[
    {
        "role": "user",
        "content": "at%20a%20hearing%20on%20a%20discrimination%20claim%2C%20the%20Human%20Rights%20Tribunal%20of%20Ontario%20is%20permitted%20to%20admit%20hearsay.%20what%20legislative%20provision%20states%20this%3F%20are%20there%20any%20cases%20in%20court%20or%20the%20tribunal%20ruling%20on%20the%20principles%20to%20apply%20when%20deciding%20whether%20or%20not%20to%20admit%20hearsay%3F"
    },
    {
        "role": "assistant",
        "content": "Here\u2019s a detailed legal summary of the statutory basis and case law governing the admission of hearsay at hearings before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), including when hearsay may be admissible and how it is evaluated.\n\n---\n\n## Statutory Basis for Admitting Hearsay at HRTO Hearings\n\n### Statutory Powers Procedure Act (SPPA), R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22\n\n- **Section 15(1)** clearly gives Ontario tribunals (including HRTO) broad discretion to admit evidence\u2014including hearsay.  It provides that *\u201ca tribunal may admit as evidence at a hearing, whether or not given or proven under oath or affirmation or admissible as evidence in a court\u201d* any oral testimony or any document/thing relevant to the subject matter, subject only to excluding unduly repetitious evidence. ([politicaldata.ca](https://politicaldata.ca/acts/ontario/90s22/statutory-powers-procedure-act/section/15?utm_source=openai))  \n- **Section 15(2)** places statutory limits: evidence that would be inadmissible in court due to privilege, or inadmissible under statutes, must be excluded. ([politicaldata.ca](https://politicaldata.ca/acts/ontario/90s22/statutory-powers-procedure-act/section/15?utm_source=openai))\n\nSo the SPPA is the key legislative provision that permits hearsay evidence in HRTO hearings, subject to certain exceptions and controls.\n\n---\n\n### Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19\n\n- The **Human Rights Code** establishes the HRTO\u2019s powers to make rules of procedure and to govern its hearings under Part IV.  As part of that, the Code authorizes using *alternative procedures to traditional adversarial court procedures*, defining evidence, ordering the presentation of evidence and fixing the order of issues and evidence.  ([ontario.ca](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h19/v15?utm_source=openai))  \n- However, the Code itself does not explicitly deal with hearsay in detail; that role is largely filled by the SPPA in conjunction with the HRTO Rules of Procedure. ([tribunalsontario.ca](https://tribunalsontario.ca/hrto/legislation-and-regulation/?utm_source=openai))\n\n---\n\n## HRTO Rules of Procedure & Practice\n\n- The HRTO Rules of Procedure and related guidance recognize hearsay:  The **Preparing for a Hearing** guide from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre states that evidence that would not be admissible in court *may* be allowed in HRTO hearings (including hearsay), provided it\u2019s relevant and not privileged.  But such evidence tends to be given less weight, particularly if direct evidence exists. ([hrlsc.on.ca](https://hrlsc.on.ca/how-to-guides/preparing-for-a-hearing/?utm_source=openai))  \n- Rule 16.4 of the HRTO Rules states that no party may rely on a document not previously included in the document list (with exception by leave), which can intersect with hearsay issues when introducing documentary hearsay without prior disclosure. ([tribunalsontario.ca](https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/hrto/HRTO-Rules_of_Procedure.html?utm_source=openai))\n\n---\n\n## Case Law & Decision Principles: When the HRTO Admits or Rejects Hearsay\n\nSeveral HRTO and Ontario court decisions outline principles for when hearsay is admissible, and how much weight it may be given.\n\n### Principles Identified\n\n1. **Broad Discretion but Caution Required**  \n   The SPPA gives broad discretion to admit evidence even if not admissible in court (ss. 15(1)); but as decisions make clear, hearsay must be treated with caution. Evidence lacking in reliability or ability to test the truth through cross-examination is weaker. ([minicounsel.ca](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/1993/m7?utm_source=openai))\n\n2. **Reliability, Relevance, and Weight**  \n   - In *Waterman v. National Life Assurance Co. of Canada (No.2)* (1993 HRTO Mini), hearsay was admitted under SPPA s. 15(1)(a), but the tribunal stressed that weight attributed to it must be considered in light of direct and conflicting evidence; credibility of the witness reporting the statement; whether cross-examination was possible; and whether the content aligns with other evidence. ([minicounsel.ca](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/1993/m7?utm_source=openai))  \n   - Similarly, in *Jia Yan v. 30 Forensic Engineering Inc.