|
Date: |
|||
|
|
Docket: |
CC001402 |
|
|
Registry: Vancouver |
|||
|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA |
|||
|
|
|||
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN |
|||
|
|
|||
|
AGAINST |
|||
DIMITRIOS PILARINOS AND GLEN DAVID CLARK |
|||
|
|
|||
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE
HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE BENNETT |
|
Counsel for the Crown |
W. Smart, Q.C.,
|
|
Counsel for the Accused, Pilarinos
|
I. Donaldson, Q.C. |
|
Counsel for the Accused, Clark |
D. Gibbons, Q.C.,
|
|
Date and Place of Trial: |
September 10, 2001 to June 28, 2002 |
|
|
Vancouver, BC |
[1] Glen David Clark is the former Premier of British Columbia. Dimitrios Pilarinos is a former friend and neighbour of Mr. Clark. They face charges of corruption arising from Mr. Pilarinos' failed attempt to obtain a licence to operate a casino from the government of British Columbia.
[2] Mr. Pilarinos faces nine counts on the indictment and Mr. Clark faces two. The counts are as follows:
COUNT 1:
DIMITRIOS PILARINOS, between December 1, 1997, and October 1, 1998, at or near Vancouver and Penticton and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, while having dealings with the Government of British Columbia relating to an application for a casino licence, gave to an official of the said Government, to wit, GLEN DAVID CLARK, Premier, President of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Assembly of the said Government, or to a member of the family of the said Clark, a reward, advantage or benefit, to wit, improvements to real property, as consideration for co-operation, assistance or the exercise of influence in connection with the granting of a casino licence, being a transaction of business with or a matter of business relating to the said Government, or a benefit that Her Majesty in right of the said Government is authorized or entitled to bestow, CONTRARY TO SECTION 121(1)(a) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.
COUNT 2:
DIMITRIOS PILARINOS, between December 1, 1997, and October 1, 1998, at or near Vancouver and Penticton and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, while having dealings with the Government of British Columbia relating to an application for a casino licence, gave to a minister of the Government of British Columbia or an official of the said Government, to wit, GLEN DAVID CLARK, Premier, President of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Assembly of the said Government, a reward, advantage or benefit, to wit, improvements to real property, as consideration for co-operation, assistance or the exercise of influence in connection with the granting of a casino licence, being a transaction of business with or a matter of business relating to the said Government, or a benefit that Her Majesty in right of the said Government is authorized or entitled to bestow, CONTRARY TO SECTION 121(1)(e) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.
COUNT 3:
DIMITRIOS PILARINOS, between April 1, 1997, and January 31, 1999, at or near Vancouver and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, offered to give to an official of the Government of British Columbia, to wit, GLEN DAVID CLARK, Premier, President of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Assembly of the said Government, a reward, advantage or benefit, being a 15-per-cent interest in or share in the proceeds of the operation of a licensed casino, as consideration for co-operation, assistance or the exercise of influence in connection with an application for a casino licence, being a transaction of business with or a matter of business relating to the said Government, or a benefit which Her Majesty in right of the said Government is authorized or entitled to bestow, CONTRARY TO SECTION 121(1)(a) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.
COUNT 4:
DIMITRIOS PILARINOS, between April 1, 1997, and January 31, 1999, at or near Vancouver and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, while having dealings with the Government of British Columbia relating to an application for a casino licence, offered to give to a minister of the Government of British Columbia or an official of the said Government, to wit, GLEN DAVID CLARK, Premier, President of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Assembly of the said Government, a reward, advantage or benefit, being a 15-per-cent interest in or share in the proceeds of the operation of a licensed casino, as consideration for co-operation, assistance or the exercise of influence in connection with an application for a casino licence, being a transaction of business with or a matter of business relating to the said Government, or a benefit which Her Majesty in right of the said Government is authorized or entitled to bestow, CONTRARY TO SECTION 121(1)(e) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.
COUNT 5:
DIMITRIOS PILARINOS, between December 1, 1997, and October 1, 1998, at or near Vancouver and Penticton and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, while having dealings with the Government of British Columbia in relation to an application for a casino licence, conferred a benefit with respect to those dealings, being improvements to real property, on an official of the said Government with which he was dealing, to wit, GLEN DAVID CLARK, Premier, President of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Assembly of the said Government, directly and through a member or members of the family of the said Glen David Clark, without the consent in writing of the head of the branch of Government with which he was dealing, CONTRARY TO SECTION 121(1)(b) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.
COUNT 6:
DIMITRIOS PILARINOS, between April 1, 1997, and March 2, 1999, at or near Vancouver, Burnaby and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, having or pretending to have influence with the Government of British Columbia or with a minister or official of that Government, to wit, GLEN DAVID CLARK, Premier, President of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Assembly of the said Government, accepted a reward, advantage or benefit, to wit, a share in a company or the right to share in the proceeds of a proposed casino, as consideration for co-operation, assistance or the exercise of influence through the said Clark, in connection with an application for a casino licence, being a transaction of business with or a matter of business relating to the said Government, or a benefit that Her Majesty in right of the said Government is authorized or entitled to bestow, CONTRARY TO SECTION 121(1)(d) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.
COUNT 7:
DIMITRIOS PILARINOS, between April 1, 1997, and March 2, 1999, at or near Vancouver, Burnaby, Victoria and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, for a fraudulent purpose, did conceal something, to wit, the participation of one PASCHOS KATANAS as legal or beneficial owner of shares in a company seeking a casino licence, or participant in the proceeds of the operation of a proposed casino, such thing being concealed from the Ministry of Employment and Investment of the said province in connection with an application made or pending for a licence to operate the said casino, CONTRARY TO SECTION 341 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.
COUNT 8:
DIMITRIOS PILARINOS, between April 1, 1997, and March 2, 1999, at or near Vancouver, Burnaby, Victoria and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, with intent to defraud, omitted a material particular from a document, to wit, an application to the Ministry of Employment and Investment of the said province for a casino licence, such material particular being the fact that one PASCHOS KATANAS was a principal or partner in the proposed casino, or legal or beneficial owner of shares in the company seeking the said licence, CONTRARY TO SECTION 397(1)(b) of THE CRIMINAL CODE.
