Says commissioner Vennard conducted herself inappropriately, too
TORONTO – In a judicial review application filed with the Federal Court on Tuesday, former Ontario regional CRTC commissioner Raj Shoan alleges institutional bigotry within the Commission as part of the justifications why his firing should be reversed.
Documents filed by Shoan also say a serious complaint against another commissioner, Alberta and NWT commissioner Linda Vennard, was swept aside and that shows an unfair inconsistency in how staff complaints about the two commissioners have been treated.
He also seeks an immediate stay of the Order-in-Council which rescinded his appointment, so he can return to his job immediately, at least until federal court Justice Russell Zinn issues his decision on the federal court case brought by Shoan which was heard June 21st in Toronto.
As readers will be aware, Shoan was relieved of his duties as CRTC commissioner for cause last week. (A full rundown of the Order-in-Council can be found here).
The unprecedented decision to remove a commissioner in the middle of his term came two days after a judicial review which Shoan brought against CRTC chairman Jean-Pierre Blais over a 2015 finding of workplace harassment against Shoan was heard at federal court in Toronto. We covered that here. Shoan has two other pending cases against Blais as well, which we wrote about here and here.
This latest application for judicial review takes aim at Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly’s decisions as well as the CRTC chairman and also brings to light allegations Shoan says he discovered which involve inappropriate comments made to and about staff by Vennard.
We’ll tackle that last part first.
In a letter to the Minister sent June 14, 2016 which he filed as part of his latest application, Shoan says certain CRTC staffers approached him on condition of anonymity with claims of “inappropriate conduct” from Vennard, who was appointed CRTC commissioner in May of 2015.
“These individuals were adamant in the need for confidentiality as they fear reprisal from the Chairperson and certain senior staff within the Commission. Furthermore, given my previously stated concerns respecting institutional bigotry and bias at the highest levels of the CRTC, these individuals felt compelled to inform me of this situation,” reads Shoan’s letter. He added that because commissioner Vennard and chairman Blais have a good relationship, they feared bringing their concerns to the chair.
While Shoan makes clear he was not party to the formal complaint and never saw one, he wrote to the Minister saying Vennard’s former executive assistant allegedly made the following claims (his letter stresses he did not hear about this from commissioner Vennard’s former EA, Margot Anderson):
- “Commissioner Vennard repeatedly and habitually referred to Ms. Anderson as 'maggot';
- Commissioner Vennard was critical and demonstrated disrespect of her colleagues in the following instances:
- She referred to the Commissioner for Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Candice Molnar, as a 'scraggly hag’;
- She referred to me, the Commissioner for Ontario, as a 'spoiled rich brown kid who probably grew up with servants';
- Commissioner Vennard, on at least one instance, requested to change hotels whilst on Commission-sanctioned travel because ‘there were too many black people’ there.
“Others employed by the CRTC have informed me that, on at least one occasion, after meeting with ethnic broadcasters in her office, Commissioner Vennard complained that it 'smelled like curry',” reads Shoan’s June 14 letter to the Minister.
Further, Shoan said he then found out that while there may have been an internal investigation conducted within the CRTC after the complaint was filed, he’s unaware of whether one was completed and that Vennard’s assistant has since retired from the Commission, “having received a rumoured substantial settlement. There is no indication that Ms Vennard will be sanctioned in any way by the Chairperson respecting her conduct,” reads the letter.
Shoan’s correspondence also refers back to the investigator’s report in his initial judicial review filed over the workplace harassment finding against him where he said then: “I noted that ‘the latent bigotry of senior staff predisposes them to negatively viewing the respondent’s behaviour without considering a more reasoned and rational interpretation’.”
In a response to Shoan’s June 14th letter, Joly’s office told Shoan they shared his letter with chairman Blais and that he should take up the matter with the chairman himself.
Shoan’s court filing yesterday also made public the February 26th letter sent to him by Minister Joly which said his appointment as CRTC commissioner was under review – as well as his lawyer’s March 14th response to her. Minister Joly told him her concerns boil down to four things: that he has made public, negative statements about the CRTC through his Twitter account; his decision to file publicly, including the names of all involved, what was an internal confidential investigator’s report which found he had committed workplace harassment; inappropriate contact with CRTC stakeholders; and the overall affect his actions have had on the internal operations of the CRTC.
“(T)hese concerns build on earlier ones about actions that have had a negative impact on the CRTC's internal well-being. An independent third-party investigation into allegations of harassment made against you by an employee of the CRTC found that the complaint had merit and listed five findings of harassment. You were found to have harassed an employee in a manner that included undermining her credibility with her superiors and staff, humiliating her in front of colleagues and subjecting other CRTC staff to your aggressive behaviour,” reads the Minister’s February letter to then-commissioner Shoan.
