Court File No.

: T-668-15
FEDERAL COURT
BETWEEN
BALRAJ SHOAN
Applicant
-andATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
APPLICATION UNDER S.18.1 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS ACT

_____________________________________________________________________________
AFFIDAVIT OF BALRAJ SHOAN
______________________________________________________________________________

NELLIGAN OBRIEN PAYNE LLP

Lawyers/Patent and Trademark Agents
1500 - 50 OConnor Street
Ottawa, ON K1P 6L2
Craig Stehr (LSUC #55012H)
T: 613-231-8208
F: 613-364-4154
Solicitors for the Applicant

TABLE OF EXHIBITS
Tab

Exhibit

Date

1.

Exhibit 1:

Email from Raja Khanna - Re

Choicebook names

February 20, 2015

2.

Exhibit 2:

Email re Choicebook

February 22-24, 2014

3.

Exhibit 3:

Email re Ryerson Speaking Engagement

May 9, 2014

4.

Exhibit 4:

Email re Assistance of Comms in Speech

Preparation

May 28, 2014 to

June 2, 2014

5.

Exhibit 5:

Email re Unauthorized Amendments to

Speech

June 2, 2014

6.

Exhibit 6:

Broadcasters Caught 'Flat-Footed' By

Netflix - Hollywood Reporter

7.

Exhibit 7:

Email re YouTube University

July 24, 2014

8.

Exhibit 8:

Email re Memo on Domestic

Engagements

September 12-16,
2014

9.

Exhibit 9:

Memo re Domestic Engagements

10. Exhibit 10:

CRTC Code of Conduct

11. Exhibit 11:

Request to Traversy Re Input about

Memo

September 15, 2014

12. Exhibit 12:

Email re Memo Implementation

September 17, 2014

13. Exhibit 13:

Complaint of Amanda Cliff

September 18, 2014

14. Exhibit 14:

Letter from J. Traversy to B. Shoan

September 26, 2014

15. Exhibit 15:

Policy on Harassment Prevention and

Resolution

16. Exhibit 16:

Email Exchange B. Shoan with J.

Traversy re Complaint Process

September 30, 2014

October 3, 2014

17. Exhibit 17:

Email from R. Shoan to J. Traversy Re

Legal Concerns with Complaint Process

November 6, 2014

18. Exhibit 18:

Email exchange with Investigator

Re Background to Complaint

November 12, 2014

19. Exhibit 19:

Email exchange with Investigator

Re Procedural Concerns with Complaint
Process

November 17, 2014

20. Exhibit 20:

Investigator Summary of Applicant

Testimony

December 17, 2014

21. Exhibit 21:

Applicant Comments to Investigator

Summary of Testimony

January 19, 2015

22. Exhibit 22:

Reply to Complaint

January 19, 2015

23. Exhibit 23:

Preliminary Statement of Facts

February 2015

24. Exhibit 24:

Reply to Preliminary Statement of Facts

March 13, 2015

25. Exhibit 25:

Final Investigation Report, D. Laurin

March 17, 2015

26. Exhibit 26:

Letter from Chairperson, J.P. Blais to

R. Shoan

April 7, 2015

27. Exhibit 27:

Email Re Speaking Engagement Ryerson University

May 23, 2014

28. Exhibit 28:

Email Re CRTC Governance Issues and

Role and Powers of Commissioners

June 2, 2014

29. Exhibit 29:

CRTC- By-law 23 Research Committee

30. Exhibit 30:

Email to J.P. Blais Re Legal Opinion

Respecting CRTC Governance

June 13, 2014

31. Exhibit 31:

Denial by J.P. Blais Re CRTC

Governance Structure Query

August 4, 2014

32. Exhibit 32:

Email Re Role of Legal - part 2

August 4, 2014

33. Exhibit 33:

Email Re Role of Legal - part 5 and 6

August 4, 2014

Court File No.: T-668-15

FEDERAL COURT
BETWEEN
BALRAJ SHOAN
Applicant
-andATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
APPLICATION UNDER S.18.1 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS ACT

AFFIDAVIT OF BALRAJ SHOAN

I, BALRAJ SHOAN, of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND
SAY:
1. I am the Applicant in this Application and as such have personal knowledge of the facts set
out in this Affidavit, except where stated by me to be by the way of information and belief.
Background
2. I am the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) member
for the region of Ontario. I was appointed to the position by Order-in-Council for a five (5)
year term, commencing on July 3, 2013.

3. The day I was appointed as a CRTC Commissioner was one of the proudest of my
professional career. It was the culmination of years of hard work in both the public and
private spheres as well as the result of the support of excellent managers and patient
executives. In a sense, I had come full circle: nine years earlier, in 2004, I had commenced
working at the CRTC as a Senior Policy Analyst. It was a homecoming for me and I was
excited by the prospect of re-engaging with former colleagues at an institution for which I
have a great deal of respect.