COUNT 9:
DIMITRIOS PILARINOS, between December 1, 1997, and March 5, 1999, at or near Vancouver, Penticton and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, did commit the offence of breach of trust in connection with the duties of the office of an official of the Government of British Columbia, to wit, GLEN DAVID CLARK, Premier, President of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Assembly, in relation to an application made to the said Government, by 545738 B.C. Ltd., a company in which DIMITRIOS PILARINOS held an interest, for a Government licence to operate a casino; and in particular:
(a) by providing benefits to Glen David Clark in relation to renovations done on Mr. Clark's Vancouver residence and his Penticton summer cottage while the application, by the said company in which Mr. Pilarinos held an interest, for a Government licence to operate a casino was under consideration by the Government; and
(b) requesting and/or encouraging Glen David Clark to render assistance with respect to the said company's casino application;
CONTRARY TO SECTION 122 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.
COUNT 10:
GLEN DAVID CLARK, between December 1, 1997, and March 5, 1999, at or near Vancouver, Penticton, Victoria and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, did commit the offence of breach of trust in connection with the duties of his office as an official of the Government of British Columbia, to wit, Premier, President of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Assembly, in relation to an application made to the said Government by 545738 B.C. Ltd., a company in which DIMITRIOS PILARINOS held an interest, for a Government licence to operate a casino; and in particular:
(a) by accepting benefits from Dimitrios Pilarinos in relation to renovations done on his Vancouver residence and his Penticton summer cottage, while the said application was under consideration by the Government of British Columbia;
(b) by failing to inform the Minister of Employment and Investment that Dimitrios Pilarinos was doing, or had done, work on his Vancouver residence and Penticton summer cottage and that he had received benefits in relation to that work from Mr. Pilarinos;
(c) before, during, or after receiving the said benefits from Mr. Pilarinos, by assisting 545738 B.C. Ltd. and Mr. Pilarinos in various ways in advancing his casino licence application, including: disclosing to Mr. Pilarinos the official "scores" assigned to 545738 B.C. Ltd.'s application and that of its competitor and exerting influence, directly and/or indirectly, on the Minister of Employment and Investment, Michael Farnworth, to approve the application by 545738 B.C. Ltd. and to facilitate the said company in changing the location of its proposed charitable casino;
(d) after receiving the "Karmelita" fax in February 1999, by procuring or permitting the use of the influence of his office in order to protect his personal interests rather than those of the public, including: delegating to George Ford responsibilities with respect to the said fax without disclosing to him his true involvement in connection with the casino application by 545738 B.C. Ltd.; and
(e) after receiving the "Karmelita" fax in February 1999, by failing to ensure that the contents of the said fax were disclosed to the police or to the Ministry of the Attorney General or to GAIO or to Minister Farnworth or to those assisting the Government in dealing with the casino application by 545738 B.C. Ltd. and by acting contrary to the public interest in advising Mr. Pilarinos that one or more Greek "informants" were providing information to investigators concerning the casino application by the said company and thereby jeopardizing ongoing police and GAIO investigations.
and in so doing breached the statutory, expressed, implied or accepted rules, guidelines or terms of office applicable to him as Premier, President of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Assembly, including the oaths of office taken by him and the provisions of the Members Conflict of Interest Act, CONTRARY TO SECTION 122 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.
COUNT 11:
GLEN DAVID CLARK, between December 1, 1997, and October 1, 1998, at or near Vancouver and Penticton and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, being an official of the Government of British Columbia, to wit, Premier, President of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Assembly of the said Government, accepted or agreed to accept directly or indirectly from a person having dealings in regard to an application for a casino licence with the said Government, to wit, DIMITRIOS PILARINOS, a reward, advantage or benefit for himself or through a member of his family, to wit, improvements to real property, without consent in writing of the head of the branch of the said Government of which he was an official, CONTRARY TO SECTION 121(1)(c) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.
[3] The Criminal Code provisions relating to the charges are as follows:
Section 121.(1) Frauds on the government
1) Every one commits an offence who
a) directly or indirectly
(i) gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to an official or to any member of his family, or to any one for the benefit of an official, or
(ii) being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person for himself or another person,
a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with
(iii) the transaction of business with or any matter of business relating to the government, or
(iv) a claim against Her Majesty or any benefit that Her Majesty is authorized or is entitled to bestow,
whether or not, in fact, the official is able to cooperate, render assistance, exercise influence or do or omit to do what is proposed, as the case may be;
(b) having dealings of any kind with the government, pays a commission or reward to or confers an advantage or benefit of any kind on an employee or official of the government with which he deals, or to any member of his family, or to any one for the benefit of the employee or official, with respect to those dealings, unless he has the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government with which he deals, the proof of which lies on him;
(c) being an official or employee of the government, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from a person who has dealings with the government a commission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind directly or indirectly, by himself or through a member of his family or through any one for his benefit, unless he has the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government that employs him or of which he is an official, the proof of which lies on him;
(d) having or pretending to have influence with the government or with a minister of the government or an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept for himself or another person a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with
(i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or
(ii) the appointment of any person, including himself, to an office;
(e) gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to a minister of the government or an official a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with
(i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or
(ii) the appointment of any person, including himself, to an office;
Breach of trust by public officer
122. Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.
Fraudulent concealment
341. Every one who, for a fraudulent purpose, takes, obtains, removes or conceals anything is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Falsification of books and documents
397. (1) Every one who, with intent to defraud,
(a) destroys, mutilates, alters, falsifies or makes a false entry in, or
(b) omits a material particular from, or alters a material particular in, a book, paper, writing, valuable security or document is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
[4] Corruption of government employees and government officials is rampant in some parts of the world. Fortunately, Canada has had few allegations of corruption at any government level. No doubt this is due mainly to the honesty and relative prosperity of Canadians. However, it is also due to the fact that the police in this country are free to investigate government corruption unfettered from interference by the state. British Columbia’s legislated requirement of retaining a special prosecutor outside of the employ of the government further protects the ability of the authorities to investigate and proceed with appropriate charges without fear of reprisal from government. Also, our corruption laws place a high standard of behaviour on government officials and employees, one that is not required of the general public.
[5] Regardless of the outcome of this trial, our free and democratic society requires such allegations be investigated and a prosecution undertaken if there is evidence which meets the threshold required for charges to be laid. Anything less would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Overview of the Facts
[6] Mr. Clark and Mr. Pilarinos met as a result of their respective wives' participation in their local pre-school. The families struck up a friendship and they, along with several other families in the neighbourhood, would meet several times a month for potluck dinners.
[7] Their relationship was one of “good neighbours” and they did not socialize together outside of their circle of family friends. At the time of the alleged offences, Mr. Clark and Mr. Pilarinos had only known each other for three or four years. They had little in common except for the shared activities of their children.
