony.

19 MS. SINGH: Mr. Vice-Chair, you know, if

20 the situation should arise, Mr. Jack will have the

21 opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. If he

22 knows of something, he can ask the witness. If there

23 is a concern about the credibility of the witness, we

24 can deal with it at the time. But, at this point,

25 all we're doing is moving away from getting to the


1 merits. Mr. Jack has testified. Mr. Jack has a

2 recollection of the events. He had a recollection of

3 the events in 2012 when he testified, in 2010. He

4 still has a recollection of the events.

5 And so I would ask that we simply deal with

6 any issues should they arise.

7 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. I agree with you.

8 So let's move on.

9 MR. TAPP: Can I at least show you what

10 is missing?

11 THE VICE-CHAIR: No, no. Let's move on,

12 please.

13 MR. TAPP: Okay. So those are the only

14 issues that were outstanding. We have closed our

15 case, Mr. Vice-Chair. Now, we had discussions back

16 and forth in e-mail with counsel about this

17 particular witness, Campbell, and we are not prepared

18 to call him as our witness. We have closed our case.

19 Counsel has undertaken to produce him and bring him

20 here, and identified in the case management

21 conference that he is one of the six crucial

22 witnesses.

23 So if counsel does not want to call him as a

24 witness and examine him, counsel can at least call

25 him, identify him for the record, and finish the


1 examination, and we will take over. And we can

2 expedite this and continue on.

3 THE VICE-CHAIR: I was under the

4 impression there was an understanding that he would

5 testify.

6 MR. TAPP: Yes.

7 THE VICE-CHAIR: And he is here to

8 testify?

9 MR. TAPP: Yes.

10 THE VICE-CHAIR: So let's not make a big

11 issue out of this.

12 MR. TAPP: Let's not. Let counsel call

13 him.

14 MS. SINGH: Yes. Mr. Vice-Chair, just

15 for the record, as you know, at an earlier point in

16 time, my predecessor had agreed that he would call,

17 as part of the OPP case, six witnesses that the

18 applicant wanted to hear from. As a result, the

19 applicant did not call those six witnesses.

20 I took over the case at the end of April of

21 this year as a result of the retirement of Mr.

22 Manuel. And when I reviewed the file, I reached the

23 conclusion that the evidence of Sergeant Ron

24 Campbell, one of those six witnesses, was unnecessary

25 to my case, and that I did not wish to call him. I


1 was, of course, aware of the earlier agreement. But,

2 since the applicant had not closed his case, and

3 still has not formally closed his case, I thought

4 that no unfairness could arise from the change in

5 position so long as I gave timely notice to the

6 applicant about the change in position.

7 And I also agreed to produce Sergeant

8 Campbell at the hearing before the close of the

9 applicant's case, and the applicant was permitted to

10 call Sergeant Campbell. As I see it, this puts the

11 applicant in precisely the position he was in before

12 the understanding, and he has lost nothing. As a

13 result, I wrote to Mr. Tapp on July 28th, 2016,

14 advising him of my position. After an exchange of

15 e-mails on August 8th, 2016, Mr. Tapp agreed to this

16 procedure.

17 However, he did put me on notice that he is

18 of the view that he should be entitled to

19 cross-examine Sergeant Campbell, rather than being

20 restricted to an ordinary examination-in-chief.

21 That, of course, is a matter for your discretion.

22 I have produced Mr. Campbell today on the

23 understanding of our exchange of August 8th...and I

24 have a copy of our correspondence for the Tribunal...

25 that Mr. Tapp would call Mr. Campbell. I probably...


1 I may not need to clarify anything with Mr. Campbell

2 after that, and then the applicant could formally

3 close his case. And so he has been on notice and has

4 agreed since August 8th that he will call Mr.

5 Campbell. And I will provide the Tribunal...

6 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. I am of the view

7 that I'm in a position to call a witness. I will

8 call the witness and you can ask your questions.

9 MR. TAPP: Under what rules, Mr.

10 Vice-Chair? Because this is...looking at the

11 witness summary, counsel provided it. He provided a

12 witness summary. Based on all the documentary

13 evidence that we wish to put forth to him through a

14 cross-examination, okay...there are different rules

15 that apply to examination-in-chief and

16 cross-examination.

17 THE VICE-CHAIR: I will call the witness.

18 You ask your questions. I will determine if the

19 question is appropriate or not. I understand that

20 you consider this as a hostile witness. You have

21 made that eminently clear. Let's move forward.

22 MR. TAPP: Okay.

23 MS. SINGH: I will get the witness.

24 THE VICE-CHAIR: Look, we're going to

25 have to break for lunch at some point in time. Does


1 it make sense...how long do you think you will be

2 with this witness?

3 MR. TAPP: I don't know, depending on his

4 responses. We got eight days, and this is the last

5 leg of the stretch. I will tell you right now, we

6 are going to be very thorough. I'm going to try and

7 finish in a day or two with him, but I cannot...I can

8 clearly say that we will not be finished with him

9 today. That, I can clearly say. We've got eight

10 days. We're going to make use of those whole eight

11 days to get through all the witnesses. That, I can

12 clearly state.

13 THE VICE-CHAIR: You only have eight days

14 if I...

15 MR. TAPP: I only have eight days.

16 THE VICE-CHAIR: ...if I say you have

17 eight days.

18 MR. TAPP: You've granted us eight days,

19 and we've got an undertaking there will be six

20 witnesses...

21 THE VICE-CHAIR: The Tribunal granted you

22 eight days, the registrar, and I...this is achieving

23 absolutely nothing. We're going to break for lunch

24 until 1:00. I will call the witness, you ask the

25 questions.



2 THE VICE-CHAIR: Thank you.

3 MS. SINGH: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.

4

5 --- upon recessing at 12:05 p.m.

6 --- A LUNCHEON RECESS

7 --- upon resuming at 1:06 p.m.

8

9 MS. SINGH: Would you like me to call the

10 witness, sir?

11 THE VICE-CHAIR: Please. Could you state

12 your full name for the record?

13 MR. CAMPBELL: Melville Ronald Jerome

14 Campbell, C-A-M-P-B-E-L-L.

15 THE VICE-CHAIR: Mr. Campbell, you're

16 about to give testimony before the Human Rights

17 Tribunal, and the Tribunal is dependent on you

18 telling the truth. Do you solemnly affirm to tell

19 the truth?

20 MR. CAMPBELL: I do.

21 THE VICE-CHAIR: And do you appreciate

22 it's an offence at law if you break that promise?

23 MR. CAMPBELL: I do.

24 THE VICE-CHAIR: Thank you very much.

25 Mr. Tapp.

- 58 - M.R.J. Campbell Ex-in-Ch (L. TAPP)

1 MELVILLE RONALD JEROME CAMPBELL, affirmed

2 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. TAPP:

3 Q. Okay. Mr. Campbell, do you have a

4 copy of your witness statement with you? I see you

5 have your notebooks with you, but do you have a copy

6 of your statement that has been provided and

7 disclosed to us?

8 A. Would this be entitled "Reply to

9 Michael Jack Statement"?

10 Q. Yes. I'm just going to give you a

11 copy of what has been provided for us, and share the

12 witness summary.

13 MS. SINGH: Yes. I don't believe this is

14 Mr. Campbell's witness statement. Counsel

15 prepared this witness statement, and so it's

16 not evidence. I think if you want to use it

17 as a guide for your questions, you know, Mr.

18 Tapp, but this is not a signed witness

19 statement. This is not evidence.

20

21 BY MR. TAPP:

22 Q. Do you have a copy of it before you?

23 A. I do, sir.

24 Q. Does it not say "Witness Summary of

25 Staff Sergeant Ron Campbell"?


1 A. It says "Witness Summary, Ron

2 Campbell".

3 Q. And does it not say "Tribunal File

4 No. 2010-07633-I?

5 A. It does.

6 MS. SINGH: Again, I just...for my

7 friend, perhaps you have misunderstood me.

8 Mr. Campbell did not prepare this. So he

9 can read what the document says, but he did

10 not prepare it.

11 THE VICE-CHAIR: This is what the

12 respondent anticipates he will say.

13

14 BY MR. TAPP:

15 Q. Were you asked to prepare a statement

16 regarding this matter, from which the respondent

17 prepared this summary?

18 A. I was asked to make a reply to a

19 document provided by Michael Jack, and I was asked

20 specific questions on specific areas in that

21 statement, and that is the statement I provided, my

22 reply to Michael Jack, which I believe was disclosed.

23 And I have met with the representative for the OPP,

24 who has asked me questions about various e-mails,

25 evaluations and notes.


1 MR. TAPP: I ask, where is that document?

2 The applicant, to this day, has never

3 received such a document, Mr. Vice-Chair.

4 MS. SINGH: Excuse me, Mr. Vice-Chair.

5 Mr. Tapp, perhaps you don't appreciate what

6 relationship exists between a witness and

7 his counsel.

8 MR. TAPP: Well, whose witness, your

9 witness?

10 MS. SINGH: The OPP's witness. And so he

11 may have had conversations which are subject

12 to privilege with his counsel at the time.

13 And so, to be asking questions about

14 conversations with counsel, as opposed to

15 asking the witness your questions about what

16 he can speak to, in my respectful

17 submission, Mr. Vice-Chair, is

18 inappropriate.

19

20 BY MR. TAPP:

21 Q. Okay. Nonetheless, you provided

22 certain responses from which that summary was

23 compiled, correct?

24 MS. SINGH: Mr. Campbell did not prepare

25 the document, Mr. Vice-Chair, and I think...


1 MR. TAPP: The question does not say

2 that. It says from which that document was

3 prepared...

4 MS. SINGH: The witness...

5 MR. TAPP: ...period.

6 MS. SINGH: ...is not in a position to

7 talk about what the statement...who prepared

8 it, what it was based on, what it's not

9 based on. But you can certainly ask the

10 witness questions.

11

12 BY MR. TAPP:

13 Q. All right. So you say in the first

14 paragraph...in the first paragraph it says:

15 "...He is currently at the OPP's West Parry

16 Sound detachment..."

17 Is that correct, or is that...or you are no longer

18 there now?

19 A. I'm retired from the OPP. I was...

20 Q. Pardon me?

21 A. I am retired from the OPP. I was at

22 the West Parry Sound detachment as the detachment

23 commander.

24 Q. Okay. When did you retire?

25 A. I retired on the 31st of August,


1 2016, and I took my vacation leave from June 3rd,

2 2016.

3 Q. And according to the summary, you

4 were acting detachment commander of...detachment

5 operations manager at Peterborough detachment for a

6 period of time before Parry Sound?

7 A. Yes, sir.

8 Q. Okay. Would that have been from

9 October 2007 to November 2009?

10 A. Yes, sir.

11 Q. I know you identified yourself for

12 the record, Mr. Campbell, but have you ever lived or

13 grown up in the Peterborough County area?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Thank you. And can you tell us how

16 many languages you speak, other than English?

17 A. None.

18 Q. What is the highest level of

19 education you have achieved?

20 MS. SINGH: Excuse me, Mr. Vice-Chair.

21 That is an improper question. It's not

22 relevant about his level of education, about

23 whether the witness speaks many languages.

24 It's not an issue. The witness's character,

25 the witness's background is not in issue in


1 this proceeding.

2 MR. TAPP: Personally, I believe it is

3 relevant, and Mr. Vice-Chair has been privy

4 to the testimony thus far of Mr. Jack,

5 contrary to counsel. So I think it is

6 relevant and it's just a question. It's not

7 something to be explored any further. Are

8 you going to allow that or not, Mr.

9 Vice-Chair?

10 THE VICE-CHAIR: I'm going to allow it.

11 I know where you're going to.


13

14 BY MR. TAPP:

15 Q. So what is the highest level of

16 education you have received, Mr. Campbell?

17 A. I have a college diploma from Sir

18 Sanford Fleming College in Peterborough.

19 Q. And what did you do before becoming a

20 police officer?

21 A. Various jobs, from delivering milk,

22 working at a marina, pumping gas, working as

23 security, a lifeguard, various...

24 Q. Fair enough. What rank did you hold

25 in Peterborough detachment in 2008, 2009? Was it


1 staff sergeant or inspector?

2 A. I was the staff sergeant, operations

3 manager for the Peterborough County detachment, and

4 at times I was acting as the detachment commander,

5 inspector rank level, in the absence of Michael

6 Johnston.

7 Q. Moving on to the next two paragraphs

8 in the witness summary before you, you say that one

9 of your responsibilities was overseeing the

10 day-to-day operations of detachment, including

11 reviewing performance evaluations?

12 A. Yes, sir.

13 Q. What do you mean by "reviewing

14 performance evaluations", please?

15 A. All the detachment performance

16 evaluations would cross my desk, at which time I

17 would read what was written, review the comments

18 from...depending on whether it was just the

19 supervisor or sergeant's evaluation of a constable,

20 or in the case of a probationary constable, the coach

21 officer or supervisor's comments, and review what was

22 written in the various categories, and note my

23 observations based on what was provided to me.

24 Q. Okay. Can you describe the different

25 platoons at the detachment and the chain of command,


1 please, in 2009, that is?

2 A. In 2009, there were, I believe, six

3 platoons if you count the administrative sergeant and

4 the people working administrative duties. There was

5 the crime unit detective sergeant and their

6 constables, and there were four platoons listed A

7 to D for the Peterborough County detachment, each

8 with a supervisor.

9 Q. But did your review of performance

10 evaluations also include that of the crime unit

11 performance evaluations?

12 A. Yes, they did.

13 Q. Okay. You mention in the third

14 paragraph of that witness summary concerns. What

15 were the concerns that you were made aware of prior

16 to Mr. Jack's arrival at the detachment?

17 A. I was advised that Mr. Jack had a gun

18 collection and there were concerns from a ride-along

19 passed on to their supervisor. From that supervisor,

20 I passed them on to Inspector Johnston.

21 Q. Gun collection and ride-along. Who

22 was the ride-along with?

23 A. I am not sure who they were with. I

24 think one was one of the Gravelles, Constable

25 Gravelles, and that would have been passed on to


1 Sergeant Brad Rathbun.

2 Q. So did you get the concerns through

3 Rathbun or through one of the Gravelles?

4 A. I did not speak to Mr. Gravelle

5 directly. It came from Sergeant Rathbun.

6 Q. In what shape or form?

7 A. I believe there is an e-mail and that

8 e-mail was forwarded to the inspector.

9 Q. I'm going to hand you an e-mail for

10 the purpose of jogging your memory. It is an August

11 5th, 2008 e-mail, Exhibit 93. Keep that before you,

12 please. How many firearms were you told in that

13 e-mail Mr. Jack possessed?

14 A. The fourth paragraph down says 32

15 registered guns.

16 Q. Did you do anything to verify the

17 number of firearms he had?

18 A. No, sir.

19 Q. You had a computer on your desk, did

20 you not?

21 A. Yes, sir.

22 Q. You have access to the Canadian

23 Firearms Registry, do you not?

24 A. Yes, sir.

25 Q. Do you agree that you could have


1 accessed that registry to see how many firearms

2 Mr. Jack had and what type they were?

3 A. Yes, sir.

4 Q. And did you?

5 A. No, sir.

6 Q. Is it safe to say that you just

7 believed whatever Mr. Rathbun told you in that

8 e-mail?

9 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. Did you also talk to Mr. Rathbun

11 about that e-mail?

