Sounder News
Matt Dow, the former Corporate Officer of the Gabriola Fire Protection Improvement District (GFPID) has filed a notice of civil claim against the District, Fire Chief Will Sprogis, District Chair Paul Giffin, and an unidentified John Doe.
The notice was filed on March 18, 2025. A copy can be found here.
The defendants have within 21 days (from the date of service) to file a response to the claim. If the defendants fail to file a response, judgment may be pronounced against them.
Giffin, Sprogis, and the rest of the GFPID Trustees were contacted by the Sounder for comment.
Giffin provided a statement to the Sounder regarding the civil claim, which is published on the Sounder web site here.
Dow’s employment was terminated without cause on March 13, 2025 in a letter sent to him by Giffin.
He was hired by the District on April 10, 2024 as a Corporate Officer and Administrative Assistant.
The allegations in the claim have not been responded to by the Defendants; or yet tried in court.
Dow is seeking:
a) Damages for breach of contract and wrongful dismissal, reflecting all compensation payable to the Plaintiff within a reasonable notice period of six months, or such other amount as may be proven at trial;
b. Damages for breach of the duty of good faith and honest performance;
c. Damages for civil conspiracy;
d. Punitive damages;
e. Aggravated damages;
f. Special damages;
g. Interest in favour of Dow pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act;
h. Costs of this action; and
i. Such further and other relief as the Court may deem just.
The claim outlines how, shortly after Dow began working for the District, he discovered that there was a culture of intimidation and hostility within the District and Gabriola Volunteer Fire Department (GVFD).
Specifically, he heard numerous complaints from firefighters regarding their treatment by the Fire Chief.
The claim states Sprogis was hired as Fire Chief at the recommendation of Giffin, and that the two have a close relationship, and that Dow observed them support one another extensively in the workplace.
The claim states notwithstanding District policy and the underlying legal relationship between Dow and the District, Dow came into conflict with Mr. Sprogis, who treated him as a subordinate to the Fire Chief position. Per District policy, the Corporate Officer is not subordinate to the Fire Chief.
Dow states he observed Mr. Sprogis’ unprofessional conduct towards a number of individuals within the District and GVFD.
This conduct was of sufficient severity to constitute bullying or harassment. However, no steps were taken by the District to address this conduct.
On October 8, 2024, Dow was the target of yelling and offensive language from Giffin. Dow noted his concerns in a written email dated October 9, 2024, in which he expressed concerns regarding the effect bullying and harassment had on his mental health.
On October 10, 2024, he was confronted by Giffin and Sprogis, who demanded that Dow apologize to Mr. Giffin for his complaint. In the face of this pressure, Dow reluctantly apologized, though he had done nothing wrong.
Dow received positive comments from Sprogis on or about November 5, 2024.
Sprogis stated that Dow “consistently excelled” in his role as Corporate Officer/Administrative Secretary.
In early December 2024, a serious conflict erupted between Sprogis and Glenys Bussler, a firefighter with the GVFD. According to the claim, Bussler had raised a range of complaints against Sprogis’ leadership and professionalism.
Further, and most concerning to Dow, as outlined in the claim, Bussler noted that Sprogis had permitted his wife, Jennifer Knight to receive improper payments from the District.
Knight was a firefighter and had been receiving payments for attending GVFD practices, officer meetings and course training, while simultaneously earning payments while on shift as an employee of the BC Ambulance Service.
Dow’s claim says this resulted in taxpayers (through the District and BC Ambulance Service) paying two simultaneous hourly rates to Knight for one hour of her actual time.
Dow learned about this issue on December 3, 2024.
He reviewed the District’s financial records and concluded that the payments in issue had indeed been made. He consulted with a chartered professional accountant who advised him that this was potentially a serious issue and required investigation.
On December 9, 2024, Dow made an urgent recommendation to the District’s board of trustees to investigate and resolve the payroll irregularities.
Dow provided documentation of the double compensation to Giffin.
On December 2 and 3, 2024, Dow claims to have observed Sprogis shredding various records in the workplace, including original payroll records approving payments made to Knight.
The full scope of documents destroyed by Sprogis is unknown to Dow.
On December 11, 2024, the Plaintiff received an email from Sprogis which accused Dow of wrongfully accessing confidential employee documents; suggested that employee matters were outside the scope of Dow’s role; and claimed that the payroll irregularities had already been internally resolved and the Board was fully aware of them.
Dow’s claim says contrary to that email, Dow was required to maintain an accurate and orderly system of bookkeeping of all financial transactions for the District, and payroll irregularities were entirely within his scope of responsibility. A lengthier description of his duties and obligations is at the end of this article.
Further, Dow was provided with no record of any meeting of the board of trustees which indicated that the board had addressed the issue of payroll irregularities and double compensation. Dow then learned that Sprogis and/or Giffin had engaged a human resources consultant, Stephanie Lyster (“Ms. Lyster”), and provided her with partial set of internal documentation regarding the payroll irregularities.
