IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation: |
Lane v. Board of School Trustees of School District 68 (Nanaimo–Ladysmith), |
|
2006 BCSC 129 |
Date: 20060126
Docket: S38598
Registry: Nanaimo
Between:
Carola Lane
Plaintiff
And
Board of School Trustees of School District 68
(Nanaimo-Ladysmith); Gerald Montgomery; June
Harrison; Janet Cowling and Terry-Lynn Saunders
Defendants
Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Tysoe
Reasons for Judgment
Counsel
for the Plaintiff until July 4, 2005: |
Rhys Davies, Q.C. |
Carola
Lane appearing on her own behalf |
|
David A. Gooderham |
|
Dates and place of trial: |
April 4 - 7, 11 - 15, 18 - 20, 25
- 29, 3 - 7, 11 - 14, 17 - 21, 24 - 28, 31, November 1 - 4, 7 - 10, 14 - 17 and December 15 - 16, 2005 |
A defamatory statement is one which has a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers; which tends, that is to say, to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally and in particular to cause him to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or disesteem.
The three elements of the defence of fair comment are well known. First, the matter must be recognizable to the ordinary reasonable man as a comment upon true facts, and not as a bare statement of fact. Secondly, the matter commented upon must be one of public interest ... Finally, ... the comment must be ‘fair’ in that it must ... ‘represent an honest expression of the real view of the person making the comment’.
1. In her capacity as Superintendent and CEO, in the matter of a decision in April 2002 to eliminate three senior administrative positions that had the consequence of significantly reorganizing the administrative structure of the Defendant, Board of School Trustees of School District No. 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) (hereinafter “the Board”) the Plaintiff:
1.1 Failed to consult with all Trustees regarding the proposed elimination of positions or the reorganization, while at the same time engaging in confidential communications with three Trustees and representatives of a parents organization ("DPAC"). As a result, at least four Trustees had no knowledge of the proposed changes until a motion relating thereto was made in public at a Special Business Committee Meeting on April 3, 2002.
1.2 On March 24, 2002, the Plaintiff made editorial changes to a document prepared by DPAC that advocated the organizational changes when the Plaintiff was aware that at least four Trustees were unaware of the changes. The Plaintiff engaged in written communications with representatives of DPAC regarding the proposed changes when she knew that some Trustees were completely unaware of the plan.
…
1.5 Approved, condoned and participated in a process to eliminate the three senior positions in a way that the three senior administrative officers affected first learned of the loss of their positions at a public meeting when a motion was proposed that their positions be eliminated. This method of implementation was secretive and unexpected, showed insensitivity to the three senior administrative officers, was humiliating and had a significant impact on staff morale.
1.6 Following the motion passed at the Special Business Committee Meeting on April 3, 2002, and prior to a subsequent Board Meeting at which a motion authorizing the changes required approval by the Board, the Plaintiff participated in confidential correspondence with three Trustees to the exclusion of at least four Trustees discussing strategies to ensure the motion authorizing the reorganization and elimination of the three positions would be approved by the full Board. The Plaintiff's conduct was not cooperative in terms of her working relationship with the Board of Trustees, which had nine elected members.
1.7 Engaged in email correspondence with three Trustees dated April 4, 2002 which referred to the Deputy Superintendent in vituperative and demeaning terms as "the cancer". On April 7, 2002 the Plaintiff further participated in demeaning correspondence in reference to the Deputy Superintendent which stated: "Remember Rick is the cancer. Rick is gone!" On April 4, 2002, the Plaintiff participated in correspondence with three Trustees entitled "The Night of the Long Knives", which referred to the meeting of the Special Business Committee that had taken place the previous evening. By her failure to remonstrate and by participating in the aforesaid correspondence, the Plaintiff demonstrated a manner of management and communication that was divisive, disrespectful and inimical to a cooperative working relationship between senior staff and the Board of Trustees.
1.8 … The decision, in the way it was implemented, constituted a lack of cooperation, and the secretiveness and abrupt, public nature of the announcement injured staff morale.