12 A. I don't recall if I did or didn't.

13 Q. If I were to suggest one of the

14 Gravelles being Marc Gravelle, would that ring a

15 bell?

16 A. If I could just have your indulgence

17 for a second...

18 Q. Yes, go ahead.

19 A. ...I will look at this. I do see

20 Constable Pollock's name here, but I do understand

21 there were two Gravelles. One was Marc, and I'm not

22 sure what the other Gravelle's first name was, but

23 there were two Gravelles at the office.

24 Q. But were the two Gravelles brothers?

25 A. Yes, sir.


1 Q. Thank you. Can you read that e-mail,

2 please, the body of that e-mail, and who specifically

3 it's addressed to?

4 A. Okay. The original message is from

5 Brad Rathbun, Tuesday August 5th, 2008, at 12:01

6 a.m. It was sent to myself, Ron Campbell, and cc'd

7 to Mike P. Johnston, "Subject: Upcoming recruit", and

8 it says:

9 "...Staff Sergeant Campbell: On one of our

10 recent shifts, I met a gentleman who is

11 apparently coming to our detachment from the

12 next recruitment class. He did a ride-along

13 with our shift, and I would like to talk to

14 you about some concerns that have been

15 raised. Apparently, he is a Russian male

16 who also spent time in the Israeli army with

17 the name of Michael Jack, date of birth 16

18 December 1972.

19 In my short encounter, he made a

20 comment about how he likes guns. He

21 commented about guns continuously during his

22 ride-along. He apparently has 32 registered

23 guns. His obsession with guns was quite

24 disturbing. He also mentioned the persons

25 he killed (shot) during his time in the


1 army. The officer he rode with will make

2 notes with all concerns should this be

3 required. A concern by the officer was that

4 a result would be in making command staff

5 aware of an officer's instincts that were a

6 bit hair-raising.

7 As I was being told, I felt that

8 these points should at least be looked into

9 or brought to the attention of our

10 recruiting department. I understand this

11 recruit may be riding with PC Pollock today.

12 05 August 2008, Sergeant Rathbun..."

13 And from that point it was forwarded by Michael

14 P. Johnston, at the top, to Sandy Thomas in

15 recruiting. It said:

16 "...Please see Sergeant Rathbun's concern

17 about this future recruit coming to

18 Peterborough detachment. Mike..."

19 Q. Do you agree that it is evident that

20 that information came from one of the Gravelles and

21 not Pollock, at the bottom?

22 A. I don't see either Gravelle name

23 mentioned, but my recollection is it was one of the

24 Gravelles.

25 Q. Thank you. Is it not true that


1 whenever a civilian requests to go on a ride-along

2 there is a particular form that needs to be filled

3 out on the behalf of the OPP for liability reasons?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. What is that form known as?

6 A. I think it might be called an LE-27.

7 I'm not sure, but it is a form...a liability release

8 form, and there is also a form indicating that what

9 the person sees or observes, that they shall not be

10 disclosing to other parties.

11 Q. So, if according to that e-mail Mr.

12 Jack had gone on one ride-along and was due to go on

13 another, there ought to have been two liability

14 releases on file?

15 A. The liability releases should be

16 specified as to the date and time that they are in

17 effect. I have seen liability releases in effect

18 for...to cover several ride-alongs. I have also seen

19 them for a singular event.

20 Q. Okay. But, nonetheless, the

21 liability release would cover the ride-alongs...

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. ...whether one or two?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Thank you. And I just want to


1 mention for the record, we don't have a copy of any

2 of those liability releases, but we will move on.

3 If evidence revealed that Mr. Jack did not possess 32

4 firearms but only 22, would that make the information

5 from Sergeant Rathbun questionable?

6 A. You're asking for me to suppose

7 something. Twenty-two firearms is still a large

8 number of firearms.

9 Q. Fair enough. But if information from

10 a background investigation of Mr. Jack conducted by

11 the OPP revealed that Canadian Firearms Registry,

12 acronym CFRO, revealed 22 firearms, would that make

13 the information from Rathbun questionable?

14 A. It would make the number of firearms

15 questionable, but it would not make the sentiment

16 that he was expressing concern about a fascination

17 with guns. That would not render that part of his

18 information unfathomable. He was rendering a concern

19 about being obsessed with guns, with shooting people.

20 It makes no difference whether there is 32, 22 or 42.

21 Q. I'm showing you another document and

22 I'm going to identify it for the record.

23 MS. SINGH: If it's not in evidence, it

24 would be for the witness to identify, as

25 opposed to Mr. Tapp, Mr. Vice-Chair, please.


1 THE VICE-CHAIR: Is this in evidence?

2 MR. TAPP: Just a comment that is

3 documented regarding the background

4 investigation of Mr. Jack, which would be

5 the second-last single sentence paragraph.

6 MS. SINGH: Mr. Vice-Chair, if you could

7 simply perhaps explain to Mr. Tapp that if a

8 document is not to or from the witness, the

9 witness may have nothing to say about that

10 document, and that it's not for Mr. Tapp to

11 given evidence to the Tribunal about a

12 document. And so, if he wants to put a

13 document to the witness and the witness has

14 anything to say about it, that's fine. But,

15 otherwise, I would suggest that that is

16 improper.

17 MR. TAPP: Mr. Vice-Chair, this is

18 exactly the things I was concerned of by

19 being restricted to the rules of

20 examination-in-chief for this witness.

21 There are certain documents, yes, authored

22 by others, but this witness will have

23 knowledge of. And due to the lapse of time,

24 I ought to be afforded...I believe I should

25 be afforded at least to put it to this


1 witness to see if that will refresh his

2 memory any.

3 THE VICE-CHAIR: But this has nothing to

4 do with this witness, this document. It's

5 from Joanne Whitney.

6 MR. TAPP: Okay. Well, in that case, I

7 can go to Exhibit 138 tendered today and put

8 it to...136 and put it to this witness.

9 MS. SINGH: Mr. Vice-Chair, again, I

10 would object to documents being put to this

11 witness that he has no knowledge of. If he

12 wants to ask him a question about whether he

13 has knowledge, that's fine, but he should

14 not...he is bound by the Rules of Evidence

15 that apply, regardless of whether this is

16 cross-examination or examination-in-chief.

17 THE VICE-CHAIR: Counsel is right.

18

19 BY MR. TAPP:

20 Q. Okay. Regardless, you have

21 acknowledged that though CPIC or CFRO might have

22 revealed 22 firearms, that you were told 32, correct,

23 by that e-mail?

24 A. By which e-mail, sir?

25 Q. August 5th, 2008 on your desk.


1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Okay. Does that e-mail not also

3 convey the nationality and ethnic background of the

4 individual, Michael Jack?

5 A. I would say it reveals the

6 nationality being a Russian male. I don't know if

7 there is any requirements in the Israeli army that

8 you are from Israel, Canada, Russia. I don't know

9 that for sure.

10 Q. Now, did you believe that Mr. Jack

11 had shot and killed people, as that e-mail purports?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Yes?

14 A. Yes. Israel had a lot of internal

15 struggles, wars, security issues with the surrounding

16 territories. So I hear on the news all the time that

17 there are conflicts, so, yes. I have no direct

18 knowledge, other than the e-mail.

19 Q. But that e-mail caused you to believe

20 that, correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Okay. And what would you say if

23 evidence revealed Mr. Jack never served in the

24 Israeli army but Israeli navy?

25 A. I believe that, while I was at block


1 training with him, he did mention he was in the navy.

2 Q. Thank you.

3 A. That would have been in January 2009.

4 Q. And who were you there with, aside

5 from Mr. Jack?

6 A. I was with...I think there might have

7 been 20 to 30 other people from Peterborough

8 detachment. I believe there was just Mr. Jack,

9 Jennifer Payne and myself.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 A. And Paul Dunford was an instructor at

12 block training but from Peterborough.

13 Q. But from Peterborough detachment,

14 there was just you, Mr. Jack and Payne, correct?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. Good. Now, also, what would you say

17 if evidence revealed that Mr. Jack's time with the

18 Israeli navy never afforded him any combat duty

19 whatsoever?

20 A. I know of no evidence at this point.

21 Q. Fair enough. Now, what would you say

22 if evidence revealed he was actually an engineering

23 technician with the Israeli navy?

24 MS. SINGH: Mr. Vice-Chair, I fail to

25 understand what this line of questioning...


1 how is this relevant at all to what is in

2 issue in this case?

3 THE VICE-CHAIR: Well, it's a perception.

4 It possibly could colour someone's

5 perception as to who that person is. I

6 mean, this is a case about discrimination

7 based on a number of issues, but one of them

8 certainly is nationality, right?

9 MS. SINGH: But the correctness of his

10 information is not in issue. And so, what's

11 in issue, if anything, is...

12 THE VICE-CHAIR: It colours his

13 perception of the individual.

14 MS. SINGH: Exactly. And so it's still

15 significant whether, you know...whether it's

16 right or wrong, whether it's...ultimately,

17 it's a question of what he believed. And so

18 I don't understand why we need to go through

19 the correctness of it. It's what he

20 believed.

21 THE VICE-CHAIR: Fair enough, that's what

22 he believed.

23

24 BY MR. TAPP:

25 Q. Okay. It's what you believe. But


1 would you not be puzzled how he could have shot and

2 killed so many people if he never saw any combat duty

3 and was a technician?

4 A. Sorry, I don't have any information

5 other than the e-mail as to what you're talking

6 about. I know that I spoke with Michael Jack at

7 training and he told me he was in the navy. We never

8 discussed casualties of war, killing, or anything of

9 that nature.

10 Q. But does that e-mail not say that...

11 specifically state that he shot and killed people

12 during his time in the Israeli army, suggestive of

13 combat time?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. Good. So now I'm asking you, what

16 would you say if evidence revealed that he never saw

17 any combat time and was a technician, not in the army

18 but in the navy? What would that say about the

19 information in this e-mail?

20 A. It would say that that part of the

21 e-mail was incorrect.

22 Q. Good. Incorrect, that is?

23 A. Yes, sir.

24 THE VICE-CHAIR: Incorrect.

25


1 BY MR. TAPP:

2 Q. And also incorrect if CFRO showed a

3 specific number different to what this e-mail says?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Thank you. So you mentioned two

6 things that would be incorrect in that e-mail.

7 THE VICE-CHAIR: Well, I don't think that

8 is quite what he said.

9

10 BY MR. TAPP:

11 Q. Okay. It would say that the

12 information was incorrect. Am I right in recapturing

13 what you said?

14 A. Yes. Those two parts of the e-mail

15 would be incorrect.

16 Q. Okay. But it would be correct that

17 he is a Russian male?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. We have already heard testimony and

20 we've got exhibits entered. Based on your policing

21 experience and your position from which you retired

22 from, would you agree the OPP...recruitment and staff

23 development bureau of the OPP had information

24 concerning the CFRO checks of Mr. Jack?

25 A. Yes.


1 Q. Okay. And would you agree that if

2 they gave him employment and were knowledgeable of

3 the number of firearms he possessed, would it not

4 suggest to you that they did not have any concerns

5 about Mr. Jack?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Would you also agree that, just

8 because a recruit has a large collection of

9 registered firearms, does not mean the recruit is

10 gun happy or crazy?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Are you aware of another OPP recruit

13 in the same class that Michael Jack was of, a

14 Canadian recruit that had a larger firearm collection

15 than Mr. Jack?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Thank you. But the results of

18 his...and the number of the firearms he had would

19 have been reflected in the two background

20 investigative reports?

21 A. I did not see the background reports.

22 My reading or my meaning from this e-mail from Brad

23 Rathbun is that he is concerned about the demeanour

24 or persona of a large amount of firearms, and just

25 what...what it could entail is a safety reason.


1 Q. By your term of "demeanour", are you

2 referring to the word in that e-mail where

3 "instincts" is mentioned?

4 A. "That were a bit hair-raising". That

5 was his words, yes.

6 Q. And wouldn't a background

7 investigation by the OPP have alleviated any concerns

8 or instincts that the detachment might have?

9 A. I believe that's why it was forwarded

10 on to recruitment, to make them aware of Sergeant

11 Rathbun's concern in this e-mail, so that it could be

12 further checked out.

13 MR. TAPP: At this point we have asked

14 some questions, Mr. Vice-Chair, and I ask

15 that that document, the background

16 investigative report that is on your table

17 before you, be entered with respect to this

18 applicant's...this witness's testimony.

19 MS. SINGH: Mr. Vice-Chair, we've had a

20 ruling this morning that that would not be

21 admitted into evidence.

22 MR. TAPP: With respect to...

23 MS. SINGH: The witness...

24 MR. TAPP: ...this witness's testimony...

25 THE VICE-CHAIR: Hold on, let her finish.



2 MS. SINGH: The witness is not familiar

3 with that document. The witness has not

4 given any evidence about that document. The

5 witness has said that he has not seen that

6 document. He is not the author of that

7 document. The document was challenged and

8 opposed on the basis that it constitutes

9 character evidence and is hearsay. And for

10 all of those reasons, I find it problematic

11 that Mr. Tapp would again raise the issue of

12 that report, given your earlier ruling and

13 the submissions that were made in relation

14 to that report.

15 THE VICE-CHAIR: I have this report set

16 aside because I was going to consider at

17 some point in time whether they should be

18 entered, having regard to your argument and

19 counsel's argument, so...

20 MR. TAPP: Okay. And once again I will

21 say we're not interested in the character

22 evidence with respect to this witness's

23 testimony only. Okay.

24

25 BY MR. TAPP:


1 Q. So, by forwarding that e-mail to

2 recruitment, would you agree that the detachment had

3 concerns about him?

4 A. It was forwarded by Inspector

5 Johnston, and it was forwarded to address the

6 concerns, yes.

7 Q. Detachment concerns, that is?

8 A. It was the concerns of the members

9 who raised it.

10 Q. Thank you. If those two points that

11 you described and referred to Mr. Rathbun would have

12 been mistaken on, okay, if those two points were not

13 true and false, would such comments be defamatory?

14 THE VICE-CHAIR: Well, that's not a

15 proper question.

16

17 BY MR. TAPP:

18 Q. Okay. Can you see any racial

19 prejudice in that e-mail?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, if you

22 were to remove these two bits of information that

23 Mr. Rathbun would have been mistaken about, all

24 you're left with is race, ancestry, place of origin,

25 ethnic origin by reference to "Russian male" and


1 "Israeli army", and concerns or instincts?

2 A. I'm not sure I understand your

3 question.

4 Q. Okay. If you remove the comments

5 about the number of firearms and the comment about

6 number of people he shot and killed in the Israeli

7 army, what are you left with?

8 A. You have an e-mail stating that there

9 is a recruit coming who did a ride-along, and that

10 the sergeant had concerns from speaking with his

11 member, and that there were a number of guns, even

12 though 32 may not be correct. He stated his

13 obsession with guns is quite disturbing. And if you

14 take out that other part, the officer had

15 concerns..."notes with all concerns should this be

16 required". A concern was the result would be

17 making...he wanted to make command staff aware

18 because the talk of all the guns and the military

19 background caused him concern as to the person's

20 ability to deal with, I guess, other people.

21 In the policing world, it's a world of

22 de-escalation, and it was a safety concern for the

23 person. That's what I'm seeing.

24 Q. But having such a number of firearms

25 and serving militia time where he shot and killed


1 many people, the combination of those two is what was

2 hair-raising and concerning, is it not?

