Download Otter for your meeting notes

Otter.ai Note: Otter Voice Meeting Notes

Otter.ai Note

Matt Horwood55min

Unknown Speaker

00:00

December 29.

Speaker 1

00:03

By the Africans motion for any information as to media leads or communications with Miss Redman and other media is dismissed and no results are provided. Then a paragraph six the ruling reads the applicants motion for decision to not investigate media leaks to miss yoga Redmond and other media is dismissed. Paragraph seven the applicants motion to decision because any and all OPM investigations into any media leaks is dismissed and there's no reason provided. And then paragraph eight reads the applicants motion for information and notes as to OPM professional standards. recusal on April 7 2022. grant request by constable Bruce that PSU investigate that is dismissed and there's no reason provided. And then finally, a paragraph nine the ruling reads that the applicants motion for the full statement to news media sent March 8 or pm including the writers name and recipients is dismissed

Speaker 1

01:32

and so there is a reason but the ruling of the tribunal provides for paragraph nine dismissal. Perhaps, sir you could clarify that. The reason where applies to paragraphs five to eight as well, because there is no reason provided for those dismissals. The types of reasons. Application for media leaks and investigation but there is a reason under paragraph nine

Speaker 2

02:32

well if you're if you're asking the clergy I see what we've seen it maybe it's maybe it's in the format. The way the decision was laid out, but yes, you cracked five through nine together any reason follows eight, nine, they take care of acid follow up point nine four and I group them very similar. So I dressed them all it's so my error in the formatting of it not to declare it hindsight maybe to be stated for each one for clarity, but those general marks are the reasoning a lot applies to that

Unknown Speaker

03:41

Okay, thanks, sir.

Speaker 1

03:44

No, I have actually highlighted some of this already on the record, but I'm going to read in the reason because I'm going to address it in the application to the tribunal writes in response to Detective crews application for certain disclosure pertaining to the media leaks, an investigation of the media leaks that the respondent has submitted that the applicant so that means the prosecutor here are the opiate for the UPS so that has admitted that detective Bruce has not articulated how communications or OBS actions or decisions regarding immediately in any subsequent investigation into the source of the leak have any relevance to the PSA about or without any information about the relevance of the disclosure requests pertaining to the media leaks. The respondents admitted that it's difficult to characterize this has anything to say anything but a fishing expedition. The part three of the west part chest there is no clear nexus between the records being requested and positions. The applicant that is submitted that the disclosure obligation of LPs extends to evidence from all investigations if that information is potentially relevant to the matter under consideration, such as the media leaks, ordinary pathologists, reports and any investigations linked to the involvement of the Public Health Agency of Canada. The applicant that is Detective Bruce submitted that the actual misconduct that brought the reputation of the OIC yes and to dispute disrepute were the actions of the unidentified persons who revealed the confidential policing and not as alleged constable Bruce, the applicant that is protected through submitted but it is an abuse of process to blame the applicant to blame her for conduct that was not hers and a further abuse process for the LPS. Not to have activated and investigating the leak of information. And the following paragraph is referred to before where the tribunal ruled that the particulars of the discreditable conduct charge are very specific. And then goes into give give their version of the particulars of which we mentioned earlier that case law tells us that it's not to do so. But rather toward a particular paragraph that just the tip most recently for dismissing detective crews application within Media leaks and records pertaining to the investigation and why we stopped. There will the willing reads it would be logical expected that the applicant that as Detective Bruce would mount a defense to address each of the particulars and any other issues that are directly relevant to allegations the key being the relevancy of you the matter of an investigation or lack thereof into the sources of weeks. A separate and apart incident of misconduct. And if there was an investigation undertaken in the source identified than any misconduct charges will be separate from the PSA charges brought against the applicant. I fail to see the relevancy of investigative material into the week. Any such material in fact exists for the internal decision making process to pursue or not pursue an internal investigation to the misconduct charge before this tribunal. This is a motion for disclosure and not an abuse of process motion. Although the African detective race makes submissions to paragraph 18 number of written reply which speaks to the grounds for an abuse of process and the Tribunal has kindly granted leave for the application today with our consolidated motions including the request for particulars of the charge on the grounds of lack of particulars and abuse of process along with an application for subpoena witness records in regards to media, so to answer the question on relevancy and again, we're not taking the position that the West PARCC test is the correct test. We stand by the position that that test should not apply. In this case for the reasons already provided. So in terms of relevancy we have in the July report, July 26 2022, chief complaint investigative report we have mentioned here, media. And it mentions that a elbow or police did not release the details of the allegations which led to protective rear suspension sources not authorized to speak publicly leaked information to the media. And this resulted in at least two stories being published by the CBC on March 28, and March 31 20. Now I read this, there's a bit of nuance there. On one hand, they're saying that VlPs modeles detail, but on the other hand, they're saying sources not authorized so it could be that they did not authorize details and that there are sources that were not authorized that are still members of the LPS relation to the media. That they're telling us already that there is a relevance to the request for media leaving the investigation. Now we turn to the journal articles. And sir, if it does help you I'm happy to provide you with the PDF versions of the two CVC articles that were published on March 28. On March 31, if we have