2. Within a short time after she assumed her position as Superintendent and CEO, the Plaintiff had made statements to other staff members that were disrespectful and demeaning of the Secretary-Treasurer:
2.1 Shortly after her appointment, the Plaintiff stated to Kelly Weeks, the Executive Assistant to the Secretary-Treasurer, that “I’ve heard the rumours about you” and the Secretary-Treasurer. The statement was demeaning about both Kelly Weeks and the Secretary-Treasurer and demonstrated a lack of respect by the Plaintiff towards the Secretary-Treasurer. The date was on or about February 13, 1999 …
2.2 Stated to the Assistant Superintendent of Student Support Services, Pat Ross, and in the presence of another person (who was not an employee of the Board) that the Plaintiff was “going to get rid of Greg Frank” or words substantially identical to that. The words demonstrated a lack of respect by the Plaintiff towards the Secretary-Treasurer. The date was February 20, 1999. The place was in a car belonging to Pat Ross, when the Plaintiff was being driven to a social event for senior staff at the home of Rick Borelli.
…
2.4 Stated to an Assistant Superintendent (Elementary Schools), Janine Longy, that "I want to get rid of" the Secretary-Treasurer, or words substantially identical to that. The date was February 28, 1999. The statement was made in the home of the Assistant Superintendent (Elementary Schools), Janine Longy.
2.5 Stated to the Executive Assistant/Secretary to the Superintendent, Jayne Fagan, that she did not need a Secretary-Treasurer or other words indicating that she intended to get rid of the Secretary-Treasurer. The statement was made in 1999 but the precise date is unknown. The statement was made in the office of the Superintendent.
…
2.8 Shortly after the Plaintiff assumed her position as Superintendent, the Plaintiff declined repeated offers by the Secretary-Treasurer to meet with her to explain how the budget was prepared in the Nanaimo-Ladysmith School District ...
2.9 After a public meeting at which the Secretary-Treasurer made a presentation, the Plaintiff sent the Secretary-Treasurer an email that … condemned the quality of the budget presentation. The Plaintiff, neither before or after sending the email, did not meet with the Secretary-Treasurer to discuss any perceived inadequacies in the budget presentation. The date of the public budget meeting was April 8, 1999 and the email was sent on the same date.
2.10 When the Secretary-Treasurer attended the Plaintiff's office for appointed meetings to discuss budgetary or other financial related matters concerning the business of the Board, the Plaintiff routinely kept the Secretary-Treasurer waiting for lengthy periods. The Plaintiff’s conduct in this regard caused Secretary-Treasurer Greg Frank to believe that the Plaintiff did not respect him or value his advice or collaboration.
2.11 Secretary-Treasurer, Greg Frank, resigned in 2000. On November 5, 1999 Greg Frank delivered a letter of resignation, and his last day of work was January 31, 2000.
3. The Director of Business Services (Financial Manager), Kristi Simpson (“Simpson”) resigned in or about August 2001. The way the Plaintiff treated Simpson and other management staff, including conduct by the Plaintiff that was humiliating, demeaning and disrespectful, contributed to the resignation of Simpson. The Defendants do not say that the Plaintiff’s conduct was the sole cause of Simpson’s resignation.
3.1 Simpson had held the position of Director of Business Services since 1997. She was skilled and capable.
…
3.3 … the Plaintiff told Simpson to vacate the Secretary-Treasurer's office, when there was no other office accommodation available. After moving from the Secretary-Treasurer's office, Simpson was stationed in a secretarial bay, in an open area of the office. This incident was widely regarded as a humiliation of Simpson and became the subject of rumour and discussion in the Board offices ...
On September 29, 2000 during a meeting at which the Plaintiff and Simpson were both present, which concerned a complaint by the Executive Assistant to the Superintendent against Kelly Weeks, the Plaintiff stated that she was going to use the Secretary-Treasurer's office as a second office, or words to that effect indicating that Simpson should move out of the Secretary-Treasurer's office. On or about October 4, 2000 Lane instructed Kelly Weeks to inform Simpson that Simpson would have to find another workplace because Lane was going to be moving down to use the Secretary-Treasurer's office. On the same date Weeks relayed that message to Simpson. October 8, 2000 Lane by email Defendants' Document No. 499, told Simpson to move into another space.