[8] Mr. Clark was the Premier of the Province of British Columbia. Mr. Pilarinos, at the time, was involved in the construction industry.
[9] Mr. Pilarinos was also a friend of Steve Ng and Paschos Katanas (who is also referred to as Paskalis and Paskali). Mr. Ng owned several hotels in the Lower Mainland, including the North Burnaby Inn and the Marble Arch Hotel. Mr. Katanas operated the Lumbermen’s Social Club out of the North Burnaby Inn. The Lumbermen’s Social Club ran an illegal gambling operation and Mr. Katanas had come into conflict with the Gaming Commission as a result.
[10] Mr. Pilarinos knew both Mr. Katanas and Mr. Ng, likely meeting when Mr. Pilarinos did some renovation work on the Lumbermen’s Social Club (as conceded in the argument of Mr. Pilarinos).
[11] In March 1997, the provincial government announced its intention to expand gaming in British Columbia and the creation of the Lotteries Advisory Committee (LAC). A “Request for Proposals” (RFP) was distributed later that summer inviting proposals for destination casinos, charity casinos and bingo halls.
[12] In June 1997, 545738 B.C. Ltd. was incorporated. This company was held by Steve Ng, Paschos Katanas and Dimitrios Pilarinos. On October 21, 1997, 545738 B.C. Ltd. registered with the LAC under the RFP process indicating an interest in applying for a casino licence. The application itself was long and detailed. Appendix G of the application requested detailed personal information from the applicants, including information regarding any previous gambling experience. A partially completed Appendix G in the name of Mr. Katanas was seized at his home. It was dated October 25, 1997.
[13] On October 30, 1997, Mr. Katanas was removed as a director of 545738 B.C. Ltd. Mr. Pilarinos and Mr. Ng became the sole directors. On November 24, 1997, the company submitted its application for a charity casino to be operated at the North Burnaby Inn. The application was professionally prepared. A large local law firm and an accountant represented 545738 B.C. Ltd. The application was accompanied by fees of $18,000.00.
[14] In spite of being removed as a director, the wiretap evidence showed that Mr. Katanas continued to be consulted about matters relating to the casino application. He was also observed by police surveillance officers several times meeting with Mr. Ng and Mr. Pilarinos. The Crown contends that Mr. Katanas was a silent partner in the casino operation but was removed from the application because of his previous difficulties with the Gaming Commission. This allegation is the substance of Counts 7 and 8.
[15] Local municipal government support (called “Host Local Government Support”) was mandatory before the provincial government would consider an application. The proposed host municipality was required to indicate whether it supported gambling (or in some cases, increased gambling) in its community. Once a municipal government supported gaming, it had no control over where a facility would be located, except within its ability to zone.
[16] After some confusion, the City of Burnaby agreed to expand gambling in its community and accepted charity casinos and bingos. It did not approve destination casinos. However, Burnaby was strongly opposed to a casino located at the North Burnaby Inn. The North Burnaby Inn location was not zoned for a casino and the City had no intention of changing its zoning. This position was clearly communicated to the provincial government. The City had already zoned a location on Halifax Street for a casino. The owner of this location, Derrick Luu, was also applying for a casino licence in Burnaby.
[17] All proposals had to be evaluated by the Gaming Audit Investigation Office (GAIO), an investigative body under the auspices of the Attorney General's Ministry whose task it was to investigate the suitability of proponents to operate gaming facilities. GAIO performed a thorough investigation of all aspects of the application, including an investigation into the personal integrity of the applicants. Only applicants who received GAIO approval could receive a licence.
[18] In January 1998, the assigned investigator of the North Burnaby Inn proposal, Mark Everitt, decided to postpone the investigation of the application because he considered it unlikely that the proposal would receive approval-in-principle from the provincial Cabinet.
[19] In the meantime, Glen Clark had a leak in his roof. Mr. Clark was in Victoria and Mrs. Clark called Mr. Pilarinos to look at the leak because she was concerned that it might cause electrical problems. The Clarks postponed repairing the roof because they wanted to renovate the upstairs of their home, which would require the installation of a new roof. Thus, in the spring of 1997, Mr. Pilarinos was aware that the Clarks had a leaky roof and that they were considering a renovation.
[20] Mr. Pilarinos went to an architect, Edward Palad, with the plans of the Clarks’ home and retained him to prepare designs for the renovation. He did this, according to the Clarks, without their knowledge or permission. There is no evidence of where Mr. Pilarinos obtained the plans. It is possible he obtained them from City Hall.
[21] Mr. Palad provided Mr. Pilarinos with the designs on December 10, 1997 and testified that it takes him about two weeks to prepare design plans. Mr. Pilarinos therefore likely met with him around November 26 or 27, 1997. Thus, Mr. Pilarinos was obtaining designs, unsolicited, for Mr. Clark, within days of the submission of his casino application on November 24, 1997.
[22] On December 17, 1997, Mr. Pilarinos applied for a building permit for the renovations to the Clarks’ house. The estimated value of the renovation on the building permit was $9,586.00. He made this application without the knowledge of the Clarks. Mr. Pilarinos arrived at the Clarks' house just before Christmas with an equivalency permit and advised them that they owed him money for this permit. Mr. Clark gave Mr. Pilarinos a cheque for $310.00 on or around December 24, 1997. Mr. Clark was unhappy about this, as it was an unexpected expenditure just around Christmas.
[23] The Clarks had considered hiring Mrs. Clark’s cousin as the contractor for their renovation. When they learned that he was not available, the Clarks decided to retain Mr. Pilarinos. There was no written contract between them. Mr. Clark testified he told Mr. Pilarinos he wanted everything above board. He was concerned that the GST might not be paid as construction workers have a reputation for working for cash.
[24] Mr. Clark wrote a cheque to Mr. Pilarinos on February 22, 1998 for $574.00 as reimbursement for the building permit.
[25] The renovation occurred during three weeks in June 1998, commencing June 8, and was substantially completed by June 29. Some finishing work was completed in July. [Ex. 38 Tab 7]. The renovation consisted of adding a dormer to an upstairs bedroom, building a small deck off this bedroom, installing a gas fireplace, and moving a window. A new floor and closets were installed and the roof was replaced. It was a relatively small renovation. Mrs. Clark was responsible for organizing and supervising the renovation since Mr. Clark was seldom home, except on weekends.