Lyster then wrote a letter dated December 5, 2024 which indicated she had not conducted a formal investigation, but nevertheless was dismissive of the payroll irregularities and the concerns raised by Bussler, firefighter Carol Waldo and Dow.
The claim states no action was taken by the District to create or enforce any policies to prevent the reoccurrence of such payroll irregularities in the future, and that approximately one quarter of the GVFD membership work for the BC Ambulance Service.
Dow states Sprogis was extremely angry that the financial irregularities involving his spouse had been the subject of discussion and complaints. Much of this anger was directed at Dow, and was demonstrated in ways which included the following: Sprogis demanded that Dow give him his cell phone, so that Sprogis could read any text messages between Dow and Bussler; Sprogis repeatedly demanded that Dow advise him of private conversations that occurred with Bussler or might occur in the future; Sprogis asked Dow to tell him where Bussler lived; Sprogis threatened the Plaintiff with “serious consequences,” and refused to elaborate further; Sprogis used physical proximity, glaring and raised voice to emphasize his requests; Sprogis took away the Plaintiff’s key to the filing cabinet which concerned payroll records.
On December 11, 2024, Dow submitted to the Fire Board trustees a written complaint regarding the actions of Sprogis, which constituted bullying and harassment.
On December 13, 2024, the District placed Dow on leave and stated that he was not authorized to take part in workplace activities or be present at the fire hall. In contrast, according to the claim, Sprogis was not placed on leave or subjected to any limitations.
The claim outlines how the decision to place only the Plaintiff on leave, in response to his bullying and harassment complaint, was problematic for the Distict’s operations.
Dow had sole authority over financial and record-keeping matters and could not carry out these duties from home.
Other firefighters could carry out the day-to-day job responsibilities of Sprogis.
At the request of the board of trustees, Dow provided the District on December 23, 2024 with additional details and particulars regarding Sprogis’ bullying and harassment of Dow and others. Dow again communicated the effect that these issues had on his physical and mental health.
On December 20 and 23, 2024, Dow was advised by the Deputy Fire Chief, Jamie Ovens, that Sprogis had formed an agreement with Giffin to investigate Dow’s conduct in order to find cause to terminate Dow’s employment with the District.
Their plan required that Dow remain on leave indefinitely while Giffin and Sprogis carried out the investigation.
John Doe, whose identity is not presently known to Dow, was an additional participant in the agreement among Sprogis and Giffin.
On December 24, 2024, Giffin wrote to Dow and stated that Dow was not permitted to carry out any form of investigation or inquiry into payroll matters.
On January 8, 2025, Lyster, the human resources consultant previously engaged by Sprogis and/or Giffin, wrote to Dow to request additional information about his bullying and harassment complaint “prior to speaking with Chief Sprogis.”
On January 9, 2025, Dow wrote to the board of trustees and objected to the appointment of Lyster for the purpose of investigating his complaint against Sprogis. According to the claim, Lyster lacked the necessary independence to do so. Sprogis had already spoken with Lyster extensively in December 2024 and January 2025. Dow also emphasized the seriousness of both of the complaints he submitted, regarding financial irregularities and bullying/harassment, and the lack of any visible steps taken to address the complaints.
The District’s board of trustees did not respond to Dow’s January 9 letter raising concerns about Lyster, but instead hired a new consultant, Peter Newman (“Mr. Newman”) of Orca Health & Safety, to review the Plaintiff’s bullying/harassment complaint. Dow promptly met with Newman and provided him with detailed information regarding Sprogis’ bullying and harassment of Dow and others.
On January 13, 2025, Giffin wrote to the Plaintiff and requested a meeting on January 15 to discuss various issues regarding Dow’s prior work and correspondence.
Giffin refused to allow Dow to have a support person at the meeting.
The meeting was of a disciplinary nature, and the issues discussed were identified only after a thorough review of the messages in Dow’s email account.
The review of Dow’s email account was undertaken by Giffin, Sprogis and/or individuals acting at the direction of Giffin and/or Sprogis.
This review was carried out in furtherance of the agreement between Giffin and Sprogis to identify a basis to terminate Dow for cause.
The claim states the January 15, 2025 disciplinary meeting was intended to intimidate Dow and to further investigate a potential cause for Dow’s termination.
On January 16, 2025, Dow submitted a prohibited action complaint against the District under the Workers Compensation Act. The complaint is currently unresolved.
On February 5, 2025, Giffin wrote an email to Dow and complained of interest charges accruing on the District’s credit card accounts due to non-payment. Despite Giffin placing Dow on leave and telling him he was not authorized to take part in workplace activities, Giffin requested Dow’s assistance to resolve these issues. Dow complied with this request.
On February 21, 2025 Dow inquired with Mr. Newman and was told that the District had already received Mr. Newman’s report.
On February 26, 2025, Dow, through his counsel, wrote to the board of trustees of the District and sought an update about the status of his complaints.