3.4 Simpson's desire to continue working for the Board was further diminished by the way the Plaintiff had treated other employees, including the Secretary-Treasurer, Greg Frank.
Particulars of the matters referred to are the following:
3.4.1 At a dinner at the house of Kelly Weeks on January 22, 2000 the Plaintiff in the presence of Simpson made statements disparaging of Assistant Superintendent, Janine Longy, and of the Director of Instruction, Judy Fraser. This incident is referred to in para 7.4 of the Particulars herein.
3.4.2 The Plaintiff, at a meeting with staff members on September 29, 2000, arising out of a complaint by the Executive Assistant to the Superintendent against Kelly Weeks, permitted the meeting to proceed in a way that was demeaning and humiliating of Kelly Weeks. Simpson was present at the meeting. Subsequently, on or about October 4, 2000 the Plaintiff attended in Weeks office and threatened Weeks with a harassment complaint to be brought by the Plaintiff's Executive Assistant.
3.4.3 (Abandoned)
3.4.4 Following a public budget presentation by Secretary-Treasurer Greg Frank on April 8, 1999 the Plaintiff on the same date sent Frank an email that criticized Frank's budget presentation. Frank showed the email to Simpson. The email stated that Lane was extremely disappointed that the Secretary-Treasurer and the Superintendent and the Director of Communications did not "work together to prepare the materials for this evenings session", and complained that the presentation would have been much stronger had they worked together. Simpson was aware, as the facts are, that Frank had sought … to work collaboratively with Lane on the budget and Lane had declined to collaborate with Frank.
3.5 Simpson resigned in August 2001. She did so because she found the Plaintiff's management style lacked cooperation, and was disrespectful and demeaning towards employees including Simpson.
Insofar as para 3.5 refers to the Plaintiff's conduct toward other employees, apart from the Plaintiff's conduct toward Simpson, the Defendants rely on the matter set out in para 3.4.1 to 3.4.4 herein.
3.6 With respect to the reference in paragraph 3.0 to the way the Plaintiff treated “other management staff”, the Defendants rely on the matters set out in paragraphs 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, and 3.4.4 of the Further Particulars dated May 14, 2004.
4. After Simpson declined to accept the position of Secretary-Treasurer, Ernie Inglehart was appointed Secretary-Treasurer in November 2000. One of the reasons why Inglehart resigned his position in or about October 2001, was because he found the Plaintiff's management style and conduct towards him lacked cooperation. The Defendants do not say that the Plaintiff’s conduct was the sole cause of Inglehart’s resignation.
…
4.3 On May 2, 2001, Inglehart sent an email to the Plaintiff, the Board Chair, Rick Borelli and Robert Flood attempting to initiate a process to build cooperation between members of senior management and the Plaintiff …
4.4 Inglehart resigned in or about October 21, 2001.
…
6. In February 2002, Peter Boyle, C.A. ("Boyle") was appointed Interim Secretary-Treasurer. One of the reasons Boyle resigned on or about May 9, 2002 was because important decisions with financial implications were made in the absence of any, or adequate consultation with the Interim Secretary-Treasurer. The Defendants do not say that this was the sole cause of Boyle’s resignation.
6.1 With respect to the elimination of three senior positions and the reorganization of the organizational structure revealed by motion passed at as Special Business Committee Meeting on April 3, 2002, Boyle was not informed or consulted at all with respect to that decision or its financial implications before it was announced at the public meeting.
…
6.4 The reasons for Boyle’s resignation are set out in a letter dated May 9, 2002 sent by Boyle to Mr. J. Garenkooper, Chair SD #68 (Nanaimo).
6.5 The resignation of Boyle contributed to instability and a lack of continuity in the management of the Board’s financial affairs.
7. Executive Assistant to the Secretary-Treasurer, Kelly Weeks, took a leave of absence in August 2001 and resigned on February 6, 2002. She had worked for the Board for 11 years, for most of that time in the position of Executive Assistant to the Secretary-Treasurer.