4. My path to becoming a Commissioner was relatively unique. I began at the CRTC, departed
the public service for other opportunities and returned once I had attained executive
experience at licensee companies. Before I departed the CRTC in 2008, I had gained valuable
experience and information with respect to the proper functioning of the organization. I
served under two Chairpersons, including as Chief of Staff (Senior Policy Advisor) for one
of them, and also acted as legal counsel for several high profile policy proceedings. I chaired
a number of internal committees and established a reputation as a results-oriented leader. I
developed excellent working relationships across the organization. My decision to leave the
CRTC in 2008 was a difficult one, borne of a desire to gain executive-level experience that
was not immediately forthcoming at the Commission due to its relatively small size and low
turnover.

5. At that time, I was recruited away from the CRTC by Astral Media Radio Inc. (Astral)
which was, at the time, the largest private radio broadcaster in the country. As Director,
Regulatory Affairs, I learned about the business of broadcasting from an entity that
2

owned/operated valuable brands, such as The Movie Network (TMN), HBO Canada and
Virgin Radio. Eventually, my position became redundant when Bell Canada Inc. (Bell)
finalized a deal to purchase Astral, but I was retained on a contract basis until a new
opportunity presented itself.

6. In March 2012, I joined the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) as its Director,
Regulatory Affairs, for its English-language services. The national public broadcaster was
entering an intense licence renewal hearing with the CRTC at the time, and, as a member of
its regulatory team, I worked closely with CBC management to construct and present its
application to the Commission over a period of a year and a half.

7. In June 2013, I was informed that I had been appointed to my current position as the Ontario
Commissioner with the CRTC.

8. I believe that my previous experience has provided me with unique qualifications as a CRTC
Commissioner. Over the course of my career, I have practiced radiocommunication and
telecommunications law with Industry Canada, communications law with the CRTC and
provided regulatory expertise for a national private broadcaster (Astral) and the national
public broadcaster (CBC). I have acted as an analyst, lawyer and senior policy advisor. I have
negotiated million-dollar branding agreements and attended high level strategic discussions.

CRTC Governance

9. In my role as Commissioner, I observed that changes some subtle, others far more alarming
had been made to the governance structure of the CRTC. In my view, those changes
threatened, in a meaningful way, the ability of all Commissioners to operate in an
independent manner and to serve their regions in a comprehensive manner. I challenged these
changes. I questioned their purpose.

10. I persisted in requiring answers to my legitimate inquiries from both the CRTC Chairperson,
Jean-Pierre Blais (the Chairperson) and senior CRTC staff members, through whom the
Chairperson acted. I copied my fellow Commissioners on such exchanges in limited
instances only so that they were aware of my legal and policy concerns. Unfortunately,
adequate explanations and answers were not forthcoming. Finally, frustrated with what I
perceived as CRTC senior staffs dismissal and avoidance of my legal concerns, I stated an
intention to pursue a complaint with the Office of the Public Service Integrity Commissioner
(PSIC). In return, I was accused of harassment.

11. The CRTC is an independent, administrative tribunal with quasi-judicial functions that
supervises and regulates Canadas broadcasting and telecommunications industries in the
public interest. It consists of up to thirteen (13) members. Currently, the Commission
comprises eight (8) Commissioners. A ninth member is scheduled to commence his term in
June 2015. From the perspective of the consumer and citizen, the CRTCs policies and

regulations affect the provision of affordable telecommunications services, Canadian content

programming, emergency alerting and a myriad of other important services that touch upon
the day-to-day lives of Canadians. In aggregate, these industries have annual revenues of
over one hundred billion dollars annually and employ tens of thousands of Canadians.

12. Each CRTC Commissioner is considered a member of the Commission with additional duties
or responsibilities designated to the members who are named Chairperson and Vicechairperson. For example, the designated Chairperson is also named the CEO of the
Commission and has the ability to supervise the direction of the work and staff of the
Commission. Importantly, staff is defined under the CRTC Act as those officers and
employees appointed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act. Accordingly, as
members of the Commission are appointed pursuant to an Order-in-Council, they do not
constitute staff as defined by the CRTC Act. As a result, I understand that the designated
Chairperson may supervise or direct Commission staff but not members of the Commission
themselves. As well, I understand that the role of the designated Chairperson in supervising
and directing the work of the Commission has been narrowly manifested by the
Chairpersons ability to set the CRTCs Three Year Plan and corresponding agenda. This
was my understanding and belief in February 2014, and it continues to be so.

13. The independence of each Commissioner is crucial to the proper functioning of the CRTC.
Due to its quasi-judicial nature, the Commission operates more akin to a court in its decisionmaking than a government department. Each Commissioner has a vote on files before the

Commission, and can issue dissenting or concurring opinions, when inclined. Each vote is
equal; no Commissioner has a veto or a super priority.

14. For public hearings, the Chairman may select a panel of Commissioners to hear an issue that
may render a decision on behalf of the full Commission after consulting it, but the Chairman
does not otherwise have the authority to fetter or interfere with the work of a sitting
Commissioner. There is no special status accorded to the opinion or the voting power of the
Chairperson or the Vice-chairpersons under the CRTC Act. The Commission acts as a
council of equals. Protecting the integrity of each vote is of paramount importance.

15. Interestingly, the Chairperson of the CRTC recently declared his unilateral ability to name a
panel to decide any broadcasting matter at any time before the Commission. Prior to this
declaration, the Chairperson only named a panel when the full Commission voted to send an
item to a hearing. I believe that this approach contradicts decades of CRTC practice and
procedure, and arguably breaches CRTC by-laws.

