1 ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE FORCE THE HONOURABLE W.E.C. COLTER -- COMMISSIONER --- Hearing held at the District Court House, St. Catharines, Ontario, on the 19th day of September, 1989. Volume 105 APPEARANCES: W.A. (Tony) KELLY, Q.C. Commission Counsel R.D. COLLINS Assoc. Commission Counsel P.A.E. SHONIKER Niagara Regional Board of Commissioners of Police F.S. FEDORSEN Chief of Police, John. E. Shoveller F. DAVID PICKERING Retired Chief of Police, James Gayder FAYE MCWATT For the Internal Investigation Team 2 19/09/89 THOMAS B. MILLAR -- ADMINISTRATOR PATRICIA LAURIN - REGISTRAR ------------------- JUDY TAYLOR - TEMPORARY REGISTRAR INDEX OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Page No. 293 Sandy Taylor's typed notes of the Board Meeting held January 15th, 1987 ................12 294A Article from the St. Catharines Standard dated August 6th, 1986 headed: "Disgruntled Officers say Morale is Hurt" ....................42 294B Article from the St. Catharines Standard dated September 10th, 1986 headed: "Hiring of Relatives increasing in NRP" .....................42 3 19/09/89 294C Article from the St. Catharines Standard dated September 12th, 1986 headed: "Police Board votes for a Review" ..........................43 295 Letter from Gayder to Dickson referring to attached list of family relationships as of September l, 1986 ......................44 4 19/09/89 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. GAYDER, James [Previously sworn] (In-Chief by Mr. Kelly)..................12 (Cr-ex by Mr. Shoniker)..................134 5 19/09/89 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 ---Commencing at 10:00 A.M. MR. KELLY: I had planned to re-examine Mrs. Taylor but Mr. Shoniker tells me that she is, in fact, in bed with Mr. Collins' flu. I guess he had infected the entire region of Niagara. I don't know. MR. COLLINS: My apologies to Mrs. Taylor. MR. KELLY: He's infected most of the inquiry staff here, I guess. MR. COMMISSIONER: Well, your apology is directed to the staff, I guess, Mr. Collins, because we are short two or three this morning because of the flu. MR. KELLY: Well, I guess that that would mean we'll call Mr. Gayder; the next witness. And we'll have to have Mrs. Taylor back, when she's out of her sickbed but I think that Faye McWatt is here to, I think, make submissions, in respect of standing for Messrs. Moody, Melinko, Onich, Newburgh and Billie Hockey and Carol Berry. MS. MCWATT: That's correct, your Honour. Good morning. MR. COMMISSIONER: Good morning. MS. MCWATT: I am Counsel here to represent, at least, apply for standing to represent, what I think the Commission has been referring to as the team and that's, 6 19/09/89 Staff Sergeant -- Staff Superintendent James Moody, Sergeant Gerald Melinko, Constable George Onich, Mrs. Billie Hockey, Mrs. Carol Berry and retired Staff Sergeant Joseph Newburgh. And, as I understand it from, Mr. Shoniker, some notice was given last week about my appearance here to apply for standing for these people and again, as I understand it, the upcoming part of the Commission of Inquiry is going to focus on these people and in the investigation that was done by them. And on that basis I'm applying for standing for them and I wish that for Counsel on their behalf. I also understand that Sergeant VanderMeer has separate Counsel and requires Counsel certainly -- MR. COMMISSIONER: Would you address that issue as to why Sergeant VanderMeer -- this is what troubles me and what I may have trouble selling to the powers that be. I had, a couple of times as we have been going along when Mr. Rowell was pursuing a particular area, and there might have been some objection to it, pointed out that I felt he was probably representing the internal investigation team inferentially, at least, as well as Sergeant VanderMeer. Since they were all part of the same team, 7 19/09/89 the question that is going to be asked me, and that I am asking as well, is why do we need two Counsel to represent the -- MS. MCWATT: The two separate, yes -- MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, the two --- MS. MCWATT: -- why separate. MR. COMMISSIONER: Are there two interests or what is --- MS. MCWATT: First of all, you Honour, as I understand it, by coming to this at a very late stage of the inquiry, as I understand it, certainly Officer VanderMeer has a lot more involvement that this group of people, who I intend to represent. Even though their interest may be, not as extensive as VanderMeer, they certainly do have interest and they need representation. And I think that my foremost point to the Commission is that basically there is too much work for one Counsel to represent Officer VanderMeer as well as these, one, two, three, four, five, six other individuals. MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes. That, I'm not sure I understand. It seems to me that did not the team all work together. I don't quite understand why there would be a difference because there is what six members of the team altogether, including VanderMeer? 8 19/09/89 MS. MCWATT: That's right. MR. COMMISSIONER: And that difference between that and five and one is -- MS. MCWATT: Well, as I understand also, Sergeant VanderMeer has particular interests in different terms of reference that, in fact, he had been the sole interests in different terms of reference. And there is a potential of an allegation of wrongdoing, with respect to this entire team and because of that possibility, the team itself, I feel, needs the representation and I don't believe, and I'm urging upon you strongly, that one Counsel can adequately provide the representation for seven members. Especially when, in fact, Officer VanderMeer has got the interest and the amount of involvement that he has. Now, as I say, I'll come into this. MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, you are not as familiar with what has been going on, of course. MS. MCWATT: That's right. I've spoken to each one of the members myself, on an evening last week, and certainly they have expressed to me that they would like to have Counsel. They feel that they need separate Counsel because of the potential allegations of wrongdoing. MR. COMMISSIONER: I mean, is there a potential conflict. I guess that's what I've got to know 9 19/09/89 in order to -- I have no powers, you know, because I assume you are asking for funding? MS. MCWATT: That's correct, your Honour. MR. COMMISSIONER: I mean, if it were just plain standing then it's a lot simpler -- MS. MCWATT: That's correct. MR. COMMISSIONER: -- and that's fully within my jurisdiction but when it comes to funding, I have no right to funding, at all, and I have to make submissions that would support that. I can foresee that there is going to be questions raised, at least, why the group as a whole, have to have separate Counsel. They will ask me whether there is a conflict. I'm not trying to put you on a spot but I know perfectly well, that's the first question that's going to be asked; why do they need separate Counsel. If I just say it is because there are so many of them that they need separate representation, the attitude, I'm quite sure, is going to be, but it was all one team. Can you help me out on that or give me some ammunition, at least. MS. MCWATT: Yes, I may have to. I may have to break for a moment to find out and give you a bit more detail about that, a little bit later on in the morning. MR. COMMISSIONER: Perhaps, even if you give 10 19/09/89 me a written submission setting out the difference in interests and why there does need to be two -- MS. MCWATT: I can do that, your Honour. MR. COMMISSIONER: -- and as you know, I will require information about your background, in any event, so that they can assess that as well. MS. MCWATT: What kind of information? Just basically what -- MR. COMMISSIONER: Date of called to the barr, the experience you have had et cetera because, again, as I'm sure you are aware, the powers that be, have laid down, and I think the same thing is applying to the new Houlden Commission, that those who are funded, will be funded not by legal aid but at the legal aid rate. MS. MCWATT: Yes. MR. COMMISSIONER: The legal aid rate, as you know, I'm sure, is a sliding scale depending on experience and length at the barr. MS. MCWATT: That's right. MR. COMMISSIONER: So that background will be required. MS. MCWATT: All right, I can do that, your Honour, and I can also, in fact, think about and perhaps give you some submissions, with respect to any conflict, that I see will arise. 11 19/09/89 Again, all I can do is tell you, at this point, that Officer VanderMeer, his Counsel has got to have Officer VanderMeer as his primary concern. He's a large player in all of these events. And with respect to the team, I think that there aren't any conflict within the team itself but, in fact, there may be problems with respect to -- I certainly don't want to seem to put them at odds but, in fact, there may be some problem with them having one Counsel. And I will get back to your Honour about that. MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, and then perhaps you don't need to even appear if you can give me, it doesn't have to be a very formal submission. Just a memo setting out your views on that, your submissions and your background. MS. MCWATT: All right. Well, I will try and do that before the day is over, your Honour. Thank you. MR. COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes, now, Mr. Kelly. MR. KELLY: Yes, sir, Mr. James Gayder. Before we do that, do you recall Sandy Taylor, who was the secretary present at the meeting of January 15th, '87 that had undertaken to type her notes of that meeting. She has now done so and I will mark them as the next Exhibit. 12 19/09/89 MR. COMMISSIONER: 293 will it be? Were those notes of a Board Meeting or of a monitoring committee? EXHIBIT NO. 293: Sandy Taylor's typed notes of the Board Meeting held January 15th, 1987. MR. KELLY: They are notes of the meeting of January 15th which was a Board meeting. MR. COMMISSIONER: Mr. Gayder, you have been here a number of times. JAMES GAYDER: Previously Sworn. EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. KELLY: Q. Mr. Gayder, I guess to deal with last things first, I didn't have the pleasure of being here last Thursday, but I watched the video portion of what occurred last Thursday, and I was quite entertained by it, quite frankly. But apart from that, in the course of her examination by Mr. Shoniker, Mrs. Taylor referred to a hiring event that occurred, according to her evidence, sometime in '84 or '85, and she related to the inquiry a conversation that she had heard between then Superintendent Alf Leigh and then John, I think it was, then Superintendent John Shoveller about a hiring event that 13 19/09/89 occurred in '84 or '85; did you hear that evidence? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. As I recall what it was that she stated was that Mr. Leigh had a chat with Mr. Shoveller said something to the effect that, "They say there's no favoritism being exercised in hiring in this force, John, that you recall back in '84 or '85 when five candidates were put forward to fill", pardon me, "six were put forward to, I think, fill five positions; three were sons of force members, one was a son of mayor and one was a son of a local politician"; do you recall anything about that particular event? A. No, sir, I don't. I do know that there was the son of local mayor, who was hired. Q. Who was that? A. I believe it was Mayor McCaffery's son. Q. Mayor of what municipality? A. St. Catharines. Q. And what year was that? A. It could have been in 1984. Q. And in '84, you were the Chief; weren't you? A. Yes, sir, I was. Q. Do you recall a hiring board in '84 that hired, that interviewed six candidates to fill five 14 19/09/89 positions? A. I don't think I ever recall any hiring board that only had that number of candidates before them. MR. COMMISSIONER: I gathered that it was the same number of candidates as those that were required. In other words, there were no -- I was a little confused, as to the point of view of interviewing them, if you only had six applicants for six jobs; was that the one that you were referring to? BY MR. KELLY: Q. Yes, that's what I am referring to. A. I don't, to my recollection, that has never happened. Going back in the early '80's, you had a very few candidates to choose from, or actually back in the early '70's but towards the '80's you had tremendous number of applicants. Q. Do you know whether a chap named Marino, who was the son of, I gather, the then Mayor of Niagara-On- The-Lake, who was hired by the force? A. There was two Marino's hired and, I believe, one of them could have been the son of Jim Marino, who was the -- well, at one time, he was the Mayor at Niagara-On-The-Lake but I don't know what years that was. Q. Do you know what position you held in the force when that occurred? 15 19/09/89 A. Without the documentation, Mr. Kelly, I cannot recall. Q. Coming forward to 1986 then and in the late fall or early winter of '86, depending on when winter begins, do you recall a discussion you had with Mr. Hanrahan at the Port Mansion Restaurant? A. Yes, sir, I do. Q. Do you recall when that occurred? A. Well, for referring to some conversations I had with Mr. Hanrahan, I believe, that I had a preliminary discussion with Mr. Hanrahan at the Yorkshire House in September. Q. Yorkshire House is another restaurant in St. Catharines? A. Yes, sir, it was after a Commission Meeting. Q. Is that Domenics, the Yorkshire House; whatever? A. I just know it as the Yorkshire House. Q. In September, you had a discussion with Mr. Hanrahan after a meeting of, what, four of the monitoring committee? A. I think that I could -- I would have to start to say that senior staff had a discussion, in which I put a proposition to them to cut down on the amount of time 16 19/09/89 that was being spent in testing of candidates, that we were doing it twice a year. We had taken a look at the Peel Regional Force that they only hired once a year. That they had interviews only once a year and that seemed to me to be a very good system where you could have your interviews, you knew what slots were scheduled for the full year and you didn't have to reschedule any more Selection Boards. Q. When did you have this discussion with your senior staff about this topic? A. I think that it was sometime during the mid part of the year and probably into August and maybe even into September. Q. At the point in time when you had this discussion with your senior staff, what was then, the procedure of this force concerning hiring? A. Well, it is spelled out in the Operational Manual, that we produced but basically there were to be two testings per year. And the results of those tests would be sent to a hiring board and they would select, from the applicants, that were put before the Board, they would select the total number of applicants that would needed to fill the existing positions. Q. Was there a ratio in place, at that 17 19/09/89 time? A. I don't know when the ratio started. There's nothing -- there was never anything formalized in a ratio. It was a, I believe that it was formulated by the people in personnel; the officers in personnel as a convenient method of weeding out five to seven hundred people, at the end of the scale. Q. Whether it was a formal written policy or otherwise, was there a defacto ratio put in some place, at some time? A. Yes, sir, there had been for, and I don't know how long, but it was very -- too long. Q. What was the ratio? A. Five to one. Q. So, at the time you had this discussion with your senior staff, in the summer, or thereabouts of '86 concerning some possible adjustment to this hiring procedure, at that point in time, it was two Selection Boards a year that would interview five candidates for every position that was vacant in the force? A. That's right, sir. Q. And how did the people, who became candidates to be interviewed by the Selection Boards, get to that stage; what was the procedure for them to reach that point; as you understood it? 18 19/09/89 A. Well, they went through a series of -- all the applicants went through a series of tests and those that were successful in the tests were then graded and the -- this is where the ratio came in, that if there was a large number of applicants that were successful then the personnel branch would put before the Selection Board, the total number of applicants, in the ratio of five to one. They would also, at the same time, the Selection Board, if there was five or seven officers that were needed, they would also give you a -- or give me a list of alternates that they felt were acceptable as being police officers in the force and these were to be used to fill in, in the event, that one of the applicants that they recommended to be hired, that they would take the list and go in descending order and advise that person that they would be hired. Q. Are you saying that if, if for example, you needed five people and if some on the first five turned down the offer that they -- you would then look to the alternates? A. That is correct. Q. To fill that space? A. To fill that space. There was one other reason that the alternates were put on. That if an opening came up between the two Selection Board, that were held in 19 19/09/89 the year, if another opening came up, then they would select from the alternate list and that person would be hired. Q. Now, this discussion you had with your senior staff concerning a prospective change in procedure, I take it, that the change you were contemplating was have a Board sit once a year instead of twice a year? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Was there anonymity in that view point or did others hold a contrary to you; in this discussion? A. In the first initial discussions, I think that there was. But at a subsequent discussion, with senior staff, I think that they had talked this over with the members of the force that were involved in the testing procedure and, I think, that they probably felt that the twice a year would be better then the once a year and so that there wasn't anonymity after and I don't think that that came in until after September, though. Q. When you had this discussion with your senior staff concerning this procedure, had the Selection Board, excuse me, of August/September taken place? A. I don't know for sure. I can't recall exactly when the senior -- when we discussed it at senior staff. Q. Now the August/September Selection 20 19/09/89 Board, just to refresh your recollection, was the one which your son was one of the persons interviewed? A. That's right, sir. Q. So, with that in mind, do you recall whether the discussion you had concerning this procedure was before or after your son was interviewed as part of the Selection Board? A. I would have thought that it was before that but I'm not positive. Q. Prior to your son applying to this force to be hired as an officer did you have any discussion with him concerning that matter? A. Oh, I had a lot of discussions with him, sir. Q. Tell us about them? A. Well, first of all, my wife was opposed to it and we had some discussions concerning that. But my son, John, was very much interested in becoming an officer on the Niagara Regional Police Force. He had worked, one summer, as a police officer, in Niagara Falls with the Niagara Parks Police and the discussions that we had were simply; what are the benefits; what would happen; do I have to go to Aylmer? The normal, I would say, the normal things that a boy would ask when he was contemplating putting in 21 19/09/89 an application. Q. Apart from his inquiries of that nature, from your vantage point, did you, in your chats with him, indicated to him, that this may be uncomfortable for you, if he applied to join a force, in which you were Chief? A. I don't know whether he brought it up but I would say that I probably brought it up with him. That he would have a certain amount of problems, if he was successful in getting on, because of the fact that I was the Chief. And I think that the rationalization, later on, was that I wouldn't be there that long after because my normal retirement was coming up within a very few years. Q. Did you suggest to him, it might be better to wait until you retire, before he applied? A. I don't think that was ever talked about. Q. Did he indicate to you that he would wait until that occurred, if you thought that was appropriate? A. No, sir, I don't recall a conversation of that kind. Q. So, he had no discussion with you about your comfort level if he applied to become a member of the force? 