175 19/06/90 have the qualifications to render an opinion on. And it was at that point in time that I turned to people like Steven Sherriff, John Crossingham, and eventually Bill Dunlop to say, "You're lawyers. This is what's happening. In my view, this is wrong. Is it also legally wrong?" Q. I think you've given evidence that Mr. Crossingham gave you that advice and, at some point in time, said he could not, if my note is correct of what you said, "I cannot take you any further." Is my note correct; he said words to that effect? A. I think he said, "I've taken you as far as I can take you." Q. Oh, I see. A. Sorry. It's a moot point. Q. And what was his recommendation, at that time? A. He indicated that I really should talk to lawyer who was an expert in the Police Act, and that he had knowledge of one person. He also, by the way, recommended that that person be out of the jurisdiction of Niagara because it was the case of a member of the Board of the Commissioners of Police in Niagara, and a Chief of Police and his conduct. He suggested that he knew someone who had experience, was an expert he considered in the law, that he 176 19/06/90 had a lot of respect for, he had worked with on other cases in the past, not Police Act related and, therefore, he recommended that I go to Bill Dunlop. I gave him permission to contact Bill Dunlop, and set up a meeting with him. Q. You got, then, this recommendation or referral -- I suppose it's fair to call it a recommendation, from a senior partner of Bench, Keogh, that you consult this expert Mr. Dunlop. You've made reference to some further inquiries that you made of Mr. Dunlop. Q. I think Mr. Kelly referred to my note. I do have a note. Mr. Crossingham did say that he was aware that Mr. Dunlop had worked for the Halton Regional Board of Commissioners of Police, in the past, on Police Act matters. And so I called that Board. I spoke to both, I think, two members, as I recall, of the Board of Commissioners of Police and one staff member, who was a former Superintendent at that force, as I recall. I asked them for -- I told them that I was considering retaining Mr. Dunlop for a Police Act matter. What was their opinion of him as far as their professional opinion of him. Q. If my note is correct, the first time the term "corrupt practice" comes up is as a result of your 177 19/06/90 meeting with Stephen Sherriff on January the 8th; does that meet with your recollection? A. That's my best recollection. Q. And did Mr. Sherriff give you that term? Did you come up with that term or did someone else come up with that term? A. My best recollection is that it was said very briefly and in passing by Mr. Sherriff. But I don't recall being in a position or ever using that term, at that point in time. It appeared to me that Mr. Sherriff had some knowledge of the Police Act. Not a lot. He was not an authority, he was not an expert. I think he even said that to me but my best recollection is that I tried to tell him about the matters, in fact, did tell him about the matters up to January 8th with respect to hiring, that I had a problem and I was explaining the situation to him. And he sort of said, "Oh, under the Police Act, it's corrupt practice under the Police Act. You've got a Police Act charge there but that's nothing. Let's get on with the real talk. Real issues." It was a very rapid comment on his part. That's my best recollection. Q. Okay. Thereafter, then you have the meeting with Mr. Crossingham and, thereafter, you have the meeting with Mr. Crossingham and Mr. Dunlop: is that right? 178 19/06/90 A. Yes. Q. What is it exactly that Mr. Dunlop told you regarding hiring practices of Mr. Gayder that you had laid out for him? A. He indicated that charges were warranted against Chief Gayder under the Police Act. That I had an obligation as a Police Commissioner to lay those charges. He suggested to me that it was not discretionary that I had a duty to charge him, and he urged me to contact the Board and go to the Board and suggest that they hire a lawyer. He indicated, at that point in time, that he would recommend to the Board that the Board suspend the Chief of Police if I laid those charges. Q. And did he tell you why he would have had that recommendation; that the Board suspend Chief Gayder? A. The reason that I recall him giving me and the Board was that he had a concern that these charges were very serious. I remember, in fact, him saying, "They are major charges under the Police Act as opposed to minor." And I questioned him on that and said, you know, "Are you sure they're major? And what makes them major as opposed to minor?" And he said, "Because it's the Chief that's being charged. I find it hard to visualize 179 19/06/90 charges against a Chief of Police that would be in the minor category." Like it's, "Because of the Chief of Police and his position, his rank of position of authority within a force. If he does something wrong and deserves to be charged under the Police Act it's hard to imagine a minor charge." And so I had been surprised that they were major but he insisted that they should be major charges and then he said, "And he should be suspended as well." And I said, "Well, you know, why suspended? Did he have to be suspended"? And he said, "Yes", he would recommend it but that would have to be a Board decision. And thought that, again, he couldn't envisage a Chief of Police being charged under the Police Act and not warranting suspension by the Board until those charges had been heard. Q. What of that advice, I just want to address that for a moment, what of that advice, Mrs. Taylor? You've been cross-examined here, at length, I think it's fair to say, about this particular part of your tenure as a Police Commissioner. If you had it to do over, have you addressed whether or not you would have rejected Mr. Dunlop's advice to charge? 