* (2023 ONSC reviewing HRTO decision), the court noted that while HRTO is \u201cnot bound by strict rules of evidence\u201d, relevant evidence\u2014including hearsay\u2014may be admitted under SPPA s. 15(1), but documents introduced without opportunity to test them, or with certain missing foundational requirements, may be admitted but given little or no weight. ([minicounsel.ca](https://www.minicounsel.ca/odc/2023/6475?utm_source=openai))\n\n3. **Hearsay Alone is Usually Insufficient for Key Findings**  \n   - In *Robinson v. Overland RNC Inc.*, 2019 HRTO 620, the tribunal said that \u201c[t]he Tribunal generally will not rely upon hearsay evidence as the basis for important findings of fact.\u201d ([hrlsc.on.ca](https://hrlsc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2017-29780-I-JKB-Remedy-31-Dec-2020.pdf?utm_source=openai))  \n   - In *Jia Yan*, the tribunal admitted hearsay from the respondent, but the court found that because HRTO did not require the party to call those who made the hearsay statements, the documents had no weight in the decision. ([minicounsel.ca](https://www.minicounsel.ca/odc/2023/6475?utm_source=openai))\n\n4. **Disclosure & Fair Procedure**  \n   - In *Tubbs v. Universal Workers Union, LIUNA Local 183*, 2005 HRTO 39, the Tribunal refused to accept documents not disclosed according to Rules of Practice\u2014even in cross-examination. The Tribunal has power to refuse evidence that wasn\u2019t disclosed, impose conditions, etc. ([minicounsel.ca](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2005/39?utm_source=openai))  \n   - That ties into fairness, so that a party isn\u2019t ambushed with evidence they had no opportunity to test via cross-examination or other means. Also tied into the HRTO Rules requiring lists of documents and witness summaries. ([tribunalsontario.ca](https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/hrto/HRTO-Rules_of_Procedure.html?utm_source=openai))\n\n---\n\n## Summary: When Hearsay Will Be Admitted (and With What Weight)\n\nBased on the legislation and case law, here are the guiding principles HRTO uses when deciding to admit hearsay in a discrimination hearing:\n\n| Factor | Tends to Support Admission | Tends to Reduce Weight or Exclude |\n|---|---|---|\n| Relevance to the matter in dispute | If hearsay directly relates to issues that parties contend, likely admitted | If only tangential or speculative, more likely excluded |\n| Reliability or credibility of the witness reporting hearsay | If the witness is trustworthy, consistent, and has some basis to know the underlying statement | If the witness is weak, had poor opportunity to observe, or the origin of the hearsay is shaky |\n| Whether the maker of the original hearsay statement could be cross-examined (or is available) | If available, or if some way to test the statement | If not available, or no possibility to test the content |\n| Whether direct evidence exists on the same issue | If no direct evidence, hearsay may fill gaps | If direct evidence is available, hearsay less likely to carry much weight |\n| Procedural fairness and disclosure | Full disclosure in advance; document/witness lists; parties given chance to respond | If surprise, late introduction without opportunity to test, or lack of disclosure \u2192 may exclude or reduce weight |\n\n---\n\n## Key Legal Authorities\n\n- **Statutory Powers Procedure Act, s. 15(1)** \u2013 legislative permission to admit hearsay. ([politicaldata.ca](https://politicaldata.ca/acts/ontario/90s22/statutory-powers-procedure-act/section/15?utm_source=openai))  \n- **Waterman v. National Life Assur. Co. of Canada (No.2)** \u2013 example of hearsay admitted, but analyzed carefully for weight. ([minicounsel.ca](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/1993/m7?utm_source=openai))  \n- **Robinson v. Overland RNC Inc.** \u2013 hearsay should not be the basis for major findings. ([hrlsc.on.ca](https://hrlsc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2017-29780-I-JKB-Remedy-31-Dec-2020.pdf?utm_source=openai))  \n- **Jia Yan v. 30 Forensic Engineering Inc. (2023)** \u2013 judicial review of HRTO admitting hearsay under SPPA, then giving it little or no weight due to procedural deficiencies. ([minicounsel.ca](https://www.minicounsel.ca/odc/2023/6475?utm_source=openai))  \n- **Tubbs v. Universal Workers Union, LIUNA Local 183 (2005 HRTO 39)** \u2013 disclosure and rules-based limitations on introducing non-disclosed documents. ([minicounsel.ca](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2005/39?utm_source=openai))  \n\n---\n\nIf you want, I can pull up specific excerpts from more recent cases to see how the HRTO is currently applying hearsay admissibility (e.g. last 5 years), since jurisprudence evolves. Do you want to see those?"
