Libel suit hangs over Richmond Hill council; Beros offers to settle
Sexual harassment allegation by staffer ‘dead issue’: Beros

yorkregion.com
June 29, 2016
By Kim Zarzour

Richmond Hill Councillor Greg Beros appears willing to let bygones be bygones when it comes to how the town dealt with allegations of sexual harassment against him.

The Ward 1 councillor launched a judicial review application and threatened to bring a defamation lawsuit against the town and fellow members of council after he took issue with an investigation into complaints made against him by a former town employee.

The allegations, made by a former staff member in September 2014, accused Beros of engaging, over a period of four years that she worked at the town, in a “pattern of sexual harassment and abusive conduct” towards her, according to court documents obtained by The Liberal.

The town appointed external investigator Jennifer Wootton Regan to conduct a workplace investigation into the complaints and in April 2015, Regan issued a final report concluding “it was more likely than not” Beros had “engaged in conduct amounting to sexual harassment and abusive conduct”.

Beros filed a judicial review application, arguing that the investigation was not done properly or in a fair manner towards him. The investigator had refused to provide details on the sexual harassment allegations, Beros said, and without those details, he was not willing to be interviewed by the investigator.

“The investigator’s attempt to have Mr. Beros attend an interview without first having complete knowledge of the allegations was an attempt to test his credibility while hearing allegations for the first time,” his court application documents state. “Such tactic constitutes an ambush and demonstrates the investigator’s presumption of guilt of Mr. Beros.”

According to the Divisional Court documents, Beros’ judicial review application seeks to quash the workplace investigation report by Regan and quash the town’s decisions in the post-investigation process, denying Beros’ request to appeal the findings to the town CAO and re-open the investigation.

According to the town’s lawyer, Charles Loopstra, Beros was provided with sufficient details of the allegations in order to submit to an interview.

‘BEROS’ ACTIONS STRATEGIC’

“There was no legal basis for his refusal, and the town was prepared to argue in court that the process was completely fair,” he said. “There are no rules about conducting investigations. Mr. Beros’ actions were mostly strategic.”

Mr. Loopstra also stated that in his opinion, the judicial review application brought by Beros had no merit and the town was fully prepared to defend its position.

“It was Mr. Beros who decided he didn’t want to proceed with the application for a judicial determination. This left a number of legal issues in limbo and required a resolution,” Loopstra said.

Beros was also seeking to quash a decision by the town to levy punitive sanctions against him, prohibiting him from accessing all areas of the town offices where employees perform work unless accompanied by a superior, and to quash a decision to refer the matter to the integrity commissioner.

On receiving the investigator’s report last July, councillors asked Beros to participate in anti-harassment training programs.

They also voted to refer the issue to the integrity commissioner - but that step failed.

Because the report by the other investigator was completed without interviewing Beros, integrity commissioner Nigel Bellchambers said it was based on a “balance of probabilities”. While he was not disputing the report by the other investigator, he said a fresh investigation was necessary.

That second investigation, however, never got off the ground because the original complainant did not respond to requests for an interview.

The whole thing reared its head again this week at the start of council’s meeting Monday night with a surprising move by all councillors, including Beros, to declare a pecuniary interest on an in-camera item.

It was, according to town spokesperson Meeta Gandhi, the first time this has happened in this term of council.

On council since 1994, Regional Councillor Brenda Hogg said it’s the first such situation in 22 years.

According to Beros, he was making an offer to end the judicial review, and his fellow councillors - with a potential personal interest in the outcome of the matter - were likely concerned they would be exposing themselves to pecuniary conflict of interest.

“I’m only speculating, but because they were named personally in a libel and slander suit, one could argue that if they were to consider an offer it would be relieving them personally of future litigation,” Beros said in an interview Tuesday.

Council voted to retain solicitor Loopsta - who was also retained to oppose the judicial review - to ask the courts to relieve them of pecuniary interest on the item.

“It is my opinion this is now a dead issue,” Beros told The Liberal. “I’m just here saying ‘let’s stop all this’ and I’ve put an offer forward.”

While he would not discuss any pending defamation lawsuit, Beros said the “issue from the perspective of what the original allegations were is dead. That ship has sailed. Now it’s just lawyers making money.

‘BIG LOSER IS TAXPAYER’

“Right now the big loser in all of this is the taxpayer, because as this thing is stretched out, they’re paying legal fees. They paid for the integrity commissioner to do a bunch of stuff, they paid for other lawyers for the judicial review, it’s unfortunate.

“There is an offer on how to end this whole thing,” he added.

“It’s just in the best interests of everyone right now that this be put to bed.”

Loopstra confirmed that he will be asking the court to deal with the conflicts situation created by the Beros offer to settle all outstanding legal issues.

He would not comment on the terms of the offer, but stated that it is up to council to decide whether to accept it.

The matter will come back before council once the conflicts issue is resolved.