Unknown Speaker

10:13

no I cannot

Speaker 1

10:16

understand that makes sense. Okay. So I'm just going to again, this is only for the purpose of relevancy. And as I was mentioning, it's a little tricky because I don't want to go into the merits of the case. But I have been asked to

Unknown Speaker

10:31

yes, you have.

Speaker 1

10:42

So this is on page, page two, four of the march 28 article, which reads that and it's the journalist, Miss yoga rap man, who says According to multiple sources, Bruce allegedly accessed auto police files for what she wasn't an investigating officer. And then a lead contacted the coroner's office to learn a COVID-19 vaccination returns in those cases.

Speaker 1

11:29

What's interesting about that statement is it kind of hinges also on that relevancy of why we need the records of the third party records of the quarterly reports, because it ties into the disclosure that's before us. I mentioned that in the fact that there was an allegation that detective Bruce had contacted and made inquiries. Collected data with regards to then further down on parents at page three and four.

Speaker 1

12:20

It reads that in a statement to CBC News, the Ottawa Police Service confirmed her suspension and said it related to an ongoing conduct investigation by the professional standards unit. So that this article is referring to a statement that the police made on detective Gru suspension and that is related to ongoing investigation.

Speaker 1

12:55

Now, if we move to the 31st of March article and this is a page two five

Speaker 1

13:14

the same journalist mentions that

Speaker 1

13:24

the lawyer for a woman whose child deaths investigation was allegedly breached by anti vaccine auto a police detective going rogue says police only notified the grieving mother of a bag. Privacy breach, a breach on Friday afternoon and then it goes on to say that it had resulted in a chief complaint and was being investigated by the service.

Speaker 1

14:00

This article refers to its previous article published on March 28. And says CBC News first reported on Monday the misconduct allegations against detective Helen Greer's a constable in the sexual assault and child abuse unit who was suspended amid an ongoing disciplinary investigation. According to sources group, allegedly access case by a newborn. That investigation to which she wasn't assigned and inquired with the coroner about whether the parents of the baby who had died unexpectedly during the pandemic were vaccinated against COVID-19.

Unknown Speaker

14:44

These

Speaker 1

14:46

news articles refer to sources and the police statement that was made publicly and it's all done within the same timeframe. The police statement the march 25, the first article the 28th and then the second article March 31.

Speaker 1

15:11

The relevance here in terms of requesting for a subpoena for to compel the testimony of yoga residents at this disciplinary hearing is that they're referring directly to respective groups and the investigation which is meant to be wholly confidential. And if we look holistically at the articles the police statement and the investigative notes the report we understand that there is immediately and that the media leak most likely or could be likely I'm just going to actually I'm just gonna say we don't know where that immediately comes from. It could come from multiple, multiple sources it could come from within OBS it could come from outside of OBS. There is a leak of confidential information of the investigation into the public. That's for certain and it's cited in the papers and incited also. Now, we've asked for disclosure on to what the outcome of the investigation was and why the investigation intermediately was stopped and that disclosure was not provided and then the tribunals ruling. It was not provided it was not ordered or directed as a result of a lack of relevance pursuant to the west PARCC test and the Nexus now

Speaker 1

17:09

the charge itself, it reads like she's been charged with actions that are likely to bring discredit reputation that's what describe discreditable conduct.