16. In addition, Commissioners are tasked with providing effective guidance to broadcasting and
telecommunications undertakings, meeting with stakeholders to convey the Commissions
mission and goals and relaying stakeholder concerns to CRTC headquarters in Gatineau
(which is particularly important in the case of regional Commissioners).

17. In the months leading to the complaint in question, there were a number of email exchanges
between myself and CRTC staffers and the Chairperson. In each exchange, the purpose was
only to restore and/or protect the independence of Commissioners which, in my view, had
been degraded and infringed by decisions of the Chairperson and actions of CRTC staffers.

Email Exchanges Respecting CRTC Governance Issues

18. Of the seven (7) email threads that comprise the complaint, each pertained to an honestly
held work-related concern that directly applied to the independence of Commissioners vis-vis the Chairperson or the ability of Commissioners to meaningfully interact with
stakeholders in an informed and supported manner.

19. The seven (7) email exchanges relate directly to concerns that I then held, and continue to
hold, concerning the legality of actions proposed by the Chairperson or through senior staff,
acting as his proxy. I believed at that time, and still do today, that these were legitimate
concerns and inquiries. These are important concerns to me, and I addressed them seriously.
In particular, I believed that the questions related to the legislative or policy basis of a
proposed course of action, or for a denial of support, were reasonable and legitimate in the
course of the CRTCs work as an administrative tribunal.

February 22, 2014 Email Exchange:

20. On February 20, 2014, I received an email from Raja Khanna, co-CEO and founder of Blue
Ant Media, a Canadian broadcasting company. Mr. Khanna had participated in a public
survey (Choicebook) designed to inform the CRTCs approach to a television policy review
and wrote to express his concern with respect to the representation of Canadians in that
survey. In his view, the selection of names used in the survey was not representative of the
diversity of Canada. This February 20, 2014 email is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Affidavit.

21. I agreed with Mr. Khannas sentiment and indicated that I would address the matter with the
relevant staff member. Paragraph 3(1)(d)(iii) of the Broadcasting Act requires the CRTC to
ensure the Canadian broadcasting system reflects the multicultural and multiracial heritage of
Canadian society and the special place of aboriginals in our society. It was concerning to me,
as the regional Commissioner of perhaps the most ethnically diverse province in the country,
that the Commission had undertaken a public consultation that was not sufficiently reflective
of all Canadians.

22. On February 22, 2014, I wrote to Amanda Cliff (the Complainant), the CRTCs Executive
Director of Communications and External Relations, to raise Mr. Khannas concerns. The
February 22, 2014 email is attached as Exhibit 2 to this Affidavit. I did not at that time
inform her that Mr. Khanna had reached out to me, since he indicated in his email that he was
writing in a personal, and not professional, capacity. I felt it appropriate to preserve his

privacy and protect the confidentiality of the exchange and that it was irrelevant, in any
event, to my inquiry.

23. Upon receiving the Complainants response, I was surprised by its defensive tone. I had
asked for an explanation of the rationale that was used to select the names in the survey. She
replied by asking, Are you serious? I was confused by her reply, and asked whether it was
something she could not provide. I later received an email from the Chairperson that
instructed me to cease this line of inquiry with the Complainant and advised me to move
on.

24. During this initial exchange with the Complainant:

a. I did not copy any third party to the exchange;

b. My query pertained to what I considered to be a legitimate policy concern given the
objectives stated in the Broadcasting Act; and
c. I did not receive a suitable response to my inquiry.

May 9, 2014 Email Exchange:

25. On May 9, 2014, a further email exchange took place with respect to potential staff support
for a speech that I gave to the Canadian chapter of the Society of Motion Picture and
9

Television Engineers (SMPTE). The May 9, 2014 email exchange is attached as Exhibit
3 to this Affidavit.

26. The content of this exchange relates to my request for, and the subsequent denial of, staff
support for the preparation of a speech to a stakeholder group.

27. In late April 2014, Commissioners congregated in Ottawa for a Full-Time Commissioner
Meeting (FCM). (There are a number of different decision-making meetings held at the
Commission, depending on the attributed importance to the file. FCMs are held
approximately eight (8) times annually. Generally, files with the greatest policy and legal
implications or consultations for new licences are discussed at these meetings.)

28. As was the custom at the time, Commissioners met in the Chairpersons boardroom for an incamera lunch on the first day of the FCM. At these lunches, Commissioners share industry
speculation and information with one another. At this particular in-camera lunch, the
Chairperson had also invited a number of senior staff, including the Complainant, to join the
Commissioners.

29. After the lunch concluded, the Chairperson invited Christianne Laizner, CRTC Senior Legal
Counsel, to make a presentation. The presentation pertained to what I viewed as a new
process that the Chairperson wished to put in place regarding domestic stakeholder meetings
and speaking engagements. In effect, the proposal that Ms. Laizner advanced was that
10

Commissioners should voluntarily subject themselves to an approval process for stakeholder

meetings and speaking engagements before receiving staff support. Furthermore, the
proposal vested in the office of the Chairperson the ability to unilaterally decide when a
Commissioner was permitted to attend an event.