7.1 Shortly after the Plaintiff assumed her position as Superintendent, the Plaintiff stated to Weeks, "I've heard the rumours about you" and the Secretary-Treasurer. The words were demeaning and unprofessional and indicated to Weeks that the Plaintiff did not respect Weeks' skills and competence.
The date was on or about February 13, 1999. This is the same matter referred to in para 2.1.
7.2 In late 2000, as a result of an email that Weeks sent to another staff member, the Plaintiff, without providing Weeks with an opportunity to defend herself threatened Weeks with harassment proceedings.
In a … meeting, the Plaintiff permitted another staff member to criticize Weeks' conduct without taking steps to ensure that the meeting was conducted in a way that was respectful and safe for all participants, including Weeks. Weeks was humiliated and demeaned by the Plaintiff's conduct.
The meeting at which the Plaintiff permitted another staff member to criticize Weeks conduct took place on September 29, 2000 at the Board offices. The meeting is referred to in Defendants' Document No. 486. The occasion on which the Plaintiff threatened Weeks with harassment proceedings was on or about October 4, 2000, in Weeks office. The Plaintiff's handling of the complaint against Weeks by the Executive Assistant to the Superintendent is referred to in Defendants' Document No. 489 and No. 490, dated October 3, 2000 and October 5, 2000, respectively.
7.3 Weeks became aware of statements attributed to the Plaintiff, that the Plaintiff was going to "get rid of Greg Frank".
7.4 At a dinner at Weeks' house, in the presence of Weeks and other persons the Plaintiff stated that an Assistant Superintendent, Janine Longy, was incompetent and that the Director of Instruction, Judy Fraser, did not know the first thing about programs. By speaking in this way behind the backs of the employees concerned, the Plaintiff undermined the trust and cooperation among members of the management team. The remarks damaged morale. The date was January 22, 2000.
7.5 Weeks … became deeply disturbed about the way staff were treated in the office.
…
7.5.2 The incident in which the Plaintiff, on January 22, 2000, had a dinner at Weeks house made statements about Janine Longy and Judy Fraser in their absence. See Particulars para 7.4.
7.5.3 With respect to Secretary-Treasurer Greg Frank (i) the incident relating to a public budget presentation done by Greg Frank on April 8, 1999 referred to in para 2.9 herein following the presentation on the same evening the Plaintiff stated in the presence of Weeks that “this is the worst budget presentation” she had ever seen or words substantially to the same effect; (ii) the conduct of the Plaintiff in routinely being late for appointments and keeping Secretary-Treasurer Frank waiting for lengthy periods before scheduled meetings referred to in para 2.10 herein; and (iii) comment made on or about February 13, 1999 referred to in para 7.1 herein.
7.6 One of the reasons why Weeks resigned was the Plaintiff's style of management undermined trust and cooperation and because she believed that the way the Plaintiff treated staff members, including herself, was demeaning. The Defendants do not say that the Plaintiff’s conduct was the sole cause of Weeks’ resignation. Insofar as 7.6 refers to the way the Plaintiff "treated other staff members" the Defendants rely on the matter set out at paras 7.5.1 to 7.5.3 herein.
8. One of the reasons why the Board’s Director of Instruction, Judy Fraser, resigned and took early retirement in or about December 2001 was because the Plaintiffs style of management was demeaning towards Fraser and because the Plaintiff had demonstrated a lack of respect with regard to Fraser’s skills and abilities. The Defendants do not say that the Plaintiff’s conduct was the sole cause of Fraser’s resignation.
8.1 At a Management Committee Meeting, Fraser presented a Report on Student Assessment. The Report represented the culmination of extensive work by Fraser. The Plaintiff by her words and conduct at that meeting demonstrated that she did not approve of the Report and subjected Fraser to questioning that was disrespectful and demeaning. The Plaintiff's manner of dealing with Fraser at the meeting damaged staff morale.
