Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Similar Fact Evidence in Workplace Disputes

by David Doorey May 27, 2010
written by David Doorey May 27, 2010

You likely read about charges against the former Attorney General of Ontario, Michael Bryant being dropped this week.  Bryant killed a cyclist who grabbed onto his car and was killed when he hit a pole after flying from the moving car.  What does this have to do with employment and labour law, you ask?
Well, this.  If you read the prosecutor’s explanation of why the charges were dropped, much turned on the fact that the cyclist had had several earlier similar run ins with other drivers.  In fact, there were six such incidents referred to. Just think about that for a second.

Does the fact that the cyclist has a history of confronting drivers (sometimes aggressively) prove that Bryant is innocent of recklessly driving him into a pole that evening?

The answer is clearly “no”.  Bryant still might have overreacted on the particular night in question and be guilty of a crime.  But the evidence of the cyclist’s past certainly makes him look like a dangerous psycho, which would certainly effect how a jury would think about what happened.
So the question is, when should evidence about someone’s past behaviour be used to show that the person probably behaved in that way again?  This is called “similar fact evidence“.  And it does come up in employment cases.
Here’s an example involving a City of Kitchener fire fighter who was dismissed for alleged sexual harassment of a female subordinate.  He was fired for a series of incidents, but the main one involved him (allegedly) leaning his, er, parts into the female’s back.  He denies this happened.  At the arbitration, the employer put the female employee on the witness stand, and when the union was cross-examining her, it attempted to ask questions about a domestic dispute in which she had made allegations against her  then fiance.
The union argued that the evidence of what she told police in the domestic dispute was very similar to the lie she made up against her boss:  in both cases, she is alleged by the union to have lied about what the man had done to her, both involving “phallic” references.   So the union alleged there is a pattern of similar behaviour that was relevant to whether she was telling the truth about what happened to her at work.  She lied before, and she is lying again.
The employer objected to the line of questioning about the domestic dispute, and the arbitrator did not allow that evidence to be called.  The arbitrator relied on statements of the rules of similar fact evidence by the Supreme Court of Canada and other arbitrators, including this summary by Arbitrator Surdykowski:

It is clear that evidence of conduct on other occasions which tends to suggest a mere propensity to engage in a particular type of conduct or to show a general disposition … is not admissible to prove the commission of a subsequent act.  So, for example, a plaintiff…in an assault case cannot be asked in cross-examination about the fights he has been in order to show a propensity to fight.

But sometimes, the behavour in question is so unusual that to do it more than once does tend to suggest strongly that the person does that sort of thing.  So courts and arbitrators have created a balancing test, as explained by the Supreme Court:

There will be occasions, however, where the similar act will go to more than disposition, and will be considered to have real probative  value.  That probative value usually arises from the fact that the acts compared are so unusual and strikingly similar that their similarities cannot be attributed to coincidence. Only where the probative force clearly outweighs the prejudice, or the danger that the jury may convict for non-logical reasons, should such evidence be received.

So in the firefighter case, the arbitrator ruled that the two incidents–one involving workplace harassment and one involving a violent domestic dispute–were not so strikingly similar to justify allowing that evidence into the hearing.  [The case then proceeded and the Grievor was reinstated with a demotion and a penalty of 20 shifts unpaid].

1 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Locked Out Sears Workers Take to You-Tube in Fight with Sears
next post
My Boss is a Prick. Can I File a Human Rights Complaint?

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 219 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.