30. In my recollection of the meeting, Commissioners reacted strongly to the proposal. In

particular, Commissioner Candice Molnar, Vice-Chair of Telecommunications Peter Menzies
and I were vocal in our opposition to the proposal. I remember that the Chairperson withdrew
his support from the proposal, and insisted that the only purpose in raising the notion was to
remind us to reach out to the Legal Department in order to resolve any potential conflicts of
interest. He further acknowledged that he had no authority to approve or deny stakeholder
meetings or speaking engagements conducted by other Commissioners and that staff support
would be provided to Commissioners when adequate notice was given of speaking
engagements or stakeholder meetings. The Commissioners acknowledged the availability of
legal counsel to resolve conflicts of interest and the matter was then resolved.

31. Shortly thereafter, I asked my executive assistant to forward a request to the CRTC
Communications department for assistance with a speech to be given to the SMPTE in June
2014. Typically, such assistance requires the support of a speech writer and a
communications analyst. (The analyst compiles all relevant information related to applicable
policies and decisions for the subject matter of the speaking engagement.) On May 8, 2014, a
manager from the Communications team contacted me to inform me that my request for staff

11

support was denied based on a lack of strategic opportunity and a potential conflict of
interest.

32. On May 9, 2014, I replied to the denial by confirming my intention to accept the speaking
engagement. In my view, there was no authority for either staff or the Chairperson to deny
staff support based on an undefined concept of strategic opportunity. I also did not
understand how broadcast engineers, the audience for the SMPTE event, could constitute a
potential conflict of interest. Moreover, I believed that it was important to reach out to new
stakeholders, wherever possible, and at that time I had yet to meet with representatives of the
SMPTE. The manager forwarded my email to the Complainant. The Complainant confirmed
that staff support would not be provided to me for the speaking engagement.

33. I was confused by the Complainants refusal to provide staff support for the speaking
engagement, given the exchange at the in-camera lunch during the April FCM. I asked for
clarification. At the end of the exchange, I acknowledged that the confusion may have been
on my end, and that I would seek clarification from the other Commissioners.

34. The Complainant replied that the Chairperson would only authorize staff support for
Commissioners when he approved of the speaking engagements. I was concerned that this
approach would permit the Chairperson to indirectly assert control over my activity as a
Commissioner.

12

35. During this exchange with the Complainant:

a. I did not copy any new third party to the exchange. The Complainant however copied
CRTC Senior Legal Counsel and the Chairpersons Chief of Staff;
b. My query pertained to what I considered to be a legitimate legal concern, given the
governance structure articulated in the CRTC Act and the discussion held at the April
in-camera meeting; and
c. I did not receive any reply to my inquiry from either the Complainant or CRTC
Senior Legal Counsel.

May 28, 2014 to June 2, 2014 Email Exchange:

36. The third impugned email exchange, which commences on May 28, 2014 and ends on June
2, 2014, pertained to the public posting on the CRTC website of the SPMTE speech that I
intended to give. I wrote a communications analyst, and requested a deadline for the
provision of the final version of the SMPTE for translation purposes. All documents posted
on the CRTC website by the Commission must be available in both English and French, and
I understood that staff experience various demands and have constraints on their availability.
The May 28, 2014 to June 2, 2014 email exchange is attached as Exhibit 4 to this
Affidavit.

13

37. The analyst forwarded my email to the Complainant, who sent a lengthy reply to me. In it,
she took issue with the use of the term forbidden, arguing that its use was inappropriate
and aggressive. She further alluded to limited resources, indicating that my speech would
not be translated and posted on the CRTC website. She also stated her belief that I was
attempting to discredit her.

38. Surprised at the length and anger of the Complainants reply, I responded that:

a. I believed that the Complainant was mistakenly attributing a tone to my email that
was not intended, and inaccurately interpreting my use of the word forbidden;
b. There was no ill-intent on my part;
c. I did not contemplate discrediting my CRTC colleagues;
d. The concerns over limited resources were not previously raised with me; and
e. I was sorry if I had offended the analyst that I had initially contacted.

39. During this exchange with the Complainant:

a. I did not copy any new third party to the exchange;

b. I felt that the Complainant responded aggressively and in a manner that sought to
undermine my role; and

14

c. My original query pertained to access to the CRTC website, a valid policy request.

June 2, 2014 Email Exchange:

40. The fourth impugned email exchange relates to serious concerns with respect to censorship
of Commissioners by the Chairperson and, by proxy, the Complainant. The June 2, 2014
email exchange is attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit 5 to this Affidavit.

41. In May 2014, I gave a speech at the National Conference of the Broadcast Educators
Association of Canada (BEAC). Following the delivery of the speech, an article was
published in the Hollywood Reporter in which I was quoted as warning the Canadian radio
industry against napping as automakers designed an interactive dashboard of the future to
access audio content beyond AM/FM radio. I cited Netflix as an example of Canadian
broadcasters being caught flat-footed by foreign competition. Overall, the speech was very
well received. The May 28, 2014 Hollywood Reporter article is attached as Exhibit 6 to
this Affidavit.

