Defendants file response to Fire District civil suit

Derek Kilbourn

Sounder News

A response has been filed by the defendants in the civil suit filed by Dr. Matthew Dow, former Corporate Officer for the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District (GFPID).

The Fire Board, Board Chair Paul Giffin, and Fire Chief Will Sprogis are named as defendants in the suit, along with an as-of-yet-unidentified John Doe.

The notice of claim for Dow’s suit was filed on March 18, 2025. None of the claims have yet been tested in court. No date had been set for a court date as of press time.

In the response, the defendants deny each and every allegation contained in the Notice of Civil Claim except where specifically admitted in their response, and put the Plaintiff to strict proof of same.

According to the Defendants response, there was no bullying, harassment, or use of offensive language against Dr. Dow.

The defendants also say that beyond the shredding of a draft timesheet, there was no shredding of GFPID documents by the Fire Chief.

The response to the claim outlines a pattern – according to the defendants, that Dr. Dow’s actions while employed were substandard, that he was confrontational with the board members, the board chair, and the Fire Chief, all of whom were in a supervisory role for Dow.

According to the defendants, it was after a performance review in March 2025 that the board voted unanimously to terminate Dow’s employment.

The defendants – excepting John Doe – are all represented by Cheryl Rea, with the Calgary law firm Stikeman Elliott LLP, as counsel.

The response from the defendants states the following:

On April 10, 2024, the Plaintiff, Matthew Dow (Dow) commenced employment with the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District in the position of Corporate Officer / Administrative Secretary pursuant to an employment agreement dated April 8, 2024. In accordance with the Employment Agreement, Dow expressly reported to the Fire Chief of the Gabriola Volunteer Fire Department, will Sprogis, and the GFPID Board of Trustees.

In accordance with the Employment Agreement, Dow was required to “diligently, honestly and faithfully serve the District and use [his] best efforts for promote the interests and goodwill of the District” and to “conduct [himself] at all times in a manner that is not prejudicial to the District’s interests”. Further, a job description appended to the Employment Agreement as Appendix “A” set out the specific duties and responsibilities of the Corporate Officer / Administrative Secretary, all of which were expressly “under the Board’s supervision”.

More specifically, the role of Corporate Officer / Administrative Secretary was “to assist the Trustees of the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District (GFPID) and the Fire Chief of the Gabriola Volunteer Fire Department (GVFD) in carrying out their administrative duties and responsibilities” and did not have any managerial duties.

As noted above, and contrary to paragraphs 13 and 16 of the Civil Claim, the Employment Agreement clearly and expressly stated that the position of Corporate Officer / Administrative Secretary, reported to the Fire Chief (in addition to the Board) and, accordingly, by necessary implication was subordinate to the Fire Chief. While Policy #23-05, shows both the Fire Chief and Corporate Officer reporting to the Chair of the Board, that policy does not address the Administrative Secretary portion of the role.

While GFPID does not directly employ human resources staff, GFPID contracted the services of an HR Consultant, Steph Lyster, to provide the Board and GVFD advice and assistance regarding HR matters. At no time was Ms. Lyster engaged by or on behalf of either the Chair of the Board, Paul Giffin (“Mr. Giffin”) nor Chief Sprogis. As the Chair of the Board and Fire Chief respectively, however, both Mr. Giffin and Chief Sprogis consulted with Ms. Lyster from time to time in respect of human resources issues under their purview. Moreover, contrary to the statement in the Civil Claim, GFPID has a Code of Conduct which sets out the standards of behaviour that the Trustees are expected to abide by.

GFPID vigorously denies that there is or was culture of intimidation and hostility within the GFPID or GVFD. Further, Mr. Sprogis denies that he engaged in unprofessional conduct toward, or bullying and harassment of, any individuals within GFPID and GVFD at any time. Moreover, despite Dow’s allegations that he observed unprofessional conduct or bullying or harassment by Mr. Sprogis towards a number of individuals within GFPID and GVFD, Dow did not inform the Board or any other individual at the GFPID or GVFD of Chief Sprogis’ alleged conduct until December 23, 2024.