[26] By mid-July, the Clarks had paid Mr. Pilarinos $8,000. He told them he thought they owed an additional $2500-3000, but he did not have all of the outstanding bills. The Clarks thought they should pay him more because the job took longer than anticipated. They decided to give him a cheque for $5,000.00. Dale Clark gave the cheque to Mrs. Pilarinos sometime between July 24-31, 1998. Around August 5, 1998, Mr. Pilarinos went to Mr. Clark’s house, said the cheque was too much and produced his itemized bill for $11,200.00. This amount did not include the bill of $400 for the design work, which Mr. Clark testified, he paid Mr. Pilarinos for in cash. Mr. Pilarinos ripped up the cheque that had been given to him by Mrs. Clark. After satisfying himself that Mr. Pilarinos felt he had been paid, Mr. Clark wrote Mr. Pilarinos a cheque for $3,200.00. The difference between the two cheques was $1,800.00. Mr. Pilarinos told Mr. Clark, “if you want to do anything, give me some chickens. That’s what we do in Greece”. Mr. Clark later gave Mr. Pilarinos a unique Inuit hunting knife.
[27] The Crown called two quantity surveyors to testify regarding the value of the renovation. Their evidence was thoroughly and effectively challenged in cross-examination. Mr. Sanft’s report was so replete with errors in calculations that I cannot give it any weight at all. Mr. Stregger’s report was more helpful, especially the summary of invoices, which analyzed all of the receipts of the purchases made by Mr. Pilarinos or Mr. Clark from which the progress of the renovation could be tracked. However, Mr. Stregger also made several errors.
[28] The renovation was done as economically as possible. Mr. Clark helped install the floor and painted the house. Sub-contractors did much of the work and their work and materials are accounted for with receipts. I find that the cost of the renovation was $11,200.00 (rounded up) as noted by Mr. Pilarinos in his informal bill to Mr. Clark, save and except the architect's designs and Mr. Pilarinos' labour, neither of which were included in the bill. The amount paid for the renovation by the Clarks was also $11,200.00. There was no mark-up on any of the materials that could have accounted for Mr. Pilarinos' compensation, nor was there any contractor fee charged. Based on a “cost-plus” arrangement, Mr. Pilarinos did not receive payment for his work. The renovation took approximately three weeks. Mr. Pilarinos arranged for numerous sub-trades, including drywall, plumbing, gas fitting and electrical. Mr. Pilarinos also worked on the job himself doing tear down, installing flooring and some carpentry. Based on a fixed estimate, Mr. Pilarinos was overpaid, as the estimate was $10,000.00. There was no direct evidence of what arrangements were made between Mr. Pilarinos and Mr. Clark, other than that Mr. Clark said he wanted to ensure that Mr. Pilarinos was compensated for his work.
[29] Mr. Clark acknowledged at trial that Mr. Pilarinos was not compensated for his work. Mr. Clark said that when he looked at the bill, there was no payment for Mr. Pilarinos. Mr. Clark said he pressed him on this, but Mr. Pilarinos was adamant that the bill reflected all that was owed and that he would not accept any more money. Mr. Clark said it was not clear when he wrote the cheque for $3200 that Mr. Pilarinos was not paid for his labour. Mr. Pilarinos was persistent and Mr. Clark eventually relented and accepted that $3200 was what he owed Mr. Pilarinos.
[30] There is no direct evidence of how many hours Mr. Pilarinos worked on the project. In cross-examination, Mr. Stregger, one of the quantity surveyors, agreed that an estimate of the hours Mr. Pilarinos worked could be in the range of 108 hours, which would be valued at approximately $2000.00.
[31] If Mr. Pilarinos charged a percentage of the job as a contractor, the amount could range from $1,120.00 as a 10 per cent fee to $2,240.00 as a 20 per cent fee. The sum of $1,800.00 is a 16 per cent fee. Mr. Stregger used 15 per cent as the contractor’s mark-up. I find that it is reasonable to value the work done by Mr. Pilarinos, not compensated by the Clarks, at $1,800.00. The Clarks obviously intended to pay Mr. Pilarinos more than the estimated price for the job. The evidence thus suggests that this was not a fixed price contract.
[32] Meanwhile, the North Burnaby Inn casino application was proceeding through the government approval process. The personal data (Appendix G) had been sent to GAIO, though, as noted, the application was not given immediate attention by GAIO, as it was not considered likely to receive Cabinet approval.
[33] On February 18, 1998, Michael Farnworth was appointed Minister of Employment and Investment by Mr. Clark. This was a promotion for Mr. Farnworth. This Ministry included the Gaming Portfolio. When he was appointed, Mr. Clark advised Mr. Farnworth that Mr. Farnworth, in essence, served at Mr. Clark’s pleasure. Mr. Clark also mentioned to Mr. Farnworth that he had a friend who was applying for a casino licence. Mr. Clark told Mr. Farnworth that he did not want to be involved in the decision-making process with respect to the casino applications. It is after this date that Mr. Clark paid Mr. Pilarinos for the building permit. The evidence is not sufficient to say with any certainty whether the Clarks had finally settled on Mr. Pilarinos for their renovation by the February 1998 meeting with Mr. Farnworth.
[34] On April 10, 1998, the appointments to the Lotteries Advisory Committee lapsed and on April 28, 1998, the Gaming Policy Secretariat was created. Mark MacKinnon was the Executive Director.
[35] The casino licence applications were thoroughly scrutinized by initially the Lotteries Advisory Committee and later the Gaming Policy Secretariat. A system of independent evaluation was in place, designed by Robert Scarpelli from PriceWaterhouseCoopers Inc. The applications received scores based on a number of different criteria. Neither the Derrick Luu application nor the North Burnaby Inn application received a good score. Out of a possible 190 points, the Luu application received 56 points and North Burnaby Inn application received 88 points.
[36] Once the scores were tabulated and a report on each application was prepared, the matter was submitted to the Minister, Mr. Farnworth. He initially brought his recommendations to Cabinet and Cabinet would determine whether to grant approval-in-principle. The approval-in-principle did not mean that the proponents were granted a licence, but it did mean that their application would continue through the process. An applicant also had to receive approval from GAIO before a licence would be granted. Once those hurdles were overcome, the applicant still had to negotiate an agreement with the Lottery Corporation.