The date of the Management Committee meeting is not ascertained, and further particulars will be provided. In a letter dated July 8, 2004 Mr. Gooderham advised that the date of this meeting was April 17, 2000 and that further particulars would be delivered to confirm this. In the same letter he says: “For the purposes of the defence as particularized in paragraph 8 of the Particulars, no other event or allegation is relied on relating to the conduct of the Plaintiff in her dealings with the former employee, Judy Fraser, in connection with the review of student assessment.”
8.1.1 The date of the Management Committee Meeting was April 17, 2000. In advance of the meeting, the presentation of the report on student assessment and the attendance of Judy Fraser for that purpose was included in the Agenda of the Management Committee Meeting, which will be referred to at trial and is produced as Defendants’ Document 1051. Following the Management Committee Meeting a report of the Committee’s discussion of student assessment was distributed, which has been produced as Defendants’ Document 1052. At trial the Defendants will refer to an email sent by Lane to members of the Management Committee dated April 17, 2000, which is identified as Defendants’ Document 1053.
…
8.3 At a social occasion at the home of Kelly Weeks, and in the presence of other persons, the Plaintiff stated that Judy Fraser didn't know the first thing about programs. The date was January 22, 2000.
8.4 It became generally understood in the Board’s office that the Plaintiff did not respect Fraser’s work and did not like Fraser.
In relation to the statement that other staff members at the district office generally understand that the Plaintiff did not respect Fraser’s work and did not like Fraser, the Defendants rely on the following incidents and say that belief was held by the following persons:
8.4.1 As a result of the incident during the Management Committee meeting referred to in para 8.1, Rick Borelli and Pat Ross were led by the Plaintiff’s words and conduct to believe that the Plaintiff did not respect Fraser’s work.
…
8.4.3 As a result of the incident referred to in para 8.3, Kristi Simpson and Kelly Weeks held that belief.
8.5 The Plaintiff did not conduct a performance evaluation nor undertake to discuss with Fraser any perceived shortcomings in the way that Fraser was discharging her duties.
8.6 (Abandoned)
…
9. The Assistant Superintendent, Student Support Services, Pat Ross (“Ross”) resigned in 2001. Ross resigned because he believed the working and learning conditions for him as a professional were untenable.
9.1 Shortly after the Plaintiff assumed her position as Superintendent, the Plaintiff stated to Ross with respect to the Secretary-Treasurer, Greg Frank, "I am going to get him", or words substantially identical to that. The date is February 20, 1999. The date and place is the same as set out for para 2.2 of the Particulars herein.
9.2 Ross regarded Frank as a highly competent and skilled Secretary-Treasurer.
9.3 Ross' reasons for resigning his position are set out in letter dated November 2, 2001, delivered by Ross to Dr. Lee Southern, Executive Director of the B.C. School Trustees Association in connection with an exit interview and forming part of a Report of Exit Interview with Dr. Patrick Ross dated November 6, 2001. In particular, the workplace at the Board Office was significantly affected by the following behaviour and conduct:
9.4 People, including the Plaintiff, talked about individuals behind their backs;
9.5 Senior Management did not function as a team;
9.6 (Abandoned)
9.7 Senior staff were demoralized;
9.8 Poor communication and absence of respect in the relations between the Plaintiff and other members of Senior Staff;
9.9 The inability or unwillingness of the Plaintiff to provide leadership of a kind that encouraged team work and collaboration contributed to the above conditions and was one of Ross' reasons for his resignation. The Defendants do not say that the Plaintiff’s conduct was the sole cause of Ross’ resignation.
With respect to the matters set out in paragraphs 9.4, 9.5, 9.7, 9.8 and 9.9 of the Particulars and Ross’s reasons for resigning his position, the Defendants rely on the following particulars:
9(a) The Defendants repeat the facts set out in paragraph 9.1 which refer to an incident on February 20, 1999.
(b) The Defendants repeat the facts set out in paragraph 2.9, which referred to a public meeting at which the Secretary-Treasurer, Greg Frank, made a presentation. The public meeting was on April 8, 1999. Ross became aware that Lane made complaints about Frank’s performance as Secretary-Treasurer in connection with the public meeting and preparation of the presentation made at the public meeting, and became aware that Lane’s complaints were set out in an email dated April 8, 1999 sent by Lane to Frank.