To the contrary, on September 3, 2024, Dow emailed Chief Sprogis, stating that he had heard there was a bullying and harassment committee and/or paperwork and indicating that he wanted to “formally submit a complaint against the Trustees”, including Mr. Giffin. Subsequently, Chief Sprogis met with Dow in person regarding the complaint, at which time Dow indicated that he did not want to do anything, but simply wanted it on record.

Mr. Giffin denies that he yelled at or directed offensive language at Dow on October 8, 2024 or on any other occasion. Further Mr. Giffin and Chief Sprogis deny confronting Dow and demanding that Dow apologize to Mr. Giffin on October 10, 2024, or at any other time. Rather, in October 2024, Mr. Giffin, having been made aware of Dow’s complaint, and Chief Sprogis had a discussion with Dow regarding his concerns as set out in the September 3, 2024 email. During that discussion, Mr. Giffin asked Dow to provide specific examples of the conduct he was complaining of, which Dow was unable to provide. It was in that context that Mr. Giffin stated that, if Dow could not provide any examples of conduct to support his allegations of bullying and Dow’s duties and responsibilities as related to financial matters was limited by the Employment Agreement to:

(a) Maintaining, in association with the District’s Accountant, an accurate and orderly system of bookkeeping of all financial transactions;

(b) Preparing financial statements as required by the Trustees;

(c) Preparing, in association with the District’s Accountant, the necessary financial statements required at the Annual General Meeting or other meetings as directed by the Trustees; and

(d) Paying all bills as promptly as possible.

Furthermore, under the Local Government Act (“LGA”) the officer position assigned responsibility for financial administration, had the following powers, duties and functions:

(a) receiving all money paid to the improvement district;

(b) ensuring the keeping of all funds and securities of the improvement district;

(c) expending and disbursing money in the manner authorized by the improvement district board;

(d) investing funds, until required, in investments under section 697 (4) [authority equivalent to municipal investment authority];

(e) ensuring that accurate records and full accounts of the financial affairs of the improvement district are prepared, maintained and kept safe; and

(f) compiling and supplying information on the financial affairs of the improvement district required by the inspector.

At no time did Dow have any responsibility for or authority to conduct investigations into financial matters, including any alleged financial irregularities, pursuant to either the Employment Agreement or the LGA

Furthermore, the LGA does not provide either the officer position assigned responsibility for financial administration or the officer position assigned responsibility for corporate administration with authority over employment or personnel issues of the district. Similarly the duties and responsibilities of the Corporate Officer / Administrative Secretary role as set out in the Employment Agreement did not provide for any responsibility for human resources or personnel issues. Consequently, and in accordance privacy legislation and the Operational Guidelines of the GVFD on Bullying and Harassment, all personnel issues, including any complaints from firefighters regarding Chief Sprogis and investigations into same were confidential and not within the purview of Corporate Officer / Administrative Secretary.

On December 9, 2024, Carol Waldo emailed Dow in his capacity as Corporate Officer, requesting that he forward a message to the Trustees. That email communicated to the Trustees that Ms. Waldo had become aware that at least one fire department member had been submitting timesheets to the GVFD for periods when they were also being paid by BC Ambulance, and asking for the Trustees’ attention to the matter. Dow was not request or directed by the Board to take any further action with respect to Ms. Waldo’s concerns and, in fact, Mr. Giffin reached out directly to Ms. Waldo regarding her concerns on behalf of the Board.

Without the Board’s knowledge, on December 11, 2024, only two days after communicating the payroll concerns to Board and before the Board had a chance to address the matter, Dow wrote to the Inspector of Municipalities (blind carbon copying a member of the public, Wayne Mercier) seeking assistance with allegations of payroll fraud.

