Page: 10 Mr. Levant attended for the first two [59] At the time of the hearing, the plaintiff was just completing his articles as a clerk of the Ontario Superior Court. He was not, then, a lawyer. [60] There is a transcript of the BCHRT hearing, which I prefer as an accurate account of what transpired to the extent that it records relevant events. With one exception, there is no significant dispute about what transpired during the actual hearing. The exception relates to the role of the plaintiff at the hearing, which is relevant to certain of the words complained of regarding conflict of interest in which the plaintiff is called “co-counsel”. [61] At the outset of the hearing, the Tribunal chair asked counsel to introduce themselves. Mr. Joseph identified himself as counsel for the complainants. No one else was identified as counsel. Ms. Mithoowani and Ms. Sheikh identified themselves as assisting Mr. Joseph. The plaintiff was not. Later on, when the subject of the witnesses was raised, Mr. Joseph identified the plaintiff as a witness. There is no question that the plaintiff was the first witness at the hearing. His testimony began on the first day of the hearing, and finished on the second. For the bulk of the time that he was in the hearing room, he was in the witness box. After his testimony the plaintiff spoke with the other students in another room, and then left. He came back only once, at the end of the week, to meet someone for a meal. At that point, he heard some of the closings. He did not attend the majority of the hearing. [62] The plaintiff testified that when he was not in the witness box, he sat in a chair behind Mr. Joseph, not at the counsel table. This is consistent with a statement made by one of Maclean’s counsel that is recorded in the transcript. Before the plaintiff began his testimony, Maclean’s counsel stated that the plaintiff was sitting “back there”. The plaintiff also testified that on one occasion he helped the other students staple some documents. [63] The defendant testified that he saw the plaintiff sitting at the counsel table and assisting the other students in dealing with photocopies. As well, the defendant called a reporter from the National Post to testify about where the plaintiff was sitting. Although the reporter had no specific recall, he had written a story published June 3, 2008, that said, among other things, that all three students sat at the counsel table on the prior hearing day. He also wrote a story the following day that stated the students were handing Mr. Joseph documents to be introduced into evidence and filling his water. These references are not to specific students. Obviously the plaintiff, while in the witness box, was not doing those things for Mr. Joseph. [64] I conclude that the plaintiff was at the counsel table at some point when he was not testifying, albeit briefly, and also sat in the chairs behind counsel used by witnesses. [65] As a matter of fact, I find that the plaintiff was not counsel on the hearing. He was not a lawyer at all, let alone was he counsel. Mr. Joseph was counsel. This fact was made clear at the outset of the hearing, in response to specific questions from the Tribunal chair. 2014 ONSC 6890 (CanLII) expert witnesses. The respondents called no evidence. days of the hearing, and “live-blogged” from the hearing.