3 THE VICE-CHAIR: Well, he wouldn't know.

4 He is not the author of the e-mail.

5

6 BY MR. TAPP:

7 Q. Okay. Do you not agree that you

8 should have seen or wondered where Rathbun was

9 getting so much information based on a one-time very

10 brief meeting with Mr. Jack, for him to state that

11 his obsession with guns is quite disturbing?

12 A. I don't agree. The person would have

13 spent I don't know how many hours, but it's a 12-hour

14 shift, and I don't know how many hours the ride-along

15 was, but that was that person's perception from close

16 contact with Mr. Jack.

17 Q. Now, you mentioned about Israel being

18 in the news and that area. Do you not agree that,

19 with all the world news about the strife in the

20 Middle East and the continued bombardment of Israel

21 by Hamas and Hezbollah, that for someone spending

22 time in the Israeli army meant that that person would

23 have seen or may have been involved in active combat?

24 A. I don't know.

25 THE VICE-CHAIR: And we don't have any


1 evidence at all about what is happening in

2 Israel and who are the actors in Israel.

3

4 BY MR. TAPP:

5 Q. Okay. In that e-mail it mentions Mr.

6 Jack's obsession with guns. So I'm asking you, do

7 you believe that Mr. Jack, in that 12-hour

8 ride-along, all he talked about was guns, guns and

9 guns to a possible future sergeant of his or to a

10 constable of a particular platoon not knowing which

11 platoon he was going to be posted on?

12 A. I don't know.

13 Q. You don't. Looking at that e-mail

14 before you, would you agree that it was from a

15 subjective point of view and not an objective point

16 of view?

17 A. I'm sorry, I don't know.

18 Q. That e-mail...look at the content of

19 the e-mail and how it's worded.

20 THE VICE-CHAIR: He doesn't know.

21

22 BY MR. TAPP:

23 Q. Okay. Would you agree that your mind

24 was led to believe something about Mr. Jack based on

25 the information in that e-mail?


1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Good. It led you to have a concern

3 of him based on the contents of that e-mail?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Would you agree that your mind was

6 poisoned concerning Mr. Jack by that e-mail?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Okay. Do you know the results of

9 that e-mail that you forwarded to an inspector and

10 then was forwarded to recruitment?

11 A. Actually, it was sent to both myself

12 and Inspector Johnston, and it was Inspector Johnston

13 that send it on to Sandy Thomas.

14 Q. Would you not agree that Inspector

15 Johnston did also speak to you regarding that e-mail?

16 A. Yes, we discussed it.

17 Q. Good. So you were fully aware that

18 he was sending it on to recruitment?

19 A. Yes.

20 MR. TAPP: I've got to put a document

21 before this witness, Mr. Vice-Chair. It

22 points to the degree of prejudice that

23 stemmed from that e-mail, and it's in the

24 transcript.

25 MS. SINGH: Yes. Mr. Vice-Chair, can I


1 ask that if he is going to put any document

2 to the witness, he show them to counsel

3 first so that I can look at the document and

4 make any objections to the document, if

5 there are any objections to be made. And

6 second, that documents not be put to the

7 witness that the witness has no relationship

8 to, has not authored, was not a recipient

9 of, and can provide no evidence in relation

10 to.

11 MR. TAPP: And this is the problem that I

12 felt I was going to encounter. In order to

13 test the credibility of this witness, there

14 is a need to be able to examine him in light

15 of previous testimony provided to see if his

16 testimony is going to be shaken or not.

17 THE VICE-CHAIR: Well, is that document

18 entered as an exhibit?

19 MR. TAPP: It's the transcript of the

20 proceedings of witness Greco regarding Marc

21 Gravelle, one of the two brothers that this

22 witness has testified to that e-mail

23 originated from.

24 MS. SINGH: Yes. Mr. Vice-Chair, you

25 know, to take an extract from a transcript,


1 it's unfair to the witness to put...and it's

2 unfair to the OPP, quite frankly, to put an

3 extract from a transcript to the witness and

4 to say, you know, "This is true." I don't

5 know the context of what is...he can simply

6 ask the question. If he has a question, he

7 should simply ask a question.

8 THE VICE-CHAIR: The transcript you're

9 referring to is this transcript?

10 MR. TAPP: Yes, from this reporter, court

11 reporter.

12 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. If the person

13 gave that testimony, you can indicate that

14 to the witness and let the witness respond.

15 MR. TAPP: Okay.

16 THE VICE-CHAIR: Who is that, Gravelle?

17 MR. JACK: Greco.

18

19 BY MR. TAPP:

20 Q. Okay. I'm going to hand you a copy

21 of an excerpt from a previous witness, okay, and I'm

22 going to ask you to read from line 17 of that page to

23 the end of the very next page, okay, and then I have

24 a specific question for you. Line 17 of page 65 of

25 witness Greco's transcript. Now, I'm going to ask


1 you to read over that section that I directed your

2 attention to, line 17, page 65, to the end of 65.

3 And the reason I'm asking you is because it questions

4 the information from Gravelle to Rathbun, which in

5 turn is in that e-mail before you, okay? Read from

6 line 17 of 65 to the end of 66.

7 MS. SINGH: Mr. Vice-Chair, I don't know

8 if...I don't want to presume, but what I was

9 handed is pages 65, 66, 84 and 85, number 1.

10 Number 2, this witness, just to be fair to

11 the witness, would have no knowledge of

12 whatever this person testified to. If there

13 is a question that you want to put to the

14 witness, that Mr. Tapp wants to put to the

15 witness, he can put, you know, the question

16 to the witness, you know. And if he has any

17 information he can answer that question.

18 But we simply can't have it suggested

19 to this witness that there is some truth to

20 this transcript in the sense that this is in

21 this witness's knowledge, and he should know

22 and he should be provided with a different

23 answer about this information. If there is

24 other information about the e-mail that he

25 was sent, perhaps there is other information


1 about it.

2 I just, quite frankly, have

3 difficulty understanding how it is that this

4 is relevant or admissible or proper, quite

5 frankly, to put to this witness.

6 MR. TAPP: Well, would you like to hear

7 the question and then you can see the

8 relevance?

9 THE VICE-CHAIR: I would like to hear the

10 question.

11

12 BY MR. TAPP:

13 Q. All right. I asked you earlier,

14 okay, believing or knowing that Mr. Rathbun was

15 mistaken on two points in that e-mail, okay, you

16 already also indicated that the information in that

17 e-mail caused you to believe something and have some

18 similar...and share the concerns of Mr. Rathbun,

19 correct?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Okay. Now, I also asked you, had you

22 done the background checks or the CFRO checks and

23 knowing those two mistakes, would that cause you to

24 question the information being relayed to Rathbun

25 that forms the content of that e-mail?


1 A. I didn't complete any checks. I was

2 of the opinion that recruitment would look into it.

3 The inspector had sent it on, and that was their job

4 to look after.

5 Q. Okay. I will make it even more

6 clear. One of the two Gravelles relayed a bunch of

7 information to Rathbun and he put it down in an

8 e-mail and fired it off to you, right?

9 A. Again, from that e-mail, it doesn't

10 specify who...

11 Q. One of the Gravelles.

12 A. ...Sergeant Rathbun spoke to, but, to

13 my knowledge, it was a Gravelle. I have no idea what

14 Marc or...is the other Gravelle Mike Gravelle...

15 relayed to Sergeant Rathbun. I don't know what the

16 intricacies of their conversation was. I don't know

17 who Mr. Greco is or...

18 Q. Fair enough. You have said one of

19 the Gravelles. Marc Gravelle was on Rathbun's shift,

20 whereas Mike Gravelle, his brother, was not. So one

21 of the Gravelles, by process of elimination, we know

22 who it is, right?

23 A. I would assume so, yes.

24 Q. Okay. Now, would that not cause

25 concern about the information Gravelle is providing


1 Rathbun? In light of this, what I'm going to show

2 you...this document that I'm going to ask you to read

3 from and the mistaken information of Rathbun about

4 the number of firearms and how can he possibly have

5 shot and killed people if he wasn't...didn't have any

6 combat duty.

7 MS. SINGH: Mr. Vice-Chair, this question

8 has been asked in several different ways and

9 it has been answered.

10 THE VICE-CHAIR: I agree.

11

12 BY MR. TAPP:

13 Q. Okay. Did you know that after you

14 all...I'm going to say you all because Inspector

15 Johnston forwarded it with your full knowledge to

16 recruitment. Did you all know that, after you all

17 forwarded that e-mail to recruitment in OPP GHQ,

18 Mr. Jack was subjected to a second background

19 investigation?

20 A. I'm not sure. I may have known that,

21 I may not. I don't know.

22 Q. Okay. Also subjected to another

23 interview with OPP psychologist, Dr. Lapalme?

24 A. I don't know the details of what

25 occurred after the e-mail.


1 Q. But would you agree that you did...

2 the detachment did get correspondence from

3 recruitment regarding the results of that e-mail

4 before you?

5 A. I don't recall getting an e-mail to

6 myself. I would suspect that, because it was

7 forwarded to recruitment, they would look into it.

8 Q. Do you recall Sergeant Flindall,

9 Jack's future supervisor, sending you an e-mail

10 asking you if Mr. Jack was "the one we were supposed

11 to keep an eye on"?

12 A. That was in relation to Mr. Jack's

13 judgment in a firearm scenario from...his name is

14 escaping me right now, but...Peter Shipley...about

15 his concerns about Mr. Jack's ability to make good

16 decisions with regards to firearms, and the scenario

17 was involving...instead of disengaging, it was

18 engaging full-on, and it was a safety concern, that

19 Mr. Jack wasn't showing good judgment, yes.

20 Q. But the e-mail that I'm going to show

21 you was September 24th, okay, September 24th, 2008

22 from you, and Mr. Jack's term in the provincial

23 academy regarding what you just said, the firearms,

24 took place in November 2008...in December 2008.

25 MS. SINGH: Can I ask...


1 BY MR. TAPP:

2 Q. So my question is specific about this

3 e-mail, September.

4 MS. SINGH: Can the witness please have

5 the document?

6 MR. TAPP: Okay. Now we can...we will

7 give it to him.

8 MS. SINGH: And would Mr. Tapp please...

9 sir, could you please ask Mr. Tapp not to

10 put evidence...things as evidence to the

11 witness? He is not a witness.

12

13 BY MR. TAPP:

14 Q. Okay. I direct your attention to

15 Tuesday, September 23rd e-mail, 2008, in the middle

16 of that page.

17 THE VICE-CHAIR: Has this been entered?

18 MR. TAPP: No.

19

20 BY MR. TAPP:

21 Q. Can you read the content of that

22 e-mail, Tuesday, September 23rd, 18:12 hours, 2008,

23 who it's from and who it's to?

24 A. It's from Sergeant Robert Flindall.

25 It is to myself, and its subject "Re shift changes",


1 and it's...do you want me to read it in its entirety?

2 Q. Yes, in entirety.

3 A. It says:

4 "...Staff: I see I am now taking one of the

5 male recruits, Michael Jack. Can you advise

6 if he is the recruit that we need to keep an

7 eye on, ref [reference] his love of guns, et

8 cetera? I'm just looking for a heads-up..."

9 Q. Thank you.

10 A. Would you like my reply?

11 Q. And read your subsequent response

12 above that, please, who it's from and who it's to.

13 A. Okay. It's to my...from me back to

14 Sergeant Flindall, and I say:

15 "...You got it, he's the one. Problem was

16 we didn't know Amanda was married to Jeff

17 Knier, thus needing to move her..."

18 Because I couldn't have a married couple on the same

19 shift.

20 Q. Now read Flindall's response to you

21 above that.

22 A. Okay. After that there is a response

23 from Sergeant Flindall:

24 "...That's no problem at all, as long as I

25 know who my players are, especially this


1 one. I may pop into the academy and speak

2 with him about Jack while I'm over here..."

3 Q. And as of the date of that e-mail,

4 Flindall has never met or never even had occasion to

5 speak to Mr. Jack, correct...

6 A. I have no...

7 Q. ...in 2008?

8 THE VICE-CHAIR: How would he know?

9 MR. TAPP: Okay. Fair enough.

10

11 BY MR. TAPP:

12 Q. Now, would you not agree that,

13 if Mr. Jack did not do that shooting scenario in

14 the provincial academy until December 2008, the

15 three e-mails that I just asked you to read was

16 directly relational to the August 5th e-mail from

17 Rathbun?

18 A. I would agree with you. I was

19 thinking of the e-mail from Peter Shipley.

20 Q. Yes. Thank you.

21 THE VICE-CHAIR: Are we entering this?

22 MR. TAPP: Pardon me, yes. Can we enter

23 this as the next exhibit, please?

24 THE VICE-CHAIR: That is 140.

25


1 --- EXHIBIT NO. 140: E-mail exchange between Mr. Campbell

2 and Mr. Flindall, ending September

3 24, 2008

4

5 BY MR. TAPP:

6 Q. Would you agree...by those chain of

7 e-mails, "keep an eye on", your response, "you got

8 it, he's the one", would you agree that, were it not

9 for the August 5th, 2008 e-mail that Inspector

10 Johnston and you forwarded to the academy, Mr. Jack

11 would not have been singled out, and had to be kept

12 an eye on?

13 A. I can't answer that because there are

14 other concerns from the academy about his firearms

15 later down the road. So I can't say that...

16 Q. Yes.

17 A. ...in the future...

18 Q. But we're talking about the

19 responses. You had to get a response from the

20 academy in order for you to say, "you got it, he's

21 the one", on September 23rd. You had to get some

22 direction from someone that Mr. Jack had to be kept

23 an eye on?

24 A. I don't...I didn't get any e-mails

25 from the academy after Brad Rathbun's e-mail to


1 Inspector Johnston and myself. It was forwarded to

2 Sandy Thomas and the academy. No one provided me

3 with any feedback. I would figure that they would

4 look into it. And then Sergeant Flindall sent me

5 this e-mail, and he was the person that was

6 mentioned, that there was a concern for his love of

7 guns, yes.

8 Q. True. But Flindall is asking you a

9 specific question. Is it in that information...he

10 was asking you if Mr. Jack was the one that you all

11 were...had to keep an eye on, right?

12 A. That's correct.

13 Q. That's correct. Okay. Good. You

14 responded...so where did...was that direction coming

15 from just you and Johnston, "We need to keep an eye

16 on Jack," or did it come from someone else?

17 A. I think I'm clarifying that he is the

18 person who had the love of guns and...his e-mail does

19 say that we need to keep an eye on, but I wasn't

20 instructed from anyone. I just forwarded the

21 concerns on to recruitment.

22 Q. So you made that decision for him to

23 be kept an eye on?

24 A. I made no decision in that manner.

25 Q. Well, then I'm trying to establish


1 it. We have a chain of e-mails between Flindall and

2 you, three e-mails, correct?

3 A. Are you referring to the 24th of

4 September dated e-mail that starts on the 23rd at

5 18:12 hours and ends on the 23rd at 8:20 p.m.?

6 Q. The three e-mails that you read out,

7 okay. You read out three e-mails. You have them

8 before you.

9 A. Yes, and those are the dates that

10 they refer to.

11 Q. Okay. Between you and Flindall,

12 someone made a decision that Mr. Jack had to be kept

13 an eye on?

14 MS. SINGH: The witness has answered...

15 has been asked and answered the question.