Dow subsequently admitted, during meeting with the Board on March 7, 2025, that he had contacted the Inspector of Municipalities regarding the alleged fraud before the Board had a chance to address the concerns. Moreover on December 23, 2024, in response to the Board’s request for further information regarding Dow’s bullying and harassment complaint, Dow stated “My first complaint of payroll irregularities must be dealt with properly, or I may be legally obliged to seek resolution outside of the organization in order to fulfill my responsibilities to the District”, knowing full well he had already communicated the issue to the Inspector of Municipalities.

At no time did Chief Sprogis communicate to Dow that payroll irregularities were outside of his scope of responsibilities. Rather, the December 11, 2024 email from Chief Sprogis stated, “private employee matters are outside the scope of your role and responsibilities”.

Chief Sprogis also remined (sic) Dow that employee performance issues were private and confidential, and requested that Dow ensure that the documentation Dow had accessed regarding employee performance issues remained confidential. Further, Chief Sprogis’ statement that the “matter has been internally resolved, including all payroll concerns” was made in the context that private employee matter, and not in respect of Dow’s allegations of payroll irregularities more generally.

Chief Sprogis denies that he demanded Dow give him his cellphone so he could read text messages between Dow and Glenys Bussler. To the contrary, Dow put his cellphone in Chief Sprogis’ face to show that he had not been texting Ms. Bussler. Chief Sprogis further denies that he demanded that Dow advise him of private conversations that had or may occur with Ms. Bussler; threatened Dow with “serious consequences”; used physical proximity, glaring and a raised voice; or took away Dow’s key to the filing cabinet which concerned payroll records.

Further, while Chief Sprogis did ask Dow to tell him where Ms. Bussler lived, Chief Sprogis required Ms. Bussler’s address for the purposes of completing a letter of reprimand for Ms. Bussler and Dow, as the Corporate Officer / Administrative Secretary, was responsible for preparing and keeping all files, documents and records of the GVFD, which included records regarding Ms. Bussler’s address.

Further, with the exception of a draft timesheet, which was incorrect and had been replaced with a corrected final version, Chief Sprogis denies shredding documents at the GVFD facility on December 2 or 3, 2024.

On or about December 11, 2024 Dow submitted a complaint to the GFPID alleging that he was being bullied and harassed by Chief Sprogis. In that correspondence Dow indicated that, due to his upset with the situation he had asked several firefighters to check in with him and that he was taking December 13 and 14, 2024 off “due to extreme levels of toxicity, pressure and harassment in the office”. As a precaution to ensure that Dow was not in a situation where he felt unsafe and unsupported while his bullying and harassment complaint was investigated, he was placed on a paid leave of absence effective December 13, 2024. The reasons for such leave were clearly communicated to Dow by Mr. Giffin on December 13, 2024. Furthermore, when Dow was required to attend the GFPID facility on December 17 and 18, 2024 to carry out certain payroll functions together with Ms. Waldo, Eric Johnson, a Trustee of GFPID, was present to ensure Dow did not experience any of the behaviours he was concerned about. Dow however, subsequently communicated to the Board that he “did not find this at all comforting”. Accordingly, alternate arrangements were made to ensure the duties and responsibilities of the Corporate Officer / Administrative Secretary could be carried out while Dow’s bullying and harassment complaint was investigated without requiring his presence in the workplace where he felt unsafe.

Contrary to Dow’s allegations in paragraph 33 of the Civil Claim, he did not have “sole authority” over financial and record-keeping matters. As indicated in the Corporate Officer / Administrative Secretary job description, Dow’s role was to assist the Board and the Fire Chief with their administrative duties and responsibilities, under the supervision of the Board. Moreover, and as Dow was aware, the GFPID had other individuals, including Ms. Waldo, who provided back-up administration and had cross-trained staff which allowed Dow’s duties and responsibilities to be carried out in the event of his absence.