[37] A Cabinet meeting was held on May 6, 1998, during which several casino applications from northern British Columbia were granted approval-in-principle. The next Cabinet meeting was at the end of July. Sometime in June, Mr. Farnworth met with Adrian Dix, who was Mr. Clark’s principal secretary, confidante and good friend. Mr. Farnworth told Mr. Dix that Mr. Clark was a friend of one of the proponents. Mr. Dix replied, “I hate friends of the Premier”. Mr. Dix did not give evidence on this point, thus, although I accept this statement was made, it is not evidence of the truth of the contents.
[38] Mr. Dix said he met with Mr. Clark on July 13, 1998. Mr. Clark told him that one of the applicants, Mr. Pilarinos, was a friend. Mr. Clark told Mr. Dix to ensure he was kept out of the process surrounding Mr. Pilarinos’ application. Mr. Dix said he spoke to Mr. Farnworth on July 17, 1998 and they agreed that Mr. Clark would play no role in the decision with respect to Mr. Pilarinos’ application. Mr. Farnworth did not recall this part of the conversation, but I am satisfied that it occurred as it is consistent with the conversation Mr. Clark had with Mr. Farnworth in February. I find that this was the same meeting referred to by Mr. Farnworth, although their recollections differ.
[39] In September or October, Mr. Dix typed up his notes, backdated the typed memo to July 17, 1998 and endorsed it with an official stamp.
[40] Mr. Farnworth had reviewed the Lower Mainland applications and had decided not to recommend the North Burnaby Inn proposal. In his view, it was not a very good application. It had troubles in terms of zoning from the City of Burnaby, and he felt that the political optics were not good given Mr. Pilarinos was a friend of Mr. Clark.
[41] It is interesting to note that Peter Clark, who was the person in charge of the LAC at the outset, testified that there were other applicants who had close connections with the government. He said there would be very few proponents if they had cut out all of the applicants who knew people in government.
[42] Mr. Farnworth was not aware that the North Burnaby Inn application had not been processed through GAIO. Mr. Farnworth told Mr. Dix that he was only recommending a casino in New Westminster and a bingo in Burnaby.
[43] Few Lower Mainland casino applications were going to be recommended by Mr. Farnworth. The Tsawwassen Indian Band had a good proposal, but had too many difficulties with the adjacent community, Delta. Similarly, the Musqueam Band had difficulties with Richmond. The only facilities which Mr. Farnworth was going to recommend for the Lower Mainland were the Star of Fortune Casino in New Westminster and a charity bingo in Burnaby.
[44] A few days prior to the July 29 Cabinet meeting, Mr. Clark and Mr. Farnworth met to discuss the agenda at Mr. Farnworth’s request. Mr. Clark was unhappy that few casinos were going to be recommended for the Lower Mainland, as the government needed the additional revenue. New Westminster, Richmond, Delta and Burnaby were the only municipalities that were prepared to accept more gaming. Except for the bingo in Burnaby and the Star of Fortune in New Westminster, the applications for casinos in these municipalities were either poor or did not have municipal support. Mr. Farnworth was essentially told by Mr. Clark to review the proposals and approve another casino in the Lower Mainland. Mr. Clark did not tell him which casino to approve.
[45] Mr. Farnworth testified that Mr. Clark asked him during this meeting if the North Burnaby Inn application could move or if anything could be done about the zoning. Mr. Clark mentioned that the company could strengthen its management. He also mentioned Metrotown in the discussion of this casino. Mr. Clark denied having this detailed conversation with Mr. Farnworth about the North Burnaby Inn. Mr. Clark acknowledged that he thought Mr. Pilarinos was looking at locating the casino in Metrotown at some point (he thought early on). He also agreed that there was a discussion about the fact that generally the Lower Mainland applications were not very good. I accept the evidence of Mr. Farnworth regarding the discussion at this meeting. I note that Mr. Farnworth could not have known anything about Metrotown unless Mr. Clark mentioned it to him.
[46] Most of the discussion at this meeting centered on the application by the Penticton Indian Band, which Mr. Farnworth supported and Mr. Clark vehemently opposed.
[47] Mr. Farnworth left this meeting knowing that he would have to find another casino in the Lower Mainland. He was aware that the government’s policy was to have casinos in the Lower Mainland in order to generate maximum revenue from gambling. However, Mr. Farnworth did not feel that he had to approve a particular casino since Mr. Clark had told him that it was “up to you.”
[48] At the time of this meeting, Mr. and Mrs. Clark had already paid Mr. Pilarinos $5,000.00 to cover the final costs of the renovation. There can be no suggestion that Mr. Clark felt an “indebtedness” to Mr. Pilarinos at the time of this meeting with Mr. Farnworth. Mr. Pilarinos, as far as Mr. Clark was concerned, had been paid for his work. Mr. Pilarinos had not yet returned the $5,000.00 cheque.
[49] The discussion regarding casinos at the July 29th Cabinet meeting focussed almost entirely on the issue of the application by the Penticton Indian Band. At the end of this meeting, in which the Lower Mainland proposals were not discussed, Cabinet apparently delegated the ability to grant approval-in-principle to Mr. Farnworth. Mr. Clark was not aware of this delegation. He may have been out of the room when it was made.
[50] Mr. Farnworth publicly announced approvals-in-principle for several proponents on August 14, but not the North Burnaby Inn application. He announced that seven applications were still being considered, including the North Burnaby Inn.
[51] After this press release was issued, the City of Burnaby wrote again to the Minister advising that it would not support a casino at the North Burnaby Inn. Mr. Farnworth knew it was not likely that Burnaby would change its position on zoning.
[52] The options for Mr. Farnworth with respect to Lower Mainland casinos were the Tsawwassen Indian Band whose application was opposed by Delta, the Musqueam Indian Band and the two applications from Burnaby. The following is an excerpt from the evidence of Mr. Farnworth:
A I spent the rest of the summer figuring out what are my options and what can I do, how to achieve this. The premier said, look, it’s up to you and so I went back and I went through the different applications and I thought, you know, what are my options.
I spoke to the mayor of Delta and it became apparent that it really would not fly, despite, you know, knowing that it was a good application, it was not going to fly. Richmond also would not work, that left me with the two in Burnaby and so I looked at the two of them and neither one is particularly good, one is a friend of the premier’s and one has a very poor score in comparison to the other. If I were to do –- and if I were to do one of those two it would be the higher scoring of the two, at the same time I knew that Burnaby was opposed to it and, you know, I don’t have many choices here, I’ve got not very good options.