180 19/06/90 A. Well, it just wasn't just advice from Mr. Dunlop that I would have had to reject, it would have been Mr. Crossingham's as well and, to a lesser degree, Mr. Sherriff's. Although Mr. Sherriff was not aware of all the facts, at the time, and gave me a very cursory and very rapid opinion. But it would have been rejecting both lawyer's opinions, at the time, because when Mr. Dunlop gave me that opinion, John Crossingham was there, sitting there, listening to the discussion and, in particular, from Mr. Dunlop and he concurred with it, and also advised me to do the same thing, to follow his advice. I would say it would have been very presumptuous of me to refuse to accept the advice of lawyers, that I had gone to for advice, with the credentials that both of them had because, as I've mentioned, I did check Mr. Dunlop's credentials and I received absolutely rave reviews and very, very -- couldn't have had better recommendations from either Mr. Crossingham or the Halton Board. For me to have said, "I'm not going to do it" when he told me of my obligation, I think, would have been improper and, I think, quite honestly, there may be people out there that fault me for doing it, following his 181 19/06/90 advice. But I think there would probably be easily as many, if not more people, who would faulted me if I had legal advice and then, it had come to their attention that I had chosen to go my own way, and to ignore their advice and to do something quite different. Q. You've been put in a bit of a thankless position, I guess, but what I'm interested in is that in retrospect would you look at the advice and the credential's, I believe you mentioned Mr. Sherriff who, at that time, I guess was Senior Counsel for the Law Society? A. Yes. Q. And you've got Mr. Crossingham who is a senior member of Bench, Keogh? A. Yes, someone who I have had a great deal of respect for, for many years, as a lawyer. Q. I think an important feature for his honour to analyze is what view or your mind set was in terms of what Mr. Gayder did wrong, in your view, without first considering the Police Act. I think what you told us is something about you coming to a decision or a conclusion early on in the game that what you believed that what he did was morally wrong? A. Yes. Q. And can you tell us about what time or 182 19/06/90 if there was one turning point when you became aware of the fact that what he did was also, according to others, legally wrong? A. Well, the very first time he involved himself in that matter, of hiring practices with respect to his son, I think he was morally wrong. Let me put it this way. Everyone makes mistakes. Even Chief's of Police and certainly Board members, Board Chairman, various other people, certainly make errors, so what he did at the time certainly was morally wrong. He should have, I suggest, known better, right at the time, that's in December of '86. However, my concern was more that it was repeated after he had been warned and the Board had been made aware. Some of the Board members were aware that as far as legal -- I formed the opinion that it was legally wrong when the lawyers advised me, both Messrs. Dunlop and Crossingham, on that Saturday in late January, that it was legally wrong. I mean, they expressed that opinion to me. Q. But you had that opinion, for whatever it's worth, in the very brief and curt fashion it seemed to have been given to you, you had the opinion from Mr. Sherriff on the 8th of January? A. In a very cursory fashion. 183 19/06/90 Q. "You've got a lot of things to worry about but you've got corrupt practice here"? A. But I wouldn't have relied on that alone, Mr. Shoniker, because it seemed to me, very clearly, that while Mr. Sherriff did express an opinion to me, briefly, his mind wasn't particularly directed at that. He had other things on his mind. So I would have definitely would not have just used that to have done something drastic or done something -- exercise my authority. I wouldn't have relied on that. Q. You were, however, it appears alive to the legal issue, at that time? A. I was aware of it, and that's when he said, "Check the Police Act. You had better go home and you had better read that Police Act and you had better understand it far more than you do now because you've got some obligations, possibly." But, in addition to that, he was saying, you know, "You're the Police Commissioner, you should know the Police Act because you're the Police Commissioner of a whole force and what I want to talk to you about is allegations of corruption of many members of the force" and, again, it wasn't Mr. Gayder he was directing his mind, I don't believe, it was with other people. He said, "You know, you should a good 184 19/06/90 understand of