Sebrina (the "Grievor") was employed by the City of Toronto (the "Employer") for two years as a case worker in its Employment and Social Services department . The Grievor was discharged following a six-week investigation into her extensive use of city resources (her office computer) and time (to manage and run a charity for underprivileged children that the employer said breached its conflict of interest policy) . At the hearing, the Employer sought to rely on seven email messages with attachments from the Grievor's work computer to establish that she was operating and managing the charity during work hours . The seven documents originated from the Grievor's H: drivethe network drive used by employees to store work documents on which they were actively working . The Employer had obtained these email messages from the Grievor's work computer after she knew an investigation had been initiated but before she was discharged . The union objected to the introduction of the work computer email messages on the basis that the Grievor had a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the material on her work computer . Relying on R v Cole, it argued that this information went to her "biographical core ." It also said there is a fundamental distinction between running a for-profit business or viewing pornography on a work computer, and the Grievor's work for charity . The latter was not a fraud or breach of trust . The Employer, on the other hand, argued that the Grievor did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy on her work computer because of the employer's clear IT policies, upon which the Grievor was trained, which specifically outlined that an employee's use of the city's resources would be monitored . Are the emails taken from the Grievor's office computer admissible as evidence in the arbitration hearing? Explain your reasoning .