“On July 17, 2015, my predecessor wrote to you indicating that, in her opinion, you had brought no new evidence that was contrary to the conclusions of the report. At that time, she told you that all information related to this matter remained under active consideration and encouraged you to conduct your affairs in a professional and respectful manner. It is of particular concern that your conduct continues to show a lack of respect for the principles of collegiality, that you have publicly disparaged the CRTC including the manner in which the Chairperson exercises his authority, and that you continue to challenge senior staff whose advice and views support those of the Chairperson.
“Taken together, these incidents call into question your capacity to serve as a Commissioner of the CRTC. There is evidence from which to infer that your conduct has had a negative impact on the collegiality necessary for a good working relationship among staff and members of the CRTC as well as a negative impact on the public confidence and trust in the objectivity and impartiality of the Commission, all of which tends to undermine the effective functioning of the CRTC.”
Shoan used his March letter to respond to each of her four concerns – and all of this was fodder for his affidavit filed this week in support of his application for judicial review.
“While I was happy to address my conduct with the Ms. Joly, there were a number of aspects of her initial correspondence that caused me a considerable amount of disquiet. Firstly, it was apparent that Ms. Joly had received all of her information directly from the Chairperson of the CRTC, himself… This was concerning given that my three previous judicial reviews were, in large measure, an examination of the conduct and decision-making of the Chairperson, himself,” reads his affidavit.
“She was not seeking objective explanations of my behaviour; it was apparent she had already concluded the inquiry and was asking for reasons not to terminate my appointment. At the outset, the discussion was framed with an obvious bias from the very beginning.” Raj Shoan
“The Chairperson had a vested interest, in my view, in presenting a version of events that was critical of me and in no way impugned his own character.
“…This was borne out in Ms. Joly's letter insofar that her arguments were entirely one-sided and lacking any semblance of balance, neutrality or objective reasoning. She was not seeking objective explanations of my behaviour; it was apparent she had already concluded the inquiry and was asking for reasons not to terminate my appointment. At the outset, the discussion was framed with an obvious bias from the very beginning,” Shoan added in his filing.
There are also a number of items both in Shoan’s March letter to the Minister and his affidavit which refer to confidential materials sent to Shoan by the Minister in her February dispatch. Those materials are not included nor fully explained by the court filing. For example, when the Minister’s letter speaks of Shoan’s “inappropriate contact” with CRTC stakeholders, it’s only apparent from his response she was speaking of meetings he had with radio consultant Chris Byrnes and Shomi SVP and GM David Asch. Shoan disputes the Minister’s and CRTC chairman Blais’ assertions that the meetings were offside and a conflict of interest.
There is also a claim made that Shoan refused to co-operate with a CRTC Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) request, but Shoan’s filing yesterday does not spell out exactly what that request was – but it’s apparent it was part of the materials which came to him with the Minister’s February letter.
His disputed activity on Twitter referred to his tweets directing followers to statements about his judicial review applications against the CRTC chair.
As for Joly’s statement in her letter that Shoan is unwilling to work constructively with Blais, “the affidavit evidence supplied to the Minister clearly indicated that it was the Chair who refused to work with me,” reads his latest affidavit.
The Minister’s letter showed, Shoan continues in his affidavit, “for the first time, it was apparent to me the full extent of the campaign of misinformation that the Chairperson was attempting to spread at senior levels of the federal public service in relation to me. Much of the information that was provided to Ms. Joly was factually incorrect or consisted of half-truths or misrepresentations of CRTC policies and procedures. Moreover, his efforts were not restricted to Ms. Joly alone,” he wrote.
Chairman Blais, reads Shoan’s affidavit, corresponded with several high ranking government officials where “the Chairperson demonstrated his ongoing negative animus towards me with the following statements:
- “That I have engaged in 'high risk' and sometimes 'inappropriate contacts' with stakeholders, despite evidence to the contrary;
- That I 'disproportionately' bring attention to my dissenting or concurring opinions, without defining his arbitrary threshold for `disproportionate';
- That I fail to place the interest of my office and the institution ahead of my personal needs;
- Falsely claiming that it took my counsel over month to comply with a limited confidentiality order that was obtained on consent;
- Stating that I alone, in what he characterized in writing as 'my world', held some `divorced from reality' notion of 'The Truth', which he capitalized;
- That I am attempting to 'create a wedge' between CRTC employees and senior management; and
- That I am defamatory to the CRTC staff and the Chairperson.”
Shoan’s affidavit also claims chairman Blais suggested to another member of the Commission that Shoan was a drug user and that he may have a “serious personality disorder.”
The former Ontario commissioner insists that all the actions he has taken so far have not been to denigrate the Commission as the Minister suggested, but to protect it from a chair who Shoan believes is expanding his role beyond what Parliament intends and he added that with his removal as commissioner, thanks to the chairman, his career is in tatters.
Shoan’s “public ‘execution’ no doubt cast serious doubts, particularly with potential employers in an industry that is regulated by the CRTC — the very tribunal from which he was terminated allegedly for cause,” reads his filing.
None of this has been proved in court and when we asked for comment from the CRTC, they referred us to the Department of Canadian Heritage whose spokesman told us it would be inappropriate to comment because the matter is before the courts.