18

19 BY MR. TAPP:

20 Q. Now, you talked about also some

21 concerns coming, and we have identified it in

22 December 2008, while Mr. Jack was at the academy

23 regarding the firing of his firearm and direction.

24 Am I right or am I wrong?

25 A. I don't know the specific date, but


1 Peter Shipley did see...send an e-mail, and I recall

2 having a conversation with him on the phone.

3 Q. With Mr. Shipley?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Thank you. You have been to block

6 training, for the number of years you have been a

7 staff sergeant, sergeant and a constable?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Okay. You know very well that,

10 during block training, specific direction is given to

11 head and body shots during block training?

12 A. Yes. During the firearms component,

13 northeast region has a different block training than

14 central, because we do our firearms separate from our

15 block days. So, in firearms training in northeast,

16 we would have different instructions as to body

17 or...it would be called an armour drill.

18 Q. Mr. Campbell, I'm not talking about

19 the time you went and became in charge of Parry

20 Sound. I'm talking about while you were at

21 Peterborough. So you were in the central region,

22 right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Okay. You said you got information

25 from Shipley. Was it in regards to this e-mail from


1 Shipley? Was it in regards to that e-mail that you

2 have before you?

3 A. The 7th of January e-mail?

4 Q. Can you read the first paragraph on

5 page 2 of that e-mail, please?

6 A. It's to...it's Peter Shipley to

7 Inspector Johnston, and it starts on the previous

8 page:

9 "...Hello Inspector. How are you?..."

10 Q. On page 2. Yes, go ahead.

11 A. "...I'm e-mailing you regarding

12 recruit Michael Jack, after concerns were

13 raised earlier on with recruit Jack. Some

14 of my instructions raised additional

15 concerns. We again consulted with HR and

16 Dr. Lapalme. After all observations have

17 been reviewed, it is the opinion of the four

18 psychologists that recruit Jack is a very

19 capable, highly intelligent recruit who will

20 be an asset to the organization.

21 One of the issues that was identified

22 during one of our morning's simulations,

23 recruits are involved in three searches and

24 then are engaged with simulated threat.

25 Thus they attend a DT and firearms station


1 [DT standing for defensive tactics]. All

2 recruits shooting at the target, as trained,

3 hit centre mass, while recruit Jack fired

4 all head shots. He was interviewed by our

5 firearms instructors regarding this and he

6 indicated he wanted to have more of a

7 challenge by hitting a smaller target area.

8 There is no concern, as Jack

9 understands the difference between stopping

10 the threat and eliminating the threat.

11 However, due to his past firearms training,

12 not just in the military but in a private

13 gun club, it was the recommendation of

14 Dr. Lapalme and our firearms instructor,

15 Sergeant Mark Morphet, and Sergeant Randy

16 Peacock, that it would be best to get

17 recruit Jack involved in our block training

18 program to re-emphasize that OPP training is

19 designed to stop and control the threat, not

20 to kill the threat.

21 In consultation with Ms. Natalie

22 Lawlor, IST administrator, and the

23 above-mentioned instructors, there is an

24 opening during next week's block training

25 for Jack to attend. This recommendation of


1 ensuring he attends block training as soon

2 as possible will enable us to re-emphasize

3 OPP training to recruit Jack, especially in

4 the decision-making and use of force and

5 lethal force areas.

6 If you could let me know if this is

7 acceptable to you, I can arrange for his

8 attendance next week. Thank you. Peter

9 D. Shipley, Chief Instructor, General Patrol

10 Training Unit, Provincial Police Academy..."

11 Q. Okay. That's one of the

12 correspondence and discussions you had with Mr.

13 Shipley?

14 A. That was the correspondence between

15 Inspector Johnston and myself. And later, as you

16 read through the chain of command, I had asked about

17 a room, who was going, and they were going to get him

18 in there. He could ride up with us, and it was...

19 that was the extent of the e-mail.

20 Q. Now, on page 1, look at the...who

21 it's from, and read the carbon copy too, please, the

22 e-mail that you read.

23 A. The very top or the bottom?

24 Q. The very bottom of page 1, from?

25 A. Ron Campbell to Johnston and Shipley.


1 "...It's my understanding, as I said, that

2 Sergeant Banbury will be attending firearms

3 next..."

4 Q. No, no, you're reading an e-mail.

5 The very bottom of page 1, of which you just read the

6 body on page 2.

7 A. I do see I was cc'd on this, you're

8 right.

9 Q. From?

10 A. It says to Johnston. Peacock is

11 cc'd, Johnston is cc'd, John Tod is cc'd, and myself

12 is cc'd. I missed that.

13 Q. From?

14 A. Peter Shipley.

15 Q. Peter Shipley. Good.

16 A. My apologies, I did miss that.

17 MR. TAPP: That's the question I asked.

18 Now, we will ask this be tendered as the

19 next exhibit, please.

20 THE VICE-CHAIR: It's 141.

21


23 and Mr. Shipley, et al., dated

24 January 7, 2009

25


1 BY MR. TAPP:

2 Q. Now, you have acknowledged...and I'm

3 not concerned about northwest or northeast region.

4 I'm concerned about central region, Peterborough

5 County is part of. You acknowledge, from your

6 experience of block training, that direction is

7 given for head and body shots, correct?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. I want you to look at this photograph

10 of Mr. Jack standing beside another recruit...

11 THE VICE-CHAIR: Hold on, hold on...

12 MR. TAPP: ...during that scenario.

13 THE VICE-CHAIR: ...hold on. Are these

14 in evidence?

15 MR. TAPP: Yes.

16 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. I just want to

17 know.

18 MR. JACK: It's in Exhibit 14, already

19 tendered.

20 THE VICE-CHAIR: What exhibit is it?

21 MR. TAPP: It's Exhibit 14. That has

22 already been tendered.

23

24 BY MR. TAPP:

25 Q. Do you see Mr. Jack standing with


1 another recruit there?

2 A. I believe Mr. Jack is the gentleman

3 on the right-hand side of the photo.

4 Q. That's correct. And there is another

5 person that you may or may not recognize, correct?

6 A. I don't recognize the person.

7 Q. Good. Thank you.

8 MS. SINGH: Again, this witness is in no

9 position to provide evidence in relation to

10 this photograph that was authored and put

11 in, I take it...

12 MR. TAPP: On the...

13 MS. SINGH: ...by the applicant in his

14 evidence.

15 MR. TAPP: Okay. On the contrary, we

16 just heard testimony that Mr. Campbell is

17 aware during his time and during the time he

18 went to block training, okay, that head and

19 body shots are taught, and the e-mail that

20 we just entered as Exhibit 141 is specific

21 to Mr. Jack's...they talk about Mr. Jack's

22 failure to follow direction, for words more

23 or less. And here...questions were put to

24 this witness that if he was familiar with

25 head and body shots, and here is a


1 photograph of what is alleged that Mr. Jack

2 only took head shots, but it clearly shows

3 head and body shots, along with another

4 recruit who has taken head and body shots.

5 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. Well, that's not

6 for this witness to deal with. He has

7 indicated that there is...I guess, it's...

8 what is block training, by the way?

9 MR. TAPP: Okay. Maybe Mr. Campbell is

10 more authorized. He is a higher level than

11 me. Can you explain to this...

12 THE VICE-CHAIR: Just make it simple. I

13 mean, is it because you have days in a row

14 of...you explain it.

15 THE WITNESS: Block training is called

16 block training...as you alluded to, we have

17 a number of days in a row, a block, that we

18 have a refresher training of statutes, of

19 first aid, defensive tactics, scenario

20 training to keep us current with changes in

21 the law to comply with the Police Services

22 Act as to our use of force, first aid, and

23 our firearms.

24 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. Thank you.

25


1 BY MR. TAPP:

2 Q. Okay. Looking at that photograph,

3 can you describe the type of shots you see?

4 A. Well, okay, I'm going to assume this

5 was completed with the .223 rifle, since they are

6 both holding a .223 rifle; that each target has six

7 bullet holes in the head or facial area, and that the

8 bottom part shows centre mass hits of a number of

9 targets. Mr. Jack's target is certainly a closer

10 grouping of shots than the other gentleman on the

11 left.

12 Q. Based on your block training and your

13 training at the academy, are those type of shots,

14 head and centre body mass, indicative of instruction

15 given by the academy? Don't look at counsel to

16 answer that. I'm asking you.

17 MS. SINGH: Excuse me, Mr. Vice-Chair...

18 THE VICE-CHAIR: He has already

19 testified.

20 MS. SINGH: ...he has...

21 THE VICE-CHAIR: He has indicated that

22 that is the case.

23 MR. TAPP: Okay. All right.

24

25 BY MR. TAPP:


1 Q. So would you agree that, to be posing

2 like that beside their targets, they would have had

3 to be following some direction as to what shots to

4 take?

5 THE VICE-CHAIR: Well, he doesn't know

6 that.

7 THE WITNESS: I don't know.

8

9 BY MR. TAPP:

10 Q. Okay. But I'm puzzled. That e-mail

11 from Shipley, does it not suggest that only Mr. Jack

12 was in violation of something?

13 A. Not knowing if this is what he is

14 referring to, yes.

15 Q. Okay. Yet, you see, aside from Mr.

16 Jack, another recruit standing beside that...his own

17 target or a target?

18 A. I see...yes, I see two people

19 standing there, but I have never seen anybody take a

20 picture of themselves with their target.

21 Q. Fair enough.

22 MS. SINGH: Mr. Vice-Chair...

23

24 BY MR. TAPP:

25 Q. Do you know the significance of that


1 date at the bottom? Would it surprise you to know

2 that that is Mr. Jack's birthday, December 16th,

3 2008?

4 THE VICE-CHAIR: Well, we don't really

5 care, and...

6 MR. TAPP: Well, the significance is he

7 had...he was happy about those shots...

8 THE VICE-CHAIR: Well...

9 MR. TAPP: ...posed next to, and he took

10 it on his birthday.

11 THE VICE-CHAIR: That's fine, and this is

12 an exhibit, but it's not for this witness to

13 be making comments with respect to this

14 photograph.

15

16 BY MR. TAPP:

17 Q. Okay. I want you to direct your

18 attention to a chain of e-mails dated January 8th to

19 January 9th, 2009, regarding block training joining

20 instructions.

21 THE VICE-CHAIR: Has this been entered as

22 an exhibit?

23 MR. TAPP: No, it has not.

24

25 BY MR. TAPP:


1 Q. Okay. You have read through those

2 e-mails?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Do you recall Mr. Jack...or do you

5 recall giving Mr. Jack authority on January 13th to

6 use an unmarked cruiser?

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. Okay. What was the purpose of the

9 use of that cruiser?

10 A. Mr. Jack was experiencing dental

11 pain. He needed, I believe, emergency dental care.

12 He had to leave block training to go and receive it,

13 and because he had travelled to block training with

14 Constable Payne and myself, he would have no other

15 means of getting to that training...or getting to

16 that dental appointment, and he was in pain.

17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Now, what

18 you just described over here, is that reflected in

19 this chain of e-mail communication with the

20 coordinator of block training, Natalie Lawlor,

21 regarding Mr. Jack and his appointment with a

22 dentist?

23 A. I had no knowledge of that

24 appointment until we were at block training. This

25 e-mail starts on the 12th of January, and it was


1 after we had arrived at block training that I became

2 aware of it only through Mr. Jack.

3 MR. TAPP: Okay. I would ask that this

4 be entered as an exhibit, because it attests

5 to the block training that Mr. Campbell, Ms.

6 Payne and Mr. Jack went on.

7 THE VICE-CHAIR: This is 142.

8

9 --- EXHIBIT NO. 142: E-mails dated January 8 and 9, 2009,

10 re block training joining

11 instructions

12

13 BY MR. TAPP:

14 Q. You provided a point form chronology

15 regarding Mr. Jack and your involvement with him at

16 some time to the OPP?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Do you know when you provided it?

19 A. Prior to leaving Peterborough.

20 Q. Fair enough. That would be December

21 2009?

22 A. No. It would have been prior to

23 November 27th, 2009.

24 Q. Fair enough. I'm going to ask you to

25 direct your attention to your portions of the point


1 form chronology, right beside where it says "Staff

2 Sergeant Campbell", not anyone else's.

3 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. Has this been

4 entered?

5 MR. TAPP: Not yet. This is from the

6 respondent's documents to be relied upon,

7 which we are also relying upon.

8 MS. SINGH: It's not in evidence, sir,

9 and it can't be...Mr. Campbell is one of

10 many people who contributed to this

11 chronology. And so, you know, he can be

12 asked a question about whether that entry is

13 his and whether it appears to be accurate,

14 but, beyond that, this document cannot be

15 entered as an exhibit, I would suggest,

16 through Mr. Campbell.

17 MR. TAPP: Okay. I can address that

18 concern of counsel, and I agree with her.

19 This document that I'm suggesting be

20 tendered now is a document that you, Mr.

21 Vice-Chair, specifically requested, and we

22 asked time to run down to the vehicle, which

23 is in the parking lot, to get, but because

24 of time restraints, we didn't.

25 Now, the document is compiled by five


1 officers: Campbell, Nie, Payne, Filman and

2 Flindall. Those are all five officers, one

3 of which was Campbell here, that are going

4 to be testifying. Now, we can either

5 extract and enter them individually or enter

6 them now and make reference as these

7 witnesses testify.

8 Once again, my comments and direction

9 is for Mr. Campbell to direct his attention

10 to his point form chronology, not anyone

11 else's.

12 MS. SINGH: Yes. Mr. Vice-Chair, you

13 know, a chronology, like police notes, are

14 an aid to a witness in terms of their

15 recollection. And if a witness needs to

16 look at this entry to confirm it, the

17 accuracy, and to give evidence about it, I

18 have no difficulty with that. But to

19 suggest, as Mr. Tapp is suggesting, that

20 this becomes evidence, like police notes,

21 they don't become evidence.

22 If he has a question for this

23 witness, he can put the question to the

24 witness, and that is fair. But to seek to

25 have this introduced as evidence is not


1 properly to be admitted. This shouldn't,

2 you know, be put to the witness beyond

3 simply assisting him with his recollection.

4 MR. TAPP: With all due fairness, counsel

5 has not been here the previous block of

6 days, and this document was specifically

7 referred to by Superintendent Armstrong's

8 testimony, Colleen Kohen's testimony and

9 Superintendent Stevenson's testimony, that

10 they used the point form chronology, and the

11 performance evaluation reports, to base

12 their decision on Mr. Jack's termination

13 from employment, which was why you

14 specifically requested if we have a copy

15 of that. So I leave it in Mr. Vice-Chair's

16 hands.

17 THE VICE-CHAIR: This was part of the

18 disclosure package...

19 MR. TAPP: Yes.

20 THE VICE-CHAIR: ...from the...

21 MR. TAPP: Respondent.

22 THE VICE-CHAIR: ...from the respondent.

23 So presumably the respondent felt this was

24 arguably relevant.

25 MR. TAPP: Absolutely.


1 MS. SINGH: Arguably relevant, as are

2 police notes, but they're not evidence. The

3 witness is here to give evidence about them.

4 My understanding, I'm being advised, is that

5 those other witnesses could not have given

6 evidence about the chronology, except to the

7 extent that the chronology was referenced in

8 relation to e-mails that they received or

9 authored.

10 In fact, the people that Mr. Tapp

11 mentioned are not authors, did not

12 contribute to this document. So I'm

13 perplexed as to how it is that they gave any

14 evidence in relation to this chronology.