that Police Act and its ramifications for you as a Police Commissioner, in dealing with the force where it appears there is serious corruption." Q. You talked about the repetition of Mr. Gayder's actions that in your view or what you viewed had been repetitious behaviour on his part . As of January the 8th, you've got your views, as you held them, about Mr. Gayder being morally wrong, as of December 22nd, I suppose. You've got in your evidence the events as related to you by Mr. Hanrahan which would have been a January 25th conversation. And then you've got a January 8th chat with Mr. Sherriff wherein he tells you that there is corrupt practice; have I left anything out? A. Not that I recall. Q. As of that date, is there a reason why you didn't go out and just lay the charges right then and there? A. I think I've tried to explain that already, Mr. Shoniker. It's the fact that Mr. Sherriff's mind, obviously, was on other things. That he gave me that opinion but it was very cursory, very brief, and his major advice that I took was, "You had better go and read the Police Act and find out what you're obligations are because it's an area that you should be very familiar with." 185 19/06/90 Q. You've referred to everybody making mistakes. At that period in time, were you still looking upon whatever Mr. Gayder's actions were with the view -- what was your view in that regard? A. Well, that he was morally wrong and I was being advised that, in fact, it was probably legally wrong too. Q. So is there something that happened later that triggers your decision that the legal wrong has now become -- has now come to the point where charges must be laid, it's an obligation to be laid? A. It was the repeated conduct. It was the repetition of the conduct that happened more than once after that. The knowledge that he had ordered Deputy Chief Parkhouse to put his son's name on the list, even though he didn't have the cutoff -- the required number of marks for the cutoff. Various things like this that came to light after that meeting with Mr. Sherriff that made it far more serious than it was at this point in time. There was a significant amount that happened from the 8th of January through to the very end of January. And even on the 5th of February, I would suggest, that Mr. Sherriff was not aware of it and made the situation far more serious. 186 19/06/90 Q. Let me put this to you. If you had advice from Mr. Crossingham on the 8th of January, and there had been lots of time taken, or if you had the advice from someone like Mr. Dunlop, on the 8th of January and there had been lots of time taken explaining to you that there was a breach of the Police Act in their view. However, the words "obligation" weren't used. If you had that, early on in the game, would you still have been in this position where you're sort of seeming to be given -- well, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but there seems to be -- it's the repetition that you focused on, so if early on in the game (as of January the 8th), you had the legal advice that said there were Police Act charges, they were carefully constructed legal opinions, would you still have held off until there was a repetition? A. Yes. I think you mentioned the word obligation and that was very significant, I would suggest, on January 31st, Mr. Shoniker, when Mr. Dunlop said that to me. If he hadn't said to me, on January the 8th, if I had been meeting with him as opposed to Mr. Sherriff, if he hadn't said, "You have an obligation but, you know, you may charge him if you want to"; I would suggest to you that I would not have charged James Gayder. That I would have -- because it had not been repeated. 187 19/06/90 Q. All right. A. And I think, again, it's not reasonable to take drastic action against someone because they make one mistake. Q. Let me get into the February 5th meeting, a little later, so I would ask if you would keep what you've just said, in mind, until we get to that point. If I could just switch gears with you for a moment. I want you to help us, if you can with, when was the first time that you, as a member of the Board of Commissioners of Police, first considered requesting a public inquiry into any aspect of the operation within the Niagara Regional Police Force? A. Well, I suppose I considered it very fleetingly but rejected it when it was first called for by Councillor Mel Woodhouse, but I would like to make it very clear, that was in the summer of '86, I did not accept it, and I certainly rejected it but I had to have thought of it because I knew he was calling for it, and I made every attempt to dissuade him from it. I tried to talk to him out of it. I suggested to him, "No, that it was premature at best and I didn't think that it was advisable. I didn't think it was necessary to have an inquiry." I would have considered it when the weapons 188 19/06/90 were first seized after the internal investigation team was in place. Certainly, around the time, as well, when I had charged Chief Gayder and he had been suspended by the Board, there were a number of cries publicly then started, for a public inquiry. I would have considered it then but I did not support it, after giving it some thought. I supported the Chief's decision to have an internal investigation and his request to let