22 19/09/89 A. I think the only thing is just what I've said. Because I knew that, at school, because I had been a policeman for so long, there's always minor problems, even at school, for the son of a police officer. Q. At school? A. Normal school. Q. Normal school? A. That's right. Q. What sort of problems? A. Well, I suppose they kid him about your father being the Deputy Chief or the Chief and I don't think it ever came that there was any fights over it but I'm sure there were arguments about it when some of the other students would kid him about being the son of the Chief. Q. Well, when did you find out he had decided to apply? A. Probably somewhere in the end of '85 or the beginning of '1986. Q. He told you he thought it over and that he was going to apply? A. Well, I don't know what words he used but he indicated that he was going to put an application in. Q. Did he inquire of you, the process that 23 19/09/89 was involved in applying? A. Well, we had a number of conversations about the force and wages and things and it's quite possible I explained to him what he had to do. Q. Had you -- did he inquire, did you tell him about the two kinds of tests the so-called academic test and the physical test? A. I'm sure I would have. Q. Had you ever been on a Selection Board? A. Many, many, sir. Q. What was the last year you sat on a Selection Board? A. Probably 1983. Q. Prior to -- the year prior to you becoming Chief? A. Yes, sir. Q. And, were you familiar with the tests that were given candidates before they were interviewed? A. I knew that there was a test called the Otis-Lennon Test and sometime back in the mid-'70's, I saw what the Otis Lennon Test was. Q. What was it, as a matter of interest? A. It was a type of intelligence test; I was lead to believe. MR. COMMISSIONER: A question and answer 24 19/09/89 type of thing. THE WITNESS: It was one of those tests that -- MR. COMMISSIONER: One of those multiple questions --- THE WITNESS: That's right and you would tick the little boxes off and they had an overlay that got the answers fast for those that were marking. Back in the very beginning of the Regional Police Force, I did see the so-called general knowledge test that was given to applicants and I understand that that -- the questions that were on that had been changed periodically over the years but I had never seen one since that time. BY MR. KELLY: Q. So sometime at the end of '85 or thereabouts your son tells you he's, in fact, going to apply to become a member of the force? A. That's right. Q. And, does he, following that, tell you he has taken the test; that he's past the test? A. Well, I knew that he had taken the test, yes, because I knew that he had to go up. He was living at home, and still is, and that he had to go up at a certain time and take some tests and then I know that he had to go 25 19/09/89 back at another time and take the physical. Q. And, following, either both of those events, that is, the first time when he took the academic test and the second time when he took the physical test; did he indicate to you that he had passed and was going into the next stage of the process? A. I don't think, at that time, that he knew whether he had passed or not, other than he would have gone into the physical part and had to pass the first part of the test to get to the physical. I don't know if he would have know the marks at all. I know that I wouldn't have know the marks. I think that the only conversation that I can recall having with him was how did he feel about writing a test. You get a feeling of whether you passed or you didn't and he felt that he did alright. Q. After he took the physical test did he indicate to you that he had passed that and was going to be interviewed? A. It's quite possible he did, yes. Q. And, did he ask you about the interview process; how it worked? A. Yes, I believe that we talked about that he would have to appear before three of the senior officers on the force. 26 19/09/89 Q. Did he inquiry as to the sort of things that would be asked of him? A. No, I don't believe that we went into anything that would be asked. I know that I -- the conversation probably was somewhere around, "You know, you had better make sure that you're fairly well dressed and think about your answers before you give them"; that type of thing. Q. Did you offer him any information as to the kind of questions that might be asked of him? A. No, sir. Q. And, did he inquiry of you who would be sitting on this Board that would interview him? A. I don't know whether he asked me or not but I wouldn't even know, at that time. I wouldn't know who was going to sit on the Board until I directed that probably within the week before, or two weeks before the Board was to sit. Q. And that, in fact, was done, you did direct a certain panel sit? A. Yes, sir. Q. That was composed of Frank Parkhouse and David Gittings and Jim Moody? A. I believe those were the three on that particular sitting. 27 19/09/89 Q. And after you selected those three did you have any discussion with your son as to who would be sitting on this Board that would interview him? A. I don't recall that I did. Q. Did he know Mr. Parkhouse? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he know Mr. Gittings? A. I can't say that he did or that he didn't because, I don't ever recall him meeting Superintendent Gittings. Q. Did he know Mr. Moody? A. I know of no reason why he would have know Mr. Moody. Q. So, as far as you are aware, of the three, he knew Mr. Parkhouse? A. He definitely knew Mr. Parkhouse. Q. Did he know him well? A. I would think that he knew him fairly well, yes. Q. Would he have known him for most of his life; up to that point? A. I would say, yes. Q. So the interview takes place with the Board, does he discuss, with you, the interview and how it went and what happened? 28 19/09/89 A. I probably asked him how he felt about the interview, yes. Q. Do you recall what he said? A. I think that he indicated that he felt comfortable. Q. And, then, following that, he is hired or he isn't hire; does he indicate to you what happens to him after the interview? A. Not that I can recall. Q. Well, I guess he knew he wasn't hire since he didn't go down and put the uniform on? A. That's right but I don't recall any conversation, really, after that. He knew that he could put in other application; I know that. Q. How do you know that? A. Because, I'm sure that in our discussions as to what would happen over the course that any applicant can re-apply. Q. Was that before or after the time when he became aware that he wasn't hired? A. Could be either before or after. Q. Did you -- do you recall having a discussion with him about the fact that he could re-apply? A. Not particularly. I can only say that I can only assume that I had a discussion with him on that. 29 19/09/89 Q. Did you have any discussion with him as to this creature know as alternate candidates; or acceptable candidates; and what that meant, if you were one? A. I'm pretty sure I probably did because I did check, eventually, and not that I had to check but I had a report that came in from the Chairman of the Selection Board indicating that he was an acceptable candidate. Q. You recall whether you had a discussion with you son about this creature known as the acceptable candidate after you saw this list? A. I probably did, sir. Q. Do you recall what that discussion was? A. Just the fact that he was acceptable and that he was on another list. Q. Did you tell him what that meant? A. I don't think so. I think the only thing that was there that I would have indicated that he could re-apply. Q. Well, of course, as you said earlier, anybody can re-apply whether they are an acceptable candidate or involved in a candidate or not, if you give him any further guidance as to what the difference was between a person who was acceptable or an alternate and 30 19/09/89 someone who wasn't; did you explain what that meant; the difference? A. I can't recall going into it in that much detail. Q. Did you indicate that there was any preference of any sort was given to acceptable or alternate candidates as opposed to those who were not in that category? A. No, I don't recall telling him that. Q. So, as far as you are aware, or concerned, was there any preference to be given to people who were acceptable or alternated candidates as opposed to those who weren't? A. Yes, sir, there is, really in reality. Q. What is that preference? A. Well, I think I've touched on it. Q. You mean that they would be next in line of the first five, as example, or one of them turned a job down or if between Selection Board periods of vacancies occurred? A. That's right. Q. Are those the two areas of preference? A. There's two areas there, sir, that's right. Q. Those two? 31 19/09/89 A. Both of them and I think that's sort of spelled out in the Operational Procedural Manual. Q. I want to show you, page 73, of Exhibit 266A, which is a memorandum from Mr. Parkhouse to yourself of September 2, '86; is that the list you referred to when you previously told us that you saw the list of the candidates with your son included in the alternates? A. That's right, sir. Q. Shawn Robert Clarkson. A. Yes, sir. Q. I gather, from what I heard, that he is also a son of a force officer? A. Yes, sir. Inspector Clarkson. Q. And, the second paragraph, or third paragraph, I guess, of this memorandum from Parkhouse to yourself, dealing with Clarkson; do you know what that is all about? A. Well, to me, it was very fairly self- evident that Mr. Clarkson got onto the Selection Board and that he was one of the successful candidates but that they found later that he had only 79 points instead of the 80. Q. Um hmm. 80 is a fail, I mean, below 80 is a fail unless nobody gets above 80? A. Well, that's --- Q. Is that right? 32 19/09/89 A. Well, it is in a way. Q. I mean, if nobody gets above 80, I guess, you might go below? A. I'm sure that that would happen. Q. But if they all get above, well, not get above 80 to fill the requirements, those that are below 80 don't get a look see? A. I think that's something that was decided by the personnel branch itself. I don't recall ever having any discussions about 80 or anything like that. Q. Now, this last sentence: "It is, however, the recommendation of the Board that Mr. Clarkson to be allowed to be retested and if successful, included on the next list for the Appraisal Board." That's not much of break is it; anybody can do that; be retested and be interviewed if they get enough marks? A. That's right, sir, that can happen. In fact, I'm sure it has happened many times. Q. Do people get interviewed who don't get, at least, 80? A. I have no idea on that, sir, I've never seen the marks as the Chief of Police or as the Deputy? Q. Is there any -- was there any policy in 33 19/09/89 place in this force to deal with applicants who were police officers with other forces, at the time they applied to join this force? A. Basically only what I've heard at this hearing. It was always my understanding that applicants that were from other forces could put in an application And, I think, that going back into my days when I sat on the Selection Board, we would look at them very closely and if they were acceptable, they may be hired from the standpoint that they didn't have to go down to Aylmer and that save a considerable length of time to get that officer on the street. Q. And, in terms of the Board or Boards when you sat, I gather, at some time, you were sitting as Chairman of those Boards? A. Yes, sir. Q. Would you be the one who would sign the correspondence that would be sent out to the candidates who were interviewed by the Board, of which you were Chairman? A. Yes, sir. Q. And, I just want to show you, page 98 of Exhibit 266A, and let's review this letter from Mr. Parkhouse to a particular candidate whose name is Stotts. If you look back at page 73, you will see that Stotts is one of the so-called acceptable candidates? 34 19/09/89 A. Right, yes, sir. Q. Looking then, at page 98, this letter to Stotts, just take a minute to review it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, can you recall if that's the kind of letter that you would have sent out as the Chairman of a Selection Board to, what were acceptable but alternate candidates on the Boards on which you sat on? A. It's been a long since I have seen one of the letters that I sent out but when I was sitting as the Chairman, and had to put the letters out, the letters were composed by personnel. Q. Um hmm. A. I would get a -- Q. A pile of them. A. -- a pile of them and I would just simply sign them. Q. Um hmm. But, in terms of these letters, I take it, there were, to your knowledge as Chairman, three different kinds of letters that would go out, first a letter to the people who were not acceptable, saying what? A. That were not acceptable, were the, and I've heard the expression used and I think I've used it but, thanks but no thanks; that were not acceptable. Q. And secondly, the letters to those who 35 19/09/89 were to be offered the job saying, "You've been offered a job"; right? A. You know, I don't recall that particular letter because I think they just called them up and said, "Come on in on such and such a date" but there may have been letters. Q. And a letter to what are called -- A. Alternate candidates. Q. And forgetting, for the exact language you see in this letter, was in a letter you sent, was the substance of the communication that you were making as the Chairman of the Selection Board, the same as the bottom line here: " That after consideration, we thought you did fairly well but your not being now, but you can re-apply and you will have to undergo testing again, if you wish to do." A. I believe it would be very similar. Q. So, I just want to make it clear or not, was it so, that anybody, who was an alternated, at least at the time that you were Chairman of the Selection Board, were told that before they could get interviewed again, they had to be tested again? A. I would say that that probably did happen that concerning the letter but certainly it didn't 36 19/09/89 happen in reality. Q. What does that mean? A. Well, if they did get a letter similar to that and an opening came up between the two testing processes, or interviewing processes,the next one in line would be, either called up or advised that to come on in, we do now have an opening for you. In other words, it was left open for a least a year. Q. Were they made aware of that; at least a year of six months? A. Six months between the two interviews. Q. Back to my question, were they --- A. I can't say for sure on the letters. I do know that each Chairman preferred to make his own letters up and I know that the Deputy Chief Shoveller had a letter that was different then the one that was sent out by the Deputy Chief Parkhouse. Q. Yes, we've seen that; was yours different too, or did you just use somebody else's precedent? A. I'd have to see one to say. I can't say for positive. Q. Okay, now, your son is in an interview and, enough time passes that he's not at Aylmer, and he's not wearing a uniform, so I guess the Gayder household 37 19/09/89 knows he hasn't been hired as an officer in this force? A. Your right. Your right, sir. Q. At some point in time, when that become known, do you have a discussion with him? A. Well, that's where I was saying that if there, and I'm sure there was one, that I advised him that he could probably re-apply within a short time because there certainly be other openings coming up later. Q. Did you have occasion to see the letter that the force had sent to him? A. No, sir, I never did. Q. Did he offer to show it to you? A. I can't recall whether he did or not. I think -- the only thing that I knew that he did get a letter. Q. Did he indicate that he had gotten a letter? A. Yes, sir. Q. Of course, you would have know that anyhow, since you had already been a Chairman of the Selection Board. So you know that people, like yourself, would get one; right? A. That's right. Q. And, do you know, whether or not, when you had this discussion, you talked about these things 38 19/09/89 called alternate or acceptable candidates and do you recall that you indicated that he was one of those kinds of people? A. Well, as I say, I'm sure that I may have said that I felt that he was an -- or that the Board, that is the Selection Board, felt that he was an acceptable candidate. Q. So, you would have know that because of the memorandum of September the 2nd, '86, which is at page 73 of the Exhibit? A. Yes, sir. Q. So you would have seen that memorandum before you had this chat with your son and by reason of the memorandum, you could, in fact, tell him that he was an alternate or acceptable candidate; and might get a job during the next six month period? A. I don't know whether I told him he was an alternate but I think that I probably told him that he was an acceptable candidate. Q. Do you think that was a good idea? A. I don't know whether it was a good or bad idea. I certainly knew that he was an acceptable candidate. Q. If somebody read the kind of letter that he would have gotten, the one that Stotts got, he sure 39 19/09/89 couldn't figure that out from that letter, could you, of what you were --- A. No. I will admit that. Q. Tell me, how did the force, if at all, get across to people who were acceptable but alternate candidates that they were in that category? A. Well, I don't know whether personnel ever told them the position that they stayed in. I do know that the Shoveller letter is different then the Parkhouse letter. Q. More encouraging? A. And I know that they were certainly encouraged. That if they hadn't heard from the force within that period of time, that they should re-apply. But that's in real general terms, sir, because I wasn't involved down at that particular level on that. Q. So when you had this discussion with your senior staff about a possible amendment to the procedure from a twice a year to a once year, like Peel, had you seen the memorandum from that Selection Board of September 2nd, '86? A. No, I think that I -- I'm pretty sure that the discussions took place prior to that. I can't be exactly positive but I'm pretty sure that they did. Q. You said you met with Mr. -- or you had 40 19/09/89 preliminary discussions with Mr. Hanrahan, at the Yorkshire House, sometime in September of '86? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do I take it that will be after you have seen the memorandum from the Selection Board of September the 2nd, '86? A. Definitely. Q. So, at the time, you talked to Mr. Hanrahan, you knew that your son was an alternate candidate from that Selection Board process? A. Yes, sir. Q. Tell me about the discussion you had with Mr. Hanrahan, then, in September, at the Yorkshire House? A. Well, it was a very brief philosophical discussion and Mr. Hanrahan had been appointed Chairman of the monitoring committee of the Board. Q. And that was created, I think, in September the -- A. September the 11th. Q. -- 11th of '86? A. That is right, sir. Q. Was this meeting with him, then after the creation of that committee? A. It could have been that same evening. 41 19/09/89 Q. The evening that the Board created it? A. That's right, sir. It could have been. I know it was in September. Q. Looking at the minutes of -- I'm sorry, at a document that deals with part of a meeting of September 11th. It's Exhibit 266C, at page 5, which is the resolution creating the monitoring committee? A. That's right, sir, and that came up as a result of the newspaper articles that were in the St. Catharines Standard concerning nepotism. Q. And, when did they occur; in August or during that summer period? A. I would have to look up the date but it was prior to -- quite a bit prior to September the 11th. Q. Do you recall the thrust of those articles? A. The -- I certainly recall the articles because I met with Mr. Clarkson, at least once and maybe twice, concerning the articles. And the thrust was that the Niagara Regional Police Force had, in his estimation, a tremendous number of relatives on the job and he had a number of facts and figures to quote in the paper. I haven't read that article now, for at least three or four years -- three years. Q. Now, I have, through your Counsel, a 42 19/09/89 photocopy of an article from the St. Catharines Standard of August 6th, '86, headed: "Disgruntled Officers Say Moral Hurt. Police Force - 27 percent related". The second one, on September the 10th, '86 from the St. Catharines Standard is headed: "Hiring of Relatives increasing in NRP". And a third one of September the 12th, '86, again, from the St. Catharines Standard headed: "Police Board votes for a Review". Are these the articles that you recall that gave rise to the creation of this monitoring committee? A. That is right, sir. I think the first one was the August the 6th, 1986. Q. Well, I'll have them marked Exhibit . . . MR. COMMISSIONER: 294. MR. KELLY: 294 A, B and C, the first being the August story, the second, September 10th story and the third the September 12th story. EXHIBIT NO. 294A: Article from the St. Catharines Standard dated August 6th, 1986 headed: "Disgruntled Officers say Morale is Hurt". EXHIBIT NO. 294B: Article from the St. 43 19/09/89 Catharines Standard dated September 10th, 1986 headed: "Hiring of Relatives increasing in NRP". EXHIBIT NO. 294C: Article from the St. Catharines Standard dated September 12th, 1986 headed: "Police Board votes for a Review". BY MR. KELLY: Q. Now, do you recall that you had did a study for the Board concerning this topic of family relationships after the stories were published by the Standard? A. Actually, I did two reports to the Board, but I did give a very comprehensive report to the Board as a result of the August the 6th, article in the Standard. Q. Was this comprehensive study, you're speaking of, the one referred to in the meeting of September the 11th of the Board? A. I believe so. I could look it up. I do have the report that I did --- Q. Do you have the report with you? 44 19/09/89 MR. PICKERING: I have it here, Mr. Kelly. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. BY MR. KELLY: Q. Your Counsel has produced a letter dated September the 8th, '86 from yourself to William D. Dickson, Chairman of the Board of Police Commissioners, and that letter, in return, refers to attached list of family relationships as of September 1st, 1986; is this the report, these two documents that was provided to the Board at the meeting of September th 11th, '86? A. Yes, sir, it is and it was Minute No. 150 for '86 of the Board. Q. Thank you. We'll have that marked the - -- MR. COMMISSIONER: 295. Thank you. EXHIBIT NO. 295: Letter from Gayder to Dickson referring to attached list of family relationships as of September l, 1986. BY MR. KELLY: Q. Tell us what this chart demonstrates? A. Well, I didn't have the chart so I'll have to get a copy of that, sir. Q. Oh. 45 19/09/89 A. I only had the report itself without the attachments. And I hadn't seen this until just yesterday. Q. Oh. A. I'll have to take a quick look at it if you want me to try to interpret it. Q. Okay. A. But when I did look it, I found that at the time that this was prepared, we had a strength of 749 civilians and sworn officers on the Niagara Regional Police Force. And we had found that out of that, that there was basically 1092 relationships. But we had defined relationships as a wife, a husband, a son, a daughter, a father, a mother, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law -- Q. Mother-in law and father-in-law? A. Brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in- law, daughter-in-law and grandparents and grandchildren. Q. Are these supposed to be control low relationships? A. No, I can get into that in just a second. Q. I'm just curious as to how you defined control. A. First cousin, niece and nephew. We went into all of those. We had found that we had a number of 46 19/09/89 uncontrollable relationships that were in there, and I mean by that, we found that we had inherited in 1971, a number of family relationships, such as three sets of brothers, for instance. Q. Um hmm. A. We found that we had two sets of brother-in-laws. I say that that wasn't -- we couldn't control that when the regional force was formed we inherited those from other forces. And we also found that there were a number of relationships, that really, we couldn't control and, I think you'll find that approximately 86 out of the 192. What the represented was, people who didn't really know each other but met while they were on the job and got married. Q. Um hmm. A. Or there were a number of cases where, I can use one as an example, but there were a number, Inspector Turnbull, I believe he had a son, who was not on the force but he met a girl that was on the force and they got married. Q. Um hmm. A. So, therefore, Inspector is charged with having a daughter-in-law in the force. Q. Um hmm. 47 19/09/89 A. Those are the uncontrollable types of relationships that we found. What the -- the most significant thing that we found, that out of 749 total staff, there were 33 people, that had either a son or a daughter on the force; that is the direct relationship of a son and a daughter. Q. So what percentage of the force were in, what could be called, controllable relationships; at that point in time? A. 14.15 percent. Q. When you discussed with Mr. Clarkson's story with him, did you ask him where he had obtained his information? A. I believe we had some discussions concerning that but I wasn't apprised of where he got the information. Q. Tell me, at that point in time, were any studies done to the Chairman about comparative statistics that existed in other police forces; in comparison to the Niagara report, sir? A. If my memory serves me right, the -- Mr. Quattrini was to try to check with other forces or somebody in our personnel was to check with other forces to find out what their percentage was. And, I think, every time that I tried to 48 19/09/89 find out what happened we were told that it was impossible in other forces to give us the total percentage. Q. So, now we're at the Yorkshire House, and is this following the meeting of September the 11th? A. I thought it was right in around that time and I know it was after a Commission meeting, so I'm only assuming it was the 11th or two weeks later. Q. Tell us about what the discussion was about then? A. Well, Mr. Hanrahan had been appointed the Chairman of the monitoring committee meeting and it's always been my policy to discuss things that are brought up at senior staff level or things that become apparent within the force, to talk to the Chairman of any type of committee, such as the Chairman of the Licensing Committee or any other committees that the Board had set up, to sort of, give them my views, to talk to them about what the agenda should be et cetera. On this time, when I talked to Mr. Hanrahan, it was a philosophical type of discussion that we had been considering, going from one interview -- going from two interviews a year to one interview a year, and I believe I did mention possibly, at that time, the Peel situation. And I don't think we went very much further, at that particular meeting. 49 19/09/89 Q. Was it a meeting or what was it? A. It wasn't. I was sitting around a table having refreshments and a bite to eat after the meeting, which was probably around 10:30 at night. Q. Who else was at the table? A. Mrs. Wilcox, Mrs. Parnell, Mr. Dickson, Mr. Quattrini and I don't recall whether Mr. Saracino and I don't believe was there and I don't believe Mrs. Taylor was there, and I don't think Mr. Keighan was there. Q. So, was that the extent of the conversation, at that time; a closed philosophical discussion about whether there might be a change from two interview boards a year to one? A. I know that I brought up another -- I brought up later about alternates. And whether it was alternates from the last --- Q. No, at that same discussion? A. Yah, I don't re -- I was just going to say, I don't recall whether it was there or at the Port Mansion which on December the 11th. But I know I did bring up the question of alternates because they were acceptable candidates. Q. How did this arise; this discussion about alternate candidates? A. Philosophical type of a conversation we 50 19/09/89 have. Alternates that are acceptable to the force and I do recall that when we were having this conversation, it was Mr. Hanrahan, who had suggested that he had felt that they didn't have to be interviewed or retested. And I can recall saying, "No, wait a minute. That's not really fair". Q. What gave rise to that discussion and that comment from him? A. Because of the fact that we were talking about alternate people that were acceptable as being officers and that they would have to go through all the retesting. Bearing in mind, we're talking Peel. Q. What was the discussion in which this topic arose; what was the discussion about? A. Because we were talking about the Peel situation and how they handle theirs. Q. This is the once a year business? A. That's right and therefore you would have enough acceptable officers or candidates that you could project it right through to the end of the year. Q. So what discussion was there concerning these people called alternate candidates? A. In the fact that, then the alternates could be told, "That probably come September of next year, rather than only the hirings that were immediate." 51 19/09/89 Q. Are we -- is this discussion a philosophical one or a particular one? A. No, it was simply a philosophical one and I was expressing my views of what had happened when I was talking to some senior staff about the changes that may be made because any changes that we made to policies were approved by senior staff. I think you will find that there were very few. I think the last policy was formulated in 1985. There were some changes made in, I believe, March of '86 that were recommended by, I believe it was Marvin and Gill, that went to senior staff and they were approved. The recommendations that they made but they -- we didn't have time yet to incorporate all of that into the existing policy. Q. When you had this chat with Mr. Hanrahan about alternates was it a chat about the fact that if you changed from twice a year to once a year with interview Boards that you would have these people on this list, whatever you want to call it, who would be available for the entire twelve month period and not just the six month period? A. That's right. Q. Well, did the discussion, at some time become particularize; did it relate to, at some time, the 52 19/09/89 alternate candidates from the August/September '86 Selection Board? A. It's possible. I don't recall any specific names being ever mentioned or anything like that. Q. Well, do you recall whether or not, in either or, one or the other, of these discussions with Hanrahan that you mentioned to him that your son, John, was, in fact, an alternate candidate from the August/September go-around? A. No, I didn't have to. Q. Why? A. He already knew. He sat in on the interviews. Q. Okay, he may have had to but did your discussion concerning all the alternates include a discussion of the fact that your son was an alternate candidate from that go-around and what this policy change would have on him? A. I don't think it was that type of a philosophical type of discussion. I'm sure of it. I'm sure that I wouldn't have mentioned it there. Q. What was it you spoke of with Hanrahan at December the 11th? A. As I say, if I had mentioned the other - - the alternates from there, it could only be maybe as an 53 19/09/89 example but I don't really recall referring to the six alternates or how many alternates there were at that time. Q. Well, what did you talk about with Hanrahan on December the 11th? A. Basically what I've just told you about the Peel situation. Q. Well, all you've told me so far is that you were talking about possibly a change from interviewing twice a year to once a year; that's all I've heard so far. What else did you talk about apart from that; did you talk about alternate candidates? A. As I say, it's quite possible but I don't recall because, you know, this discussion only took place for two or three minutes. We were at a Christmas function and --- Q. Who raised the topic? A. Oh, I'm sure I probably did, sir. Q. I think you told us earlier, this morning, not too long ago, in fact, that Hanrahan said that they needn't be tested and interviewed and that you had said to him, "Well, hold on, that may not be fair". What gave rise to that discussion? A. Because, in my own -- and I've said to him, I'm sure that I said, "The reason that it wouldn't be fair was simply that you have a bunch of new candidates 54 19/09/89 that would be coming in and it wouldn't be fair to them." Q. Well, gave rise to Hanrahan sayings, "That alternate candidates wouldn't have to be retested and re-interviewed"? A. We must have been talking somewhere along about all that. I don't recall how it was brought up. It could have been brought up because of the fact that alternate candidates -- you wouldn't really need alternate candidates if you had scheduled it for a full year in advance because they would have been told when they would be hired. Q. Excuse me? A. Well, alternates, are those people, if we had have gone to the system that Peel had, after the interviews they would have been told when they would be coming on the force. Q. Are you saying that if you used it once a year, the interview process, there would never be any alternates? A. Oh, no. No, no, but at least those candidates that would -- they would be told when they would be hired. In other words, if you had six in April and you had seven or eight to go to the college in September or October, they would be told that right after the Selection Board hearing. 55 19/09/89 You would still have to have one or two alternates or some acceptable people, in the event, that they took a job somewhere else. There's no question about that. Q. Do I take it --- A. I don't think we talked about that with Mr. Hanrahan or I talked about the particular part with Mr. Hanrahan, though. Q. Do I take it that the only difference between the once a year or twice a year is that there less force manpower involved in having processed once instead of twice? A. That is the main reason that it was brought up because of the amount of time that it took for our staff to process these people. Q. But the results of the process would be the same? A. Absolutely, sir. Q. Once or twice? A. That's right. Q. Alternates or not? A. There would still have to be some alternates. Q. But the result is always the same; alternates are only hired if the people who were to be 56 19/09/89 hired don't take the jobs or other vacancies occurred during the twelve month period? A. That's right, sir. Q. And the same thing occurs if it were twice a year but during a six month period? A. And the same thing would happen then. Q. So how did this question of retesting -- - MR. COMMISSIONER: I just wanted to straighten out something in my own mind. Do you know a year ahead, I suppose, with even more then that when retirements are coming up? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. MR. COMMISSIONER: Is the retirement mandatory? Is there, at a certain age, that a police officer is required to retire? THE WITNESS: At 60, sir, under our contract. MR. COMMISSIONER: So you would know the number of vacancies but what about deaths or permanent disabilities; how would you know about that ahead of time; or would that be covered by your alternates? THE WITNESS: When we are preparing our budgets at the later part of the year, we can project how many new recruits we would need for the whole year based on 57 19/09/89 the retirements. But we also know that there are two, possibly three that somebody may pass away or somebody may quit. There's the two categories. So, we sort of always - - you looked at that and took that into consideration. MR. COMMISSIONER: Or permanent disability. They would be three; would they not? THE WITNESS: Well, that's a possibility. I don't that we ever looked at that because they would still be on our roster until we got permission to hire at a later on those -- under those circumstances. MR. COMMISSIONER: Okay, Mr. Kelly, I'm sorry but it was just something that I wanted to clarify. BY MR. KELLY: Q. So how did this -- how did it come about that Mr. Hanrahan raised the question that he wouldn't have to retest or interview these people, who are described as alternate candidates? A. Well, I think that was because of the general discussion that we were having, at that time. And, as I say, I don't recall who brought up the subject of alternates. It could well have been me and using that as an example but it definitely had to have been mentioned because that's when we had the conversation about whether 58 19/09/89 they would have to be retested and re-interviewed. Q. Tell me about that conversation? A. Now, that's where -- I was here when Mr. Hanrahan was saying that I was the one that mentioned that but I'm sure that I had -- when it was said, that he said that he didn't think that because they were acceptable that they would even have to be rehir -- retested or re- interviewed and that's when I said, "That would be fair." We had to take a look at the new ones that would be recommended for interview at the next -- because it was coming up very shortly at the next interview stage. Q. Was he a lawyer, at this time, what he was suggesting was contrary to force policy? A. Well, I don't know whether he was aware of it but I certainly would be aware that that was changed because this is what we were talking about. Changing the normal from two to one. Q. Yes, I know that but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact that if his suggestion of not retesting or re-interviewing, which he was putting forward, was he aware that that was contrary to force policy? A. I don't know whether he did, but I knew that it was. Q. Did you tell him that? 59 19/09/89 A. No, I don't recall ever mentioning that. Q. You said that it would be unfair? A. I said, "It would be unfair." Q. And how did the conversation conclude on that topic? A. Simply that I believe, that he had suggested that I bring it up at the next monitoring committee meeting. And I agreed. Q. Bring what up at the next meeting? A. Our discussion that we had. Q. What was the topic to be brought up? A. Whether there should be one interview per year and whether the alternates would be retested or rehired from a previous interview. Q. And how did that second topic become suddenly raised at the meeting of the 22nd? A. I believe that I started the conversation. I brought up the subject, bearing in mind that Mr. Hanrahan had suggested that we bring it up, but I didn't get to that meeting for, I believe it was -- I got there around 2:15 and the meeting started at 1:45. Q. We're not going to get to -- we'll get to the meeting soon. We're not there yet. A. Well, you mentioned the 22nd. Q. Yes, yes. Well, tell me, was this 60 19/09/89 discussion, that is to change from two interviews to one a year and to discuss the question of alternate candidates a prospective one; a future change in it; a change of policy to affect the future? A. Oh, yes, definitely. Q. Not the past? A. That's right. Q. I mean, what's to pick up; was it to apply at this -- at the then current stage or was it a matter of some discussion as to whether it would apply down the road in the future? A. I don't think there was ever mentioned down the road or in the past. What we were going to try to do or what I had understood we were to bring it up at the monitoring committee meeting of the 22nd to get their views on whether this should happen. Q. Right, but was it to affect the then go- about of -- go-around of interviews? A. Well, I would have to rely on what happened at the 22nd meeting because it -- I think, Mrs. Wilcox said, "heated" and it was heated. Q. I'll get to that in a second. I just want to know whether or not these topics and the topics are general topics that affect overall force policy and hiring; right? 