15 And my difficulty, sir, and I'm simply

16 saying this to assist the Tribunal and not

17 to prolong this any further, is simply, if

18 Mr. Tapp wants to put a question to Mr.

19 Campbell, that Mr. Campbell is entitled to

20 look at his notes. He is entitled to look

21 at the chronology and can verify whether or

22 not those entries are accurate, or whether

23 he recalls them, what he meant by them,

24 whatever the case. But the chronology

25 itself, like the police notes, are not


1 entered as exhibits in a courtroom or in the

2 Tribunal.

3 MR. TAPP: What does counsel mean by

4 "courtroom"? We are dealing with this as a

5 tribunal, okay? And Campbell can very well

6 go through all of his specific...take time,

7 read through your entries. This wasn't

8 compiled by counsel. This was compiled by

9 the individual officers, officers who are

10 yet to testify. Campbell prepared his own

11 chronology.

12 THE VICE-CHAIR: I am...

13 MR. TAPP: You ruled on this.

14 THE VICE-CHAIR: I'm going to enter this

15 as an exhibit. The extent to which it's

16 evidence that I can rely on for anything,

17 I will have to determine that. It may have

18 absolutely no weight as evidence, I don't

19 know, but we will enter it. And that is

20 143, compilation of entries.

21

22 --- EXHIBIT NO. 143: Compilation of entries

23

24 THE VICE-CHAIR: Anyway, 25-plus pages.

25 MR. TAPP: Actually, 47 pages.


1 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. Let's move

2 forward. At some point soon, we're going to

3 take a break.

4 MR. TAPP: Okay. Right after this might

5 be appropriate.

6

7 BY MR. TAPP:

8 Q. Mr. Campbell, in the January 2009

9 point form chronology you state:

10 "...Staff Sergeant Campbell verbally updated

11 PC Filman of activities on block training,

12 and observation of no issues..."

13 What did you mean by "observation of no issues",

14 please?

15 A. In my time with Michael Jack at block

16 training, I observed no behaviours that concerned me

17 in relation to his judgment or his firearms.

18 Q. Thank you. Did your observations of

19 him as of that date have an impact on your perception

20 of him from that original e-mail that you got in

21 August 2008?

22 A. I always...I will say I always make

23 my own judgments about people from my own

24 observations. So I had no concerns with Mr. Jack

25 when I was on block training with him in January


1 2009, from my own contact with him.

2 MR. TAPP: Thank you. It's 2:46, Mr.

3 Vice-Chair. We can either break until 3:00,

4 or I can continue and break later.

5 THE VICE-CHAIR: We should break now

6 until 3:00.

7 MS. SINGH: Mr. Vice-Chair, can I ask

8 that, you know, before we rise, that the

9 witness be asked to look over the entries

10 during the break, so that Mr. Tapp does not

11 have to ask the witness to read

12 entry-by-entry, and he can simply put a

13 question to the witness or direct the

14 witness to a particular entry so that we can

15 move along.

16 THE VICE-CHAIR: That's a good plan.


18 MR. TAPP: Well, my question will not be

19 any different than the way I worded the last

20 question. "I direct your attention to

21 January 2009 entry. Can you explain this,

22 please?"

23 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. Well, I think

24 it's a good idea that you...



1 THE VICE-CHAIR: ...review the entries...

2 THE WITNESS: I have, sir, previous to

3 this.

4 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. 3:00.

5

6 --- upon recessing at 2:46 p.m.

7 --- A BRIEF RECESS

8 --- upon resuming at 3:04 p.m.

9

10 MELVILLE RONALD JEROME CAMPBELL, resumed

11 CONTINUED EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. TAPP:

12 MS. SINGH: Mr. Vice-Chair, just a point

13 of order, the court reporter has asked if he

14 could know whether his services will be

15 needed after 5:00 today. He is available

16 but he just needs to make arrangements to

17 stay longer. And so I said that I would

18 raise it with the Tribunal.

19 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. I'm

20 looking to end the session today at

21 4:30-ish.

22 MR. TAPP: Fair enough. That will also

23 be consistent with the times in the past.

24 THE VICE-CHAIR: Yes. Okay.

25 MS. SINGH: If at any time, sir, the


1 Tribunal is prepared to sit late, I'm

2 certainly prepared to sit late on any day to

3 get this done.


5 MS. SINGH: And the witnesses are aware

6 as well. The other point I should raise

7 with you, sir, is that the witness that we

8 have called for tomorrow has other court

9 commitments starting next week. So his

10 availability is limited to this week.


12 MS. SINGH: And so, I'm hoping...I have a

13 summons for him to come tomorrow...that we

14 can start him. The applicant can close his

15 case and we can stay on track, if that

16 works.

17 THE VICE-CHAIR: Yes. I'm open to that.

18 I will let you orchestrate it.


20 MR. TAPP: I like counsel's suggestion.

21 And like you directed us to provide counsel

22 with a list of our last witnesses and the

23 order of appearance, if counsel can do the

24 same, that will be great. Then we can

25 obviously say, "Okay, we will restrict our


1 cross-examination for this amount of time

2 for this witness and that witness." That

3 will be great.

4 MS. SINGH: I would be happy to do that.

5 I will provide you with a list and the dates

6 of people coming and the time. And, as I

7 say, with the witness tomorrow, there is a

8 true deadline, and he is not available after

9 Friday.

10 MR. TAPP: Okay. Then that clearly tells

11 us that we should deal with this witness

12 before the end of Friday.

13 THE VICE-CHAIR: I am not inclined to go

14 past 4:30, actually, certainly 5:00. We

15 have staff here that have to go home and

16 eat. And, as I understand it, there is

17 overtime involved.

18 MR. TAPP: The elevators shut down at

19 5:00 anyways. That's an automated system.

20 THE VICE-CHAIR: Yes. So we will try to

21 complete daily at around 4:30. We can run

22 up to 5:00, but I don't want to be here

23 later than that.

24 MS. SINGH: Thank you, sir, thank you.

25 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay, Mr. Tapp.


1 BY MR. TAPP:

2 Q. Okay. Continuing Mr. Campbell, just

3 a couple of brief questions regarding your January

4 2009 point form entry. You mentioned PC Filman and,

5 after that, of activities and block training. Now,

6 can you comment about the accuracy of Jack's shooting

7 during block training?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Okay. Do you recall any award being

10 given to him regarding his shooting at block

11 training?

12 A. No.

13 Q. How about by the academy?

14 A. No.

15 Q. I'm going to have Mr. Jack hand you a

16 welcome letter, "Welcome to Peterborough" letter,

17 dated December...issued by you to Mr. Jack, and I

18 have some questions regarding that, please. First of

19 all, do you recognize that letter as being one issued

20 to...or a copy of it being issued to Mr. Jack?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Thank you. In that welcome letter,

23 you stated that:

24 "...Mr. Jack's coach officer was Constable

25 Shaun Filman, who was an experienced and


1 accomplished officer..."

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Can you read the content of that

4 letter, please?

5 A. I do have one question.

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. I'm confused by the date on the top

8 of the letter, it's January 28th, 2011, which would

9 be two years...

10 Q. Just specific to that date. Mr. Jack

11 will address it. He...

12 MR. JACK: If anyone has a knowledge of

13 computer programming here, they can address

14 it, or I can, because I do have this

15 knowledge. I can address this. I know

16 why...

17 MR. TAPP: Address it, please.

18 MR. JACK: It's a macro in your Word

19 document. A macro is a single instruction

20 which expands into a set of other

21 instructions to perform an automated task.

22 MS. SINGH: Mr...

23 MR. JACK: When this document was

24 accessed, it printed the day it was

25 accessed.


1 MS. SINGH: Mr. Vice-Chair...

2 MR. TAPP: Okay.

3 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay, okay. I don't

4 know...

5 MS. SINGH: This witness is in no...you

6 know, the applicant is not an expert

7 witness.

8 THE VICE-CHAIR: I know, I know. This

9 isn't a court of law. Our rules are pretty

10 relaxed compared to the courtroom. Are you

11 familiar with the letter?

12 THE WITNESS: I am. It's a form letter

13 that is sent to every recruit. It advises

14 them of who their coach is, who their

15 supervisor is, what kind of duties they will

16 have. And there was a handbook created

17 before my arrival, the business plan, and

18 epaulets that said Peterborough County on

19 it, given to the officer and...

20

21 BY MR. TAPP:

22 Q. But you were puzzled as to the date

23 on top, right?

24 A. I understand why it is...

25 Q. So if I were to suggest that, when


1 the application was shared with the OPP in early

2 January 2011, a request was made for all

3 documentation, and, at that time, that would indicate

4 why numerous documentations from counsel from the

5 respondent have at the bottom "January 2011", and why

6 that particular document has that date, as opposed to

7 2009...

8 A. Yes, I understand that, sir.

9 THE VICE-CHAIR: Yes. I'm not concerned

10 about...

11 MR. TAPP: Okay.

12 THE VICE-CHAIR: If you have some

13 questions with respect to...

14 MR. TAPP: Yes. We have no concerns

15 about that date.

16

17 BY MR. TAPP:

18 Q. You acknowledge that document being

19 given to Mr. Jack by you?

20 A. It's a form letter sent out, yes.

21 Q. Yes. Read the third paragraph in the

22 body of that e-mail, please, from your supervisor.

23 A. It's the fourth, but...

24 "...Your supervisor is Sergeant Flindall..."

25 Q. Yes.


1 A. "...and can be reached at

2 705-742-0401, extension 4621, or via e-mail

3 [email protected]. Please contact

4 him at your convenience to discuss your

5 shift schedule..."

6 Q. Pardon me, can you read the paragraph

7 immediately above that, please?

8 A. "...An employee handbook,

9 Peterborough County business plan, map and

10 two pairs of epaulets will be issued to you

11 upon arrival. Your coach officer is

12 Provincial Constable Shaun Filman, an

13 experienced and accomplished officer..."

14 MR. TAPP: Thank you. Can we have that

15 entered as the next exhibit, please, the

16 two-page document?

17 THE VICE-CHAIR: Well, I don't know...

18 what is the front page about? Nothing.

19 MR. TAPP: Pardon me.

20

21 BY MR. TAPP:

22 Q. Can you identify such an e-mail...

23 first of all, the e-mail that is attached to that

24 welcome letter, who is Kathy Chapman?

25 A. She is the administrative clerk at


1 the...or was at the Peterborough detachment while I

2 was there, and she would look after sending those out

3 to the various recruits.

4 Q. So would it be safe to say it would

5 be her responsibility, subject to your direction, to

6 print such a letter and send it out to Mr. Jack?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Thank you. So that would explain

9 that attached e-mail from her on the face of this...

10 A. Yes. The e-mail would have went out

11 from her, not from me directly.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 THE VICE-CHAIR: So that is 144, two

14 pages.

15

16 --- EXHIBIT NO. 144: E-mail from Ms. Chapman, attaching

17 welcome to Peterborough County

18 detachment letter

19

20 BY MR. TAPP:

21 Q. Were you aware that Mr. Jack sent

22 e-mails to Mr. Filman to meet or speak or converse

23 with him?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Okay. Would you agree that, at the


1 recruitment class, there would be a posting of which

2 detachment a recruit was going to be and who that

3 recruit's coach officer was going to be?

4 A. I think have no knowledge of that.

5 Q. Okay. But, aside from the welcome

6 letter, there could be such a posting?

7 A. I don't know, because 32 or 33 years

8 ago, all that was supplied to you at the academy was

9 your name and the location you were going.

10 Q. Okay. Fair enough. Good enough.

11 So, wasn't there another officer that was assigned to

12 coach Mr. Jack?

13 A. Originally, it was...I'm not sure who

14 it was on the other shift, but, as a result of...as I

15 mentioned earlier, Amanda Knier, being the spouse of

16 Jeff Knier, we could not have spouses working

17 together. So there was a switch of recruits to

18 balance out...each shift was getting a recruit. I

19 know there is another e-mail as to assigning who

20 would be the coach officers, and, I think, after the

21 fact, Jennifer Payne was to be Michael Jack's coach

22 officer.

23 Q. Now, you're saying, due to the fact

24 of Amanda Knier and Jeff Knier being spouses, they

25 couldn't have Amanda Knier on the same shift as her


1 husband?

2 A. It deals with the Rules of Evidence

3 of being competent and compellable. Certainly,

4 Amanda Knier could be a competent witness, but she...

5 Q. Not compellable against her spouse?

6 A. She is not compellable.

7 Q. True. But that would be if Shaun

8 Filman and...would you agree that Constable Payne was

9 originally assigned as coach officer?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Okay. So, what you're saying would

12 make sense if Constable Filman and Constable Payne

13 were on separate shifts?

14 A. No. I don't remember who would have

15 been the coach when Constable Jack was going to one

16 shift, and Amanda Knier was going to the other shift.

17 I do remember, after the fact that it was pointed out

18 that they were spouses, he was going to the shift

19 that had both Payne and Filman on it.

20 Q. Okay. Thank you. So Amanda Knier

21 and Jeff Knier were never going to be on Flindall's

22 shift. Why was there a need to switch Jack from the

23 guidance of Payne to the guidance of Filman?

24 A. I am not sure what Knier and Knier

25 have to do with it because they aren't on Flindall's


1 shift, that I recall. But the issue is with Filman

2 and Jennifer Payne. Jennifer Payne was on maternity

3 leave, was to return, but prior to her return, she

4 had an outstanding criminal case that she was working

5 with the crime unit, that they...she was extended in

6 the crime unit. So she wasn't immediately available

7 to coach Michael Jack. And the most suitable

8 candidate to coach him was Mr. Filman.

9 Q. So it wasn't really the issue about

10 husband and wife, because it had no bearing on

11 Flindall's shift. More so, the issue had to deal

12 with Payne's prior commitments?

13 A. No, no, there was still an issue with

14 who was going to which shift. And if Amanda Knier

15 was going to the same shift as her husband, she

16 couldn't work on that shift. So Amanda Knier was

17 moved to one platoon, and Michael Jack was moved to

18 that platoon.

19 Q. Okay. Thank you very much. Now,

20 being a detachment operations manager, is it not true

21 that there is a policy with respect to a coach

22 officer or another officer attending a new recruit's

23 graduation ceremony at the Ontario Police College?

24 A. No.

25 Q. How about the Provincial Police


1 Academy?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Okay. Would you be surprised to know

4 that the other recruits coming to the detachment had

5 their coach officers present at their ceremony,

6 unlike Mr. Jack?

7 A. Yes. It's up to the discretion of

8 that coach whether they have the time, whether

9 they're working or not working, but it's...there is

10 no policy saying, "You shall go to your recruit's

11 graduation." Think of the Province of Ontario, from

12 Thunder Bay to Windsor to the eastern townships near

13 the Quebec border, can you have people travelling

14 hours and hours to go meet their recruit?

15 Q. But we're talking about Peterborough

16 detachment. I am not concerned about...

17 A. You're asking me if there is a

18 policy. There is no policy.

19 Q. Fair enough. Would you agree that it

20 would be normal, when one is assigned a recruit, for

21 that coach officer to attempt to establish contact

22 with the recruit?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. For instance, to tell him, "This is

25 the entry code at the detachment. See you on such


1 and such a date, and hope all is well. I'll see you

2 when you get here," things to that nature?

3 A. Yes, that could happen.

4 Q. The detachment does have a specific

5 electronic entry code, right?