Speaker 1

17:32

discredit upon the reputation of confidential investigation into detective booths alleged conduct, there would not be a discreditable conduct charge. That is why it is rather than to have an order and it's just specifically for detection of any emails. Any statements that were made to this journalist and or to have this journalist with your retina to testify.

Speaker 2

18:18

So you will appear tense or your request is we did order a subpoena or testified so we can learn the sources of the attending the sources of the information that stories is that mature

Unknown Speaker

18:43

and I was making in the background in the beginning early this morning to that is when started my liking to be credible because of the CDC articles, so again, but for those articles or whatnot and there's the articles because

Speaker 2

19:12

that's part of my ruling for saying no undue disclosure in regards to media leaks, because that's it's not the result the discredit brought on about the knowledge before it became public. You still have discredit if it never became public because it has the potential to cause discredit that it is still it can still be deemed as credible conduct and still discredit the fact that the fact that it became public isn't the basis for it doesn't have to become public for for tribunal still. Ruling to the discreditable conduct the actions that's one of the main reasons for my grip. And the second point on that, I noticed tend to be very clear on what I was reading here. Let's say that it wasn't investigation into and it was determined that it was somebody internally or member the public or a combination of both that that spoke to the media organization. Nation. Any charges or any discipline stem from that. It would be separate and apart from this hearing. I am still failing to understand the relevancy of how the the actions of someone else would enter into this hearing. Unless and I think you'd be labeled as wrong, but that it was a part of the fulsome investigation or even a bison investigation that caused that condition. I'm not sure if you're going down that road that might be more relevant, but to say that that investigation or any information if there was information leaked, if you believe it was we don't know. But what is it relevant to the charges here? Constantly Rousses before the strike. I just don't see what that evidence on the media unless you're arguing that was shoddy or biased investigation how that could play into this into a copper. If I'm clear, I may not put her there but but that's what I'm starting. And I'm very clear that you don't need to harm your reputation for this critical conduct. You need an action that if became public. What's hard that's the pressure not the actual heart

Unknown Speaker

22:45

Speaker 1

22:51

I actually I do understand what you're what you're presenting and and I feel with this application, it's important to hone in on the detail and then take a step back and then look elsewhere. So that we find quite find the answers. The thing is, is that the discreditable conduct, describing conduct is likely to bring discredit upon the reputation we have Yes. And your direction is that that means that it doesn't actually have to be public. For somebody to be charged with discreditable conduct doesn't actually have to be public.

Speaker 2

23:38

From previous decisions, yes. That that's my take on it is it's the the potential of that is the same with having a chief complaint and not having a public complainant to to make a complaint to have a hearing. I don't necessarily see that is a block into place within internally in their own system, find some behavior that they want to investigate and it turns out to be this conduct. There must be a mechanism for the police service to address that misconduct. And to without saying, well, we don't have a public complainant, therefore. We don't have basis score, a charge basis for this act hearing or some type of a corrective action. In the same vein, you don't, you don't need that public embarrassment. It just the potential of that is enough to trigger a charge and discipline.

Speaker 1

24:58

So you can appreciate that that interpretation is quite bad. Say that. Because if that is the case, that would almost be like, every inquiry that officer makes on any investigation could be taken. And I'm gonna, I'm opening this with a broad brush statement or reason. I'm gonna take us back to what is written as the elements in the discreditable conduct Charter, which, as we discussed, have two parts to them. And one is the access to the RMS data searches and the other one is the phone call to the Father. And so if we're looking at this phone call, because I've already argued and whether or not you accept that and it's your discretion. Birdie argues that RMS database search has been found has a lawful search pursuant to the policy and there's an actual policy that governs that, insofar as the policy governing phone calls to investigate to find out, you know, reasons or unexplained intents that's not in this particular year, I think,

Unknown Speaker

26:27

provided with that, and unless I've asked that particular but we're we are dealing with this phone call here as

Speaker 1

26:33

we're just part of an investigation and this is why I coupled it with recognition for police discretion when a police officer works in units such as Detective race in the second unit where they work as a team and they're investigating Unexplained Death of infants. And so we have an officer here who was making a phone call and asking a question, which actually is in line with the some infant that questionnaire. On this questionnaire, there's several questions. These four questions were asking about the parents, medical history, and medical history medical history could could include treatments and vaccinations. Right so this is a sudden I explain that questionnaire that is normally completed. And when it's marked completed, that would mean that investigation is not being carried out diligently. Right, there's a duty to carry out an investigation diligently especially an unexplained that and so when the practices of making a phone call as to protect the nation status, one would think but that was within the police discretion that's within for duty.