the force have an opportunity to clean its own house and, if in the end, we aren't successful in doing it then he wouldn't stand in the way or oppose an inquiry. I supported that, as did the rest of the Board, staunchly and very strongly. We made a few attempts of a political nature, at that point in time, to stave off the call of an inquiry, which I think were legitimate attempts to stave off the inquiry because we felt that it was not in the public's best interest or the force's, at the time. So we resisted it then. There was soon after that, I believe, there was a call on behalf of the Police Association for an inquiry, and/or for the force to be taken over by the OPP and for the outside OPP to come -- yes, to come and do an investigation. Again, that was resisted by myself and the whole Board. We felt that that was not appropriate. 189 19/06/90 Then when the Wolski opinion was rendered via Mr. Hunt, to members of the force; and Chief Shoveller came back from that meeting and told me his opinion of the report and that there would be a report compiled for the Board, I certainly started to seriously consider it then because an inquiry was one of the options that was left as a possibility and I was starting to give it, I would suggest, more serious thought. But I had not come to the conclusion that an inquiry was warranted until I received -- although I was giving it serious thought and wondering about it, I would suggest, I came to the conclusion that an inquiry was definitely warranted and that I would support and call for an inquiry when the three legal opinions were rendered via your firm to the Board. Q. The -- Exhibit 56 in these proceedings is the Confidential Report from the IIT through Chief Shoveller to the Board of Commissioners of Police. At page 125, the notes that, I believe, Sergeant VanderMeer kept of the meeting at 18 King, "Chief Shoveller says there will be a cry for a public inquiry." Had you -- I'm just trying to put it in perspective. Had you talked about the cry for a public inquiry that was out there with Chief Shoveller then and, I suppose, he would have been Chief by then, Chief or when 190 19/06/90 he was acting Chief Shoveller? A. He was Chief. I think that the Chief and the Board were independently -- all Board members were independently aware of cries for the inquiry that had taken place for many months. We were all well aware of it. It was no secret to any of us. I think that the concern had been there in people's mind that when the decision was eventually going to be rendered that if there was not some public disclosure there would be some public -- a cry for some public disclosure of information, in some form. Q. You have mentioned the three legal opinions that you requested of myself, as your Counsel, to get for you -- the Board requested. The significance of the legal opinions, once again, in your view is what? A. They weren't the only factor and the only reason that I personally supported an inquiry. I guess the best way of describing it would be that they were the straw that broke the camel's back, as far as I was concerned. They were that final point that I had said, "Okay. Now an inquiry is definitely needed. We have exhausted our other options that we followed through on first, we've now reached the point where an inquiry is warranted." 191 19/06/90 Q. Presupposing, as I think we must, that a public -- the cries for a public inquiry came to you from the public in some form. Did you consider how you, as a singular member of the Board of Commissioners of Police, or how your Board collectively would account to the public for your actions subsequent to receiving those legal opinions? And I'm going to ask you to address a decision about whether to ask for a public inquiry or not. A. Well, the Board was not prepared to ask for a public inquiry prior to receiving the legal opinions. The Board was not prepared to accede to Chief Shoveller's recommendation which was that he compile a report and release it publicly, prior to those opinions being forthcoming. Our decision was, I would suggest, an attempt to be as careful, as cautious and as proper, you know, as cautious as we possibly could in proceeding before calling for a public inquiry. Q. The decision of the Ministry of the Attorney General to recommend against the laying of charges. You characterize it, I believe you just characterized that as the straw that broke the camel's back -- or the opinions, I'm sorry. A. The opinions. Q. The opinions were the straw that broke 192 19/06/90 the camel's back. Prior to receiving the opinions, did you have any difficulty, personally, with the opinion that had been rendered by 18 King. A. Well, I had some small concern about it. My major concern was that I am not a lawyer and I didn't feel qualified to form an opinion on my own. That's why I took it to Mr. Crossingham and showed him and asked him his opinion: the Wolski report that had been given to me. Q. And his opinion once again was? A. His opinion was that he was in disagreement. He did not support the decision that the Ministry of the Attorney General had come to. He was not sympathetic to it. I had told him that the force was preparing a report and had concerns with the decision or the -- not the decision, I'm sorry, with the recommendations that they had received from the Ministry of the Attorney General. He concurred that he felt that the force was right, in his opinion, in being concerned. Q. Mrs. Taylor, if I could just switch gears, once again. The role of a Police Commissioner, and I'm going to ask you to give us your general views of the role of a Police Commissioner but before I do; the role of a Police Commissioner was the subject of a fairly vigorous cross-examination by Mr. Brown, this morning. 