61 19/09/89 A. That's right. Q. And were they -- did you expect to have this rather weighty issue decided at the meeting of December 22nd or did you expect there would be a number of meetings of which this would have to be discussed before a determination was arrived at? A. Well, I don't know what would have been on my mind at that time in relation to when it would transpire. It was certainly to be brought up for discussion at the monitoring committee meeting of the 22nd. Now, they had had a couple of previous meetings and really they were more of an information meeting then a decision-making meeting. Q. Yes. A. So, I really don't know what I could have expected from that meeting. Q. Before we adjourn for the morning break, tell us if you would, what it was you were to raise -- you were asked to raise at the monitoring committee meeting of December 22nd? A. The question of one Selection Board per year, rather then two and the question of what happens to alternates. Q. And in what context were you to raise that issue: what were you to raise in that concerning 62 19/09/89 alternate candidates? A. What the monitoring committee felt that we should do with alternates. Q. In what sense? A. Do we just leave them where they are acceptable or should we include them or should we consider some other method of taking a look at alternates; that's what I, in my own mind, had felt that that was to be discussed. Q. It would be an appropriate time, sir, to adjourn for the morning recess. MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, but before we do, just while I think of it because I intended to do this on Thursday and then we got into a long discussions. I just wanted to remind Counsel, and if they would pass it along to the Counsel, who are not here, that according to the consultation process time table, witness lists were to be submitted by September 15th. Now some leeway can be given that. Any Counsel who wishes for the purpose of the consultation process to call witnesses to give that Counsel's own views of what the various subjects that are set out in the information -- the consultation process memo that was given to you some time ago, if you would file with us, a list of those witnesses and a brief synopsis. 63 19/09/89 I think you'll find that in the information. It will ask you for a brief synopsis of the evidence from each witness and that to remind you, as well, that if you wish to make submissions as to what should be considered by the workshops, and in the meantime, by the consultants themselves, September 28th was to be the date for that. And then I just remind you that on October 23rd, by then the consultants reports were to be released to those having standing for the workshops and then the workshops were to continue or to be instituted and carry through on November 6th, 7th and 8th. Just a reminder. I don't think we had received any list of witnesses from any Counsel and it may be that you don't intend to call them, but I remind you that if you do wish to have witnesses called as such at those workshops, you should let us know. Twenty minutes to twelve. --- morning recess BY MR. KELLY: Q. Now, Mr. Gayder, we've left the Port Mansion and we're approaching Christmas of 1986. There's a meeting of the monitoring committee on December 22nd of that year; do you recall that meeting? 64 19/09/89 A. Yes, sir, I do. Q. And, I think you have told us earlier, that your recollection was the meeting started in the order of 1:45 p.m. but you didn't arrive until about 2:15 p.m.; is that correct? A. The meeting was scheduled to be started at 1:45, I don't when it started. That's when it was scheduled and I arrived at 2:15. Q. Now, as you've heard, in the course of the evidence, there's a whole flock of different drafts of the proceedings that occurred on December the 22nd, and I have been dealing with the people at that meeting -- tried to deal with them with their recollections and not the pieces of paper. You tell me what occurred at the meeting of December 22nd? A. Let me preface my remarks by simply saying that I've heard those -- all the remarks that were made here and I'm trying to disassociate from those remarks here and take myself back to that meeting. And sometimes, it's difficult, but I arrived at approximately 2:15 and there was some discussions going on concerning agenda items. It was obvious that there had been discussions on the agenda items, prior to my arrival. Q. What was being discussed, at the time, you arrived? 65 19/09/89 A. I think that we were talking -- they were talking about some of the policies and correspondence that related to the policy on hiring didn't really match. And, while I have heard that there was no directives made out of that particular meeting, I think there were some recommendations that did come out of them meeting that were more or less directives and I believe that I was directed to make sure that that was done. In other words, there's memorandums, there was reports and there was the policy and some of them didn't conform. They hadn't been incorporated and that was -- my particular job was to make sure that that had gotten done. Q. Um hmm. A. There was some discussion about --- Q. Why were you at this meeting? A. Well, I was suppose to be at all of the monitoring committee meetings. Initially after the meeting or the committee was set, the monitoring committee set up, I met with the three members of the Board that were put on it and we had a general discussion, at that time, as to what we should be looking at or they should be looking at. And I knew the first couple of meetings were information meetings only, in which, I believe, Staff Sergeant Peter Gill was to attend and another one where 66 19/09/89 Sergeant Marvin was to attend to outline to them, the procedures. So I would normally have attended it. I have checked my books and it was indicated that I was to attend that meeting. Q. So your recollection of the discussion, when you arrived, was a discussion concerning policy and the fact that the paper didn't fit together? A. There was that; there was another discussion concerning -- apparently there was some problem with the marks that were obtained by applicants, at their high school or university, that some -- they weren't getting in properly and weren't appearing in some of the Selection Board material. And the discussion around that was simply, "We've got to give them more written instructions" and, I believe, it was suggested that we should send them a self- addressed and stamped envelope, so that we would get the material back, when they were sent to schools. Q. Yes? A. There was some other discussion concerning criminal records of applicants and how they were checked. Basically, some of the conversation that took place up until the time that it was brought up about the Peel situation and the alternates. 67 19/09/89 Q. How did that topic arise? A. Well, I'm not trying to be vague but I don't recall whether I brought it up or Mr. Hanrahan brought it up. I probably did. Q. What was brought up? A. Well, I brought it up that I had had this conversation with Mr. Hanrahan and I outlined to them some of the basic discussions that I had with Mr. Hanrahan, for that short period of time. Q. What did you --- A. And I did mention the Peel, and how they worked it, and I know that I brought up the question of alternates. Q. In what context? A. That it was similar to what we probably said, at the meeting with Mr. Hanrahan, in that I felt that they were acceptable candidates and that they would have to be interviewed. Q. They would have to be what? A. Have to be re-interviewed. Q. Or interviewed, yes? A. Re-interviewed. Q. What about retesting? A. Well, I think Mr. Hanrahan had mentioned something in there, because he did get into the 68 19/09/89 conversation on this. And he had mentioned something about a discussion and that we'd come up with the suggestion only, that they didn't have to be retested. And this was brought up to the Board. Q. What are you talking about, at this stage? Are you talking about the future, and the prospective change in the policy for the future, or are you talking to affect the then intended Selection Board, which was going to happen in about two weeks? A. Well, I know you mentioned this before. I suppose, basically, we're looking at a change that would be made in the future but then when we started to talk about the alternates, it certainly was apparent, that it was the alternates from the last Selection Board. There's no question about that. Q. Why did that become apparent? A. Because I felt that it was incumbent upon me to advise the rest of the monitoring committee that I knew Mr. Hanrahan knew my son was one of them. But I advised them that my son was one of the alternate candidates from the last selection. Q. But, how would that be relevant unless the proposal was to change the rules for this particular Selection Board? 69 19/09/89 A. I think that it was still just a general conversation. Work got into difficulties --- Q. Just stop there for a minute. If it was just a general conversation, why did these names ever get added to the list, then? A. Well, I'll have to go in and show you why they were added. Q. But if the topic was just general -- A. Yes. Q. -- why did this problem with the then current list ever arise or was the topic centered and to begin with that Selection Board to commence in about two weeks? A. It probably was, in relation to the -- because within a very short time, I knew there was another Selection Board, and in my conversations with Mr. Hanrahan, and while I can -- I can't be that explicit in it, the question of alternates -- I know it was discussed to some degree and I believe I probably it up. Q. Why was it brought up at that point in time? A. At the meeting with Mr. Hanrahan? Q. Yes. A. Only because, of the fact, that we were discussing how Peel did it and here we're sitting with a 70 19/09/89 number of applicants that are acceptable applicants to the force, but we have no way of putting them into the system. Now, I'm not saying those are the words that I used, at that time, but that was the gist of why we were talking about it. That here you've got, let's say it's the six people, these six people were acceptable to the force, and if there had of been twelve openings, certainly they all would have been hired. So what do we do with those types of people in the future. That's the gist of the whole conversation, when you start looking at it and why it was brought up to find out, really, whether we should recommend to senior staff that we go once a year and what do we do with the alternates. Q. I know, I understand that but what I'm asking you is, was that discussion relevant to the Selection Board that was to occur and did occur on January the 5th about two weeks following the meeting of December 22nd? A. It certainly came up that way, at the meeting of the 22nd, yes. Q. I guess what I'm asking is, did you make any attempt to say, "Hey, listened gentlemen and lady, I'm not talking about these six. These six even don't enter into this debate. I don't mean the January 5th Board, I 71 19/09/89 mean in the future". A. No. Q. Was that ever said? A. No. Q. Then tell us what happened at the meeting? A. Well, that's what I've been attempting to try to figure out in my own mind. Q. I know. A. I -- the only thing I can say, Mr. Kelly, is that, yes, the six applicants from the other was discussed and soon as it was brought up, probably by myself, as I have said --- Q. How did it come up? A. Well, through this general conversation that we were discussing, more or less, about what we would be recommending or, at least discussing -- I don't even know whether there was going to be a recommendation come out of that. That's when the six alternates name, or the six alternates were talked about and it was right then that I had mentioned to them about, "Hey, one of these six alternates is my son". It was probably -- and I can only suppose that the discussion arose because I'm trying to illustrate 72 19/09/89 what about these six people or what the alternates. Here's acceptable people and that's quite possible that that's when it came up, in the contents. Q. Well, what happened then? A. Well, there got to be, as Mrs. Wilcox said, "Heated discussion" --- Q. And what did that mean; what did happen? A. There was quite a bit of yelling and very loud voice, primarily by Mr. Keighan about a conflict of interest, because I had already told them that one of those was my son. There was discussions between Mr. Keighan, Mr. Hanrahan. He didn't know about the meeting that had taken place between, or the discussions between Hanrahan and myself. And a lot of the discussion was between the two of those. Mrs. Taylor entered into the conversation. And it was suggested that because I had a conflict that I shouldn't even be talking about it. Q. Who said that? A. Mr. Keighan, I believe, is the one that suggested that. There was discussions between them concerning basically the discussions that took place that took place between Mr. Hanrahan and I. I went to say something and, at that time, I was told that I shouldn't even be entering into this and I 73 19/09/89 was told to shut up. I immediately got up and I left the meeting. Q. How long did you leave the meeting? A. No more then twenty minutes. I would say between fifteen and twenty minutes, I went I had -- I know I went and I had a coffee to calm down. I don't, at any time, think that I ever raised my voice, at any meeting. Q. Did you then return to the meeting? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. What was being discussed when you returned to the meeting? A. When I returned to the meeting, they were discussing, actually Deputy Chief Shoveller was outlining the letters that were sent to the applicants, and he was outlining the three different types of letters. Q. Do you recall what he said about them? What was he talking about? A. He was talking about letters that were sent to the successful applicant, the alternate applicants, and the one that, thanks but no thanks, and outlining the procedure that he followed. Q. Um hmm. A. I recall Mr. Keighan saying I nodded. I may have. I probably nodded in agreement to what he was 74 19/09/89 saying. Q. Agreement about what? A. The types of letters that would have been sent out. Q. Yes. A. There was some conversation, again, about whether the alternates should be included on the next Selection Board. Q. Who raised that topic? A. Well, I know that it wasn't me because I didn't I didn't enter into the conversation any more that afternoon. Q. Well, did Mr. Keighan not ask whether the force was committed to interviewing these alternate candidates? A. I don't recall him asking me any specific question but I can say this, that because I was really upset after being told that, and got out, that the word "committment" came up, maybe, several times. Q. In what context? A. In a committment -- I took it, a committment to either hire, there was possibly a committment to interview, those words were used somewhere along the line by Mr. Hanrahan and Mr. Keighan, but Mr. Keighan basically was doing the talking. 