Further, and contrary to the assertions in the Civil Claim, the GVFD does not have a full-time replacement for the Fire Chief and other firefighters could not carry out the full day-to-day job responsibilities of the Fire Chief. Accordingly, as placing Chief Sprogis on administrative leave would have resulted in safety concerns for the GVFD and the island generally, the decision was made to place Dow on paid leave to ensure the health and safety of everyone.

It is GFPID’s understanding that the Deputy Fire Chief, Jamie Ovens, did not at any time tell Dow that Chief Sprogis and Mr. Giffin had formed an agreement to investigate Dow’s conduct in order to find cause to terminate his employment. Mr. Ovens’ recollection is that during a personal discussion on December 20, 2024, Dow asked him whether the Trustees were going through his desk trying to find ways to fire him. Dow further conveyed to Mr. Ovens that he felt this was what the Trustees were going to do. Mr. Ovens’ information is that he had not witnessed any Trustee saying or doing anything that suggested they were trying to find a way to terminate Dow.

Further, neither Mr. Giffin nor Chief Sprogis undertook a review of Dow’s email account, nor did they direct any other individual to do so. In the course of ensuring the duties and responsibilities of the Corporate Officer / Administrative Secretary were carried out while Dow was on leave, however, it was necessary for Dow’s email and other business records to be accessed.

In any event, and as Dow was, or should have been aware, GFPID at all times retained the right to monitor its computer systems, computers and electronic devices. Specifically, the Employment Agreement provided:

By signing this agreement, you acknowledge and agree that the District has the right to monitor any and all aspects of its computer systems, workplace computers, and electronic devices, including, but not limited to monitoring sites you visit on the Internet, reviewing material downloaded or uploaded by you, and reviewing email sent and received by you. You acknowledge and agree that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to your use of the computer systems and your use of workplace computers and electronic devices, irrespective of whether your use occurs outside the workplace or outside regular business hours, and irrespective of whether your use is personal in nature. You hereby waive any right to privacy in anything you create, store, send or receive on the computer system, workplace computers and electronic devices.

While ensuring the duties and responsibilities of the Corporate Officer / Administrative Secretary were carried out while Dow was on leave, a number of issues with Dow’s performance came to light. In particular, it was discovered that:

(a) there were a number of unpaid and/or late paid invoices which had or were incurring service charges, all of which pre-dated Dow’s leave;

(b) Dow had emailed the Inspector of Municipalities regarding allegations of “payroll irregularities” (which Mr. Dow referred to in those emails as “payroll fraud”) and blind carbon copied them to a member of the public, Wayner Mercier;

(c) Dow had sent emails (including in some cases with attachments) from the Corporate Officer account to his personal email and/or computer. While this significantly increased in early December 2024, Dow had been copying, transferring or sending information from his Corporate Officer account to his personal computer and/or personal accounts since commencing employment in April 2024;

(d) Dow removed documents from the GFPID premises without permission or knowledge of the Board or the Fire Chief; and

(e) a confidential file related to GVFD matters was downloaded by Dow, without any legitimate reason to do so or the knowledge of the Board or Fire Chief.

Subsequently on January 15, 2025, Mr. Giffin and Mr. Johnson, as representatives of the Board, met with Dow over Zoom to seek clarification from Dow regarding the issues noted above. It was clearly communicated to Mr. Dow by email from Mr. Giffin on January 13, 2025 that the meeting was “not a performance review” and that the Board “just [needed] to better understand each situation”. As the discussion sought only to get clarity on the issues uncovered, there was no legitimate reason for Dow to have “support person” at that meeting. In any event, even if the meeting were disciplinary in nature, which is expressly denied, Dow did not have any right, and the Board did not have any obligation, to allow Dow to have a support person present.

