Article content continued

Instead of another adjudicator deciding whether or not Hegedus could be biased, the decision was left to be made by the officer himself.

Before any arguments were made, Brauti requested that Hegedus submit to the defence all emails he sent about the case and his appointment as permanent hearing officer. Hegedus agreed to take nearly three hours to search for any emails, but came back empty-handed.

Put in a difficult spot, Brauti constantly repeated the accusations he was making against Hegedus were being said “with respect.” Hegedus barely blinked in response.

A reasonable apprehension of bias is determined by using a test to see whether an informed third party would find an adjudicator — in this case, Hegedus acting as hearing officer — would act unfairly, if it’s done subconsciously.

Outside court, Peter Rosenthal, the lawyer representing three of the teens, said it’s normal for a judge or adjudicator to get the first chance at determining their own potential for bias.

“Generally, in the first instance, the adjudicator is given the opportunity to recuse himself,” Rosenthal said. “If the party asking for the recusal feels that was an improper decision, they can apply to the next level to have the person required not to hear the case.”

Brauti argued the bias is a “glaring matter of common sense” because of Hegedus’ past actions involving Const. Kevin Drake. When Hegedus worked at 33 division, Drake investigated a collision between a civilian and a police cruiser and found that the civilian was at fault, the tribunal heard. Hegedus demanded that Drake change his report to put the officer at fault and when Drake refused, Hegedus had him charged with insubordination.