(c) From time to time during the year 1999 Frank informed Ross that he was unhappy in his working relationship with Lane and that Lane was not accessible to discuss matters of common interest between the Secretary-Treasurer and the Superintendent.
(d) The Defendants repeat the facts set out in paragraph 8.1 of the Particulars and 8.1.1. of the Further Particulars II herein, which refer to a presentation of a report by Judy Fraser. Ross was present at the said Management committee meeting held on April 17, 2000.
(e) Ross was aware that Kristi Simpson was offered the position of Secretary-Treasurer, and that Simpson declined the offer on or about September 14, 2000 ...
(f) Ross was an Assistant Superintendent with an office at a location known as Student Support Services, where a staff of approximately 50 persons worked under his supervision. Lane never, or rarely visited the Student Support Services office to meet with Ross or his staff in the period of over 18 months between the time Lane was appointed Superintendent CEO until Ross was seconded to the Ministry of Education in September 2000. With rare exceptions, Lane’s communications with Ross concerning his professional duties were almost exclusively in writing, mainly by email, save for occasions when Ross attended meetings of the Management Committee or other scheduled staff or Committee meetings. As a result, Ross’ communications with Lane were limited.
9.10 Ross' resignation further contributed to the lack of stability and continuity in educational staff in the Board.
10. … in November 2000, the Plaintiff introduced a reorganization of the Board’s Administration. She recommended and the Board adopted a new structure that appointed Rick Borelli as Deputy Superintendent, and appointed two Directors of Education. In April 2002, the aforesaid three positions were eliminated in another reorganization.
11. By the second half of 2001, there were significant morale problems affecting senior administrative staff, working relationships between the Superintendent and senior staff, and the Trustees. In saying that by the second half of 2001 there were significant morale problems effecting senior administrative staff and working relationships, the Defendants rely on the facts particularized in paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15 and 16 herein.
12. The elected Trustees decided to institute an organizational review, which resulted in a report issued March 2001. The report addressed issues affecting morale, cooperation, and stability affecting the working relationship between senior staff, the Superintendent, and the elected Trustees.
13. The authors of the Report suggested that the Superintendent prepare a plan to remedy the issues involved including, inter alia, problems of communication and cooperation. On April 25, 2001, a meeting was convened between the Superintendent and the elected Trustees for the purpose of considering the plan that the Superintendent had been asked to prepare. In the course of that meeting, the Plaintiff alleged that the Deputy Superintendent had been harassing and bullying her, and causing her to change her decisions on matters. The Deputy Superintendent was not present at the meeting and had been given no prior notice that there were serious allegations against him, nor had the Plaintiff raised such allegations in any prior performance review. The allegations were unfounded.
14. The statements made by the Plaintiff at the meeting on April 25, 2001 alleging harassment and bullying against senior staff became known to other senior administrative officers, including Inglehart, as a result of which Inglehart on May 2, 2001 requested a meeting with the Chair of the Board, the Defendant Cowling, and with the Plaintiff in order to discuss problems of the relationships between the Superintendent, senior staff and the Board, with a view to resolving problems that were causing lack of cooperation and trust.
15. When the meeting was convened on May 3, 2001, the Plaintiff stated that she was not comfortable proceeding with the discussion as long as the Chair of the Board, the Defendant Cowling remained in the room. The Chair of the Board left the meeting. The Plaintiff was unwilling to work with the Board Chair in an attempt to resolve any problems affecting the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Deputy Superintendent, which had been the subject of allegations made at the meeting on April 25, 2001.
16. On June 14, 2001, the Chair of the Board resigned because the attempt to proceed with the organizational review had failed.
APPENDIX B
1.3 In written correspondence with the President of DPAC on March 24, 2002 regarding the proposed changes, agreed that most of the Trustees cannot be trusted. By her words, the Plaintiff disparaged Trustees in the eyes of DPAC and undermined trust between the parents and the elected Trustees.