42. A couple of days later, I received a phone call from an industry stakeholder who indicated
that he was reading my BEAC speech on the CRTC website and could not find the reference
to Netflix in the written text. I checked the text of my speech on the CRTC website and
discovered, to my surprise, that the portion of the speech commenting on Netflix in Canada

15

and Canadian broadcasters being caught flat-footed had been removed without my
knowledge or consent.

43. On June 2, 2014, I contacted the Complainant, who was responsible for the posting of items
on the CRTC website, and asked for the legal authority justifying the deletion of my remarks.
The Complainant replied that only speeches that had been approved were posted on the
CRTC website. I understood that the approval that she was referring to was that of the
Chairperson.

44. Furthermore, the Complainant drew an unclear analogy between Commissioners and
Ministers, and alluded to the fact that the Chairperson had initially attempted to remove the
reference to Netflix from my speech and that I had resisted it. Specifically, when I circulated
the speech text amongst CRTC staff to ensure legal and factual accuracy, the Chairperson
(who I believe was provided the text by another staff person) provided unsolicited comments
and also made several changes that went beyond issues of legal and factual accuracy.

45. The Complainant concluded with a remark that I put on some headphones and listen to
Brian Enos Just Another Day on Earth. I found this statement to be dismissive and rude.

46. I replied to the Complainant and again requested the legislative or policy authority validating
the Chairpersons role as gatekeeper of the CRTC website. I further reiterated that
Commissioner independence was crucial to the proper functioning of the Commission.
16

47. During this exchange with the Complainant:

a. For the first time, I copied other Commissioners to the exchange;

b. My query pertained what I considered to be a legitimate legal concern, given the
governance structure articulated in the CRTC Act; and
c. I did not receive a reply to my inquiry from the Complainant.

48. To be clear, I only copied other Commissioners with this exchange as it directly impacted
their rights and ability to serve their constituents and felt their opinion and insight on the
issues were critical. I believed at that time that it was important for them to be apprised of
this issue. I did not intend to cause the Complainant embarrassment or to undermine her role.

July 14, 2014 to July 24, 2014 Email Exchange:

49. The fifth impugned email exchange occurred between July 14, 2014 and July 24, 2014. In
this exchange, I was inquiring as to the basis of a denial of staff support for a digital media
workshop targeted to CRTC staff. The July 14, 2014 to July 24, 2014 email exchange is
attached as Exhibit 7 to this Affidavit.

17

50. In June 2014, I visited the head office of Blue Ant Media, a successful Canadian independent
broadcaster. Blue Ant had recently purchased a sizeable amount of advertising inventory on
YouTube, and I was interested to discuss with them their plans to integrate that digital
inventory with their traditional broadcasting advertising inventory. As I toured Blue Ants
facilities, I saw an opportunity to further the knowledge of CRTC staff with respect to the
online video transition that was beginning to grip the broadcasting industry. I sent an email to
the Commissioners to canvass their interest in participating.

51. When no Commissioner indicated any interest in participating, I followed up with a

communications manager to see if the Communications team was willing to assist. The
manager forwarded my request for assistance to the Complainant who indicated that the
initiative would be discussed at the Direct Reports meeting.

52. The Direct Reports is an internal committee created by the Chairperson, and consisting of
senior staff that report directly to him. The committee is chaired by the Chairperson.
Commissioners are not informed of when they meet or the agenda of their meetings. There is
no indication of the criteria it uses to make decisions. I understand from earlier statements
made to me by the Secretary-General of the CRTC, John Traversy (the Secretary-General),
which I verily believe to be true, that the Chairperson directs the decisions at the Direct
Reports meetings. There is no CRTC by-law nor any provision of the CRTC Act that grants
authority to Direct Reports to make any decision on behalf of, or applicable to, the members
of the Commission.

18

53. Shortly thereafter, the Complainant informed me that there was not sufficient interest on the
part of Direct Reports to justify sending staff to a YouTube workshop. I replied that it was
unlikely that Direct Reports would have interest in a YouTube workshop and asked whether
the opinion of the Commissions younger employees had been canvassed. I received no reply
whatsoever.

54. During this exchange with the Complainant:

a. I did not copy any third party to the exchange;

b. My query pertained to a legitimate policy approach, namely, on what basis Direct
Reports could exert authority over Commissioners; and
c. I did not receive a reply to my inquiry from the Complainant.

55. Shortly thereafter, I received written correspondence from the Chairperson that indicated his
view of my statement to the Complainant that a YouTube workshop would have little interest
to 50+/60+ year olds was inappropriate and potentially breached the Canadian Human
Rights Act. I did not reply given that the Chairperson had not replied to my previous emails
respecting CRTC governance issues (discussed further below).

19

56. I intended no offence by my statement about the Direct Reports likely level of interest in the
opportunity. I was making a simple observation that, as a media platform, YouTube was
targeted at millennials.

September 12, 2014 to September 16, 2014 Email Exchange:

57. The sixth impugned email exchange occurred between September 12, 2014 and September
16, 2014 and pertains to the attempted implementation of a memorandum by the
Complainant respecting domestic speaking engagements and conference attendance. The
memorandum was drafted by the Complainant in July 2014 and approved by the
Chairperson in August 2014. In September 2014, my executive assistant, Andrea Mullin,
informed me that all Commissioner Assistants had received an email from the Complainant
to implement the memorandum in question. Commissioners were not copied to that
correspondence. The September 12, 2014 to September 16, 2014 email exchange and
memorandum are attached as Exhibits 8 and 9 to this Affidavit, respectively.