So I figured, well, if I approve the Luu application then the questions are going to be well, this is the lowest scoring one so why that one, and I decided okay if I approve the other one what will be the effect of myself doing that, if I approve it as is, it’s a friend of the premier and the City of Burnaby is opposed to it, so that’s going to cause a lot of problems right there, if I make it clear to Burnaby that the rezoning is up to them that sends a very clear signal to them that I’m not forcing this on them, that this is an application progress, it still has a long way to go but, you know, if they decide not to zone it then it doesn’t get zoned. At the same time I also know that it’s a friend of the premier and I looked at all the different permutations and I decided that I would let it continue subject to –- give it approval in principle subject to City of Burnaby saying yes to the zoning.
And I figured a number of things would happen with that. One, I knew that Burnaby would say no. Two, I figured that, well, the premier will be able to tell his constituent that, sorry, its had consideration but Burnaby says no, it says no and he’s no longer, you know, it’s –- he’s got something he can tell his constituents. I know the ministry is going to be happy because they are –- they didn’t think it was a good application and I’m happy because it solves my problem.
Q What is your problem?
A Finding another casino in the Lower Mainland. That’s why I did it that way. I saw all the different components and I figured this solution would deal with it.
Q Do you recall, Mr. Farnworth, that you had a discussion with the mayor of Burnaby a week before or shortly before you announced approval in principle?
A Yes.
Q Was there any change in their position?
A No.
Q Now, you just went through with the court the four applications that you considered, there would be no change in Delta’s position about the Tsawwassen band’s application?
A That’s correct.
Q Did you –- from your meeting with Mr. Clark did you believe you had the support of Mr. Clark to approve Delta -– Tsawwassen without Delta’s approval?
A My sense was that Mr. Clark would support that application if you could resolve the Aboriginal issues, if you could resolve the outstanding issues, if you could resolve things with Delta and that’s how I viewed it too. In fact, I knew cabinet would view it the same way.
Q What about the Richmond application, from your discussions with Mr. Clark did you believe he would support the Richmond application?
A My sense he would support any application that I showed him there was support from the community and particularly with the Aboriginal side of things where the community and the band were together.
Q Did you think there was support from the community for the North Burnaby Inn application?
A Not as it was, no, but I felt that the option around it, it was you’re dealing with one level of government, you weren’t dealing with two, two operating levels of government.
[53] Thus, Mr. Farnworth approved the North Burnaby Inn application in spite of the unlikelihood of Burnaby changing the zoning. One reason was because he was only dealing with one level of government (Burnaby) rather than two. The First Nations bands were considered independent governments for the purpose of the casino applications. Mr. Farnworth testified that approving the North Burnaby Inn application solved his problem regarding finding another casino, however, given Burnaby’s position, it did not in fact solve anything. I find Mr. Farnworth’s reasoning in this regard illogical.
[54] In mid-August, Mr. Pilarinos and his family spent approximately a week at the Clarks’ cabin near Penticton. Mr. Clark and Mr. Pilarinos drove up together. Also staying at the cabin were Mr. and Mrs. Morrison, their son and his friend. All three families worked at the cabin and built a new deck. Mr. Pilarinos did most of the work and provided some used lumber that he brought up from Vancouver. Mr. Clark paid Mr. Pilarinos for the new lumber, but not the used lumber. The deck, which was built without a permit, took two days to substantially complete.
[55] After the police investigation, the local building inspector advised that the deck was unsafe. As a result, it had to be rebuilt. Taking this into account, the value of the work done by Mr. Pilarinos was actually next to nothing.
[56] On August 21, 1998, Dimitri Vrahnos went anonymously to the office of the opposition leader, now Premier, Gordon Campbell. Mr. Vrahnos was a friend of Mr. Pilarinos. Mr. Pilarinos had asked Mr. Vrahnos to help him fill out the casino application. Mr. Pilarinos had discussed the application with Mr. Vrahnos and had told him that Mr. Katanas was involved with the proposal.
[57] In the 1960s, Mr. Vrahnos had vigorously opposed corruption in the Greek government. He testified that he was disturbed by rumours that Mr. Pilarinos was receiving assistance from Glen Clark to move his casino application through the government process. Needless to say, this evidence is not admissible for the truth of its contents against either accused. As a result of hearing these rumours, Mr. Vrahnos spoke to Mr. Pilarinos and told him to stop involving Mr. Clark. Mr. Vrahnos also advised Mr. Pilarinos to end his involvement with Mr. Katanas.
[58] When Mr. Vrahnos learned that Mr. Pilarinos had not severed his relationship with Mr. Katanas, he decided to go to the Liberal Party and relate the rumours he had heard, as well as the information told to him by Mr. Pilarinos. Mr. Vrahnos spoke with Rachel Barkey, who worked for Mr. Campbell, on three occasions in August and September, 1998. She reported the information to the police. Mr. Vrahnos, however, wished to remain anonymous.
[59] In October 1998, Mark Everitt received word from his superior, Rick Saville, via Minister Farnworth’s office that the North Burnaby Inn application was being considered for approval-in-principle. GAIO then began its investigation of the proponents, which quickly unearthed a possible connection to organized crime. This concern was passed on from Mark Everitt to Rick Saville. Mr. Saville advised Mark MacKinnon of the Gaming Policy Secretariat that there were serious concerns regarding the application, but did not go into detail. Mr. MacKinnon testified that on more than one occasion he advised two of Minister Farnworth’s assistants that GAIO had serious concerns regarding this application. Minister Farnworth testified that he was never advised of these concerns. Neither of Mr. Farnworth’s ministerial assistants testified. Registration was refused by GAIO, but not until April 28, 1999. Thus, regardless of the approval-in-principle or what might have occurred in terms of the zoning or a change in venue, Mr. Ng and Mr. Pilarinos would never have received a casino licence.
[60] In early December, Mr. Farnworth met with Mr. Pietro Calendino, who was the MLA for North Burnaby. Mr. Calendino opposed a casino at the North Burnaby Inn. Mr. Farnworth suggested that Mr. Calendino talk to Mr. Luu (the proponent at the Halifax Street location) and Mr. Ng and Mr. Pilarinos about joining together on an application.
[61] On December 17, 1998, the North Burnaby Inn application received approval-in-principle, subject to zoning approval by the City of Burnaby. It had not received GAIO approval. Approval-in-principle without GAIO's endorsement was highly unusual.
[62] Mr. Farnworth testified that if the Luu application had received the higher score, he would have approved the Luu application.
