Arbitration hearing against regional police continues with cross-examination

An arbitration hearing against the Waterloo Regional Police Service (WRPS) continued on Thursday with its third day of cross-examination. 

Angie Rivers, a police officer on sick leave since 2015, alleges she was harassed by several colleagues, sexually harassed by a sergeant, and that her employer did not do enough to protect her. The hearing began with a central witness testimony in February 2022.

On Thursday, Donald Jarvis, the lead lawyer representing the police service, brought up incidents that aimed to highlight Rivers' performance issues, including errors on the job. Rivers maintains that most concerns raised by upper management were done as a form of reprisal against her and as a result of unfair treatment over her other colleagues, especially male counterparts.

In 2017, Rivers co-filed a class action lawsuit against the police service and Waterloo Regional Police Association alleging she was subjected to discrimination because of her gender, on-the-job sexual harassment and abuse. A judge ruled that these issues raised were best addressed by a human rights tribunal or labour arbitrator.

Now, through the grievance hearing, the Waterloo Regional Police Association is seeking a declaration that states the police service violated Rivers' right to be free from discrimination and harassment on the basis of her gender and that she was subjected to a "poisoned" work environment. It's also seeking undisclosed damages and compensation.

Read all of CBC's coverage to date here:

Jarvis asked Rivers a series of questions related to her work performance during her time on the Crime Management Team (CMT) starting in January 2015, several months before she went on sick leave.

At that time, Rivers was working under Sgt. Nathan Cardoza, who was among others named in a class action lawsuit co-filed by Rivers in 2017. Rivers previously testified that Cardoza made unwanted sexual advances toward her. 

Jarvis asked Rivers about performance concerns raised by Cardoza, which she described as a form of reprisal because, she said, he had attempted to have a sexual relationship with her and admitted to wanting her removed from the team.

"He is unable to objectively assess my performance, especially considering the illegal behaviours he was up to. He is certainly not qualified to assess anybody's performance," she said in the hearing.

Jarvis brought up the findings of two workplace investigations that concluded there were no acts of reprisal related to work performance in 2015. He said one investigator found that there was also no unfair treatment toward her. Rivers disagreed with both of those findings. 

Jarvis challenged Rivers about the circumstances of an alleged incident involving Sgt. Cardoza. Rivers alleged he yelled at her in front of her co-workers following a "mistake" she said she didn't make.

Jarvis first questioned why Rivers didn't document the alleged incident in her police notebook.

"You testified in this proceeding about documenting all incidents of concern and yet at the time you did not deem this alleged incident to be worthy of noting," said Jarvis.