On February 28, 2025, Giffin wrote to Dow and advised that 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. The District therefore treated the Plaintiff’s complaint as resolved.
Although the Plaintiff had provided Mr. Newman with firsthand observations of bullying and harassment by Sprogis of others, including Bussler, Newman apparently limited his report to only the allegations of bullying or harassment against Dow.
Dow has not been provided with a complete copy of the report authored by Newman, despite his requests. On March 3, 2025, Giffin wrote to Dow and requested that he attend a “return to work meeting” during which time Dow would answer questions about various concerns.
On March 5, 2025, Dow provided the board of trustees with a letter stating that his job responsibilities required certain minimum protections and policies to be in place, including:
• Preventing further destruction or shredding of documents by Sprogis;
• Regaining access to the Plaintiff’s filing cabinet key; and;
• Creating a bullying and harassment policy for the District.
A meeting occurred on March 7, 2025 at which the board of trustees of the District ignored Dow’s concerns regarding payroll irregularities, bullying and document destruction, and instead criticized him for his demeanour and for attracting negative attention to the District and its leadership.
During the meeting, Giffin advised that Dow was placed on leave due to Dow’s fear and mental stress. With respect to Dow’s termination, the claim states the District failed to provide reasonable notice in respect of his termination, or compensation in lieu of notice.
Dow’s claim states at various times, he was questioned by members of the community regarding the reason for his prolonged leave from his employment but was unable to provide a satisfactory answer.
Dow claims he has experienced severe distress as a result of his lengthy and unjustified suspension, as well as the unduly insensitive manner of his dismissal, which have caused him to experience symptoms including a suspected stomach ulcer, weight loss, anxiety, prolonged emotional upset and loss of sleep. He seeks compensation in the form of aggravated damages.
The claim states the duty of good faith and honest performance obligated the District to communicate with and make decisions regarding the employment of Dow honestly and in good faith.
This duty governed, among other things, the conduct of workplace investigations affecting the Plaintiff.
The claim says the District failed to discharge its obligations of good faith and honest performance, adding the defendants’ dismissive and self-serving approach to the complaints submitted by Dow, and the refusal to respond to legitimate concerns regarding financial irregularities and workplace harassment reflect a lack of good faith on the part of the District. The District’s communications regarding the status and purpose of the investigations it was conducting reflect a lack of honesty on the part of the District.
In contrast to the District’s disinterest in the merits of the Plaintiff’s complaints, the District carried out a rigorous examination of the Plaintiff’s email history and the financial affairs of the District while the Plaintiff was on leave, in a futile effort to uncover a basis to terminate the Plaintiff with just cause, further demonstrating a lack of good faith on the part of the District.
Regarding the damages from civil conspiracy, the claim states the defendants – Sprogis, Giffin and Doe (collectively the “Conspirators” – formed an agreement between December 3 and 20, 2024, to end Dow’s employment with the District by terminating him for cause.
The agreement between the Conspirators to pursue the termination of Dow’s employment, and the resulting acts which followed, are sufficient to create liability in civil conspiracy.
The predominant purpose of the agreement between the Conspirators was to cause injury to Dow by bringing about the termination of his employment for cause.
This desired outcome would constitute an injury to Dow, as it inherently involved leaving Dow without employment and reflected a breach of contract. It would have left Dow with a diminished ability to locate paid employment within a small community and with a negatively impacted reputation within the community.
Further, the purpose of the Conspirators was also to cause Dow to suffer anxiety, mental distress, physical distress and/or humiliation as a result of the Conspirators pursuing this goal, due to the Dow’s prolonged leave from his position as Corporate Officer/Administrative Secretary. The claim states the actions of the Conspirators were directed specifically at Dow, and the Conspirators knew, or ought to have known, that injury to the Plaintiff was likely to result from their actions.
The trial for the claim will take place in Nanaimo – a date had not been set as of press time.
According to the claim, the position of Corporate Officer/Administrative Secretary for the District is a skilled and specialized position, with a broad scope of managerial responsibilities. Dow was responsible for matters including, but not limited to:
a. Maintaining all required and incidental files, documents and books necessary and relevant to the District;
b. Maintaining, in association with the District’s accountant, an accurate and orderly system of bookkeeping of all financial transactions;
c. Preparing, in association with the District’s accountant, financial statements necessary for the Annual General Meeting of the District or other meetings;
d. Recording minutes of all regular meetings and other meetings as needed, and keeping minutes in an orderly manner;
e. Producing and distributing appropriate correspondence as required or directed by the District;
f. Preparing all bylaws and documents required to submit to the government;
g. Making backup copies of computer files;
h. Communicating with members of the public on behalf of the District at the Gabriola Volunteer Fire Department (“GVFD”); and
i. Preparing and keeping all files, documents and records of the GVFD.
As a result of his appointment as Corporate Officer/Administrative Secretary, Dow says he understood that he was responsible for the statutory duties of corporate and financial administration set out in sections 694 to 696 of the Local Government Act.
Recent Comments