[63] On December 18, 1998, Mr. Farnworth was at the barber when he received a call from an angry and upset Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark was upset that the approvals of the casinos had been announced as he was under the impression that the applications had to return to Cabinet. Mr. Farnworth told Mr. Clark he did not tell him about the approvals-in-principle because Mr. Clark had told him he did not want to be involved.
[64] After approval-in-principle was granted, Mr. Ng and Mr. Pilarinos commenced inquiries to see if they could move the location of their casino as a means of addressing the zoning issue. They began dealing with Derrick Luu, the other Burnaby proponent, who had been refused approval-in-principle. Mr. Luu’s location on Halifax Street was zoned for a casino, and a deal was struck to sell Mr. Luu’s property to Mr. Ng and Mr. Pilarinos for $3 million. They also obtained the assistance and support of Mr. Calendino, the MLA for North Burnaby.
[65] Around this time, Mr. Pilarinos began going to Mr. Clark’s house on a frequent basis. Mr. and Mrs. Clark confirmed the repeated contact and it was also observed by police surveillance. Mr. Clark was also seen going to Mr. Pilarinos’ home.
[66] Mr. Clark and Mr. Farnworth had a further meeting in January 1999. Mr. Clark denies that this meeting occurred. However, Mr. Farnworth testified that Mr. Clark told him that his constituent was “bugging him” because he could not move. In his statement to the police, Mr. Clark said that Mr. Pilarinos was agitated and was phoning him a lot. He told the police that Mr. Pilarinos, “started to bug me”. Mr. Farnworth could only have learned about Mr. Pilarinos’ conduct from Mr. Clark. I accept Mr. Farnworth’s evidence and recollection of this meeting. I find as a fact that there was a meeting and that the North Burnaby Inn application was discussed. I am aware of the fact that Mr. Farnworth did not recall this meeting when he first was interviewed by the police.
[67] Mr. Farnworth suggested that Mr. Clark tell Mr. Pilarinos to send him a letter setting out what he wanted to do regarding a move and that Mr. Farnworth would submit it to the Ministry and see what developed from there. Mr. Clark agreed with this approach. Mr. Farnworth testified, “I did not feel under any pressure. I didn’t feel uncomfortable. I felt that what was done was the appropriate thing”.
[68] Mr. Clark did tell Mr. Pilarinos to write a letter to Minister Farnworth requesting a change of venue, but his recollection is that the letter was his idea. This letter was sent on January 25, 1999.
[69] Mr. Farnworth received the letter on January 27, 1998, and set it aside for a few days before he sent it on to his staff. He felt the tone was a little presumptuous because it set out the steps they had taken to facilitate a move, rather than first ask for permission.
[70] On February 10, Mr. Clark received what has been called the “Karmelita fax”, sent anonymously by Mr. Vrahnos, which warned him of a police investigation arising from his association with Mr. Pilarinos and the application for the casino. Mr. Clark asked Mr. George Ford, who was the head of the Civil Service, to investigate the allegations.
[71] The request of Mr. Ng and Mr. Pilarinos to move had been referred to Mark MacKinnon. Mr. MacKinnon concluded that the proponents should not be allowed to change the venue under the RFP process. He was concerned about the Luu and Ng/Pilarinos applications fusing.
[72] Mr. Ford discussed the application to move with Mr. MacKinnon. Mr. MacKinnon, who is also a lawyer, testified that he was under no pressure from Mr. Ford. Each application to move under the RFP was considered on an individual basis. One application in Wells had been granted permission to move while another application in Campbell River was refused.
[73] A letter denying the request of Mr. Ng and Mr. Pilarinos to change the venue of the casino was sent on February 17, 1999, just before Mr. Ng and Mr. Pilarinos were required to give Derrick Luu a substantial non-refundable deposit for the purchase of the Halifax Street site.
[74] Although the RCMP had been aware of the anonymous allegations reported by Ms. Barkey, nothing was done until the approval-in-principle was granted on December 17, 1998. At this point an investigation commenced, and the police attempted to learn the identity of the person who visited Ms. Barkey.
[75] Mr. Vrahnos had sent an anonymous letter to the Vancouver Sun newspaper when he learned of the approval-in-principle. This letter was forwarded to GAIO by a Sun reporter, Rick Ousten. Steve Letts, who headed GAIO, brought this letter to the attention of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Quantz. Mr. Quantz appointed a special prosecutor to review the case.
[76] Mr. Vrahnos was identified and interviewed by the RCMP in early February. Electronic and physical surveillance of Mr. Pilarinos and others was conducted from January to early March 1999. Search warrants were executed on March 2, 1999 on the home and office of Mr. Clark, Mr. Pilarinos, Mr. Ng and Mr. Katanas.
[77] Throughout the trial, there was evidence that a Burnaby City Councillor, Jim Young, was also involved in the casino application. It was alleged that he would receive a share of the casino if he assisted in moving the casino application through the hurdles it would face at City Council. There were a number of meetings between Mr. Young and Mr. Pilarinos which were observed by the RCMP surveillance team and one meeting, held in the Blue Button Club, was recorded.
Evidence Relating to Dimitrios Pilarinos
[78] Most of the evidence implicating Mr. Pilarinos is found in the wiretap evidence, seized documents and the evidence of Dimitri Vrahnos. I add parenthetically that, unless otherwise noted, the evidence of Mr. Vrahnos, the conversations recorded on the wiretap and seized documents as between individuals other than Mr. Clark, are not admissible against Mr. Clark for the truth of their contents.
[79] Mr. Pilarinos called one witness, Douglas McLean, a former police officer with an expertise in photography. Photos were taken of the area around Mr. Clark’s home in an effort to demonstrate that some of the police surveillance officers could not have seen what they claimed to have seen. The photos were taken in May 2002, three years and several months after the police observations, which were made in January and February of 1999. The foliage on the trees and the size of the trees would naturally differ between the two periods of time. Further, what is shown in a photograph in terms of distance, perception, detail and size of the subject is quite different from what can be seen while at the scene. Niagara Falls is quite different in real life than in a photograph. I did not find the photos helpful.
[80] The Crown did not call Steve Ng, Jim Young or Paschos Katanas at trial. None of these men gave their version of events.
[81] As noted above, Mr. Vrahnos was a friend of Mr. Pilarinos. They had known each other since the early 1980s. Mr. Pilarinos, Mr. Katanas and Mr. Vrahnos are all from Greece.