193 19/06/90 He put to you Regulation 791 of the Police Act, in particular, Section 31 of it, and we've referred to it before. I know that it was referred to by Counsel in cross-examining Mr. Johnson and I believe in cross- examining, as well, Mr. Hill. If I can just help you, 31.1 says: No Chief of Police, Constable, or other police officer shall take or act upon any order, direction, or instruction of a member of a Board or Counsel. At any time since you've been appointed as a member of the Niagara Regional Board of Commissioners of Police have you ever issued, in any way, shape or form, an order, direction or instruction to a Chief of Police, Constable or other police officer in Niagara Region. A. I have only issued an order to a Chief or an acting Chief upon the instruction of the majority of members of the Board of Commissioners of Police. That was the only time -- those are the only times when I have issued an order to the Chief or to the acting Chief. I, at no time, have gone below the rank -- that rank in order to give any instruction or direction whatsoever. Q. With the exception of Mr. Johnson's evidence here, which I'm not aware if you saw it or not, and with the exception of Staff Sergeant Hill's evidence, 194 19/06/90 again, I'm unaware of whether you saw that or no; with the exception of the evidence given by those two gentlemen, has any individual, at any point in time, since you have been a member of the Niagara Regional Board of Commissioners of Police confronted you with the allegation that you, as a member of Niagara Regional Board of Commissioners of Police, at any time during your tenure, issued in any way shape or form, an order, direction or instruction to a Chief of Police, Constable or other police officer? A. No one has actually confronted me with that allegation. However, I do recall that, at one point in time, I believe Chief Shoveller was Chief -- I believe it was after he was acting Chief -- indicated to me that Mr. Johnson had approached him and had specifically asked him if he was aware of any point in time when he had been given an improper order by myself or anyone had given him an improper order. And Chief Shoveller indicated to me that he told Mr. Johnson that he was aware of absolutely no time when I had ever given any order or direction. And he also told him -- told me that he told him, that if Mr. Johnson had any such information to that effect that he, Chief Shoveller, would personally go with Mr. Johnson, and the person who accused me of such, to the Solicitor General and lodge a complaint. 195 19/06/90 Q. We've got the evidence of Mr. Johnson on the point. The evidence he gave, as I understand it, was that there was one person he could point out, over the years, that you as a member of the Board of Commissioners of Police, who received an order from you and that was Staff Sergeant Hill. Staff Sergeant Hill testified here and I won't go through his evidence. I think his evidence will stand, or fall, on his own evidence. As far as Staff Sergeant Hill goes; did you, on Christmas Eve 1986 or at any point in time, during your tenure as a Police Commissioner, issue him in any way, shape or form an order, direction or instruction? A. I've answered in general terms. Staff Sergeant Hill is a member of this force. I, at no time, gave him or any member of this force a direction or an order. I understand his testimony in respect of ordering a report. I, at no time, gave him any such order. Q. With respect to Section 31(2) of Regulation 791 of the Ontario Police Act, it states as follows: Notwithstanding the code, a Chief of Police, Constable or other police officer shall [and I emphasize that word shall] report forthwith to the Commission [defined by this 196 19/06/90 piece of legislation as the Ontario Police Commission] the particulars of any order, direction or instruction that he is prohibited from taking or acting upon (under subsection one) and the Commission shall report the particulars to the Solicitor General. With the exception of the incident that you related to us where Chief Shoveller spoke to you and told you that Mr. Johnson had approached him with an inquiry, other than that and, once again, we have the evidence of Mr. Johnson, re. Staff Sergeant Hill, and we have the evidence of Staff Sergeant Hill; so I would like you to put that all out of your mind. Is there anything else during your tenure as a member of the Niagara Regional Board of Commissioners of Police where any person has intimated, in any way, to you that they were going to go to the Ontario Police Commission with their complaint pursuant to Section 31(2) of the Regulation 791 of the Police Act? A. Yes. Q. Who was that? A. I understood that in testimony from Mr. Gayder here at the inquiry that he had intended to or had gone to lodge a complaint about my conduct and, I