58. As noted in paragraphs 29 and 30, above, Commissioners strongly opposed attempts by the
Chairperson to impose a reporting structure at the April 2014 FCM in-camera lunch. As
mentioned above, the reporting structure would have restricted access to staff support for
activities that are core Commissioners duties.

20

59. In the memorandum proposed by the Complainant and approved by the Chairperson, it was
evident to me that Commissioner concerns were ignored. The memorandum required
Commissioners and Vice-Chairpersons to submit themselves to the authority of Direct
Report before receiving staff support for speaking engagements or to attend conferences.

60. I remained particularly concerned about what I viewed as a significant restriction being
placed on Commissioners. Accordingly, I drafted a detailed email to the Complainant in
response to the memorandum that I had received from Ms. Mullin. In that email, I explained
my opinion of the legal and policy difficulties with her proposed approach. Specifically, I
articulated my views that:

a. the proposed approach undermined the independence of each Commissioner;

b. the CRTC Act expressly restricted the Chairperson from supervising or directing
members of the Commission;
c. there was no functional difference between the Direct Reports committee and the
office of the Chairperson, given that he was the functional head of both;
d. the memorandum allowed the Chairperson to do indirectly what he was prohibited
from doing directly by law; and
e. the process proposed by the memorandum breached the CRTC Code of Conduct.
The CRTC Code of Conduct is attached as Exhibit 10 to this Affidavit.

21

61. In conclusion, I suggested that the memorandum be discussed and voted upon at the
subsequent FCM. I only intended to explain my view to and to request that my concerns
with the memorandum be addressed by Commissioners.

62. The Complainant, however, ignored my suggestion. Instead, she replied by stating her role
and that of her team at the CRTC, argued that she had the discretion and prerogative to
withhold staff support from Commissioners when the CRTC management team was of the
view that there was no value to the activity proposed by a particular Commissioner and
submitted that the memorandum did not fetter the independence of Commissioners. She
further stated that the memorandum was written for the Chairperson in his role as Deputy
Head.

63. I was concerned that the Complainants response was confrontational, and that it did not
suitably consider the legal and Code of Conduct-related concerns that I had initially raised. In
a September 16, 2014 follow up email, I urged the Complainant to seek a legal opinion on
the acceptability of her proposed process, as it did not appear to me to reflect a full
understanding of the governance framework of the CRTC. Furthermore:

a. I noted there was no difference between the term CRTC Management Team and
Direct Reports;
b. Basic rules of statutory interpretation required a harmonious interpretation of
multiple, applicable statutes. As such, the Chairpersons role as Deputy Head could
22

not bestow upon him authority denied to him as Chairperson, namely, the ability to
supervise and direct Commissioners;
c. I noted that preferential treatment of Commissioners was prohibited by the CRTC
Code of Conduct as well as other Code of Conduct-related concerns; and that
d. CRTC staff had no authority independent of, or over, the Commission.

64. During this exchange with the Complainant:

a. I copied the Commissioners as the exchange directly impacted their rights and roles
as members of the Commission and I felt their opinion and insight on the issues were
critical;
b. I copied Commissioner assistants, as adherence to the memorandum could have
resulted in their inadvertent breaching of the CRTC Code of Conduct;
c. My queries pertained to legitimate, serious legal concerns and Code of Conductrelated breaches; and
d. I did not receive a meaningful, comprehensive reply to my inquiries from the
Complainant.

65. Additionally, during the email exchange, the Complainant herself continued to include all
Commissioners and Commissioners assistants, and also expanded the recipient list in her
final message on September 16, 2014 to include Ms. Laizner and the Secretary-General.
23

66. I sent the email exchange to the Secretary-General, the senior public servant at the CRTC, in
order to obtain his input. He never responded to the email. The email to the SecretaryGeneral, dated September 15, 2014, is attached as Exhibit 11 to this Affidavit.

September 17, 2014 Email Exchange:

67. The final impugned email follows my email to the Complainant on September 16, 2014. On
September 17, 2014, I was informed by my executive assistant that she had received a
videoconference meeting request from the Communications team for September 18, 2014. I
am told that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss implementation of the memorandum.

68. I was still very concerned that staff was apparently proceeding to implement the framework
outlined in that memorandum, and that I had not yet received a response on the matter from
the Secretary-General.

69. I believed that, in doing so, the Complainant was attempting to undermine the role of
Commissioners.

70. I wrote to the Complainant and indicated that if the Communications team was prepared to
implement the memorandum without addressing my legal objections and other concerns, I
24

would consider it grounds for an official complaint to the Office of the Commissioner for
Public Service Integrity (PSIC). The September 17, 2014 email is attached as Exhibit 12 to
this Affidavit.

71. The statement was not intended to be threatening. Rather, it remains my belief today that
suitable grounds would have existed for a PSIC complaint in the circumstances.