Speaker 1

28:07

Sites second unexplained deaths in the death questionnaire. And so that begs the question of how it comp highly confidential, this was confidential, confidential, did this internal police work?

Unknown Speaker

28:26

How that

Speaker 1

28:28

could be found to meet the threshold likely to call this disrepute onto police reputation? And at that point before the the media articles have been published, that wasn't an issue. She was alleged she had an allegation of insubordination to do with the searches, although it wasn't mentioned. Potentially. It was only after the media articles were published and she was specifically told by our bond about her being charged with despite all this falling because

Unknown Speaker

29:04

Speaker 1

29:07

the media. So just say that's a reasonable Relevancy is is is at the very least, dispute certainty. Because, again, going back to the abuse of process question, and what is it that detective Bruce is actually being charged with? What is it the conduct? We're talking about a phone call? Here? And again, that point was the data breaches such an allegation of subordination was only after the paper after somehow there was a source item within the police or outside of the police, but it had that been within the police because it was a confidential investigation. The public this republic interests are given to the public need to trust the police. The public need to trust the police to exercise their discretion to complete an investigation. They need to trust that that information is going to be confidential and private. When confidential information is leaked to the media, the public need to know why and how. We are standing here in the disciplinary proceeding where we have a detective charged with discreditable conduct after immediately and we've asked for disclosure on that media leak, and we don't know who the source of that information is, what that information says anyone's disclosing confidential police investigation to the public. It's in the public's interest. that that information be disclosed. And I'm going to bring you back to these cases and I think I will share them with you so they're the cases of where they were. courts were looking at discreditable conduct.

Unknown Speaker

31:10

These cases are completely online.

Speaker 1

31:15

Again, criminal charges I have one case is Ontario Provincial Police and rental 2004. Ontario Court of Appeal an incident where the officer a firearm and another officer, and criminal court found that that officer was in the state of non-insane Automatic automatic taxation and then we have another case, which is harder to carry out provision police do you have a team where the officer was off duty and involves a domestic violence situation with an ex partner? threatening a child with a knife and threatening to kill themselves and a baby was pretty serious. I couldn't see how that would conduct because I would bring the reputation of disrepute. The other cases are pretty much led to the start of a contract charge in terms of aggressive, violent behavior, on or off duty. And this is certainly not the case here. This is a case where we have an officer who was actually doing her job and we're now faced with the discreditable conduct charge. We don't know

Unknown Speaker

33:02

and we're asking for

Speaker 1

33:06

the production of the investigation. Reason why the investigation was stopped into the media leaks and those sources, as identified by Miss Redman and to have her compelled as a witness to testify because that helps us answer the question why we are here today in a disciplinary proceeding, where detective Cruz's charge which is Federal conduct and only after the articles published, which was explicitly told that is the reason why your father did not complain father, who she allegedly called. And I'm just going to check circuit had points to make there.

Speaker 1

34:18

It has to do with the timeline of the discreditable conduct charge where it says we do 20th January 22. That's the timeframe and I just want to state that

Speaker 1

34:44

the request for the production of the media records and compelling yoga, random to testify is wrapped in with the abuse of process argument and you see that your ruling as well. That the to dovetail and I just wanted to mention, again, it also goes in with this request for horses as mentioned on the relevancy another point on the relevancy. A requesting for for those records is that it would help in establishing a more concise timeline because the current charges dealing with June 2022 January 2022. And access to those records according to reports without limiting the narrowing or honing in and offering more particulars as to the timeline wherein the alleged conduct occurred.