believe, it was with reference to an allegation that I had been 197 19/06/90 giving orders, but that's the first. That was during the inquiry. Certainly, during Mr. Gayder's tenure of office as Chief of Police while I've been on the Board I've never had such information. Q. Once again I believe we've got Chief Gayder's evidence on that. Chief Gayder's reference of the defacto conversation with Mr. Johnson and from there we get back to Staff Sergeant Hill and that seems to be the end of the matter. Is there anything else? A. I could only say that if someone had been of that opinion I wish they had made me aware. I would have appreciated an opportunity to have faced my accusers and had an opportunity to have cleared the air on that matter once and for all. I think that would have been a far healthier situation than to have what appears to have happened and that's to have that allegation being spread about me when it was unwarranted and unfounded. Q. I hope we all have them, Mrs. Taylor. A. Sorry, I'm getting into summations which is your job Mr. Shoniker. It's late in the day. I apologize. Q. We've now dealt with the concern I had with Mr. Brown's cross-examination or, at least, one of 198 19/06/90 them. What about, generally, the role of a member of the Police Commission? Can you help his honour with your view of how you view the roles of members of the Police Commission in terms of their role? A. The Police Commission is that governing body, to which the police force is accountable through the Chief of Police for its actions and its conduct. The Board of Commissioners of Police is responsible, ultimately, for law enforcement in that jurisdiction for which it was named. We are, ultimately, responsible to the public. We are the servants of the public, we are the representatives of the public. Our primary responsibility is in establishing policy, in general form, which the Chief of Police and through the Chief other members of the force adopt and then put into everyday working action. Q. You've mentioned the public representative aspect of the job. What do you consider to be the corner stones? Are there any corner stones of a Police Commissioner's public duties in your view? A. Demanding accountability from the force, expecting openness where ever possible and in return being accountable to the public that we serve, and open with the public as much as possible. And also to assist and facilitate 199 19/06/90 communication, when necessary, between the force and the public, which the force and the Board both serve. Q. Does that include facilitating access to the force by the public? A. If necessary. Recognizing the rules and regulations and the procedures that are in place. If the public is not prepared to use those normal channels and chooses to speak to a member of the Board of Commissioners of Police, instead, I would suggest it's incumbent on the Board member to attempt to ease any fear or apprehension on the part of the member of the public and to get that member of the public dealing with the police force as soon as possible. Q. The issue of the media's role has been of some significance in this inquiry. You told Mr. Brown, and I believe you told other Counsel, that the media has no place in a criminal investigation. Do you feel that the guidelines with respect to media involvement in criminal investigations are strong enough? Are well-defined enough? And, if not, tell us what should be redefined or restructured? A. It's late in the day Mr. Shoniker. I don't recall saying that to Mr. Brown but I certainly do agree. That if I said it, and if I didn't say it, I certainly adopt that as a position that's appropriate to 200 19/06/90 take that the media has no place in an on-going criminal investigation. Although the media does have an important role to contribute to openness and accountability to the public in all specters of our government. They should not be involved and in facilitating police investigations. What comes to mind in testimony that I've heard and I apologize if I've misquoted him, but in general terms I understood Mr. Sherriff to indicate and embrace that as a good position to take. That's it's advisable or helpful at times for the media to be involved in investigations and he seemed to be embracing that. I don't subscribe to that theory. I don't think it's appropriate and I think with reference to the other point that you were asking me about as to whether or not I think the policies are strong enough and clear enough with respect to media enforced interaction; I can only speak certainly with respect to this force. I'm not so concerned that the media policies and procedures that we have in place are the problem. The concern I have is that they are not always being followed. There appear to be many times when people utilize the media as a vehicle, when they shouldn't be appropriately doing so because of the feeling of frustration or for whatever 201 19/06/90 reason. It's not a position that I can condone and that I can accept. So, I don't know. Perhaps, his honour will find, within our policies and procedures on media relations, some things that he can make recommendations to improve. I hope that can be done and through the consultants possibly too. My perception is that the problem is not so much the policy but the fact that