During the January 15, 2025 meeting, while Dow acknowledged that the emails to the Inspector of Municipalities had been copied to Mr. Mercier, Dow suggested that they had been copied in error and that he had been attempting to copy his own personal email. Dow also admitted to removing certain documents from the GFPID facility, without the knowledge or consent of the Board. Although, Dow returned certain documents to Mr. Giffin later on January 15, 2025, GFPID has not been able to confirm whether Dow removed other documents which remain in his possession or control and/or what use may have been made of the returned documents while in Dow’s possession.

Moreover, independent of any issues uncovered while carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Corporate Officer / Administrative Secretary, and as Dow is aware, in late September 2024, the Board had established a Performance Review committee to review Dow’s performance. Mr. Johnson was selected as Chairman that committee, with Charleen Wells and Kent Moen being the other members. Mr. Giffin was not a member of the Performance Review committee, nor involved with Dow’s review. Although the committee was requested to put Dow’s performance review in abeyance when the fraud allegations and accusations of bullying and harassment were made by Dow, during the initial stages of the review a number of issues with his performance were noted. In particular, in addition to other issues, it was determined that Dow:

(a) was dismisive and combative in his interactions with and demeanor toward the Trustees, including but not limited to Mr. Giffin, disregarding the fact that he reported to the Board and specifically Mr. Giffin;

(b) continually overstepped the authority of his role, including drafting policy and bylaw proposals without any direction or guidance from the Board; editing and rewriting wording in policies and bylaws, where the language had specifically been voted on and approved by the Board; and calling a public meeting of the Fire Board without consulting or obtaining instructions to do so from the Board; and

(c) disclosed sensitive information to reporters and members of the public, without consulting the Board or obtaining permission to do so.

The issues uncovered in the initial stages of Dow’s performance review, independent of any further or additional issues which came to light during his paid leave, were significant enough to raise concerns regarding Dow’s suitability for position of Corporate Officer / Administrative Secretary and his continued employment with GFPID.

Notwithstanding that Ms. Lyster was, at all times, both independent and impartial, at Dow’s objection to Ms. Lyster conducting the investigation into his bullying and harassment complaints, a separate third-party investigator, ORCA Health and Safety, was engaged to carry out the investigation.

Ultimately Dow’s allegations of bullying and harassment against Chief Sprogis were determined to be unsupported, as communicated to Dow on February 28, 2025.

Contrary to Dow’s allegations in the Civil Claim, Mr. Giffin’s February 28, 2025 letter to Dow did not state that the investigator, Mr. Newman, could not reach a conclusion that bullying or harassment occurred on the basis that he did not speak to any firsthand witnesses of such behaviour. Rather, what was stated was that “the members of the fire department & officers did not confirm that they witnessed the Chief Bullying or harassing the Corporate Officer”. It was further communicated that it was concluded that the matters complained of did not rise bullying & harassment but rather were administrative matters.

Following the determination of Dow’s bullying and harassment complaint, Mr. Giffin wrote to Dow on March 3, 2025, requesting that Dow attend a return to work meeting with certain Trustees on March 6 or 7, 2025 to discuss the outstanding issues with Dow’s performance including invoicing, Dow’s emails to the Ministry, the payroll irregularities investigation and Dow’s job description and chain of command.

In response, on or about March 5, 2025, Dow wrote back to the Board with a list of stipulations regarding his ongoing employment, including that his role have full autonomy from the Board and/or the Fire Chief, which Dow knew or ought to have known were impractical or impossible for GFPID and/or GVFD to implement. Specifically, among other demands, Dow required:

(a) He oversee the GFPID’s payroll as the sole Administrative Officer;

(b) He update the GFIPD’s auditor regarding his allegations of payroll irregularities and the investigation into same;

(c) He be the only Chief Executive Officer or signing authority employee, at both TD and the Coastal Community Credit Union; and

(d) That there be a clear separation between himself and the Fire Department.