6 A. It does.

7 Q. And only the officers of the

8 detachment are privy to that?

9 A. And civilian staff.

10 Q. And civilian staff, yes. And Mr.

11 Jack would not have been privy to this, at least not

12 by your welcome letter?

13 A. Not in the welcome letter, no.

14 Q. Okay.

15 A. But other recruits have gone to other

16 detachments and have not received this. It's not

17 abnormal.

18 Q. But that would be if the other

19 recruits...and we can't speak about them...if the

20 other recruits were advised of their entry code by

21 their...

22 A. Well, I can speak to some things,

23 because you're asking me if it's normal, and I have

24 seen both situations over my almost 33 years with the

25 OPP, where some have been aware of the code, some


1 have contacted, some have not.

2 Q. So if Mr. Jack sent e-mails to Mr.

3 Filman regarding his anticipated arrival at the

4 detachment and got no responses, what would that

5 suggest?

6 MS. SINGH: Mr. Vice-Chair, that's not a

7 proper question.

8 MR. TAPP: Okay.

9 MS. SINGH: Mr. Campbell cannot speculate

10 about that other witness.


12 MS. SINGH: And that other witness will

13 be here, and if he has a question for that

14 witness, he can put that question to him.



17

18 BY MR. TAPP:

19 Q. Would you be surprised to know that

20 Mr. Jack had to call his classmate, Amanda Knier, and

21 ask to speak to her husband just to get the entry

22 code to the detachment?

23 A. I can't give you an answer to that,

24 because I am again giving you information that...what

25 somebody did or didn't do that wasn't me.


1 Q. But, obviously, he would not have had

2 that entry code if he had to make such a phone call,

3 correct?

4 A. Mr. Jack?

5 Q. Yes.

6 A. No, he wouldn't have had the entry

7 code.

8 Q. Thank you. In the witness summary,

9 it indicates that you will testify that you neither

10 heard the term "Crazy Ivan" used to refer to Mr.

11 Jack. Can you just read that statement, that

12 notation there?

13 A. The fourth paragraph down, it says:

14 "...Staff Sergeant Campbell will testify

15 that he neither heard the term 'Crazy Ivan'

16 used to refer to Mr. Jack, nor used the term

17 himself..."

18 Q. Though you may not have heard it used

19 or used in reference to Mr. Jack, you cannot deny it

20 was ever used at the detachment, can you?

21 MS. SINGH: Is that a question?

22 MR. TAPP: That is.

23

24 BY MR. TAPP:

25 Q. You may not have heard it, you may


1 not have used it, but does that mean it was never

2 used?

3 MS. SINGH: The witness...Mr.

4 Vice-Chair...

5 THE VICE-CHAIR: Yes. He can't answer

6 that.

7

8 BY MR. TAPP:

9 Q. Your office at Peterborough

10 detachment opened into the constables' office, did it

11 not?

12 A. Yes, it did, sir.

13 Q. Isn't the constables' office where

14 officers usually gather and discuss their day's

15 events or do their work at the computer?

16 A. They can, yes.

17 Q. Would the door to your office always

18 be open, except when you had something private to

19 discuss with someone or a meeting was taking place

20 inside?

21 A. Or if I was absent from the

22 detachment at a meeting myself outside the

23 detachment, I would lock it.

24 Q. Okay. If other officers' testimony

25 revealed that the term "Crazy Ivan" was used by


1 members at Peterborough detachment in reference to

2 Mr. Jack, would that change your testimony any?

3 MS. SINGH: Asked and answered, Mr.

4 Vice-Chair.


6

7 BY MR. TAPP:

8 Q. Okay. The witness summary says you

9 can describe your role in reviewing Jack's

10 performance evaluations. Can you describe it,

11 please?

12 A. I, as the staff sergeant/operation

13 manager, would review each evaluation, look for the

14 content to see whether...what it addressed to see

15 whether there were any issues to...sometimes I would

16 ask clarifying questions as to, you know, what this

17 entailed. If they said they had issued, say, 12

18 provincial offence notices during an evaluation

19 period, I would be interested to know what kind of

20 variety it was, what kind of statutes it covered.

21 I would be interested to know different

22 things. If there was something that I disagreed

23 with, I would let the supervisor or coach know, and I

24 would put my comments on and recommendations as to

25 the performance that was outlined to me. Certainly I


1 can say, in retrospect, having read documents, I

2 would have certainly had more concerns if I had been

3 more aware of the issues with Mr. Jack's performance.

4 Q. Thank you. I'm showing you a series

5 of e-mails between you and Inspector Johnston...

6 A. Thank you.

7 Q. ...with the number 83 on the top, one

8 sheet. Do you have that? Okay. I would like you to

9 read the content of the e-mail from you to Robert

10 Flindall, carbon copy to Mike Johnston, dated March

11 23rd, 2009, 11:59 a.m.

12 A. Okay. I will start out...it goes

13 from me to Rob Flindall, cc'd to Inspector Johnston.

14 I said:

15 "...Rob: I would like Shaun to address how

16 many [it should be 'charges'] and what

17 variety of charges Mike laid under traffic.

18 Has he arrested any impaired drivers or

19 completed any investigations in this area?

20 How many RIDE and seatbelt checks has he

21 completed? Are they accurately recording

22 this on DAR?

23 I realize Shaun has had a lot on his

24 plate with the new baby and juggling his

25 last probationary off at the same time. I


1 would like to suggest Jason Clarke's first

2 evaluation on his member be reviewed. This

3 is the format and type of evaluation I would

4 like to see all coaches complete. Thanks.

5 Ron..."

6 Q. And for the benefit of this Tribunal,

7 what does the acronym DAR stand for?

8 A. Daily activity reporting.

9 MR. TAPP: Thank you. Can I have this

10 e-mail entered as the next exhibit, please?

11 THE VICE-CHAIR: It's 145.

12


14 and Mr. Flindall, et al., dated March

15 23, 2009

16

17 BY MR. TAPP:

18 Q. So if, as your welcome letter states,

19 you felt Filman was an experienced and knowledgeable

20 coach officer, why did you feel the need to remind

21 his sergeant to have Shaun comply with those numerous

22 questions in the e-mail you just read?

23 A. Because I wanted to see more detail

24 in the evaluation to have a better view of Mr. Jack's

25 performance.


1 Q. Okay. I'm going to hand you another

2 e-mail from you to Robert Flindall...

3 A. Thank you.

4 Q. ...and David Lee. Okay. Can you

5 read the contents of the very last e-mail, dated May

6 11th, 2009, 4:39 a.m., please, who it's from and to

7 who?

8 A. It's from Robert Flindall to myself,

9 and it's entitled "Subject: Jack's next evaluation".

10 It starts out:

11 "...Staff: Here is PC Jack's next evaluation

12 from Filman. I've only quickly read through

13 it and noticed some spelling and grammar

14 mistakes. If the evaluation is fine, if you

15 can add your comments at the bottom and send

16 it back to me, I'll correct the errors,

17 print out, and get everyone to sign..."

18 Q. Thank you. Can you read the e-mail

19 directly above it, starting with the word "Rob"?

20 A. It's from myself to Rob Flindall. It

21 says:

22 "...Rob: I have added my comments. Please

23 have the evaluation proofed for errors..."

24 Q. Thank you. And you sent that out to

25 Robert Flindall, and there is another name beside it.


1 A. David Lee.

2 Q. Who is he?

3 A. He is an HR person who works out of

4 headquarters who was probably looking for the

5 evaluation, because most likely it was late.

6 Q. And you shared a copy of that

7 evaluation via that e-mail to him?

8 A. No. I probably shared the

9 information, that I signed it and to proof it for

10 errors, so he would know it was going to be coming

11 shortly.

12 Q. I want to direct your attention to

13 the e-mail at the very top, from Flindall to you.

14 Read that, please.

15 A. "...Original is edited, signed and in

16 your tray. Shaun tells me there is no fifth

17 month evaluation. The next will be a sixth

18 month evaluation..."

19 Q. Would fifth month be May 2009?

20 A. May is the fifth month of the year,

21 but I'm not sure whether it would be his fifth

22 evaluation. I know that the academy usually does a

23 combination of first and second month, or just first

24 month, and then the officer does a number of

25 evaluations. This has changed from time to time,


1 and I don't recall what the...

2 Q. Doesn't that clearly...

3 A. ...time frame...

4 Q. ...say "fifth month"?

5 A. It does, but, as you notice on the

6 file, where it says "Jack - four document" would have

7 been probably the fourth month.

8 MR. TAPP: Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Can

9 we have this entered as the next exhibit,

10 please?

11 THE VICE-CHAIR: That will be 146.

12

13 --- EXHIBIT NO. 146: E-mail exchange between Mr. Campbell,

14 Mr. Flindall and Mr. Lee, starting

15 May 11, 2009

16

17 BY MR. TAPP:

18 Q. You also perused or overlooked the

19 performance evaluation reports for the other three

20 probationary constables at the detachment then?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Maybe I didn't ask you this earlier.

23 At the time Mr. Jack arrived at the detachment, how

24 many other probationary recruits arrived, in or

25 around, at the same time?


1 A. I believe there were four.

2 Q. Four. Mr. Jack being one of them?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Okay. Aside from Mr. Jack speaking

5 with a thick noticeable accent, did any of them speak

6 with the same accent or any accent?

7 A. I don't believe the other three had

8 any accent.

9 Q. To the best of your recollection,

10 were those three recruits Canadian born?

11 A. I never asked them. I don't know.

12 Q. Fair enough. Can you tell us in what

13 way Mr. Jack was different from them?

14 A. Other than his accent, I don't know

15 of any other differences. Mr. Jack, when I had a

16 conversation with him, told me he had originally, I

17 think, immigrated to the U.S., had been in Canada for

18 seven years, had attended Trent University, had met

19 the York regional chief working out in the gym,

20 suggested he apply to become a police officer.

21 Michael Jack worked at a local bar in Peterborough.

22 I think it was called Trasheteria when I talked to

23 him. And he had been in Canada for about seven years

24 before he joined the OPP.

25 Q. How about any previous employment


1 that you all talked about Mr. Jack? Like, what did

2 he do previous to becoming a police officer?

3 A. I think he may have...and I may not

4 have this right...I think he may have worked for Jeep

5 at one time. He worked at the bar, and I think he

6 was involved with computers, and, of course, he was

7 in the navy. But, other than that, I don't know of

8 any other jobs that he may have held.

9 Q. I'm going to mention the word Trent

10 University. Does that jog any memory or ring a bell

11 with you?

12 A. I thought he attended there.

13 Q. Pardon me?

14 A. I thought he attended Trent

15 University.

16 Q. Had studied there?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Okay.

19 A. That's a local university in

20 Peterborough.

21 Q. Do you recall any mention that he

22 made to you about teaching there?

23 A. I don't, no.

24 Q. You don't know?

25 A. I don't recall.


1 MR. TAPP: You don't recall. Okay.

2 Thank you. Do we need to enter the last one

3 as an exhibit, please, that we have just

4 shown?

5 THE VICE-CHAIR: That is 146, isn't it?

6 Yes.

7

8 BY MR. TAPP:

9 Q. Do you see an e-mail before you?

10 A. I do.

11 Q. Okay. Read it out, tell us who it's

12 from and who it's to and what it's about, please.

13 A. It's from me to Shaun Filman, Michael

14 Jack, Rob Flindall, and so the detachment commander

15 is in the loop, Mike P. Johnston, overdue month five,

16 27th of June, '09. And it says:

17 "...Shaun: We got notice from region that

18 the report month five is overdue. I have

19 just reviewed a couple of other probationary

20 officers the other day. Yours is the only

21 one left. Please submit. Thanks. Ron..."

22 Q. Okay. Now, do you need to look at

23 these PERs, or can you recall? Okay. Mr. Jack's PER

24 for month one and two was overdue a month.

25 Mr. Jack's PER five was two months late. So would


1 you not agree that such tardiness reflects something

2 about the coach officer?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Do you need to verify that month one

5 and two was over a month late, and month five was

6 more than two months late or two months late? Do you

7 need to see the dates of your signature to verify

8 that?

9 A. Are you going to ask me questions

10 about them?

11 Q. Yes. I just asked you...okay.

12 A. If not, I don't need to see them. If

13 they were late, they were late.

14 Q. Thank you. Would you be surprised to

15 know that, despite your explicit direction on July

16 17th, 2009 e-mail, Mr. Jack's PER five was not

17 submitted until August 20th?

18 A. No, that wouldn't surprise me,

19 because the dates are there, and I do recall I...they

20 all came in roughly around the same time.

21 Q. But you said earlier Mr. Jack's is

22 the only one outstanding.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Thank you. That meant you already

25 had all the rest except Mr. Jack's?


1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Thank you. How is that not an

3 indication of differential treatment?

4 A. It's no indication of differential

5 treatment. It's an indication that the coach officer

6 was late in getting his job done.

7 Q. Fair enough. You made comments in

8 each of those PERs, one, two, right up to month five,

9 correct?

10 A. I believe so, yes. Isn't it not

11 month six, though...like, I think he...Flindall was

12 right, but it was still late, month six. It was

13 still late, whether you call it five or six.

14 Q. Yes, I know...Mr. Campbell, if one

15 were to go report month...if one were to go

16 specifically with what it says on the face of the

17 evaluation report, month five, so that would be the

18 month of May.

19 A. Not necessarily.

20 Q. Okay. I'm going to show it to you,

21 Exhibit...tendered Exhibit 25. I'm going to show you

22 month five.

23 THE VICE-CHAIR: What exhibit number is

24 that?

25 MR. JACK: It's tendered Exhibit 25. We


1 already tendered it in examination-in-chief.

2 It's for reference, ease of reference.


4

5 BY MR. TAPP:

6 Q. Can you see on the top right,

7 "Report, month five"?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Can you read evaluation period for

10 report month five?

11 A. Yes, May 9th to June 9th.

12 Q. Okay. Flipping over to the

13 second-last page, page 9, when did you note and

14 sign...what date did you make those comments and sign

15 that PER?

16 A. 17th of August, '09, and as stated in

17 the employee's comments, two months behind.

18 Q. Can you read your comments, please?

19 A. Sure.

20 "...No issues with this member's development

21 have been raised. It appears from all

22 accounts of his coach and sergeant, he is

23 progressing satisfactorily..."

24 Q. Thank you. Date?

25 A. 17th of August, '09, and that is


1 referring back to his performance between 9th of June

2 and...or 9th of May to the 9th of June, as to what is

3 written on the pages prior to that.

4 Q. And the 17th of August is more than

5 two months after the date of that evaluation period,

6 correct?

7 A. Yes, it is.

8 Q. Okay. I've got another e-mail dated

9 August 4th and August 6th, 2009, between you and

10 Robert Flindall. Mr. Jack is going to hand out

11 pages.

12 THE VICE-CHAIR: We're entering...

13 MR. TAPP: That as the next exhibit,

14 please.

15 THE VICE-CHAIR: 147, that's the July

16 17th...

17 MR. TAPP: Yes.

18 THE VICE-CHAIR: ...e-mail.

19

20 --- EXHIBIT NO. 147: E-mail from Mr. Campbell to

21 Mr. Flindall, Mr. Jack, Mr. Filman

22 and Mr. Johnston, dated July 17, 2009

23

24 BY MR. TAPP:

25 Q. Okay. For the sake of expediting


1 this, one e-mail is relative to the other, right?