75 19/09/89 Q. What was he saying? A. Again, I may be accused of being vague but I was very upset, at the time, and I recalled the words "committment" being used. The context of it, I don't know, except that I can only summarize now, that if the word "committment" had of been used -- the only time that we really had any committment, to my knowledge, is an applied committment to hire those people that were acceptable on the alternate list between Selection Boards. That was an implied committment. And I'm sure that that could have been one of the reasons "committment" was raised. If it was a committment to interview and the discussions that were going on then, it could have been in relation to the committment to bring this matter up before the Board, that I had with Mr. Hanrahan, during our discussions, when we said that there could be a committment to interview. Q. Well, was there some discussion about the six alternates from the August/September go-around being interviewed, in this particular go-around? A. I think that that took place prior to me leaving the room. Q. What was said about it then? A. Well, I thought that I had said it to 76 19/09/89 the best of my ability that I recall that that had been brought up and --- Q. My question wasn't -- my question was not, was the Board made -- was the committee made aware of the fact, that there were six alternates, and, one of which was your son, my question is, was there any discussion that these particular six people, including your son, be interviewed by this Selection Board to take place very soon? A. Well, certainly. I'm sure that that was part of the conversation. Q. But what's the conversation --- A. But, I don't know. It was just that vague that it was -- this is the ones we were referring to, really, was those six people, whom we were talking about it. Q. But were you talking about adding them to the list, to the people to be interviewed? A. Yes. Q. Why? A. Because of my conversation with Mr. Hanrahan and that's why it was brought up. Q. But why was it important that these six be interviewed at this next go-around? A. Because that is what the conversation 77 19/09/89 was about. Q. But I thought it was about -- A. Change in general, that's right. Q. -- change in force police, generally? A. That's right, it was but it got around to the fact that we were talking about the six people. That's what I tried to explain. But how it was brought up and by whom, I probably brought it up prior to me leaving the room, as I've said, and, at that time, I told them about one of the applicants was my son. Q. But I asked you earlier and I ask you again, if you were talking about a general force policy did you not say, "Forget those six, forget the next go-around, because I'm talking about a long-term policy for the future". A. No, I did not say that. I never even considered it, at the time. Q. Well, was it in your mind that these six should be added to the then current list or was it your view that there should be a decision made about those six in the next go-around? A. There should be a decision made basically because of my conversation with Mr. Hanrahan. Q. So that you then asked the committee 78 19/09/89 whether these six should be added to the number of people to be interviewed, at the up-coming Selection Board? A. I don't think I put it in those words but it was certainly brought up. Q. How did they put it? A. I don't know. Q. Well, tell me, what discussion occurred? A. Well, I have attempted to, sir. Q. Well, it's pretty vague so far. A. I know and I admit that it is vague because I don't recall the gist of every piece of that conversation. Normally, I do record a lot of it but this one, I didn't. I can only remember that prior to me leaving the room that those six were mentioned because that's why I know I said about my son and that's when the conflict came up with Mr. Keighan. And it definitely was in relation to the six alternates and it probably came up as a result of using them as an example of what I've been talking about in attempting to get them to get a policy change, a complete policy change. That they would be automatically interviewed, in the next Selection procedure, if they were qualified or they had been acceptable candidates. And 79 19/09/89 really, I can't go much beyond that. Trying to recall exactly what happened prior to me leaving the room. Q. Given the fact that you were then, the Chief of Police, and that one of the six people involved in the six alternate candidates, from a prior list, was your son and you were talking about a change in the general policy of the force concerning hiring, would you not consider it more appropriate to discuss that outside the context of those six people, including your son? A. Oh, in retrospect, I probably should have. I should have maybe mentioned it to my senior staff and have them bring it up or something like that. That's obvious, now, that maybe that is what should have happened. Q. But that really wasn't, I guess the thrust of my question. So-called nepotism. A. Right. Q. I'm not suggesting it if existed or not, at that time, but you know what the media is like, they make loud sounds; don't' they? A. Yes, sir. Q. And they made a lot of loud sounds in the five months proceeding this discussion in December? A. That's right, sir. Q. And people are sort of sensitive about the media getting on their backs, again, about this kind of 80 19/09/89 thing; right? A. Right. Q. And we have this meeting and you have in mind a discussion about changing, in a general way, the force policy concerning hiring; right? A. Correct. Q. You weren't asking for ad hoc decision on the 6th; were you? A. I wasn't asking, no, I didn't come right out and say that. I was using that if my -- in the recollection, as an example. Q. What I am asking is, were you -- they are talking about a change in the force policy to apply to all people or a change to apply just at this one Selection Board for these six people? A. Oh, no. No, no, it was a general change in the policy because prior to that time, Mr. Kelly, any change in the policy never, ever went to the Board. It wasn't the Board policy, anyway. It was a force policy. And any changes that were made in our policy, on hiring, were made by the Chief through his senior staff. So, what I'm talking about, really, is that general change in it for the future. Q. And, getting back to this point in time and the people involved, how did it come about that it was 81 19/09/89 discussed in the context of these six people, at this next up-coming Selection Board? A. Because I probably used those last six as an example and then Mr. Keighan got on the so-called bandwagon because I had mentioned that one of them was my son. Q. Right, and could you not have said, "Listen gentlemen and lady, forget that. I don't mean for it to apply to these six. I meant it to apply to the future. Let's let this Board proceed without them being involved". A. Sure wished I had have done that, sir. Q. Did you think that would have been the best way of doing it, or not? A. Well, knowing what I know now, it certainly would have been. Q. No, taking it back to that point in time? A. No, I don't think I really gave it any amount of thought, at that time, because I was only concerned about a general change in the policy. Because up till that time, as I've explained, we wouldn't have gone to the Board, in any event. Q. Um hmm. A. But because they had a monitoring 82 19/09/89 committee that was suppose to recommend any changes -- Q. Um hmm. A. -- that's why it was brought up there. Otherwise, it need not have gone to the Board. Q. Well, what was the resolution, if any, at this meeting? A. Well, my recollection of the resolution, and I've heard all of the recollections by those that were there, was that I was to include those six alternates from the previous Selection Board and to put them in with the next Selection Board that was going to take place, whenever it was, I -- two or three weeks or whenever the next Selection Board came up. And that was what is my mind when I left the meeting. Q. What about the question of marks? A. The question of marks never came up. Not while I was there, now, I've had the advantage since then of looking at the minutes and the altered minutes and changed minutes and everything else. But all the time that any marks were ever discussed I wasn't even there. I didn't know about 83, 81. I had no knowledge of that, at all. When I left that meeting, I was told to put the six alternates or those -- I don't know whether I ever used the word six, but the alternates from the previous 83 19/09/89 Selection Board, and I was to put those on the list with the acceptable candidates for the next hiring, for the next interview Board. Q. It is said by Shoveller and by Hanrahan and by Taylor that the direction was that the six were to be thrown into the pot along with ones who have been tested currently and that the top, whatever number was to be interviewed, were to be selected from that pot; what do you say about that? A. I heard what they had to say and it's possible to even -- that words to that effect were said, but they had the advantage of knowing what the pot was and I didn't. I didn't know what this 83 meant. I didn't know anything about that until January the 5th. I had no knowledge of what when on when I was out of that meeting. Q. Was there a discussion about whether or not these six alternates should be retested? A. I think that that's the general conversation that was between Mr. Hanrahan and Mr. Keighan and myself prior to me leaving the room. Q. What was said about retesting? A. That they didn't have to be retested. Q. Who said that? A. Oh, it was probably Mr. Hanrahan. 84 19/09/89 Q. Did he indicate why? A. No, I don't . . . Q. Do you recall Mr. -- Mrs. Taylor expressing a view, as to whether the six should be retested? A. Oh, yes. I think that was, as I said, Mrs. Taylor got into the conversation too, prior to my leaving, but it was basically her and Mr. Keighan that we're talking about the question of whether they were to be retested or not and I believe Mr. Hanrahan is -- got into the conversation and said that he didn't think they needed to be. Q. Well -- A. And I don't think -- I think that was a general conversation but it was after I had mentioned about the six alternates, my son included. Q. Was it before or after you left the room? A. This was before I left the room. Q. All right then, was there some resolution between the three of them before you left the room, as to whether or not these six should be interviewed? A. Not before I left the room. I've heard that evidence and I assume that that may be part of the discussions that took place when I was out of the room 85 19/09/89 because they mentioned the 83 percent. Q. Was there a discussion about whether they should be retested after you came back into room? A. Not that I can recall. Q. So, how was it left then, when you left that meeting? A. When I left that meeting, I was, in my own mind, I was convinced that I was to put the six alternates from the previous testing and put them in with the applicants that were from the next testing. Q. Regardless of their marks? A. I never even thought of marks. Never even thought of their marks. I didn't know, even, there was a discussion about marks. Q. Did you have any perception, in your own mind, that there could be those, on the outside, who might think it inappropriate for you to be discussing this matter, since your son was one of the people involved? A. From the outside? Q. People who were -- A. The people? Q. -- the public who lived in the area? A. I don't recall ever thinking those things. Q. So, I gather, at the meeting, as far as 86 19/09/89 you are concerned, is finished, everybody marches forward to Christmas Eve or Christmas Day and the New Years weekend? A. No. Q. Oh, sorry. A. I'd like to think that but I know Mr. Keighan made a comment to me before I left. Something about putting him into -- putting the Board or putting them into some kind of a precarious position or some kind of position that wasn't good. Q. Did you respond to that? A. I don't believe I did. I was still pretty upset over what happened there and I just remembered I went back to my own work, from then on. Q. Did he indicate why he felt that, in his view, that the committee was in or put into a, in your phrase, "a precarious position"? A. Probably because of my son. Now, I heard what he said here and he went on for quite a while on that. He's got a very good memory if he remembered all of the things that he said, but my only recollection of it was that I was -- that he was upset because I had put them into this particular position and I am sure that it over my son. Q. Well, did you consider that this was a universal change in force policy, and that it applied 87 19/09/89 forever into the future? A. I think the fact that that was to be considered by senior staff on the recommendation of the Board and what they had advised me to do, yes, it probably would have carried on into the future. Q. So, just so I understand what you are saying is, that it was your view of that meeting that what had happened was, as a matter of perpetrating the force policy, alternates from each previous Selection Board be they bi-annual or annual would automatically be added to the next go-around without having been tested? A. If they hadn't been hired within the six month period or if the change was within the twelve month period, yes. Q. So, did anything happened then between December 22nd and January the 5th, insofar as this matter is concerned? A. Yes, sir. Q. What happens in between those two days? A. I set up a new Selection Board somewhere in there. I advised Deputy Chief Parkhouse to put the six names of the alternates in on that Selection Board. Q. And was that done? A. Yes, sir. Well, I don't about all six. I know that the alternates that were available were put in. 88 19/09/89 Q. Now, as a matter of practice, had it been the practice of the force to alternate the Chairmanship of the Selection Board between the two Deputy Chiefs? A. Yes, sir. Whenever we could do it. Q. As I recall, Parkhouse had been the Chairman in the August/September go-around? A. That's right, sir. Q. Would that have been in keeping with the practice that Shoveller would have been the Chairman of the January Board? A. Normally, he would have been. Q. You say normally. I've heard that word used conditionally by a number of witnesses. What made this abnormal and why wasn't he selected as the Chairman? A. First of all, Deputy Chief Shoveller was on vacation and I believe from the 23rd of December until January the 5th. January the 5th would be his first day back. That was the day that the next set of interviews was scheduled to start and being the Deputy in Administration, at that time, I knew that he would have a lot of work to get going on. However, the main reason why he wasn't on there was that he had agreed that he shouldn't be on that 89 19/09/89 particular set of interviews because he was privy to all of the conversations that took place on December the 22nd at the monitoring committee meeting. And I particularly made some notes of that, Mr. Kelly. Q. Notes of what? A. Of that conversation that I had with Mr. Shoveller and Parkhouse on who should sit on this next --- Q. When was that discussion? A. May I take a moment and have my notes from . . . MR. PICKERING: Well, he should . . . MR. COMMISSIONER: I would suggest that you put your hand over the microphone, if this is part of a discussion. BY MR. KELLY: Q. When did this discussion take place; do you have some notes that you want to look at? A. That discussion took place on the second go-around, what they say in groups. I'll have to look up my notes on that but on this one -- I can't -- I've got to remember who was sitting on that meeting of the Selection Board of December the -- or January the 5th. Q. Well, --- A. I believe it was Parkhouse, Gittings and Moody. I'd have to look it up, if I may just take a 90 19/09/89 moment, sir. Q. Sure. A. Yes, that was in my memo that I made up on December 23rd, 1986. It was to Parkhouse and at that time, I asked him to convene the Selection Committee. And I was appointing him as Chairman and Staff Superintendent Gittings and Moody as members. And I have been informed by personnel that you will be conducting interviews on January the 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 12th and 13th, 1987. And a copy of that went to Mrs. Taylor and a copy of the list of applicants also went to Mrs. Taylor, at the same time. Q. You were telling me why it was you didn't select Mr. Shoveller as Chairman of the Selection Board that was to start these interviews on January the 5th? A. Yes, he was away on holidays from the 23rd to the 5th and I know that he would be extremely busy when he got back and would have to be updated on everything. Q. So that was the only reason? A. The only reason that I can think of, yes. Q. Nothing to do with him agreeing he shouldn't? 91 19/09/89 A. Not at that time, no. Q. Then taking a look at, or going to January the 5th; do you recall having a discussion with Mr. Shoveller on January the 5th? A. Yes, sir, I do. I had a discussion with Deputy Chief Shoveller and Parkhouse at the, I believe it was probably the morning meeting that I had every morning. Q. Um hmm. What was the topic of discussion? A. Well, there were many topics but in relation to this, he had found out as soon as he got back from his holidays that there were three people on the list that had marks that were under 83. And he had made up a memorandum to Deputy Chief Parkhouse concerning this and he sent me a copy of it. Q. Um hmm. A. And I advised Deputy Chief Parkhouse that I would call Mr. Keighan -- I would call Mr. Hanrahan to get this --- Q. What did Mr. Shoveller say to you? A. Well, we have a copy of that. I believe it's in as an Exhibit, that he felt that there were three candidates, Waters, Gayder and a guy named Samardzich, I believe, and possibly a Clarkson on the list. No, Clarkson's name wasn't mentioned then. 92 19/09/89 That there were three on the list that had marks under 83 and that was the cut-off, apparently for the next go-around or the one in -- that happened in October. Q. Well, did he indicate to you, at that time, whether the discussion, at that time, between you and he as to what his understanding was of the monitoring committee's position concerning this topic at the meeting of December 22nd? A. I don't think there was very much discussion on it at all because it was very well spelled out in the memorandum that he gave me. Q. Yes, and -- A. Very well put. Q. -- did you have this memorandum, in your hands, when you had this discussion with him then? A. I think that maybe that Parkhouse did. I can't recall. Q. Had you read it before the discussion or during the discussion with Shoveller? A. It was either the discussion that I read it or very shortly afterwards. I can't recall when I actually got the memorandum. But he did bring it to my attention, in the morning, I know that. Q. Well, I gather that, at this point in time, you would have realized that you and he had different 93 19/09/89 recollection as to what the committee had decided? A. That's right. That's the first time I knew about this difference. Q. So, what did you do? A. I immediately got on telephone and called Mr. Hanrahan. Q. Mr. Hanrahan or Mr. Quattrini? A. No, I called Mr. Hanrahan, first. Q. And what happened? A. I couldn't get him. I never did reach him. I think he was at Brock and he may have been teaching or -- he was unavailable then. I then went immediately to Mr. Quattrini and I believe --- Q. You went or you called; which one? A. Pardon. Q. You went to see him or you called him? A. No, I think I went and saw him because I think I showed him a copy of the memorandum. Q. Yes? A. And I asked him if he would get in touch with Mr. Hanrahan because I've got to get this matter clarified right away because the interviews had already started -- had already started to take place. And I couldn't get a hold of Mr. Hanrahan but Mr. Hanrahan did call me. Now, I don't know whether -- 94 19/09/89 I understand now that Mr. Quattrini had switched the call over to me but I know I talked to Mr. Hanrahan at 4:00 o'clock that afternoon. Q. What was said at that telephone call? A. And, at that time, I had the memorandum with me and we went over very briefly the fact that I must have misunderstood what the monitoring committee had instructed me to do because I had this memorandum and he said, "Well, look --- Q. What did he say about your understanding; did he say it was correct or not? A. I don't think there was any further conversation about the understanding because I explained what I -- that there was this misunderstanding obviously. And the only thing I recall him saying was that, "Well, the interviews are already taking place. I'll get back to you. I'll check with Mrs. Taylor and Mr. Keighan and I'll get back to you." That was the end of the conversation. It wasn't very long. Q. Check with them on what? A. On the misunderstanding because of the Shoveller memorandum. Q. Now, was he going to check on them to see if what Shoveller said was correct or not or was he to check with them on the basis that Shoveller was correct but 95 19/09/89 now, for other reasons, it had to be changed again; which way was it? A. Oh, I took it that possibly that it was because of my misunderstanding of what happened at the December 22nd meeting. Q. So, you took it that he was going -- you took it that he was of the view that you had misunderstood what you were told to do but he would check with Taylor and Keighan to see if they would change their minds to have these six people interviewed even though they didn't satisfy the earlier criterias? A. No, no. Q. Oh; then what? A. No, it was only in relation to those three -- Q. Sorry, three. A. -- applicants that were on the list that didn't have the 83, so-called 83 cut-off. Q. Yes? A. Not about any of the other ones. Q. Okay, so, was it that he was going to check with Keighan and Taylor to have them agree that these three be interviewed even though they didn't meet the marks criteria that they had referred to at the December 22nd meeting? 