Subsequently, six of the seven Trustees met with Dow on March 7, 2025, to allow Dow to be heard and provide his perspective on the noted performance issues and how the employment relationship between himself and the Board and himself and Chief Sprogis could be repaired. During that meeting, however, Dow failed to provide any reasonable explanation regarding his ongoing performance issues, including his breaches of his duty of confidentiality, and had no suggestions as to how to remedy the employment relationship. Moreover, during the meeting Dow was combative, dismissive, and unwilling to take any responsibility for his actions.

The termination of Dow’s employment was in no way related to his allegations of bullying and harassment against Mr. Sprogis.

Following the meeting with Dow on March 7, 2025, the Board determined that the employment relationship with Dow was irretrievably broken and that continuing Dow’s employment would negatively impact the GPFID and GVFD. Accordingly, the decision was made to terminate Dow’s employment without cause, effective March 13, 2024.

In accordance with the Employment Agreement, GFPID could terminate Dow’s employment without just cause “upon providing, [him] with notice, pay in lieu of notice, or a combination of notice and pay in lieu of notice in the amount set out in the BC Employment Standards Act, RSBC 1996, as amended from time to time. The Employment Agreement further stated that “upon compliance with the above provisions, the District will be released from any and all obligations to you whether statutory, under contract, common law or otherwise.”

In accordance with both the Employment Agreement and the Employment Standards Act (“ESA”) Dow was provided with his accrued but unpaid salary and vacation up to and including March 13, 2025, as well as pay in lieu of termination notice equal to two weeks of his salary, less applicable statutory deductions.

Contrary to Dow’s allegations, the termination of Dow’s employment complied with section 693 of the LGA. Specifically, Dow was terminated with reasonable notice subject to his contract of employment, after having been provided with an opportunity on March 7, 2025 to address the Board’s concerns with his performance.

Moreover, Section 693(4) of the LGA does not require an employee be advised that their termination was approved by 2/3 of trustees, only that there be an “affirmative vote of at least 2/3 of all trustees”. GFPID notes that the decision to terminate Dow was unanimous.

As at the date of termination, Dow was entitled to the following compensation:

(a) An annual base salary of $58,200;

(b) Extended health benefits as per GFPID’s Extended Health Benefits Policy; and

(c) Fifteen (15) days of vacation time each calendar year.

GFPID denies that Dow was wrongly dismissed or that he is owed any further compensation arising from the termination of his employment or has suffered any damages for which GFPID is legally liable.

At all material times, GFPID observed its duty of good faith and fair dealing towards Dow, including with respect to the termination of Dow’s employment.

In particular, at all times GFPID was candid, reasonable, honest and forthright with Dow regarding his employment and the termination thereof.

Further, GFPID denies its conduct at the time of Dow’s termination was retaliatory, carried out in bad faith, egregious, high-handed, harsh or improper, as alleged or at all.

In response to Dow’s allegations of civil conspiracy, Mr. Giffin and Chief Sprogis deny that they agreed and/or conspired together or with any other individual or individuals to cause injury to Dow by bringing about the termination of his employment, whether with or without case, or to cause Dow to suffer anxiety, mental distress, physical distress and/or humiliation due to his paid leave.

Further Mr. Giffin and Chief Sprogis deny that Dow has suffered any injury including anxiety, mental distress, physical distress, humiliation and reputational damage due to their actions.

GFPID denies that Dow suffered any loss, damage or expense as a result of GFPID’s actions in relation to the termination of Dow’s employment, as alleged or at all. Specifically, any stomach ulcer, weight loss, anxiety, prolonged emotional upset or loss of sleep which Dow may have suffered was not due to any improper action of GFPID, and GFPID puts Dow to the strict proof thereof.

Dow has either not made reasonable efforts to find alternative employment subsequent to the termination of his employment or has mitigated any alleged loss or damage in whole or in part.

GFPID denies that Dow is entitled to out-of-pocket expenses, as alleged or at all, and puts Dow to the strict proof thereof.