2 The bottom e-mail is relative to the top one. So

3 read your bottom e-mail between you and Inspector

4 Johnston, who is it from and who is it to?

5 A. It's actually from Mike Johnston to

6 Robert Flindall and I'm cc'd, and it says, "Subject:

7 Michael Jack", and it says:

8 "...Rob: I received a call from Inspector

9 Lee at central region headquarters, advised

10 that Constable Jack contacted a senior human

11 resources staff sergeant stating that he had

12 been told by yourself that his job was in

13 jeopardy due to his existing job performance

14 issues. Clearly he did not follow the chain

15 of command, and we will have to address this

16 with him as well. Mike..."

17 Q. Okay. So you were aware of that from

18 that e-mail?

19 A. On the 4th of August, yes.

20 Q. Okay. And obviously, you being

21 management, you're more concerned about a chain of

22 command than an actual complaint being filed?

23 A. Actually, it's Mike Johnston who

24 talks to Rob Flindall about that and...

25 Q. And you.


1 A. I am cc'd on it, yes.

2 Q. So you're being made aware of it.

3 Can you read the top e-mail, please, in the same

4 manner, who it's from, who it's to?

5 A. It's from Sergeant Rob Flindall to

6 Mike Johnston and I'm cc'd on it. Subject is

7 "Michael Jack", and it says:

8 "...Inspector: Do you know who the staff

9 sergeant was at HR [human resources]? I

10 would very much like to speak with them

11 about what Constable Jack has told them.

12 Constable Jack went to discuss his current

13 situation, and, in turn, came to speak with

14 Shaun. It immediately became apparent to

15 both...and Shaun that the information

16 Constable Jack told [blank] was false and

17 misleading. This leads me to the concern

18 over what Constable Jack told this staff

19 sergeant.

20 Shaun has also advised that Constable

21 Jack has advised him that he no longer wants

22 Jen mentoring him, and that she has done

23 three inappropriate things to him since she

24 began helping him out. In fact, Jen has had

25 to speak with him about inappropriate


1 behaviour from him to her in the past. I

2 will be speaking with him about this tonight

3 as well. I have told my guys in the past

4 that if they screw up, the best thing for

5 them to do is own up to it, say they have

6 learned from it, and it will never happen

7 again.

8 It's quite clear that Constable Jack

9 hasn't done this, and he is now making

10 accusations about other officers to divert

11 attention away from him. I've had extensive

12 conversation with Shaun about Jack, which

13 we'll bring you up to speed with on Monday.

14 I also [will] be speaking with platoon about

15 Constable Jack to ensure that any

16 difficulties, however small, are properly

17 addressed and documented.

18 I'm not very happy with Constable

19 Jack right now, and I'll make sure that

20 there is sufficient documentation on file.

21 I will also only be speaking with Constable

22 Jack with Shaun present to avoid any

23 potential accusations about myself.

24 Regards, Robert Flindall..."

25 MS. SINGH: Mr. Vice-Chair, just so it's


1 clear, you know, the witness is not an

2 author of this note.

3 THE VICE-CHAIR: No, he...

4 MS. SINGH: He can't answer any questions

5 about the note, beyond the fact that he

6 received it. Mr. Tapp will have his

7 opportunity, if he wants, to ask questions

8 of the author of the note on a later date.

9

10 BY MR. TAPP:

11 Q. So you're aware that Sergeant

12 Flindall made a threat towards Mr. Jack?

13 A. What threat would that be?

14 Q. Okay. Are you aware that Sergeant

15 Flindall threatened Mr. Jack's employment?

16 A. According to the original e-mail, it

17 says that "he was told by yourself his job was in

18 jeopardy due to his existing job performance issues".

19 MR. TAPP: Maybe we can have this entered

20 as the next exhibit before we move on.

21 THE VICE-CHAIR: 148.

22

23 --- EXHIBIT NO. 148: E-mail exchange between Mr. Flindall

24 and Mr. Campbell, et al., dated

25 August 4 and 6, 2009


1 BY MR. TAPP:

2 Q. In that e-mail it is apparent that

3 Mr. Jack contacted a senior officer in OPP's human

4 resources? That's a question.

5 A. Okay.

6 THE VICE-CHAIR: What was the question?

7

8 BY MR. TAPP:

9 Q. In that e-mail it indicates that Mr.

10 Jack contacted a senior officer in OPP's human

11 resources, correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Okay. And it must have been for a

14 reason, correct, albeit you may or may not have

15 known?

16 A. I'm sure Mr. Jack or whoever dealt

17 with that...

18 Q. Fair enough.

19 A. ...can talk about it.

20 Q. I've got another e-mail...we're

21 coming down to the...coming around to...

22 THE VICE-CHAIR: So this...

23 MR. TAPP: ...the reason.

24 THE VICE-CHAIR: This last one is Exhibit

25 149.


1 MR. JACK: 149 or 148?

2 THE VICE-CHAIR: 149. 148 was the August

3 4th and 6th e-mails.

4 MR. TAPP: It's a single-page e-mail.

5 THE VICE-CHAIR: Pardon?

6 MS. SINGH: The other one was 147.

7 THE VICE-CHAIR: You're right. So the

8 next exhibit will be 149.

9

10 BY MR. TAPP:

11 Q. Can you read the second e-mail on the

12 first page from you to Flindall and Trevor Banbury,

13 August 10th, 2009, 9:27 a.m., please?

14 A. Okay. The subject is "At-scenes

15 collision investigation course, Provincial Police

16 Academy, October 19th through the 23rd, 2009":

17 "...I have not heard from either of you.

18 Please advise your selections. Ron..."

19 Q. Is it true that you were asking those

20 supervisors...first of all, Trevor Banbury, is he a

21 supervisor?

22 A. He is a sergeant, yes.

23 Q. Yes. Okay. Is he related in any way

24 to Sergeant Flindall?

25 A. It's my understanding he is.


1 Q. He is?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Yes. What is the relation, please?

4 A. I understand that Trevor Banbury is

5 married to Robert Flindall's sister.

6 Q. Thank you. And in that e-mail you

7 obviously were, correct me if I'm wrong, canvassing

8 their shifts to see if anybody was interested in a

9 particular course?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Okay. The course that you're

12 referring to is a valuable...would it be a valuable

13 tool for a developing officer?

14 A. For an officer who is finished their

15 probation, is experienced in traffic collisions and

16 wishes to go into the technical traffic collision

17 investigator's course, but to someone with

18 experience, yes.

19 Q. But also can be available to a

20 developing officer, even one on probation?

21 A. It would be not a normal procedure

22 and highly unusual to send a probationary officer to

23 a course when they haven't finished their probation,

24 because you want to invest your dollars that you know

25 the person is going to be there.


1 Q. Fair enough. And Mr. Flindall makes

2 a response on August 11th to you?

3 A. Yes, he does.

4 Q. Would that be in line with what you

5 have just mentioned?

6 A. Yes, it is.

7 Q. Okay. Now, read the response from

8 Flindall, please.

9 A. It says:

10 "...I've canvassed my shift and no one

11 wishes to attend. I already had quite a few

12 who have already attended. PC Jack asked to

13 go, but I'm not supporting this at this

14 time..."

15 Q. Thank you. You will agree that it is

16 not mandatory that a recruit has to be off probation

17 to go on such a course?

18 A. It's not mandatory, but it's best

19 practice that the person is finished their probation.

20 Q. But hasn't...according to that,

21 hasn't Flindall told you that nobody else on the

22 shift wishes to go and somebody is showing interest

23 in that course?

24 MS. SINGH: Asked and answered.

25 THE WITNESS: When this was originally


1 sent out, it was sent out to all four

2 uniformed platoons. Just because I've asked

3 all four uniformed platoons if they have any

4 candidates doesn't mean that I'll be

5 selecting a person from each platoon. But,

6 in order to make my selection fair, I would

7 like to know the names from those platoons.

8 In retrospect, I would not even support any

9 of the probationary officers going, whether

10 they were Mr. Jack, Amanda Knier or whoever

11 the other two probationaries were, or

12 somebody who didn't have a lot of experience

13 yet, because this...the OPP only has so many

14 funds, so much money, and you want to make

15 sure that when you send a person on a

16 course, they make a commitment to it that

17 they're going in that either traffic stream,

18 compared to a crime stream, of development.

19 And lots of people can be interested

20 in different courses, but it doesn't mean

21 they're going to get the course unless they

22 either have prerequisites or they have the

23 experience to back it up or put it on their

24 developmental plan.

25


1 BY MR. TAPP:

2 Q. Thank you. But wasn't PC Jack on

3 Flindall's shift, a member of his platoon?

4 A. He was.

5 Q. So that means, "I've canvassed my

6 shift and no one wishes to attend" also includes

7 Jack.

8 A. It does.

9 Q. Right. So why is there a need...yet

10 we see the statement "PC Jack asked to go".

11 THE VICE-CHAIR: Well, how would he know

12 the answer to that? It's not his letter.

13

14 BY MR. TAPP:

15 Q. Okay. I'm going to suggest to you

16 that it clearly shows that Jack wasn't even

17 considered as a member of that platoon. I mean, the

18 language...look at the language:

19 "...I've canvassed my shift and no one

20 wishes to attend..."

21 MS. SINGH: The witness has answered the

22 question, Mr. Vice-Chair.

23 THE VICE-CHAIR: He has.

24 MS. SINGH: He is not the author of this,

25 and he has answered to the best of his


1 ability. He can't speculate about what was

2 in the staff sergeant's mind.

3 THE VICE-CHAIR: You're absolutely right,

4 Counsel.

5 MR. TAPP: Okay. Thank you.

6 THE VICE-CHAIR: Please move on.

7

8 BY MR. TAPP:

9 Q. I got an e-mail August 15th, 2009, a

10 single-page e-mail, from Flindall cc'd to you.

11 A. Thank you.

12 MR. TAPP: We will enter the previous one

13 as the next...


15


17 and Mr. Flindall, ending August 11,

18 2009

19

20 BY MR. TAPP:

21 Q. There are two e-mails on that sheet

22 before you?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Read the bottom one, please, who it's

25 from and who it's to and the time.


1 A. August 15th, 2009, 9:18 a.m., it's

2 from Robert Flindall, it's to the other sergeants and

3 acting sergeant. So it's Brad Rathbun, Acting

4 Sergeant Jason Postma, Trevor Banbury, and it's cc'd

5 to Inspector Johnston and myself, from Rob Flindall.

6 It says:

7 "...Gentlemen: Just a heads-up to let you

8 know that PC Jack is no longer allowed to

9 work overtime for your shift shortages.

10 I'll make the necessary changes to our duty

11 schedule to reflect this. Regards, Robert

12 Flindall..."

13 Q. Okay. It would appear that Flindall

14 has some reasons for sending out that particular

15 e-mail, correct? We will get it from Flindall.

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. Okay. And you would agree that by

18 who all it has been addressed to, to and carbon

19 copied, that is all of Peterborough County detachment

20 management?

21 A. It's missing Sergeant Gerry Smith,

22 Detective Sergeant Conway, but it goes to the four

23 uniformed platoons.

24 Q. It goes to the four uniformed

25 platoons, right?


1 A. Correct, sergeants, supervisors.

2 Q. Supervisors of the four platoons?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Good. Can you read the e-mail above

5 it, please, in similar manner?

6 A. Again, Robert Flindall, 15th of

7 August at 9:20 a.m. Two minutes later to all the

8 same participants mentioned earlier. It says...same

9 topic, "Constable Jack":

10 "...This also applies to him covering shifts

11 for other officers as well..."

12 Q. And read the body, "This also

13 applies."

14 A. I just read it.

15 Q. You did. And August 15th, 2009, was

16 it before noon or afternoon...well, 9:20 a.m., that's

17 before noon?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Thank you. So both of those e-mails

20 go about detachment management before noon, correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 MR. TAPP: Thank you. Next exhibit,

23 please. This will be the next exhibit,

24 Mr. Vice-Chair.



1 --- EXHIBIT NO. 150: E-mails from Mr. Flindall to

2 Mr. Rathbun, et al., dated August

3 15, 2009

4

5 BY MR. TAPP:

6 Q. Okay. Next e-mail I'm going to show

7 you, Mr. Campbell, is directly from you, August 15th,

8 2009. First of all, before I get you to read it, who

9 is it from and who is to and the time, please?

10 A. It's from me at 12:12 p.m. on August

11 15th, 2009. It's to Inspector Johnston and it's cc'd

12 to Sergeant Flindall. And do you want me to...

13 Q. Subject and the body, please.

14 A. Subject is "HTA charge against

15 Michael Jack while operating force vehicle today".

16 The body states:

17 "...Mike: I don't know if you want a BN

18 [which is briefing note] on this, but

19 Sergeant Flindall called me at 11:30 hours

20 to advise of an HTA offence he and Constable

21 Payne observed today which almost resulted

22 in an MVC [which is motor vehicle collision]

23 with a collision. Constable Jack pulled in

24 front of southbound traffic on Highway 28

25 after coming from a call.


1 Southbound traffic had to brake to

2 avoid a collision, and Constable Jack had to

3 drive southbound in the northbound lane to

4 accelerate to avoid collision. Added to

5 this, he got an e-mail from Hobbins

6 concerning another driving issue: while

7 Constable Jack was looking for a subject,

8 drove across the lady's lawn after he was at

9 residence. No damage, but she was upset and

10 wanted him spoken to. So Sergeant Flindall

11 is doing this as well. Ron..."

12 Q. Now, isn't it ironic that before noon

13 we get those two e-mails, which you have been cc'd

14 too, from Flindall disallowing him from certain

15 activities, and now afternoon we get this HTA

16 allegation...well, in fact, two allegations here, all

17 happening on the same day?

18 A. I wouldn't say it's ironic because

19 the original e-mail about him not working shifts for

20 other people and working overtime, if you review the

21 chronology, there's concerns about him being

22 over-tired. There's also performance issue concerns

23 brought forward. And this is after the fact, after

24 those are already in the forefront.

25 MR. TAPP: The next exhibit, please.



2

3 --- EXHIBIT NO. 151: E-mail from Mr. Campbell to

4 Mr. Johnston and Mr. Flindall,

5 dated August 15, 2009

6

7 BY MR. TAPP:

8 Q. When did you first become aware that

9 Flindall charged Mr. Jack under the Highway Traffic

10 Act?

11 A. When he...

12 Q. The time. Look at the e-mails before

13 you.

14 A. I would have to look in my notebook.

15 Q. Please. If you've got them, yes, go

16 ahead. We do have a specific copy of it here if you

17 want to look at it, your August 15th note, but you've

18 got your books, go ahead.

19 A. Yes. Actually, it's in my e-mail,

20 it's also in my notes, at 11:30 a.m. I'm sorry I

21 missed that when I read out the body. I was

22 contacted at 11:30 in the morning on the 15th of

23 August.

24 Q. Did you consult with Flindall before

25 the charge was laid against Mr. Jack?


1 A. No.

2 Q. Okay. Did Flindall...I'm going to

3 suggest that Flindall did consult with you before he

4 laid that charge against Mr. Jack.

5 A. No. My understanding is he had

6 charged him, he was upset. That was his...he

7 had...his choice, his discretion, and he called to

8 inform me that...about the offence and about the

9 concern he had for the driving, and that he was

10 charging him. It was just prior to me leaving to

11 come into work for the Havelock Jamboree, because I

12 was at the detachment shortly thereafter.