Speaker 2

36:08

But is that not contained? I haven't seen it nor should I see it right now. But is that not contained within the investigative works? To assist with timeline of when the breaches not the the insubordination it didn't lead to charges. It was found with any statute, but that'd be important would would that's not actually the same question that you're looking for you seeking access for buy signals

Speaker 1

36:43

Well, the current timelines are is quite wide and it's an it's an incredible Quantic chart itself where it's June 2022, January 2022, where's the insubordination allegation was was only in the month of January 2022. So it's a very wide range, long timeline, two years and then they start the investigation charge this charge in May 2022. Or a timeline that extends to two years is quite long. And that just going into to my point of the it's quite a bag and wide charge that we're dealing with and to be fair and to you know, to ensure procedural fairness. A more limited timeline to when the alleged conduct actually occurred. Here we're talking about the phone call the RMS data searches, which originally in the insubordination allegation occurred in January would probably be benefit, fairness of these procedures. A woman it's a two year period and that was established may July. Investigation, discreditable conduct

Speaker 2

38:09

I find the clarity of your oral submission here in my question we want to thank you through that. I still I'm assuming a disadvantage but I haven't heard any evidence yet. And to it's almost until I hear the evidence, that's when the where a lot of the details about what the charges are, the facts support the charges to support a finding. That's, that's where it's going to come into play. I just felt the fact that this I find it a challenge to fully rule on it without without knowing what's there in the evidence there. It's there but it's not it's not

Speaker 1

39:17

that it's not there, sir, with all due respect, and there is a risk of your decision for lack of jurisdiction by quoting from the decision I agree with you that there that there is no evidence or there's not sufficient evidence. We're not here today to argue. We're here to argue that there isn't a case to answer to that. We need more evidence. That's what we're here for. We need a ruling normally, on more disclosure. That's all we're asking for we're simply asking for disclosure. And we we cannot argue the case and test our case. We cannot use evidence. We don't have to request evidence that we don't have. That's incredibly procedurally unfair. It's a huge demand. It's not for the defense to make the case against the defense. We're here to make a defense against the case as presented against the defense which we're arguing doesn't contain sufficient evidence, nor does it have sufficient particulars in charge itself on top of that, but for the media leaks, there wouldn't be a charge in the first place. Appreciate I think I think I just have one final point to make on our long media case. Request rather is that I did quote, a case for your consideration and it was the Supreme Court of Canada vise case. And in that case, the court weighed immediate against ordering action records and decided that public interest reasons that that the, and if and if the request was very limited and specific that the media records should be produced, and it also noticed that the format that the journalist had named the format to here we have a journalist who is referring to multiple sources and to the police and it would be beneficial in the interest of natural justice to have those records including the investigation, investigations and to testify. My final

Unknown Speaker

42:04

points, and I'm sorry, that was a candidate in place. Yes sir. I will find location for you is it in your Oh, thank You that I recall seeing it tonight

Unknown Speaker

42:28

by smedium.

Unknown Speaker

42:42

Okay

Speaker 1

42:50

so in conclusion, I believe I kind of made conclusive remarks I in response to your question on the the no evidence to enable you to make make a ruling, and my response was I will but that is our position. And that's why we're asking for evidence and that way. We're here on three applications where we are establishing the relevance of the request for these disclosures. So the

Unknown Speaker

43:23

autopsy reports and records including

Speaker 1

43:31

the journalist to help ensure procedural fairness to help you in your decision making, because there is a risk. And this is our position. The reserve is that without this evidence your decision made you boy for lack of jurisdiction. You need to have the full record before their decision. And the defense needs to be able to answer to the case need to be in a position to be able to properly barely answer case or if they're prevented from doing so. That that's procedurally unfair.

Speaker 2

44:27

Thank you that was a very clear conclusion and I fully understand that.

Speaker 1

44:33

Those are all my submissions, or today. I would like to admit it may or may not be your request served but following the prosecutors response, I may or may not seek Me for fly.

Unknown Speaker

44:51

I think that's that's fair. Yes. There was no issue with that. Okay. What is the recess? Started to respondents

Unknown Speaker

48:20

been sending Friends?