    },
    {
        "role": "user",
        "content": "give%20me%20link%20to%20a%20youtube%20video%20by%20david%20lepofsky%20about%20the%20critical%20care%20triage%20protocol%20during%20covid%20in%20ontario"
    },
    {
        "role": "assistant",
        "content": "Here are several public YouTube videos by David Lepofsky or with his participation about the Ontario critical care triage protocol during COVID-19:\n\n- \u201cDisability Rights During Critical Medical Care Triage During COVID-19 Pandemic\u201d \u2014 David Lepofsky\u2019s lecture, November 4, 2020:  \n  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxpHXUYNP4A ([aodaalliance.org](https://www.aodaalliance.org/videos/comprehensive-amalgamated-list-of-all-aoda-alliance-online-videos-on-the-campaign-for-accessibility-for-people-with-disabilities/?utm_source=openai))\n\n- \u201cAODA Alliance Presentation: Ontario Bioethics Table on Disability Rights & COVID-19 Triage Protocols\u201d \u2014 David Lepofsky\u2019s presentation, August 31, 2020:  \n  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAigGhN5zB4 ([aodaalliance.org](https://www.aodaalliance.org/videos/comprehensive-amalgamated-list-of-all-aoda-alliance-online-videos-on-the-campaign-for-accessibility-for-people-with-disabilities/?utm_source=openai))\n\n- \u201cTVO\u2019s The Agenda with Steve Paikin: Deciding Who Lives: Is Ontario\u2019s Crisis Triage Discriminatory?\u201d \u2014 Panel including David Lepofsky, January 13, 2021:  \n  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkq1NmaXLwk ([aodaalliance.org](https://www.aodaalliance.org/whats-new/new-video-series-tvo-interviews-on-26-years-of-the-battle-to-get-strong-ontario-disability-legislation-enacted-and-implemented-the-paikin-interviews/?utm_source=openai))\n\nIf you want, I can find a transcript or key excerpts from any of them."
    },
    {
        "role": "user",
        "content": "has%20apple%20dropped%20an%20update%20yet%20to%20the%20newest%20version%20of%20iOS%2027%3F"
    },
    {
        "role": "assistant",
        "content": "Yes \u2014 Apple has already released iOS 27, the newest major version of iOS.\n\n- The public release of **iOS 27.0 (build 24A437)** was made available on **September 14, 2026**. ([developer.apple.com](https://developer.apple.com/news/releases/?id=09142026a&utm_source=openai))  \n- Along with that, Apple also released **iOS 26.7** on the same date, which is a security-update version for those who aren\u2019t updating to iOS 27 yet. ([support.apple.com](https://support.apple.com/en-bh/100100?utm_source=openai))  \n\nIf by \u201cdropped an update\u201d you meant a patch or minor version (i.e. a 27.x version), there hasn\u2019t been one reported yet \u2014 27.0 is the current public build.  \n\nWould you like to know what\u2019s fixed or updated in 27.0 so far?"
    },
    {
        "role": "user",
        "content": "please%20set%20out%20the%20wording%20of%20the%20section%20of%20ontario%27s%20Election%20Act%20which%20requires%20that%20when%20a%20voter%20marks%20their%20own%20ballot%2C%20they%20must%20put%20it%20into%20the%20ballot%20box."
    },
    {
        "role": "assistant",
        "content": "Here\u2019s the exact wording (with highlighting added by me) from the Ontario \u201cElection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.6\u201d that specifies that after a voter (elector) marks, verifies and refolds their ballot, **they must themselves deposit it into the ballot box**:\n\n> **Section 48 (Verification of ballot; Deposit in ballot box; Elector to leave polling place after voting)**  \n>\n> \u2026  \n> **(2.1)** The elector shall **immediately and in full view of all present place the ballot in the ballot box**, whereupon the poll clerk shall indicate in the poll record that the elector has voted. ([ontario.ca](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90e06/v2?utm_source=openai))  \n>\n> **(3)** An elector whose ballot has been placed in the ballot box shall be deemed to have voted and shall forthwith leave the polling place. ([ontario.ca](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90e06/v24?utm_source=openai))\n\nSo the relevant legal requirement is in **Section 48(2.1)** of the Election Act.\n\nIf you need the context (preceding subsections around verifying the ballot etc.), I can give you those in full."
    }
]