the policy is frequently broken and that the media uses its sources and keeps the confidentiality of its sources, and therefore no one ever knows where the leaks of information are coming from. Q. There are those of your critics out there who would say that you may very well take a strong opinion, Mrs. Taylor, on the media involvement, and you may very well profess a concern for a strict system, with very well-defined guidelines where the media does not get involved in criminal investigations; but on the other hand, you are the person who went to Michael Clarkson and you went to Peter Moon with Neil Taylor. How can you -- can you reconcile that for us? Can you help his honour with respect to what those critics might be saying? A. I can't reconcile it. I can only state, as I had before, why I took Neil Taylor to the media. Neil 202 19/06/90 Taylor was going anyway. He intended to splash -- have splashed serious allegations of corruption on the part of a few members of the force, and wrongdoing on the part of the force, nationwide if he could get that kind of coverage. He talked about W5 and CBC. I was alarmed. I tried to get him to talk to a police officer first, that was Sergeant VanderMeer. I was successful in that but he still intended to go to the media, even after I got him to talk to Sergeant VanderMeer. I was very concerned about that and I've stated before, "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know." I then directed him to Michael Clarkson and to Peter Moon, who were two people who had very good reputations for not sensationalizing what they heard, and not splashing unsubstantiated allegations in the media, which to me was better than letting Mr. Taylor go where ever he would to any member of the media that he would go and end up reading about these in the press. I've expressed these concerns already, the position I took. I suppose in my own defense is that I could say that none of the people that I directed Mr. Taylor to, neither of them did ever write a story, so my faith in them was, I suggest, substantiated to some degree. Also, in my own defense, if I could add that 203 19/06/90 since that time I have had a number of people contact me on allegations of wrongdoing by members of the force. And they have threatened to go to the media. My response now -- hindsight is a wonderful thing. My response now, after that first situation with Neil Taylor, is to simply say to them, "If you chose to go to the media that's your decision, however, these are the options open to you. I would urge you to, if you feel you have bona fide complaint against a member of force, to lodge a citizen's complaint, to follow the procedure. You can go to a lawyer and get legal advice, you can swear information before a J.P." I certainly don't encourage them to go to the media. I don't discourage them unduly from going to the media. I tell them that that's their decision but I certainly don't help facilitate in taking them to the media anymore. Q. In speaking of Neil Taylor, just to go off on a tangent, for a moment. Neil Taylor has been interviewed by investigators or an investigator for this Commission. As I read the interview, the most recent interview he has given, he has taken the position that he lied to you when he told you that organized crime had infiltrated the higher ranks of this police force, in 204 19/06/90 general, and, in particular, a senior officer was the eyes of organized crime within the force, and was on the payroll of an alleged organized crime figure, and had provided police uniforms to that alleged organized crime figure for some kind of payment. As I understand his position now, his position is that he lied to you when he told you that. His position is that he made that up when he told you that. His position is also that he also lied to police officers from the combined forces unit when he told them the same thing. His position is that he lied to Mr. Barr and myself when we spoke to him and he told us the same thing. Seeing that you are one person, you are the person who was put in a position of receiving this information, can you help his honour with respect to what your view is of that whole position now taken by Mr. Taylor, or the change in his position? A. Well, you told me of this prior to my testifying, Mr. Shoniker, that Mr. Taylor had been interviewed and he had changed his position. And, in fact, indicated to the investigators to this inquiry that he had lied to me. And, all I can say is, that I am completely disgusted with him and with his behaviour. The fact that 205 19/06/90 he would lie to, not just to myself, but to the media people that I took him to, to Sergeant VanderMeer, and to various other people, I think is a disgrace. I think he owes the officer involved an apology, he owes this force an apology, he owes the Board and this community an apology. And I think it's an absolute disgrace that someone would actually come to a member of the Police Commission and try to utilize me as a vehicle to spread his lies. I feel very used by that man. Q. Having that in mind that -- are you thankful or otherwise that you didn't bring that specific incident up with members of the Board of Commissioners of Police? A. Well, I think that's an excellent example. A good reason not to bring everything to their