Unknown Speaker

49:04

think we've all each

Unknown Speaker

49:07

person looks so familiar with

Speaker 3

49:09

western standard Yeah.

Speaker 4

49:22

Yeah, I've actually spoke with her like a while back. But the western standard basically, story because because they're scared, kicked off Facebook, like ad revenue.

Speaker 5

49:38

But par for the course. Battle into this territory. Yeah. And what about the FAQ? They?

Unknown Speaker

49:43

I always

Speaker 4

49:47

that's a good question. epoch time sounds cooler than Yeah. What does that even mean? It's like, like a time period, like an epoch of time. So it's kind of like the name of the publication is kind of like the timelines like you said it before.

Speaker 5

50:09

Are they they're more open to sort of that. Editorially delving into this

Speaker 4

50:17

kind of stuff. Yeah, pretty much like like they actually did. Stories on the blood clots like a while back. Yeah. And they like took the you know, like they were harmed on Facebook the other week and kind of shut them down. I guess have a bigger treasure chest in the western standard. So yeah, well, that's why I

Speaker 5

50:37

get those lifts on your own database instead of relying on the tech giants to promote your work. Yeah, exactly. So they I'm sure they do that. And it's unfortunate that Western standard maybe doesn't.

Unknown Speaker

50:49

Yeah, they definitely some issues with how they run things. Yeah. You

Speaker 5

50:56

know, I am about four hours west Ottawa, so I guess we're gonna have

Unknown Speaker

51:05

lunch at 5am.

Unknown Speaker

51:06

It was interesting to get that time in the morning I don't I'm not a morning person.

Unknown Speaker

51:13

But

Unknown Speaker

51:16

are you here with another?

Speaker 5

51:19

Oh, okay. We all took the journey because we didn't have childcare like to leave that early morning. Yeah. And I've been having some unrelated things, drive by myself at this particular time. So tag along and tag on.

Unknown Speaker

51:37

Always, yeah, I don't know if it was

Speaker 5

51:41

I probably didn't really fall back asleep once we got going on the road, but the sun was coming up and they were pretty excited. So I guess they're just going to park for the afternoon while I'm here. Yeah.

Unknown Speaker

51:55

Well, yeah, I love the recording you're doing it's good that you're.

Unknown Speaker

52:06

Mostly the kind of stuff you report

Unknown Speaker

52:11

related things. actions, like

Unknown Speaker

52:18

homed in on them. You're really anywhere else. Yeah. So that was trying to

Speaker 5

52:24

like try doing the color lighting in the early like that editorial. You know, it's still too taboo like no one

Speaker 6

52:35

I know now that I don't it's a little bit like

Speaker 4

52:46

it's much more acceptable now. Like like my angle was like the vaccine injuries thing and I don't think only western standard would have done that like, no no, no, it was like Alberta for she was doing it back in like February of 2022. And then a couple months later when I joined a couple of stories. Yeah, it's been good that Yeah, finally it's just like

Speaker 5

53:14

even on YouTube sometimes now we don't have to be as hardcore. I mean, it's still a fine line. That you play but definitely becoming less taboo. Unfortunately, because there's a lot of carnage but yeah,

Speaker 4

53:34

it's got to wait for you know, the truth will come out. It's gonna be a lot of people and people are going to be thrown out with us already.

Unknown Speaker

53:49

You probably know a friend of mine

Unknown Speaker

53:59

early 30 year old healthy man.

Speaker 4

54:04

Sorry to hear that. It's messed up. I don't know anyone who has like a bad rap

Speaker 4

54:19

it's good. The year you saw like the CDC like all of a sudden like three we can do article. But it was like the most mild like all this person has like a rash. That's personal.

Speaker 5

54:31

Killing people who are going through government. I think they'd be governor. So jumping through those hoops and that layer here kradic system is pretty much impossible. Yeah,

Unknown Speaker

54:45

that's really cool. You probably saw that Ontario

Unknown Speaker

54:50

saying well, Patrick Phillips

Speaker 5

54:53

when all reporters were getting rejected by the local medical officer of health, so like May of two people years ago. Yeah. Well, thanks for introducing your.

Unknown Speaker

55:30

Thank you

00:0000:00