1.4 Discussed the proposed organizational change with three Trustees and representatives of DPAC without discussing the same with members of the senior administrative staff and, in particular, without discussing same with the Interim Secretary-Treasurer.
1.8 The decision in April 2002 to make the organizational changes was made without consultation with the Management Committee or principals …
2.1 … Weeks was driving the Plaintiff to a social event at the home of Donna Reimer.
2.3 Stated to Senior Administrative Officer, Judy Fraser, in relation to the Secretary-Treasurer that “he’s got to go”, or words substantially identical to that. The statement was made on a social occasion outside the Board offices, in the presence of other persons. The date is unascertained, but it was in or about late January or early February 1999. The place was in a restaurant called Katrina’s Place on Front Street in Nanaimo, B.C.
2.6 (Abandoned)
2.7 The Secretary-Treasurer received no performance review or other communication indicating that his performance, in any way, was unsatisfactory.
2.8 … The Plaintiff’s response was to state to the Secretary/ Treasurer: “I don’t need you to tell me anything about budgets”, or words substantially identical to that.
2.9 … in scathing terms …
3.2 Following the resignation of Greg Frank, Simpson was informed by the Plaintiff that she would be offered the position of Secretary-Treasurer. The Board, however, failed to provide Simpson with a contract in a timely manner and prolonged negotiations ensued. Simpson was offered a salary that was low in relation to comparable positions. The Plaintiff informed Simpson that the Plaintiff would assume some of the duties of the Secretary-Treasurer and the facts are that the Plaintiff sought to restructure the administration so that the Plaintiff would control the budget process. Because of concerns that she would not have adequate authority to discharge the responsibilities of the Secretary-Treasurer and because the compensation offered was inadequate, Simpson declined the position. She resumed her position as Director of Business Services.
In the period of time between January 2000 and the time that Kristi Simpson went on maternity leave, the Plaintiff orally stated to Kristi Simpson that she wanted Simpson to take the job as Secretary-Treasurer. The precise date is unknown. On June 23, 2000 Robert Flood, Director of Human Resources, by telephone offered the position of Secretary-Treasurer to Simpson at a salary of $90,000.00. On June 26, 2000 Simpson rejected that offer. On July 12, 2000 Robert Flood, by email, communicated another offer to Simpson with a copy of that offer being provided to the Plaintiff. The terms of that offer are set out in Defendants' Document No. 457. On or about August 30, 2000 Simpson returned to work in her former capacity as Director of Finance because the terms for her appointment as Secretary-Treasurer, including salary, had not been resolved. On September 11, 2000 the Administrative Personnel Committee (APC) made a recommendation to the Board of School Trustees that Simpson be appointed Secretary-Treasurer on specified terms which are set out in Defendants' Document No. 469. On September 14, 2000 Simpson declined the offer. Simpson communicated her reasons for declining the offer to the Plaintiff by email dated September 14, 2000, which is produced as Defendants' Document No. 473.
3.3 Immediately after Simpson decided not to accept the position of Secretary-Treasurer … The Plaintiff demanded that Simpson send an email to staff denying that the Plaintiff had requested that Simpson vacate the Secretary-Treasurer's office. When Simpson declined to do so, the Plaintiff sent an email dated October 12, 2000 to office staff denying that "I have kicked her out of the office". The Plaintiff's email was demeaning of Simpson.
3.4.4 … every opportunity …
4.1 During the preparation of the budget in the year 2001 and due to restraint in funding from the provincial government, the Board experienced difficulty in balancing the budget of the School Board. In order to achieve a draft budget that would be in balance, the Plaintiff directed that certain costs relating to replacement teachers be presented in an amount stated in the draft budget that was substantially lower than the actual costs incurred during the two previous years. Inglehart expressed his concerns about the budget numbers which he believed misstated the financial situation facing the Board. The Plaintiff resisted Inglehart's efforts to bring the matter to the attention of the Board.
The occasion on which the Plaintiff directed that certain costs relating to replacement teachers be presented in an amount stated in the draft budget that was substantially lower than the actual cost incurred in the two previous years was April 19, 2001 at a meeting of the Management Committee.