13 MS. SINGH: Mr. Vice-Chair, I would ask

14 that Mr. Tapp be directed that, if he has

15 anything that is inconsistent, that he put

16 that to the witness first, and that he not

17 ask the witness and then subsequently put

18 something to him.

19 MR. TAPP: I think that's very fair,

20 Mr. Vice-Chair.


22

23 BY MR. TAPP:

24 Q. So, subject to what counsel has just

25 said, Mr. Campbell, I want you to look at this copy


1 of these notes, okay?

2 MS. SINGH: Those are your notes?

3 MR. JACK: Yes.

4 MR. TAPP: Yes.

5 MS. SINGH: But I...

6

7 BY MR. TAPP:

8 Q. I want you to look at the time of

9 when Mr. Jack was advised that he was being charged.

10 MS. SINGH: I don't...again, Mr.

11 Vice-Chair, I don't see that this witness

12 can be asked about Mr. Jack's notes. If

13 there is something...

14 MR. TAPP: It is...it clearly shows that

15 this...

16 MS. SINGH: ...the witness authored, that

17 the witness has knowledge of, then please

18 put it to the witness. But you can't put

19 Mr. Jack's notes to this witness and ask

20 this witness to attest or give evidence

21 about Mr. Jack's notes.

22

23 BY MR. TAPP:

24 Q. Okay. If evidence revealed that Mr.

25 Jack was only advised at 12:12 hours that date from


1 Flindall that he was being charged, would it not be

2 suggestive that you and Flindall discussed the charge

3 before Mr. Jack was advised?

4 A. No. He informed me that he was going

5 to charge him.

6 Q. Okay.

7 A. I didn't provide him direction to

8 charge him or not to charge him. It was his

9 discretion.

10 Q. Okay. Good. We will take it back.

11 Thank you for putting it in that context. I've got

12 an e-mail here that I'm going to get Mr. Jack to pass

13 out to you, from Trevor Banbury to you, August 16th,

14 and your reply. Read the original message, please,

15 who it's from, who it's to, date and time.

16 A. It's from Sergeant Trevor Banbury,

17 Sunday, August 16th, 2009 at 10:11 p.m., to myself

18 and Mike Johnston, cc'd to Robert Flindall. It's

19 entitled "Subject: Constable Jack deceit". It starts

20 out:

21 "...Staff Sergeant: When we spoke tonight

22 about Constable Jack's sick time for Sunday

23 shift, you mentioned speaking with him on

24 Wednesday. As I am the NCO [which means

25 non-commissioned officer], he was deceitful


1 to, do you need me present when the

2 discussion occurs along with yourself and

3 Sergeant Flindall? If so, I am unable to

4 come in early on Wednesday. I am on nights.

5 However, I am available to come in early on

6 Thursday if you would like to schedule a

7 time. A copy of my notes are in an envelope

8 in your tray on your door..."

9 Q. So is it not clear that Trevor

10 Banbury was alleging deceit right there by what is

11 mentioned in that subject?

12 A. That's how he entitled it, yes.

13 Q. Thank you. And read your response,

14 please.

15 A. On the 17th of August at 9:04 a.m.,

16 which would have been the Monday, I said:

17 "...Trevor: No. I think it's clear from our

18 conversation he called and told you he would

19 not be in and was sick at home if anyone

20 cared to check. Since that time, you

21 learned that he told a complainant of an

22 incident he was working on. He would not be

23 back to work until Wednesday, and this would

24 mean he had already intended on missing his

25 Sunday shift, as it was Saturday afternoon.


1 Other than that, what else would it be that

2 you would add to this? Please advise.

3 Ron..."

4 Q. Thank you. Now, we do have

5 documentation on file before I put it to you that you

6 did look into this matter. Do you wish to look at

7 your notes first to refresh your memory to tell this

8 Tribunal what investigation you did and what

9 determination you came to?

10 A. Basically, I got the information from

11 Constable Banbury, that he had received information

12 from Constable Agolini, spelled A-G-O-L-I-N-I.

13 Q. And whose platoon is she on?

14 A. I don't recall at this time.

15 Q. Fair enough.

16 A. Maybe she is on his, I don't know.

17 Anyways, my look into it is I made the inquiry,

18 because there are two sides to every story, and I

19 wasn't concerned that Michael Jack had feigned

20 illness.

21 Q. You were not concerned?

22 A. No. Michael Jack had documented in

23 his notes that he had, I believe, a nosebleed and

24 that he wasn't well and he called in sick. I wasn't

25 concerned that he had feigned illness, and that was


1 the end of it.

2 Q. Thank you. And again, this

3 allegation, that the subject reads "PC Jack deceit",

4 came from Trevor Banbury, brother-in-law of Flindall?

5 A. Yes.

6 MR. TAPP: Thank you. Next exhibit,

7 please.

8 THE VICE-CHAIR: This will be Exhibit

9 152.

10

11 --- EXHIBIT NO. 152: E-mail exchange between Mr. Banbury

12 and Mr. Campbell, et al., dated

13 August 16 and 17, 2009

14

15 BY MR. TAPP:

16 Q. Next I'm showing you two e-mails

17 involving you, both occurring on August 16th.

18 Familiarize yourself with them, please. Okay. Read

19 the original...

20 THE VICE-CHAIR: Hold on a second, let's

21 move back. Exhibit 150 is August 15th

22 e-mail, correct?

23 MS. SINGH: Yes, correct. Sir, it has

24 got a 69 at the top...



1 MS. SINGH: ...in black.


3 MS. SINGH: So that one is Exhibit 150.

4 THE VICE-CHAIR: 151 has 35...

5 MS. SINGH: That's correct.

6 THE VICE-CHAIR: ...at the top?

7 MS. SINGH: And 152 has 32 at the top.


9 MR. JACK: These are all from the

10 respondent's disclosure.


12 MS. SINGH: You're welcome, sir.

13

14 BY MR. TAPP:

15 Q. Now, one e-mail is relative to the

16 other, so read the original, please, who it's from

17 and to and date and time.

18 A. It was sent by me on August 16th,

19 2009, at 7:34 a.m. It was to Robert Flindall, whose,

20 I believe, shift was working, Gerry Smith, who would

21 have been at the jamboree, and cc'd to Inspector Mike

22 Johnston, and the subject "RIDE Havelock area".

23 "...Rob: Since the jamboree is concluding

24 today, I would like to see you dedicate some

25 shift members to RIDE. The last thing we


1 need is someone impaired causing an accident

2 leaving the event. The paid duty officers

3 leave at 12:00, and Mitch is on until 13:00

4 on logistics to ensure we have everything

5 picked up. Ron..."

6 Q. Okay. And who do you mean by Mitch?

7 Give his first and last name, please.

8 A. Mitch is Constable Mitch Anderson,

9 who, if memory serves me correctly, would have been

10 in the command post. I worked both the Friday night

11 and late...all day, like, Saturday, late into the

12 evening on both those days. And Sunday I did not go

13 to the jamboree as the incident commander.

14 Q. But he is a senior officer on

15 Flindall's or Gerry's shift?

16 A. I can't recall whether at that time

17 he had started administrative duties of cleaning up

18 the vault, or whether he was on one of the platoons.

19 Q. Fair enough. And would you happen to

20 recall if Mitch Anderson had any affiliation with the

21 Ontario Provincial Police Association?

22 A. Yes. He was an OPPA rep.

23 Q. Thank you. Can you read the response

24 above that original e-mail, who it's from, date and

25 time?


1 A. Sure. It's from Robert Flindall.

2 It's sent at 7:52 a.m., a short time after my

3 original e-mail. It's to myself, "RIDE Havelock

4 area", and it's 10-4, meaning "okay". And then he

5 tells me that:

6 "...Constable Jack called in sick today and

7 Filman is off on V-days now, so we're

8 running a little light. Laperle is out

9 there now. He's itching for an impaired.

10 I'll get Paradis and Rusaw out there

11 shortly..."

12 So he is informing me of what resources he has to

13 dedicate to that area.

14 Q. Fair enough. And "V-days", does that

15 mean vacation days?

16 A. Yes, it would.

17 MR. TAPP: Thank you. And the next

18 exhibit for that e-mail...two e-mails,

19 please.


21


23 and Mr. Flindall, et al., dated

24 August 16, 2009

25


1 BY MR. TAPP:

2 Q. Now, you have month five performance

3 evaluation still before you on your desk, May 9th to

4 June 9th?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Flip open to page 9, please. Now, we

7 learned from those two e-mails that Constable Filman

8 was on vacation days, the 16th of August.

9 A. But we don't know whether it was...he

10 was doing a paid duty, or we don't know whether his

11 shift ended at, say, 7:00 a.m. on the 16th of...

12 Q. Thank you. That's a valid response,

13 that's true.

14 MS. SINGH: Again...

15 MR. TAPP: Maybe we can indicate...

16 MS. SINGH: ...Mr. Vice-Chair, you can

17 ask...that question can be put to the

18 witness. Mr. Filman...

19 MR. TAPP: That's what I was going to

20 say, just...Mr. Vice-Chair, maybe we can

21 indicate that we will...yes, we will address

22 that to Constable Filman, but...


24 MR. TAPP: ...I would like to reiterate

25 to counsel, just remind him to make sure he


1 has his notes for that date, please, August

2 16th.

3 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, Mr. Tapp, but

4 what is your question about the dates?

5

6 BY MR. TAPP:

7 Q. It was going to be...I was concerned

8 about his signature being present when he is off on a

9 vacation date, period, but I will address that with

10 Constable Filman.



13 THE WITNESS: I have also seen people

14 come in on their vacation and do stuff at

15 the office.

16

17 BY MR. TAPP:

18 Q. True, and maybe he came in for the

19 sole reason of signing this evaluation. We will only

20 find out from him, right?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. Correct. I'm also showing you now...

23 THE VICE-CHAIR: I would just remind you,

24 it's 4:27.

25 MR. TAPP: Okay.


1 THE VICE-CHAIR: We should stop at a

2 point that you think is appropriate.

3 MR. TAPP: Let's stop right now, because

4 the next e-mail is going to have several

5 questions on it, because it is a two-page

6 e-mail from...one-page e-mail, complete

7 e-mail...

8 THE VICE-CHAIR: Okay. So we will call

9 it a day.

10 MR. TAPP: ...from this witness to the

11 inspector.

12 THE VICE-CHAIR: And we will return

13 tomorrow.

14

15 GENERAL DISCUSSION:

16 MS. SINGH: Yes. Mr. Vice-Chair, I have

17 a witness coming tomorrow, the witness who is only

18 available tomorrow and Friday. So I'm hoping that,

19 once this witness is finished, again, if the

20 applicant will close his case, and then I will open

21 the case for the OPP and call my first witness. Mr.

22 Filman will be coming tomorrow.

23 Also, we've already sent Mr. Tapp a list of

24 witnesses and the dates that they are scheduled to

25 come. You should have received that e-mail already.


1 MR. TAPP: Okay. That's great. We will

2 access it.

3 THE VICE-CHAIR: Would it make any sense

4 to have your witness scheduled for tomorrow and

5 Friday testify first thing tomorrow morning and leave

6 him in abeyance? It's up to you.

7 MS. SINGH: My concern about that is, you

8 know, that the applicant needs to formally close

9 their case. I need to open the case. So I don't

10 think that will work, just in terms of logistics and

11 evidence. Also, I'm mindful of the fact that Mr.

12 Campbell really does want to be on his way, so...

13 THE VICE-CHAIR: Well, I'm sure he

14 doesn't want to be here, period.

15 MS. SINGH: I'm sure, but, Mr.

16 Vice-Chair, if you would like to start earlier

17 tomorrow morning, we can certainly do that.

18 THE VICE-CHAIR: Heavens no. I'm too old

19 for that.

20 MR. TAPP: Okay. We will...I can give

21 Mr. Campbell...yes, we will deal with it. I hear

22 counsel. I've made a mental note of her concerns,

23 but I haven't looked at the e-mail. Let me look at

24 who is coming and we will deal with...I'm very aware

25 of the fact of that one particular witness that's


1 available tomorrow and Friday. Who is coming

2 tomorrow, by the way?

3 MS. SINGH: Mr. Filman.

4 MR. TAPP: Mr. Filman?

5 MS. SINGH: Constable Filman, yes.

6 MR. TAPP: Okay. I'm just advised by Mr.

7 Jack over here, for all intents and purpose, you can

8 definitely, but we won't...we will need another half

9 a day at least with Mr. Campbell, so it's up to you

10 when you want to have Mr. Filman come tomorrow.

11 MS. SINGH: I will ask the witness to

12 come at noon, and so we will have him for the

13 afternoon, and can at least start him tomorrow

14 afternoon.



17 THE VICE-CHAIR: Off the record.

18

19 --- upon adjourning at 4:30 p.m.

- 180 -

1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 3 4 EXHIBIT PAGE 5 NUMBER DESCRIPTION NUMBER 6 7 8 135 Professional Standards Bureau 9 investigation report 131011 136 Corporate Services confidential12 internal briefing report 131314 137 Professional Standards Bureau audio15 recording 421617 138 April 2012 audio recording 431819 139 Gravelle audio recording 442021 140 E-mail exchange between Mr. Campbell22 and Mr. Flindall, ending September23 24, 2008 972425 141 E-mail exchange between Mr. Campbell26 and Mr. Shipley, et al., dated27 January 7, 2009 1042829 142 E-mails dated January 8 and 9, 2009,30 re block training joining31 instructions 1123233 143 Compilation of entries 1173435 144 E-mail from Ms. Chapman, attaching36 welcome to Peterborough County37 detachment letter 1283839 145 E-mail exchange between Mr. Campbell40 and Mr. Flindall, et al., dated41 March 23, 2009 1394243 146 E-mail exchange between Mr.44 Campbell, Mr. Flindall and Mr. Lee,45 starting May 11, 2009 1424647 147 E-mail from Mr. Campbell to Mr.48 Flindall, Mr. Jack, Mr. Filman and49 Mr. Johnston, dated July 17, 2009 149

- 181 -

INDEX OF EXHIBITS (Cont'd)

EXHIBIT PAGE NUMBER DESCRIPTION NUMBER

1 148 E-mail exchange between Mr. Flindall 2 and Mr. Campbell, et al., dated 3 August 4 and 6, 2009 153 4 5 149 E-mail exchange between Mr. Campbell 6 and Mr. Flindall, ending August 11, 7 2009 160 8 9 150 E-mails from Mr. Flindall to10 Mr. Rathbun, et al., dated August11 15, 2009 1631213 151 E-mail from Mr. Campbell to Mr.14 Johnston and Mr. Flindall, dated15 August 15, 2009 1651617 152 E-mail exchange between Mr. Banbury18 and Mr. Campbell, et al., dated19 August 16 and 17, 2009 1712021 153 E-mail exchange between Mr. Campbell22 and Mr. Flindall, et al., dated23 August 16, 2009 174

- 182 -

1 2 3 4 5 I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and accurate 6 transcription of the above-noted proceedings held before me on the 7 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016, and taken to the best of my 8 skill, ability and understanding. 910 }11 } Certified Correct:12 }13 }14 }15 }16 }17 } _______________________18 } Matthew Dixon19 } Certified Verbatim Reporter20

Documents

€¦ · Web viewTHE ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE. Respondent. HELD BEFORE: ... 15 interview transcript that was audio taped ... Thank you very much. 25 Mr. Tapp. - 58