96 19/09/89 A. No. MR. PICKERING: I don't if he said that, Mr. Kelly. BY MR. KELLY: Q. Well, I'm asking him about it? A. No, no. My understanding was that he was going to check with him to see what directions had been given to me at the monitoring committee meeting concerning the whole group of six. Q. That was my earlier question to you; was it that he was going to check to see whose understanding was right, Shoveller or yours or was he checking that on the basis that Shoveller's was right and you were mistaken but that he wanted to see if they would agree to let the process continue? A. My recollection was that he was going to check to see whose recollection was -- as to what happened on it and then he would get back to me after talking to Mrs. Taylor and Mr. Keighan. Q. Well, what's the baby almost out with the bathwater, by this time. This is 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon on Monday the 5th? A. Oh, yes, actually the interviews probably were over by then. Q. And had the people in question been 97 19/09/89 interviewed by that time; or any of them? A. Well, on January the 5th, Brady, Polli, Stotts, Swick, Gayder, Waters. Waters and Gayder, two, at least, of the three had been interviewed. Q. Were you aware that they were on the list for that day when you tried to reach Mr. Hanrahan? A. Oh yes, I had a copy of the -- of the list and the dates that the people were going to be interviewed and I had given that copy of that to Mrs. Taylor -- sent a copy to Mrs. Taylor. Q. So, that you were then aware, were you, when you tried to reach Hanrahan that these interviews would be taking place that very afternoon? A. That's right. And when I finally did get him, I know the interviews were probably close to being over. Q. The last one was scheduled for 3:45, that's quarter to four? A. Quarter to four. Q. And that was your son? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you reached him about 4:00 o'clock? A. I reached -- he reached me at 4:00 o'clock, yes, sir. Q. Right. And did you tell him that the 98 19/09/89 critical candidates had already been interviewed? A. No. Q. Why not? A. I think -- I said because we had a very short conversation about it. Q. But I hear you had, what appears to be, a substantial disagreement between yourself and another person, at this meeting. And you have a process that's going to start that may be totally contrary to what somebody told you to do? A. That's right. Q. What time of day did you have this chat with Mr. Shoveller? A. I think it was 10:00 o'clock in the morning or between 10:00 and 10:30. Q. So, that was before the interviews began? A. Oh, yes. Q. And when did you first try to reach Mr. Hanrahan? A. Immediately after the meeting of -- that I had with Shoveller and Parkhouse. Q. Did you not think it appropriate to not have the two people in question interviewed until after you cleared the matter with Mr. Hanrahan? 99 19/09/89 A. I don't think I gave it a thought. Q. Well why did you call at all, then? A. I wanted to get this matter clarified. Q. Why did it matter if they wouldn't hear you? A. Well, it matter a lot because I didn't know anything about this 83 percent and when I left the meeting I had one opinion, Mr. Shoveller had another. And all I was trying to do was to get that particular part of it clarified. Q. Right, and therefore, in the morning of January the 5th, you know there is a potential problem; right? A. Right. Q. And part of the problem may be that you are wrong in your recollection; right? A. In my mind, I felt that I was right though. Q. But in any event, to you, there was a debate? A. Right. Not about a very long debate, now. It wasn't a big debate with Mr. Hanrahan on the phone. Q. No, no, Mr. Shoveller and you? A. Oh, even there it wasn't that long of a 100 19/09/89 conversation. He just brought it to my attention. Q. So, was this a matter of concern to you or not when Shoveller brought it to your attention? A. Oh, certainly it was because I immediately called Mr. Hanrahan. Q. Why was it a concern to you? A. Because of the interpretation that I put on it and the interpretation that he had said that he got from the meeting. Q. Right, and was it also because your son was one of the people involved? A. Well, I knew that he was one of the people involved, by this time. Q. Would you have had the same concern if he had not been involved? A. Certainly because of the two different types of opinion. I had the one opinion of what was said, or what I was directed and Mr. Shoveller had a different one. Q. And you tried to reach Mr. Hanrahan to clarify the --- A. To clarify it. Q. Right. And it was about two of the very people who were to be interviewed that day; your son and Mr. Waters? 101 19/09/89 A. That's right. I don't know whether I looked it up to see when they -- who was on the list at that time. I know now that they were on that list but I didn't take a quick look at it to see. Q. Were you aware, when you tried to reach Mr. Hanrahan that your son was slated to be interviewed that day? A. Oh, yes. I knew that. Q. And you were calling Mr. Hanrahan to clarify the direction that you had been given? A. That's correct. Q. And, you didn't reach him? A. I didn't reach him until 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon. Q. Then tell me, why is it that you didn't have the people, particularly your son, removed from the interview list until you first spoke to Mr. Hanrahan to clarify this issue? A. Because I felt that I was right and always in the -- that the matter could be straightened out as soon as I got direction from Mr. Hanrahan. Q. Well, I know that you thought you were right, sir, but why bother calling Hanrahan at all; if that's your point of view? A. Because I was really concerned that I 102 19/09/89 had possibly made an error in what I had done. Q. Exactly, so, therefore, why not wait, why not defer the interview of the questionable people until you clarified with Hanrahan? A. I don't even think I thought of that. Q. I see. So is this call to Hanrahan to be a hypothetical one to discuss an issue that really didn't matter? A. Oh, it mattered because it mattered to me because as soon as I was made aware of the problem that exist I immediately called Mr. Hanrahan. Q. Okay, tell me about that chat? A. Well, that's what I'm telling you, I didn't get him immediately. I didn't get him until 4:00 o'clock. Q. I know but when he called you back at 4:00 o'clock what was discussed? A. Well, I can't give you the exact wording, that's for darn sure but the gist of the conversation was that I had been advised that I had made an error in the recommendations from the monitoring committee meeting, and that Mr. Shoveller had a different view then I had and I wanted clarification. Q. Did you get into what the different views were? 103 19/09/89 A. I don't think that we did because Mr. Hanrahan obviously knew the contents of the memorandum from the gist of the conversation. I find out now, later, that he had talked to talked to Mr. Quattrini. Q. So, in other words, when you spoke with him on this telephone call, it became apparent to you that he was aware of Shoveller's understanding of the meeting? A. That's right. Q. And, do I take it that you, in this call, made Mr. Hanrahan aware of your understanding of that meeting? A. I'm sure that I mentioned what my understanding was. It was to put all candidates on. Q. Because if you hadn't done that, he couldn't clarified it for you; right? A. That's right. Q. So, what did he say as to who was correct? A. He didn't say. He just --- Q. Did he say? A. No, no, he said -- he told me that because the interviews were already underway that he would call Mr. Taylor and Mr. Keighan and get the matter straightened out. And he would get back to me. Q. And did he get back to you? 104 19/09/89 A. No, sir. Q. What did you take that to mean; that he would call Mrs. Taylor and Mr. Keighan and get back to you? A. Well, I felt that he would probably check and find out what was said and what the direction was and get back to me and tell me I've either done it right or I've done it wrong. Q. Right, so I take it, that you understood that he would was not saying your understanding was correct but was going to go to Taylor and Keighan and see what they say occurred, at that meeting, and was to get back to you to tell you which way it went? A. That's my understanding, when I got off the phone. Q. And then, why did you proceed or have the interview of these people proceed in advance of him getting back to you? A. They were all scheduled. I didn't see there was any big problem with them continuing because if there was a problem with two applicants, that they didn't meet the criteria, all that the committee or the Board had to say would be to take them off, after the fact. They did it with a guy named Clarkson, before. I was aware of that. So it was a simple matter of someone telling me, "Okay, fine, you were mistaken. Take 105 19/09/89 those two names off" or three or how many there were. Q. So, if that's the case, and that's how you saw it would be resolved why would you even bother calling Hanrahan, before the fact? You just wait for the meeting and say, "Here's what we've done" and find out then? A. Because I was really concerned about the memorandum that Shoveller had given me that I had made an error and my interpretation of what had happened at the committee meeting. Q. Right, and that's why you called Hanrahan? A. That's right. Q. I thought you were calling him to see if you were right and that you would not proceed with this course of action until he confirmed you were right? A. No, it was never -- we never discussed whether to proceed or not. He's the one that had suggested that, "Well, the interviews are already underway. You -- I'll check with Mrs. Taylor and Mr. Keighan and get back to you". Q. That's what bothered me earlier. You take that to mean that he was saying, "Well, it doesn't matter what we said now, the horse is out of the barn so I had better call up and see if they will let you go on with 106 19/09/89 the horse running outside the barn". A. I took it from that, that I would hear back from him and that I was to carry on the way that the meetings were scheduled. Q. And? A. I did. I never did anything about it. Q. And what was your view is to happen if he called back and said, "Hey, Shoveller was right"? A. Then I would have to get some direction from the monitoring committee. Q. Why? A. There was only two names on the whole list out of 30 or how many were on there. I can't remember the exact number but certainly these had to be -- we had the openings and we wanted to get these people hired. So is the fact that he had to take two names off of there, that's fine. There is still a lot more that were on there. Q. I see. So, then, the interviews proceed and the Selection Board reports to you; right? A. That's right. Q. Well, what about Clarkson. How does he get himself interviewed? A. Well, the only thing that I know about Clarkson, in getting the interview, was that Parkhouse had 107 19/09/89 mentioned to me, I believe it was in September or -- that he didn't meet the marks of 80, at that particular time. He only had 79. And that he would be retested, and I believe it was only on the physical. I understand that now, from what happened here. But, other then that, I didn't know anything about Mr. Clarkson getting on there until I heard it -- that it was -- that he had been advised -- that Deputy Chief Parkhouse had been advised to put him back on the list by Mr. Hanrahan. Q. I take it that, from what I have heard so far, that after you had this discussion with Mr. Shoveller, and before you spoke to Mr. Hanrahan, you directed Mr. Parkhouse to proceed with the interviews of the people to interview including your son and the other chap, Waters? A. Probably, because he continued on with them. I know that. Q. And, if we look at Exhibit 266A. Madame Registrar? At page 89. Is that the memorandum you received from Mr. Parkhouse concerning his Board's recommendations of the January 5th to 13th go-around? A. Yes, sir. Q. And, did you then make a recommendation 108 19/09/89 to the Board based on that memorandum from Mr. Parkhouse? A. I don't think so. Q. No? What happened then? A. I think what had happened -- what happened was that the Board was meeting, I believe it was on January the 15th. Q. Right. A. And, I think, that when we went to that Board the next day -- I would have -- somebody will have to help me if I did or did not put in a report, but I don't think that I did. I think I went to the Board meeting, that following day, and when the question came up of the Selection Board applicants to the force, I advised them that, that is the Board, that because of my conflict of interest, that I was going to enter into the conversations unless it was to clarify a point. And I turned the meeting over on this portion of it, on the Selection Board of police applicants, to Deputy Chief Parkhouse. Q. Okay. A. And I believe he's the one that presented the list and the recommendations to the Board on the 15th. Q. What is your knowledge of and part in 109 19/09/89 the hiring of, one Wayne Orcutt; O-R-C-U-T-T? A. Well, Wayne Orcutt was a member, or was an applicant to the force and he was interviewed on Thursday, January the 8th. Wayne Orcutt was an OPP officer, I was told. There was a Board meeting on January the 8th and I was asked by Deputy Chief Parkhouse, who told me that he was told by the Chairman, Mrs. Taylor, that I was to ask the Board to hire Wayne Orcutt. And I believe that I did that on January the 8th. I'd have to check the minutes on that, sir, but I believe that's the date. And this, of course, was contrary to anything that had happened before because there still were about fifteen more applicants, ten or twelve more applicants to be interviewed. So that particular part was entirely different but it was the recommendation that came from Parkhouse to me from Mrs. Taylor. Q. Tell me about the discussion that occurred at the meeting of January the 15th? A. Concerning? Q. This hiring? Q. I think that most of the conversation, in the beginning, was to do with Deputy Chief Parkhouse's recommendation to hire and I'd have to read it all over. 110 19/09/89 There were so many applicants that were needed. So many openings that we had, but he had suggested that now they were in the position to know that we had had a number of retirements coming up in the future, very -- in 1987 and that there was space at the college and he has -- and he suggested that we fill all of the positions that we could, at the college, to get us over the summer months. Even though it brought us over strength, slightly for a short length of time. Now, that's the general gist of the conversation that went on. Q. Was there a discussion, at this meeting, concerning what occurred at the December 22nd meeting of the monitoring committee? A. Oh, yes, there was quite a bit of that came up. Q. Tell us about that? A. Well, I would have to refer to the minutes of the Board but I know that the general consensus that I got out of it because I did enter into some of the conversation on it but that nobody really knew what went on at that January, or December the 22nd meeting. Q. How do you mean no one knew really what went on? A. Well, Mr. Keighan had one idea on what went on; Mrs. Taylor had another and I think Mr. Keighan 111 19/09/89 had to only one -- or Mr. Hanrahan had the only -- I think he was the only one that really understood the meeting and what was said and what went on. Q. Well, Mr. Hanrahan wasn't at this meeting of January 15th? A. Oh, no, that was later on because that was on the meeting of January the 20th. Q. Well, between January the 5th and January the 15th -- A. Right. Q. -- did you ever again speak to Mr. Hanrahan; during that time frame? A. Probably at the meeting of January the 8th, but I don't recall any conversation that we had at that one concerning the -- Q. December 22nd meeting? A. -- the December 22nd meeting. I'm just trying to picture it in my own mind, that meeting. Because I know we were excluded, at the beginning of that meeting, because they were having their vote for the Chairmanship. Q. When I go forward to January 15th, when this discussion arises concerning what had occurred after the December 22nd meeting did you indicate that you had raised this matter with Mr. Hanrahan for clarification? A. I thought that I had, at that meeting or 112 19/09/89 the next meeting, and if it's permissable I could check my notes or the minutes on that because I can recall saying words to the effect that, "If I made an error or if I was wrong in my interpretation that I would accept that" because if I did make an error I can accept that and there was some discussion concerning that, at the time, yes. Q. Discussion at what time? A. At, I believe it was at that particular meeting of the 15th because I know there was . . . Q. What did Keighan and Taylor say their understanding was? A. They talked a lot about the ratio of five to one. They talked about quite a bit about some sort of a committment that is alleged to have been made. Q. Made by whom? A. Well, by somebody. I think they may have been referring to any committment that I made. Q. To whom? A. I don't know. This was the gist of the conversation that I took from that meeting. Q. Well, did you enter this discussion that they were having concerning this so-called committment that you had made? A. No, I didn't take very much part in that because I was told not to. And I also advised them, at the 113 19/09/89 beginning, I wasn't going to take part in it. Q. Was Mr. Shoveller at that meeting? A. I believe Mr. Shoveller was there, Deputy Chief Parkhouse I believe, I think Mrs. Wilcox, Mr. Quattrini, Mrs. Parnell, I think the only one that was missing was Mr. Hanrahan. Mr. Dickson and Mr. Saracino. Q. How did the --- MR. COMMISSIONER: They were there or they - - THE WITNESS: They were there. The only one, I believe, your Honour, that was missing was Mr. Hanrahan. BY MR. KELLY: Q. How did the question of the December 22nd meeting arise, at the meeting of January 15th? A. I believe it was brought up by Mr. Keighan. Q. I take it, it was only relevant to the proposal of Mr. Parkhouse to hire a further six candidates, since the original six did not include anyone from the August/September go-around? A. I'd have to check that exactly but I know --- Q. Pardon me. MR. PICKERING: I think one of the 114 19/09/89 alternates was in there. Not under 83 but I know one of the alternates was there. MR. KELLY: Well, I'll find out, Mr. Pickering. MR. PICKERING: I could be wrong, Mr. Kelly. I thought a man called Polli was an alternate. MR. KELLY: Yes, you are quite right. Mr. Polli was an alternate from the list of August/September and was