[82] In 1992, Mr. Vrahnos bought a home in east Vancouver. While it is not clear who moved in first, Mr. Pilarinos and a number of his relatives also had homes within a short walk of each other in the same neighbourhood. During the mid-1990s, Mr. Vrahnos saw Mr. Pilarinos often.
[83] The evidence of Mr. Vrahnos is attacked on two bases. First, the defence argues that he is not a credible witness. Mr. Vrahnos clearly dislikes Mr. Katanas and was strongly opposed to his involvement in the casino business. The defence points to an incident in late June 1998 when Mr. Vrahnos was ejected from the Lumbermen’s Social Club. Mr. Vrahnos complained to the police about this incident, but his complaint was not taken seriously. Mr. Katanas was not present when Mr. Vrahnos was ejected from the Club, and there is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Katanas had anything to do with the conduct of his employee, other than by virtue of his ownership of the Club. I find that Mr. Vrahnos was not motivated to lie by the incident at the Lumbermen’s Social Club. Mr. Vrahnos stated other reasons for his dislike of Mr. Katanas. Mr. Vrahnos was told that Mr. Katanas was running an illegal gambling operation and that he was laundering money. Mr. Vrahnos referred to Mr. Katanas as a “gangster”. This evidence is hearsay as Mr. Vrahnos heard it from someone else. It is not admissible for the truth of its contents, but is admissible to demonstrate his state of mind and therefore the motivation behind his actions.
[84] A review of Mr. Vrahnos’ evidence demonstrates that although his information was occasionally factually wrong, his evidence was corroborated on a significant number of points. I will review some of the important evidence and relate the corroborative evidence where it exists.
[85] There is no doubt that Mr. Pilarinos often spoke to Mr. Vrahnos and told him many things about his casino application. I find that Mr. Vrahnos is an honest and credible witness. This finding of honesty does not necessarily lead to proof beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to each count on the indictment. Needless to say, the whole of the evidence must be considered and weighed before coming to a final conclusion.
[86] Mr. Vrahnos testified that Mr. Pilarinos told him that he had formed a partnership with two other people and they were applying for a casino licence. He told him that the partners were Paskalis (another name for Mr. Katanas) and Mr. Ng. The evidence obviously supports that Mr. Pilarinos and Mr. Ng applied for a casino licence. Further, the original incorporation documents of 545738 B.C. Ltd. listing Mr. Katanas as a shareholder, a partially completed Appendix G in Mr. Katanas’ name found by the police (Ex. 62-39), and surveillance observations, faxes and Mr. Pilarinos’ conversations recorded in the wiretap corroborate the evidence that “Paskalis” was also a partner in the casino application.
[87] Mr. Pilarinos asked Mr. Vrahnos to review the application. It is not entirely clear when Mr. Vrahnos reviewed the application; however, there can be no doubt that he did review it and that he saw it more than once. He described the RFP application in considerable and accurate detail. He also recalled seeing a letter from a woman who was to be involved in the casino operation. See Ex. 59-1, which is the proposal and Ex. 61A-9, which is a letter from Janet Fraser who was to be employed to run the casino. Mr. Vrahnos was aware of the details of both of these documents. I am also satisfied that Mr. Vrahnos saw at least one earlier draft of the proposal.
[88] Mr. Pilarinos told Mr. Vrahnos that he was receiving help from a councillor in Burnaby. The surveillance, the wiretap evidence and the conversation recorded at the Blue Button Club strongly suggest that Mr. Young was assisting Mr. Pilarinos in some manner with the casino application.
[89] Mr. Pilarinos told Mr. Vrahnos that his lawyer withdrew because of a conflict of interest with the government, which was true. Mr. Pilarinos showed Mr. Vrahnos the letter of withdrawal.
[90] Mr. Pilarinos told Mr. Vrahnos that the group went to a meeting in Victoria and brought their lawyer and accountant. This also is accurate.
[91] Mr. Pilarinos told Mr. Vrahnos that the location of the casino at the North Burnaby Inn was a problem and they were looking at other locations, including Metrotown. The North Burnaby Inn location was not acceptable to the City of Burnaby. Real estate documents relating to a Metrotown location were seized from Mr. Pilarinos. Mr. Clark also mentioned Metrotown in his July 1998 meeting with Mr. Farnworth. Mr. Clark said that Mr. Pilarinos had mentioned Metrotown in connection with his casino application.
[92] Some things that Mr. Pilarinos reported to Mr. Vrahnos were not accurate. For example, Mr. Pilarinos told Mr. Vrahnos that Glen Clark had arranged a meeting in Victoria. In fact, all the proponents attended a meeting. Mr. Pilarinos said that Mr. Katanas had a criminal record but no criminal record was uncovered.
[93] Mr. Pilarinos told Mr. Vrahnos that Mr. Katanas once had a licence for a gambling facility but got into difficulty with someone involved in licencing whose name began with “Mc” or “Mac”. Mr. Katanas previously had a licence for a social club, but his licence was revoked when it was apparent that illegal gambling was occurring on the premises. Although Mark MacKinnon was the Executive Director of the Gaming Policy Secretariat, the person who dealt with Mr. Katanas and was involved in the revocation of his licence was Mr. Saville.
[94] Mr. Vrahnos testified that Mr. Pilarinos told him his and Derrick Luu’s scores on their respective applications. Mr. Vrahnos could not recall Mr. Pilarinos' score, but recalled that it was under 90, and that he had rounded it up to 90. He said that the Luu application scored 40. The scores, Mr. Vrahnos said, were either out of 150 or the applications had to receive 150 points. Two weeks after Mr. Pilarinos told Mr. Vrahnos the scores, Mr. Vrahnos told Rachel Barkey, Gordon Campbell’s assistant, that Mr. Pilarinos’ score was 87. He told Ms. Barkey that the Luu application received between 40-50. Mr. Vrahnos testified that he was trying to be accurate when he talked to Ms. Barkey, but he did not recall exactly what he said to her. The conversation with Ms. Barkey is not admissible as past recollection recorded because it is not close enough in time to the original statement. It is, however, circumstantial evidence that Mr. Pilarinos told Mr. Vrahnos his knowledge of the scores prior to August 21, 1998.
[95] A news release was found in documents seized from Mr. Pilarinos. On the news release, which stated which proposals were still being reviewed, the number 87 was noted beside the North Burnaby Inn proposal and 52 beside Derek Luu’s proposal. [Ex. 59-11]. The North Burnaby Inn proposal in fact scored 88 out of a possible 190 points or 46%. Derek Luu’s proposal scored 5