72. In this email to the Complainant:

a. I copied the Commissioners as the email directly impacted their rights and roles as
members of the Commission and I felt their opinion and insight on the issues were
critical;
b. I copied Commissioner assistants as adherence to the memorandum could have
resulted in their inadvertent breaching of the CRTC Code of Conduct;
c. I reiterated my view that my queries pertained to legitimate, serious legal concerns
and Code of Conduct-related breaches; and
d. I did not receive a meaningful, comprehensive reply to my inquiries from the
Complainant.

25

The Complaint Process

73. The Secretary-General contacted me in late September to inform me that the Complainant
had filed a harassment complaint against me.

74. In this initial phone call, Mr. Traversy appeared to be relaxed and jovial. He laughed easily
during our conversation, and conveyed the appearance to me that the complaint was trivial
and that, in his view, it was not warranted or necessary. He noted that the Complainant had
refused mediation as a potential solution, and had insisted on an investigation. He further
assured me that the process would be completely impartial. In order to assuage any potential
concerns, Mr. Traversy indicated that the Commission would be issuing a Request For
Proposal (RFP) for a potential investigator to assist with the complaints resolution. Before
settling on an investigator, Mr. Traversy assured me that both the Complainant and I would
be provided a list of potentials and would be provided an opportunity to veto candidates
with whom we were not comfortable.

75. A few days later, I received a package from Mr. Traversy comprising the complaint
documents, namely:

a. the seven (7) email threads provided by the Complainant and appended to this
Affidavit;

26

b. a letter from the Complainant to the Chairperson lodging the official complaint
(Exhibit 13);
c. a letter from the Mr. Traversy to myself indicating that, in his view, there were prima
facie grounds for a harassment complaint against me (Exhibit 14);
d. the memorandum respecting the Complainants proposed domestic stakeholder
meetings and speaking engagement process (Exhibit 9); and
e. a copy of the Treasury Boards Policy on Harassment Prevention and Resolution
(The Policy) (Exhibit 15).

76. The complaint alleged that:

a. by copying other Commissioners to the email exchanges between the Complainant
and myself; and
b. by stating an intention to pursue an official complaint with PSIC;
I had humiliated and undermined the credibility of the Complainant as well as
threatened, intimidated and attempted to destroy the career and reputation of the
Complainant.

77. I reviewed the documents, and had a number of follow-up questions. On September 30, 2014,
I emailed the Secretary-General and asked for clarifications respecting the allegations against
me, the specific grounds for a prima facie finding and his legal authority for conducting an

27

administrative investigation. The September 30-October 3, 2014 email is attached as Exhibit

16 to this Affidavit.

78. The Secretary-Generals reply was, in my view, evasive. He referred me back to the
document that he had originally provided and quoted definitions in response to my queries.
In addition, while acknowledging that Governor-in-Council Appointees were excluded from
the complaint process, he did not explain how his proposed process was in accordance with
the spirit of the Policy and the Directive.

79. I wrote again to the Secretary-General and asked for specifics respecting the harassment
allegations and on what basis he had reached his preliminary determination. I further asked
on what basis his proposed process was in accordance with the spirit of the Policy. The
Secretary-General did not reply to my email.

80. On October 29, 2014, less than a month following the Secretary-Generals assurances that
every effort would be made to ensure the impartiality of the process, I received a phone call
from him to inform me that a decision had been made respecting the selection of the
investigators. The Secretary-General refused to address or explain why the original process
had been amended or on what basis the investigators had been selected. He was cryptic on
the call and did not appear to want to discuss the matter in any meaningful way. He promised
to send additional information to me respecting the investigators and the process used to

28

select them. After waiting almost a week, I emailed the Secretary-General to request the
promised information.

81. The unilateral change in process was frustrating to me and, on November 6, 2014, I wrote to
the Secretary-General to protest the change, question the legitimacy of the entire process and
request that the process be handled by PSIC, instead. The November 6, 2014 email is
attached as Exhibit 17 to this Affidavit.

82. Upon receipt of the contact information of the investigator, I sent an email on November 12,
2014 to inquire as to whether she was aware of the background preceding the investigation.
The November 12, 2014 email is attached as Exhibit 18 to this Affidavit.

83. Specifically, I asked whether she was aware that I had previously been assured of a selection
process for an investigator and that her selection as adjudicator of the complaint was in
breach of the promised process. I further queried whether she was aware of the serious legal
and policy concerns that I had raised pertaining to the actions of the Complainant, the
Chairperson, the Secretary-General and other members of senior staff.

84. In her reply, the investigator ignored the fact that I had been assured of a different selection
process and that, while I had every right to raise any issues I may have had with the CRTC, it
was not pertinent to her mandate unless it formed part of my response to the complaint itself.

29

At this juncture, I had no knowledge of any mandate imposed on the investigator by the
Secretary-General.

85. At this time, I communicated to the investigator all of my procedural and legal concerns with
the investigation process to that point. It was not clear to me that the Secretary-General had
shared with her all of the details and exchanges preceding her selection. On November 17,
2014, I wrote to the investigator once again and articulated the following issues:

a. Given that legitimate questions could not constitute harassment, I queried whether she
would be prepared to consider a counter-complaint against the Complainant on the
basis that she had resisted answering legitimate questions in contravention of the
CRTC Code of Conduct. In my view, you could not conduct one analysis without the
other;
b. The selection of her firm as investigator breached rules of natural justice; and
c. The application of section 6.1.1 of the Treasury Boards Directive on Harassment
Complaint Process given that PSIC should properly be named a party to the
process.
The November 17, 2014 email is attached as Exhibit 19 to this Affidavit.