in the first six of the first January go-around but he had enough marks to be added; didn't he. BY MR. KELLY: Q. Sorry, back off that question; did anybody raise an issue with Mr. Polli being hired? A. None whatsoever. Not to my knowledge. I don't even remember the name being brought up. Q. How did the -- why did the December 22nd meeting -- why was it discussed at this meeting? A. Because the name Clarkson was number ten and Gayder's name was number twelve and they would have been the ones that would have had to been included if we were going to go to an authorized -- over our authorized strength. Q. Um hmm. A. As per the recommendation of Parkhouse and I agreed to it and I think Deputy Chief Shoveller 115 19/09/89 agreed to it. Q. So in this discussion of the December 22 meeting occurred, am I correct that Mr. Shoveller maintained the same position that he had set out in his memorandum of January 5th? A. I believe he did, yes. Although there was some discussion and I -- that he was in disagreement with Mr. Keighan, at some point in time, now whether it was at that 15th meeting or the 20th meeting. Q. Disagreement in what respect? A. And I don't know what they were disagreeing. It was something about the instructions or the direction that was given to me at the December 22nd meeting. Q. What was Mrs. Taylor's recollection of the December 22nd meeting, as she expressed it at this meeting? A. I think she was -- the gist that I got from it, that she was in agreement to Deputy Chief Shoveller. Q. And Mr. Keighan? A. Oh, he was in agreement -- well, I don't think Mr. Keighan understood any of it. Q. Um hmm. A. But from what I could gather Mr. Keighan 116 19/09/89 was in agreement to what Shoveller had -- his interpretation of it and Mrs. Taylor's. Q. And, at this meeting, what was the resolution, if any, concerning what was said at the meeting of December 22nd? A. I believe that the outcome of the meeting, and there was a lot of other discussions that went on during that meeting, but the outcome of that meeting was that they were going to defer any agreement to hire the additional five or six until they had a chance to have Mr. Hanrahan present and discuss it at a meeting in -- later on in January, or as soon as possible and I think it was the January the 20th meeting. Q. So, sir, Chairman, Commissioner, I should say, before we go on to January the 20th, we might take the noon break. MR. COMMISSIONER: How are we doing for time and so on. 2:00 o'clock or 2:15? MR. KELLY: 2:15 would be satisfactory. MR. COMMISSIONER: Right. --- luncheon break Certified correct: Moira Freshwater, Reporter 117 19/09/89 --- Upon Resuming at 2.10 p.m. BY MR. KELLY: Q. Mr. Gayder, we now move on to the meeting of January the 20th. Does anything occur between the 15th and 20th insofar as this matter is concerned? A. I don't think so, sir. Q. Do you recall the meeting of January 20th? A. Yes, sir, I do. Q. And who was in attendance? A. I think the full Board was there at that time. I'm trying to remember whether maybe Mr. Dickson wasn't there, but Mr. Hanrahan was there, Mr. Keighan, Mr. Saracino, Mrs. Wilcox, Mrs. Parnell, Mr. Quattrini, Deputy Chief Parkhouse and Deputy Chief Shoveller and myself. Q. And what was the purpose of this meeting, as you recall it? A. The purpose of this particular meeting was - they called it a special meeting of the Board to review the question of what directions were given and what happened because of the meeting on the 22nd of December. It's sort of a carry-over basically from the meeting of January the 15th. Q. What discussion takes place at this meeting concerning the meeting of December 22nd? 118 19/09/89 A. Well, I think that there was a lot of discussion again as to, first of all, whether they were going to accept the recommendation to hire the extra five or six people to fill in at the Ontario Police College, and then they were discussing about what took place at the last Monitoring Committee meeting and there was a considerable amount of discussion about that. Q. Well, was that discussion, that is, the discussion of the December 22nd meeting, in the context of the proposed hiring of a further six people or was it in the context of what had happened at that meeting, whether or not these - some of these people should have been interviewed at all? A. I think it was both, sir. Q. Tell the Commissioner as to what was said, then --- A. Well, I'd have to --- Q. --- concerning the December 22nd meeting? A. December 22nd again? Q. Yes. I want to know what the various people at this meeting said about their recollections of the December 22nd meeting, or was that discussed? A. Yes, it was discussed, and I think there was quite a bit of discussion about it and I have a copy of 119 19/09/89 the minutes of that meeting that were taken. Q. Tell us what you have? A. I have Mrs. Parnell's copy with me. Q. All right. Exhibit 280B. A. I know it's been put in as an exhibit. Q. 280B, yes. A. And I think that if you'll notice on Page 2 of that document, of that exhibit, Mr. Hanrahan, I think, was discussing some of what went on at the meeting and he gave his opinion as to his understanding of what had happened at that meeting, in the middle of Page 2. Q. Well, do you have a recollection of your own apart from this typed version of the meeting? A. I think that I'd have to use it to really refresh my memory on everything that was said because I wasn't really taking any part in it. I think that you'll notice in there that there is a line that says that the Chief was not participating in this discussion. Q. Okay. And what resolution was arrived at, if any, concerning the hiring of the additional five or six candidates? A. My memory is that at the very end they decided that they would go into caucus and nothing was done about them. Q. Well, was anything raised about the 120 19/09/89 ratio of five-to-one, how many people should be interviewed if you're going to hire a further six? A. Yes, I think there was discussion concerning that in there. I know I did do a little bit of talking about the past practice and that, and there was discussion about the ratio somewhere in that time period and I believe that the five-to-one ratio may have been mentioned at that time. Q. What marching orders were the Force given, if any, at the end of this meeting? A. Actually, I don't think there was any orders or anything that came out of that meeting except that they were going to caucus, the Board was going to caucus. Q. What's the next thing that occurred then so far as you are aware? A. I received a telephone call from the Chairman, Mrs. Taylor. Q. What was the topic of that call? A. She had told me on the 'phone that she wanted me to reconvene another Selection Board and that I was to include the five candidates that were selected by the Parkhouse Selection Board - I don't know whether she used the word "Parkhouse", but I'm referring it to the last Selection Board that just happened - and that I was to add 121 19/09/89 to that new Selection Board, 23 candidates that had received the marks between 80 and 83 that were not interviewed at the last Selection Board. And she then asked me about - where I took my orders from and I said, "the Board", and she said that there would be written instructions coming to me within a very short length of time and I think it was probably about ten or fifteen minutes later that I did receive written instructions basically on what she told me over the 'phone, and that was given to me by Mrs. Wilcox. Q. And did you then convene another Selection Board? A. Yes, I did. Q. Who were its members? A. The members on that Selection Board were Acting Deputy Chief Moody, as the Chairman, and Staff Superintendent Gittings and Superintendent Swanwick. Q. Why wasn't Mr. Shoveller made Chairman of that Board. A. I had a conversation with Mr. Shoveller, or Deputy Shoveller, and Deputy Chief Parkhouse and it was agreed that he would not sit on that - and he agreed to this - because of his - of all the discussions that had gone on concerning the December 22nd meeting and he was at the Monitoring Committee meeting that time, and he had been 122 19/09/89 at the meetings on January the 15th and 20th, and he --- Q. How would that fact affect his capacity to act as Chairman of this Selection Board? A. I don't think, in my own mind, that it would have affected his decisions but I suppose that it might have some appearance because he was the only one that was privy to all of these conversations that had happened between myself, Mrs. Taylor, Mr. Hanrahan and Mr. Keighan about who was to be on the - the applicants that were to be put on the list and that, and I think it was - it was an unanimous decision that he should not sit on there. Q. Unanimous among who? A. The three of us, the two Deputies and myself. Q. You mentioned some notes this morning. Do have notes of that discussion? A. I do, sir, if I could have my notes from 1986 and 1987? (Handed) Thank you. That was a conversation that took place, sir, on January the 22nd at - sometime after 1.20 in the afternoon. It was actually at 1.40. And I'm reading from my notes: "Both Deputy Chief Parkhouse and Shoveller, gave them a copy of the directive from the Board re hiring --- " That's the one we just referred to, Mrs. 123 19/09/89 Taylor's directive. " --- and read it over and advised that the Selection Committee would be comprised of Acting Chief --- " That should be Acting Deputy Chief. " --- Acting Deputy Chief Moody, Staff Superintendent Gittings and Superintendent Swanwick. Deputy Chief Shoveller was advised that I felt that he should not sit on the Selection Board as he was privy to all the discussions involving the Board where relatives of police were discussed and it might put him in a compromising situation. To this both Deputy Chiefs agreed. As well Parkhouse brought up the question of the other two members sitting, but it was agreed that for continuity and the fact that they were not privy to any of the other discussions, that they should stay on the committee. It was further agreed by both --- " That's the two Deputies. " --- that Superintendent Swanwick should be the third person, as his previous experience in the Selection Boards and Personnel would 124 19/09/89 be beneficial, and this was agreed to". And then I very shortly after that dictated the order to Acting Deputy Chief Moody. Q. And that Board was then convened, was it? A. Yes, sir, it was. I believe that it was to sit on January 26th and 27th. Somewhere in the exhibits there is a memorandum to that effect. Q. And did the Committee report - that Board report back to you on its recommendations? A. Yes, sir, they did. I received the report that was signed by Moody late in the afternoon of the 27th of January and I believe that I saw somewhere in my notes that I received it at around 2.47 in the afternoon. Q. And did you note that there was some identity in selection by the Selection Board and the prior Selection Board? A. Not at that time. I did later on. Q. When did you first note that? A. I believe it was in the meeting of the Commission the next morning, January the 28th. Q. This is a meeting of the Board? A. Yes, sir. Q. Tell us about that meeting. 125 19/09/89 A. Well, that meeting had been scheduled for very early in the morning, I believe it was 8.30 in the morning of January the 28th, to decide whether they were going to hire the additional five applicants as recommended by Parkhouse and at the same time, they would be presented with the names of those that were recommended by the hiring Board. We had a meeting of the Finance Committee that day so it was a very short meeting that morning. Q. So tell the Commissioner what occurred at this meeting so far as the hiring issue was concerned? A. Present, I think, was Deputy Chief Shoveller, Moody, Hanrahan, Mr. Keighan, Mrs. Taylor, Mr. Saracino, Mrs. Wilcox, I'm not sure on Mr. Dickson, and I think I mentioned Mr. Quattrini. I believe that's all that were present at the time. When we entered the meeting, I immediately told them that because of my conflict of interest that I was not going to enter into this discussion except to clarify any point that may come up, and I turned the meeting over to Acting Deputy Chief Moody, who was the Chairman of that particular Selection Board. The meeting started out by - I believe that Acting Deputy Moody had copies of his report to me. I might add here, sir, that normally the Chief would make up 126 19/09/89 a Board letter from the report he would receive from the Selection Board. That's a normal procedure. But here there wasn't enough time to make a formal letter up to the Board so Deputy Moody put the - was using his report to me as a source document at that time. And he was making his recommendations and it was, I believe, Mr. Keighan who brought up the fact that the five names that were on the list that he was recommending were the same as the five names that were on the previous list. Q. Is that when you first became aware of fact? Q. That's right, because I hadn't compared them at all. I didn't have time. There was a kind of - a real heated argument took place - not an argument, a real heated discussion, and I'm using that word because it's been used before, but it was very loud. Q. Between who and who? A. Well, basically, between Mr. Keighan and Mr. Moody. There were interjections by Mr. Hanrahan, who remained very calm throughout this discussion, Mrs. Taylor, and her voice was raised a few times, I believe, but basically it was between Mr. Keighan and Deputy Chief Moody. Apparently, Mr. Keighan was questioning two 127 19/09/89 major things in his mind that were in the Moody report. One was that it was the same names as the previous Selection Board but, secondly, he was questioning why the Deputy had said in his report, that is, Moody, why he had said that the Board shouldn't hire the alternates on the list until they had hired the ones that were recommended. And I don't think that he understood, or he misunderstood the memorandum that he had put in, that Moody had put in, but that certainly was the gist of most of this heated discussion that took place. Now, I did not take any part in that discussion at all. It got to the point where it was quite obvious that Mr. Keighan didn't understand why Mr. Moody was spokesman and why he had put in the report that he had prepared, and I started to tell him, tell the Board, and I only got about three words, "I would like to ...", or words to that effect, just started to tell him that what it was - that it was Moody's report and I wouldn't have had time to make one, when Mrs. Taylor came right out very loudly and she told me twice that I was to "shut-up, shut-up". Now, just prior to her saying that, Mr. Keighan had mentioned something about, "This whole thing stinks". That's why I interjected to try to explain the memorandum and why Moody was putting it in. I immediately got up and left the meeting and never did return. 128 19/09/89 Q. So far as you are aware, were any of the people recommended by that Selection Board hired at that time? A. Not at that time. Q. Were you told why? A. No, you see, I didn't know what happened after the meeting because I wasn't present, but after the meeting had adjourned, I met Mr. Hanrahan, Mr. Keighan and Deputy Chief Shoveller in the hallway up at Regional Headquarters outside the room that we were in, and I asked them what happened, and I believe it was Mr. Hanrahan who advised me that I'd have to check with Mrs. Taylor. Eventually, I found out that they had turned the - by motion, had not accepted the recommendation of that hiring Board and turned it all down. Q. How did you find that out? A. I think that it was either ... I did receive something in writing either that day or the next day that there had been a motion after the Board had caucused on the 28th, but I was advised that there would be no more - there was no more hiring. Q. The next meeting is February 5th. A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recall that meeting. A. Oh, I recall that meeting very well, 129 19/09/89 sir. Q. What gave rise to that meeting? A. I asked for that meeting. Q. Who did you ask for the meeting? A. I asked the Chairman of the Board, Mrs. Taylor. Q. When did you ask for that meeting? A. I asked for that that same day, I believe. I attempted to get in touch with Mrs. Taylor at 11.54 that same morning. Q. The morning of? A. Of the 28th of January, and I was unable to get an answer. I tried again about fifteen minutes later at 12.09. Somebody answered the 'phone and said she wouldn't be in. However, I did get back to her at 12.46 that same day, the 28th, and I told her that it was imperative that I meet with her. She told me that she was tied up. She asked me what it was about and I said it was about the hiring, that Mr. Hanrahan had suggested that I call her. Q. Had you spoken to Hanrahan? A. In the hallway that morning, earlier, up at the Regional Headquarters. She then told me that there would be no hiring and again said that she couldn't meet with me today but would be in at nine o'clock tomorrow, 130 19/09/89 meaning the next day. Q. And did you meet with her the next day? A. Yes, sir. She was prompt. She was in right at nine o'clock in my office on the 29th. I was present when I heard what she said that we talked about, but however my recollection of it is that there was brief discussion on the hiring, and that was concerning the - that the Board was not going to okay the hiring of the five. And then we talked about the meeting of yesterday morning, which was the meeting at the Board of the 28th. I advised her that because of the innuendos that there could be something wrong because of the names, the names on the list, and the fact that I had no direction to what way to go, that I am requesting a special meeting of the Board to clear the air. She at that same time told me that the meeting would be held on Thursday, February the 5th at 10.30 in the morning. She went on further to say that she wanted more time to talk to me about her meetings with Deputy Chief Shoveller and that she hadn't talked to him since - because I'd previously spoken to her about it. Q. What was the object of the meeting that you wanted to have held, what you wanted to deal with with the Board? 