attention, at least, on an initial level. And certainly not specifically. I think that the Board has a role to play but the force has a more important role to play and that's in investigating allegations and to determine whether they are true or false. MR. SHONIKER: Your honour, I'm getting into an area right now which will probably take fairly twenty minutes. I notice it's 4:27. MR. COMMISSIONER: The only question is 206 19/06/90 we're trying to finish this up before July, whether going on for half an hour or so would be of assistance, and I realize Mrs. Taylor has been at this a long time. Also there's the question of the court reporter. What is the feeling generally of Counsel. It might speed things, at least, shorten things down a bit if we go a little longer each day. That's what I was wondering about? MR. SHONIKER: A half an hour or more today will make it half an hour less tomorrow, of course, but the only thing is, I can assure you, I'm going to be much longer than a half an hour. MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, well I wasn't expecting you to go on until you finished. MR. SHONIKER: I think I can take this until lunch hour tomorrow. Definitely, it won't be longer. Well, I hope and pray, your honour. I'm pretty sure it won't be longer. MS. DUNLOP: If I could just ask on the record. I think other Counsel are curious, as well, as to who the next witness will be after Mrs. Taylor. It looks like she will be finished tomorrow. I'm wondering if Commission Counsel is in a position to tell us who the next witnesses are? MR. KELLY: I can tell you no more than I 207 19/06/90 told you yesterday. The list that I gave you is what we are working from. We'll call them now and see who is available. MS. DUNLOP: Well, there's the list of six people. MR. COMMISSIONER: I'm not sure that I still quite get the gist of going on now. Pardon? MR. SHONIKER: I said, "You are the judge." You should get some answers to your questions. MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR. SHONIKER: If you want me to continue I will. Mrs. Taylor is on day ten and she doesn't seem to like going past 4:30 but, your honour, I think she should play second fiddle to the overall concern to get this out of the way quickly if that's your strong view. MR. COMMISSIONER: There's also Ms. Freshwater that I know gets pretty tired. THE REPORTER: No. Whatever is convenient for you, sir. I'm ready to go ahead. MR. COMMISSIONER: Mrs. Taylor, what about you? I mean, if your answers are going to be fuzzy because you're tired --- THE WITNESS: I'm tired, your honour. The quality of my answers, I think, passed about 3:30. MR. COMMISSIONER: Pardon. 208 19/06/90 THE WITNESS: The quality of my answers sometimes starts to drop but, you know, I'm prepared to go for a few more minutes if you feel it's worthwhile. MR. COMMISSIONER: Is the few more minutes going to do you much good? That's the only thing. MR. SHONIKER: It takes a few more minutes less tomorrow than -- you know, six of one, half a dozen of the other. MR. COMMISSIONER: I don't want Mrs. Taylor to be going on if, as she says, she had a little difficulty recollecting things the more tired you are. MR. SHONIKER: Thank you, your honour. MR. COMMISSIONER: And perhaps we can discuss doing that some days if it appears necessary or even trying to work the Fridays and people can think about that. MR. SHONIKER: Your honour, I don't want to give you any more headaches than you've already got. I think we said this to you before, Fridays are impossible . MR. COMMISSIONER: I've tried it before. MR. SHONIKER: The other problem is that, at some point in time and I suppose we should speak with Mr. Kelly, at some point in time we are going to need to address this issue of working in July. I'm going to say this because I'm a Counsel who doesn't have an interest. 209 19/06/90 MR. COMMISSIONER: Oh, I know. MR. SHONIKER: There are others who have had on the basis of the past to schedule some holidays in July and have time for children and the like and I'm afraid that there may be a difficulty. MR. COMMISSIONER: I think we all have. My greatest problem is the expense of taking, if we are able to finish the oral evidence by the end of next week then there could be a considerable saving in staff and so on, I think, as far as the Commission is concerned. Because once we know the oral evidence is over and no more transcripts to type and so on, we don't need investigators on new subjects, etcetera, it makes a tremendous difference to the staff in Toronto and also perhaps here. I have plans as well in July but if we have to go into it then I think we've got to seriously consider that. And let's hope we don't. MR. SHONIKER: I just thought I would warn you. MR. COMMISSIONER: Mr. Kelly seems to think that there's a good chance. MR. SHONIKER: It would be nice if we could finish this up. MR. COMMISSIONER: Well, we'll get together. I realize how difficult it is and normally I try to advise 210 19/06/90 people well ahead of time. It's just that it's so hard to know how long we're going to be going on evidence that I don't want to tie us down one way or the other and I guess plans just have to be made in a vacuum, I'm afraid. 10:00 o'clock in the morning then. --- Hearing Adjourned 4:30 Certified correct: Moira Freshwater, Reporter