Over at slaw.ca I wrote a column in July on the recording of hearings. In the column I wrote:
In a recent case before Public Service Labour Relations Board, a party to the proceeding insisted on taping the hearing. The complainant is reported to have said: “The only reason I want to record it is to actually get a fair hearing … I know that what goes in isn’t necessarily reflective of what comes out. And I wanted to address that issue.” He is challenging the constitutionality of the Board’s standard practice of not allowing the recording of proceedings. The Board will be issuing its decision on his challenge soon.
The decision from the PSLRB has now been released. You can read the media report here.
The board member, Beth Bilson, noted that there was no statutory requirement for the recording of proceedings and that it was the long-standing practice of the Board not to record its proceedings. She refers to the stated rationale for this practice as set out in Singaravelu v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada), 2009 PSLRB 8, at para 29:
The policy foundation of such a practice is the desire to not overly judiciarize the Board’s processes and hearings and, as much as possible, to maintain the informality that has characterized the operation of labour tribunals in general…
She also notes the importance of the Board maintaining control over its own processes. In that regard, she reviews the few times that the Board has allowed taping of proceeding and concludes that the PSLRB’s overall policy is not to allow recording of proceedings, while providing Board members with the latitude to make rare exceptions. Those rare exceptions have mostly related to overall complexity of a hearing or protracted hearings.
The decision describes a pilot project conducted by the Board of some adjudicators taping proceedings which was discontinued. The Board decided to maintain its current practice. (I participated in this pilot project but left the Board before a decision was made.)
Board member Bilson did not see this case as one in which persuasive grounds exist for diverging from the usual policy of not permitting recording.
According to the news report, the complainant has filed a judicial review application of this decision.