131 19/09/89 A. I think that that's spelled out. She asked me to put in writing and I think I did put it in writing, sir, but the main reason that I wanted to have a meeting with the Board was really to clear the air. Here there had been innuendos, and I use that as my own expression, because Mr. Keighan had said, "This whole thing stinks", I'd been told to shut-up at the meeting twice. What I wanted to do was to bring to a meeting of the Board all of the officers that were involved in the hiring process for the last three Selection Boards. I wanted to bring all of the officers that were connected in any way with the hiring in the last three Selection Boards to appear before the Board to answer any questions that the Board may want to put to them because I felt that some members of the Board may have thought that I was trying to use undue influence to get my son on the job. And as as a result of that we did have a meeting on February the 5th. Q. And that meeting has been taped, as we all know, and I don't plan to go into detail about what said there. The tape will tell us what was said there. But can you tell us what particular matters, if any, spring to your recollection about that meeting? A. Well, Mr. Kelly, I had prepared the night before, the day before, a long - you might want to 132 19/09/89 call it a speech, but I had prepared in a very short time what I felt that I should say there to show that there was no influence on my part, and I did quote from previous minutes. I quoted from my memory on the meeting of December the 22nd, and I did quote from various other documents that I had from the Selection Board and, as you say, it has been recorded. I think that what I said there, up to where they asked me some questions, was as I had recorded it in my book and the way I made my presentation. Q. And what happens when you finish the presentation? A. I was asked a series of questions by Mrs. Taylor and some of the other Board members. Q. What sort of questions? A. Whether I had ordered Deputy Chief Parkhouse to place the six names on the list for the next interviews. I remember I told them, yes, because I had. It was apparent to me at that time that there was something a little bit different going on because they insisted that the meeting be recorded. At the end of several questions that I answered, I was told that I should leave the room. When I left the room, all of the senior officers that I had brought with me remained in the room, as well as members of 133 19/09/89 the Board, except for Mr. Dickson. I know he wasn't present at that meeting. I wanted outside for a considerable length of time. I was called back in to the Boardroom after the meeting sort of broke up and there was gentleman whom I didn't know there, and Mrs. Taylor read to me the Police Act charges and suspended me. Q. Okay. Did you make any comment when these Police Act charges were read to you? A. No, sir, I was very shocked about it. I had just gone through an exercise of trying to explain my position and what steps I had taken and any involvement that I or any other member of the Force had in relation to my son, or any other police officer's son. And after she read the charges to me she gave me gave me the usual police caution, and I had nothing to say. I was taken back to my office by Deputy Chief Shoveller, asked to remove all my personal effects, gave up my firearm and my badge, packed a few of my things, advised my wife and my family of what had transpired, and I think one or two of my sons came up to give me a hand to clean out my office, and that basically is what happened. Q. Thank you, sir. MR. SHONIKER: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. ----------------------------- 134 19/09/89 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHONIKER: Q. Mr. Gayder, firstly, housekeeping. With respect to then Deputy Chief Shoveller, it was on January the 22nd that you had this discussion where he told you that he thought it would be best that you not be involved in the selection work? A. I'm reasonably sure of the date, but I'll check it again, sir. Q. That's what you told us before, sir. A. Yes, sir. Q. At no time prior to that had he spoken to you about this concern? A. About sitting on the hiring Board? Q. Yes, sir. A. Not to my recollection. Q. Why then would Mr. Parkhouse have been put on the Board for January the 5th? A. He was never privy to the discussions that took place at the December the 22nd meeting and the arguments that took place. Q. Oh, so it was your concern with respect to what took place on December 22nd, not Deputy Chief Shoveller's concern? A. Oh, no, it wasn't Deputy Chief Shoveller's. I brought the subject up and he agreed with 135 19/09/89 that because it wasn't only that meeting that we were talking about, in other words, the meeting of the 22nd. He was also at the meetings of the 15th and the 20th. Q. So the decision not to have Deputy Chief Shoveller on January 5th was yours and yours alone? A. No, you're putting words into my mouth. I brought it up and both Deputy Chief Shoveller and Parkhouse agreed. Q. On January the 26th - the 22nd? A. On January the 22nd. Q. I'm talking about January 5th, sir. A. Oh, on January the 5th, it was mine, because --- Q. With respect to that day, firstly. Q. Oh, okay. On January 5th, my decision there was based on the fact that Deputy Chief Shoveller had been away for two weeks and he was coming back on that day. He wouldn't be able to arrange anything. Q. All right. Some other housekeeping. With respect to this use of the word "heated", firstly, you said in your testimony to Mr. Kelly that you don't think you raised your voice in any of the meetings and then you said later that you had used the word "heated" in your evidence here because the word had been used before. Is it your position that, A, you were never 136 19/09/89 "heated" and, B, that you never used that word to characterise any discussion that you were involved in on December the 22nd? A. I don't think I ever raised my voice to any great degree at any meeting that I'm at, but the word "heated" is only being used, as I tried to explain before, because Mrs. Wilcox had used it in the minutes. It was a loud argument, if you want to be - that's basically what it was. I think she was trying to be tactful. Q. All right. You admit that you were heated as well on December 22nd? A. I was really heated after I was told to shut-up and left the meeting, yes. Q. Well, that was January the 28th --- A. That was December the 22nd. Q. December the 22nd? A. I'm talking about December 22nd. Q. You were told to shut-up on December 22nd? A. Hm-mm. That's where I left the meeting. Q. You were told you were in conflict, weren't you? A. Oh, I was told both. Q. Of course, that's not the evidence of the three members of the Monitoring Committee, you know 137 19/09/89 that? A. No, but when I listened to the minutes - or the evidence of the three members, they were all different. Q. That's pretty important, is it, Mr. Gayder, that you were told to shut-up on the 22nd of December? I'm curious as to why you didn't bring that up earlier. A. Nobody's asked me. Q. Why didn't you bring it to the Board's attention on January 15th, January 20th, February 5th? Not that important, eh? A. They were there, except for Mr. Dickson and Mr. Saracino. Q. You found it important enough, sir, on February the 5th to remind Mrs. Taylor that on January the 28th she told you to shut-up. You found that important enough on February the 5th. What I want to know why you didn't think it was important enough on January the 15th or January 20th or the 28th to also tell Mrs. Taylor that on December 22nd you were told to shut-up? A. I don't know why I wouldn't have mentioned it then --- Q. Because it didn't happen? A. --- I mentioned it on January the 5th. 138 19/09/89 Q. It wouldn't be because it didn't happen? A. No, it happened. Q. Have you got Exhibit 280B in front of you, Mrs. Parnell's notes for January 20th? A. I can find them, sir. January the 20th. I have them. Q. Page 5, sir, down at the bottom. It says: "Chief Gayder: At the Monitoring Committee I was late in arriving. The first thing I would asked was .. were all those questions, were all those applicants to be considered? The answer was, yes. I got a little heated and ruled out-of-order and did not enter into any conversation". A. Hm-mm, right. Q. If what you say is true, number one, about the use of the word "heated" and, number two, about being told to shut-up on December 22nd, why didn't raise it then? A. I figure I was gentlemanly enough not to bring that up at that meeting, sir. Q. But by February 5th, no holds barred? Why would you bring it up then with respect to the January 139 19/09/89 28th meeting? A. Very simply, sir, that I had been in touch with the Ontario Police Commission concerning this as well and I wanted to bring out everything. Q. What's that got to do with referring to "shut-up"? A. Because I felt that I should bring out everything that was said or that I could remember that was said at the January 28th meeting. Q. It's pretty significant, isn't it, that you were told to shut-up at two different meetings? A. That's right. I never ever had that happen before. Q. Well, why didn't you say that, then, on February 5th? Why didn't you say, "I was told to shut-up at two different meetings"? A. I don't know, you tell me why, because I don't know why I didn't bring it up there, because I didn't even bother - I thought it was - at that time, that I might have been gentlemanly enough to get over the fact that she told me to shut-up and that I wasn't going to bring it up again at another meeting unless it was absolutely necessary. Q. You told us that you thought it was important and significant that you were told to shut-up at 140 19/09/89 two different meetings. On February the 5th you bring it up. You say, "I was told to shut-up on January the 28th". If in fact you had been told to shut-up earlier, why didn't you mention it on February 5th that such had happened? A. I just told you, I figured that I was gentleman enough that I didn't have to at the first one, but when it happened the second time, I thought I'd better bring it up. Q. Why wouldn't you have referred to the fact that this is the second time you had been treated that way. A. I just told you, sir. Q. You told me why you brought it up, because - you said that you would be gentlemanly enough the first time. I want to know why you wouldn't have mentioned the fact that it happened twice when you finally decided to bring it up? A. Because the second time didn't happen until eight days after the January the 20th meeting. Q. Sir, do you remember after coming out of the meeting at Regional Council, and you've alluded to speaking with Mr. Hanrahan and Mr. Keighan? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember saying to Mr. Hanrahan or Mr. Keighan at that point in time, "What am I going to 141 19/09/89 tell me son now" or "What am I going to do with my son now"? A. No. There was a conversation that I didn't understand at that time whether they were going to be hired or not be hired. I do know that my boy's name was on the list. I'm not, you know, that kind of stupid, Mr. Shoniker, so I knew that the boy had been recommended at that time and, yes, there was a conversation with Mr. Hanrahan and, yes, I did mention my boy's name because I didn't know what I was going to tell him when I got home. Q. I'm not taking issue with it. A. No, I realise that. Q. I'm just saying that I want to make sure because I wasn't sure that that was mentioned. In any event, getting on to the meeting at the Port Mansion on December 11th, you told Mr. Kelly, you're sure you probably raised the topic. I won't muddy the waters that Mr. Kelly has had some success in clearing, but is it your position that on December the 11th at the Port Mansion, it was Mr. Hanrahan who first broached the subject of these people being hired, these people who were left over from a previous Board, and said that it would probably be a good idea to hire them. You said, no, that wouldn't be fair to others. 142 19/09/89 A. No. Q. Is that your position? A. No. Q. Perhaps you can help me then. Who said what first? A. When the question of alternates in a philosophical discussion that we were having came up, and I think I told Mr. Kelly that I probably brought it up, but he, Mr. Hanrahan, had said, well, because they were acceptable - now, these aren't his words because that was a long time ago and it was at a social gathering - but he didn't think that they needed to be re-tested or re- interviewed, and it was then that I had suggested that that wouldn't be fair because there would be new applicants that would come in during the next selection process. Q. He suggested that they wouldn't need to be re-tested or re-interviewed? A. That's what he first said. Q. So you said that that wouldn't be fair to other applicants? A. That's right. Q. So if they weren't going to be re-tested or re-interviewed, what did you infer from what Mr. Hanrahan said would happen to them? A. They'd probably automatically be hired 143 19/09/89 and we wouldn't be here today. Q. Well, that's exactly what I asked you to begin with. Is it your position that Mr. Hanrahan first broached this subject by saying that perhaps these people should just be hired and you countered by saying, no, that wouldn't be fair. Then, you said, no, that's not it, and you went on. Did you say that? A. Now, you've got me all mixed up. Now, on that particular part, I know that when that was brought up that Mr. Hanrahan was the one that had first suggested, referring to alternates that were acceptable to the Force, that they didn't have to be re-tested or re-interviewed, and I suggested to him that that wouldn't be fair, that there were be new candidates that would be coming in at the next Selection Board. Q. And did Mr. - Had you told Mr. Hanrahan that those candidates had been given some kind of an undertaking or commitment by the Police Force or by some member of the Police Force? A. No, the only time I remember any commitment or undertaking or anything like that was at the December 22nd meeting. Q. And how did it come about that the impression was left with members of the Board of Commissioners of Police that a commitment or an undertaking 144 19/09/89 had been given to these people that they would be hired automatically, is the word you've used today, if I remember correctly? A. I don't know, unless it was Mr. Hanrahan who had been mentioning something about what we had been talking about because there's never any time where anybody is hired automatically in our old system unless it was somebody who dropped out or somebody who was - where another opening came between the two hiring procedures - or Selection Committees. Q. How would Mr. Hanrahan come to have that idea put in his head that somebody would be hired automatically? A. I don't know, sir, you'll have to ask him. Q. Well, we did, and he said you gave it to him. A. And I'm saying I didn't give it to him. Q. And he said that, you know, he had a pretty good recollection of what had occurred? A. Of all of them, I think Mr. Hanrahan had more of a vivid recollection than the others. Q. I think his honour will probably make those decisions later, Mr. Gayder, and grasp his evidence as well as yours. 145 19/09/89 What about the fact that Mr. Hanrahan's recollection also is that when that meeting concluded, or the little exchange concluded, his position is he left you with the specific impression that he would have no personal opposition to an interview being granted these people but he would have to speak with members of the Board about that? Is he wrong about that, too? A. When was this supposed to have happened? A. On December the 11th at the Port Mansion, Mr. Hanrahan gave evidence that when he left this little interchange between the two of you, he left on this basis, that although he rejected your advance that these people should be just hired, he would - he saw some merit in these people being slated for interview. However, he would have to check that out with other members of the committee. That was his position. Do you accept that or do you refute that? A. He's pretty close right there because it was right after that that he said, "Well, we'd better bring it up at the next Monitoring Committee meeting", which was some four or five days later. Q. Mr. Gayder, do you have with you the documents that you had on February the 5th, the minutes of the meeting from December the 22nd, the draft minutes, and 146 19/09/89 do you have with you the addendum that you would have had in front of you when you were speaking on February the 5th? A. Yes, sir, I believe I have. Yes, sir. Q. I've not had an opportunity to see what you - is it just one page, Mr. Gayder? Oh, that's the addendum. A. That's the addendum, but I have also this, which is the minutes of the personnel Monitoring Committee that they held on December 22nd. Q. Is there a second page to that, Mr. Gayder? A. Yes, sir. Q. Anywhere in those four pages that you've just shown me, does the word "hire" or the concept of there being a promise to hire people, or an undertaking to hire people automatically, is it mentioned anywhere? A. Yes, sir, it does. The eighth paragraph down. "Mr. Hanrahan expressed concern about the unfairness to the six candidates and about their rights when they were told they did not have to re-apply and would be hired automatically". MR. PICKERING: I think at this point the record should show, and Mr. Shoniker will confirm, that 147 19/09/89 what the witness pointed to was what we call the very first draft of the December 22nd meeting and the clean addendum. MR. COMMISSIONER: Where does that appear in Exhibit 276? MR. SHONIKER: That is, I think, the best idea, cross-referencing it to 277. MR. SHONIKER: If I'm correct, and I think I am, he showed me what would be at Tab 1 and he showed me what would be at Tab 3. MR. PICKERING: Can I look at your's, Mr. Collins? MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, Tab 3 has the remark by Mr. Hanrahan. MR. SHONIKER: I think that's what you just showed me. Is that right, Mr. Pickering? MR. PICKERING: It seems to be right. A clean addendum is what I was clarifying. BY MR. SHONIKER: Q. You see, Mr. Gayder, I've got a lot of trouble with the fact that you say that you didn't put the idea in Mr. Hanrahan's head about people being hired automatically. Yet Mr. Hanrahan comes out with this concern and then you repeat this concern on February the 5th when you're speaking with the whole Board, on Page 8 or in Volume 266B on Page 601. 148 19/09/89 A. I don't have a number on this. Is that Volume 1? Q. Sorry, it's Volume 2. MR. COMMISSIONER: Volume 2, Mr. Gayder, do you have that? THE WITNESS: I only have Volume 1, your honour. (handed) What Page, sir? MR. SHONIKER: Page 601. Perhaps at the bottom of Page 600. BY MR. SHONIKER: Q. You seem to be reading from something, so I guess you're reading from that addendum. "Mr. Hanrahan expressed concern about the unfairness to the six candidates and about their rights when they were told they did not have to re-apply and will be hired automatically". There were some other conversations in there but then it was further discussed as to how long the applicant should stay on file, and since this was the end of the 1986 year, should they be carrying on into 1987. This in relation to the six candidates who were told they would be hired. Who told these people they would be hired? A. I have no idea. I don't think anybody 149 19/09/89 ever told them they were hired. Q. Does it not seem strange to you that this thought of people being automatically hired just came to Mr. Hanrahan by accident? A. Well, I thought when I read - when I was looking at this and when I was preparing this, that I was talking about the conversation that took place between him and I at the Port Mansion, not at the meeting of the 22nd. Q. All right, that's fine. Take it any way you like. We'll look at the Port Mansion. But my point is quite simply this, sir, I put it to you that you must have been the person who put it to Bob Hanrahan at some point in time that some kind of an undertaking had been given that these people would be hired. That must have happened because he couldn't have got that idea in his head any other way. Q. If it was - if it was - it could only be - the only undertaking that there ever has been is an undertaking that if there are openings between two Selection Boards, there is an implied undertaking that they would be the next ones that were hired. That's the only part that I can see where - anywhere within our system at that time was there any undertaking ever made. Q. Unless someone were to resign in the interim?