4.2 The Plaintiff by her own choice declined to establish a cooperative working relationship with Inglehart.
4.3 … Despite his efforts, Inglehart was unable to establish a cooperative working relationship with the Plaintiff.
4.5 Inglehart in a memorandum dated September 17, 2001 to the Board Chair, School District No. 68, set out the reasons for his resignation.
5. For a lengthy period after the resignation of Inglehart in or about October 2001, the Board operated without a full-time Secretary-Treasurer. The Plaintiff assumed the functions of Secretary-Treasurer, and was appointed Acting Secretary-Treasurer for a lengthy period. In the interim, the Director of Business Services, Kristi Simpson had already resigned in August 2001. The Executive Assistant to the Secretary-Treasurer, Kelly Weeks, resigned in July 2001. By reason of the aforesaid resignations, the Board experienced instability and a lack of continuity in financial management.
6.2 Unknown to Boyle, the Plaintiff had decided that she would be in charge of the construction of the budget with only “number crunching support” by Boyle. The Plaintiff engaged in email correspondence with two Trustees dated April 4, 2002 that referred to Boyle as a person hired only to “crunch numbers” and not to give policy advice. Boyle was unaware of this plan as were other Trustees. The correspondence was demeaning and disrespectful towards Boyle and was calculated to undermine the trust and confidence between the Interim Secretary-Treasurer and the elected Trustees. By her conduct in relation to Boyle in connection with the budget during the period February 13 to April 24, 2002, the Plaintiff contributed to a lack of cooperation and trust in the financial management of the Board’s affairs. The Defendants do not say that the Plaintiff’s conduct in relation to Boyle was the sole cause of the lack of cooperation and trust in the financial management of the Board’s affairs.
6.3 The Plaintiff failed or was unwilling to develop a cooperative working relationship with Boyle.
7.2 … subsequent …
7.5 … observed the manner in which Simpson was asked to vacate the Secretary-Treasurer's office, which Weeks attributed to a direction given by the Plaintiff, and …
7.5.1 The manner in which Simpson was told by the Plaintiff to vacate the Secretary-Treasurer's office. The matter is referred to in para 3.3 of the Particulars herein.
8.2 With respect to Fraser's discharge of her duties in relation to First Nations' Education, the Plaintiff stated to the Executive Assistant/Secretary to the Superintendent, Jayne Fagan that:
"I did this job in Carleton. I could do a much better job of it," or words substantially the same in meaning. The statement belittled Fraser's skills and abilities.
Date is unknown.
8.4.2 As a result of the incident referred to in para 8.2, Jane Fagan held that belief.
8.7 The Plaintiff attended at the Curriculum Resource Centre, where Fraser was responsible for a staff of resource teachers. Without any prior discussion with Fraser, the Plaintiff addressed the resource teachers and questioned the value of their work contribution. The Plaintiff’s intervention undermined Fraser’s position and authority, because Fraser had been given no forewarning that the Plaintiff intended to raise questions about the job performance or usefulness of the staff members for whom Fraser was responsible. The date is unknown.
9(e) … In or about September 2000 Simpson told Ross that in connection with the offer of the Secretary-Treasurer position she had been treated poorly, or words to that effect, that she had been offered a salary that was low in relation to the amount paid to the Secretary-Treasurer, Greg Frank, and that the position offered to her was reduced in scope and in importance.
10. Following the resignations of Fraser and Ross …
17. In the matter of the distribution of the Notice dated November 1, 2002:
17.1 The Plaintiff caused the Notice to be distributed to principals and other persons, without consulting with the elected Trustees.
17.2 The Plaintiff distributed the Notice without consulting with, or without prior discussion with, the principals or teachers who would be the persons charged to implement the directives in the schools.
17.3 On October 14, 2002, the Plaintiff advised the complainant in response to his inquiry that the Plaintiff would work with the Management Committee and school principals to ensure that “Christmas Concerts” are renamed, before undertaking any consultation with members of the Management Committee, Trustees, principals or other persons.