86. In her reply, the investigator argued that a PSIC process could operate in tandem with her
own investigation but did not clarify the type of parallel process that would warrant the
closing of her investigation. Furthermore, she acknowledged that the CRTC Code of Conduct
30

was applicable to all CRTC employees. Importantly, the investigator acknowledged that the
harassment investigation would only deal with allegations raised by the Complainant
namely, that the act of copying emails to Commissioners and stating an intention to file a
complaint with PSIC constituted harassment under the Policy. She concluded by stating that
any other issues not relevant to the harassment complaint are to be raised in another forum.

87. My formal interview with the investigators was conducted on December 17, 2014 at the
offices of my legal counsel. Throughout the interview, the investigators were argumentative;
at one point, I was forced to ask one of the investigators to stop interrupting me. Ms. Laurin
also intervened at one point to ask her colleague to stop interrupting me. The body language
of the investigators was one of a negative pre-disposition; they shook their heads often and
frowned openly. In my opinion, it was evident that they had a bias.

88. Of particular concern during the interview, the investigators asked questions that were well
beyond the scope of the harassment complaint. They asked, for example, about CRTC social
events or exchanges with CRTC employees that were in no way related to the complaint in
question. When my lawyer questioned the purpose of their questions, they replied that they
were investigating a culture of harassment that I had potentially perpetrated and whether I
had contributed to a toxic environment. When my lawyer protested this line of questioning,
the investigators responded that it was appropriate despite the fact that the questions did not
pertain in any respect to the emails comprising the complaint. The line of questioning was
especially troubling given that I had earlier emailed the investigator to ask for any evidence

31

upon which they were relying for the complaint and they had confirmed that the only
evidence were the emails in question.

89. At the conclusion of the interview, it was understood that the investigators would provide me
with a summary of the interview and that I could review it and provide
amendments/revisions, as warranted. The investigators provided their summary on December
22, 2014. I provided my comments on the summary on January 19, 2015. The investigators
summary, dated December 22, 2014, and my comments, dated January 19, 2015, are attached
as Exhibits 20 and 21 to this Affidavit.

90. Additionally, on January 19, 2015, I filed with the investigators a Reply to the Complaint. In
this Reply, I submitted that the email exchanges did not constitute harassment. As a
Commissioner, I was entitled to raise my concerns and seek the clarifications and responses I
sought in the performance of my duties and to serve the public interest. I collaboratively and
proactively addressed legislative and policy issues. This is part of my duty as a commissioner
and a core feature of my independence. While I acknowledged that the tone of some of the
emails may have contributed to an adversarial dynamic, they were in response to emails from
Ms. Cliff that contained an improper tone and habitually failed to respond to the concerns
being raised. I also expressed my view that the cited emails were a workplace conflict and
exhibited mutual disagreement. Moreover, the emails could not, particularly without any
other conduct, constitute harassment. My Reply to the investigator, dated January 19, 2015,
is attached as Exhibit 22 to this Affidavit.

32

91. In summary, with respect to the copying of emails to colleagues, I responded that such
activity did not constitute harassment for the following reasons:

a. Of the seven (7) email exchanges that formed the basis of the complaint, other
Commissioners/staff were copied on my initiative on only four (4) separate
occasions; and
b. Of those four (4) occasions, the decision to copy staff or other Commissioners with
my email was done in response to:

i.

The Complainants allegation that I had made a staff member feel uncomfortable
and to offer that employee an apology, if so, and to defend myself against
allegations made by the Complainant in her email of May 30, 2014;

ii.

The Complainants position that her team/the Chairperson acted as gatekeepers of

the CRTC website and postings of speeches required pre-approval of all
Commissioner speaking points. This position had never previously been
articulated to Commissioners and Commissioners rightly needed to be aware of
such a restriction; and

iii.

A process proposed by the Complainant that raised serious legal and policy
concerns of which both Commissioners and Commissioner Assistants properly
needed to be made aware.

33

92. In addition, given the Policy specifies that legitimate and proper questions cannot constitute
harassment, I drew the investigators attention to the fact that there was a legitimate legal or
policy basis for each email exchange cited by the Complainant.

93. With respect to stating an intention to file a complaint with PSIC, I noted that PSIC was
created as an essential form of public service accountability. Any federal public service
employee all the way up to Deputy Ministers may avail themselves of PSICs process in
order to remedy wrongdoing, preserve confidence in the federal public service and instill a
measure of increased accountability in their respective organization.

94. In early February 2015, a few weeks after sending my Reply to the Complaint to the
investigator, I received the investigators Preliminary Statement of Facts. This document was
my first indication that an investigation into seven (7) email threads had ballooned into a
witch hunt. It was difficult to read the witness testimonials captured by the investigator and I
was confused by the choice of the investigator to include some testimony as evidence
probative of harassment given that it did not remotely relate to the activity or exchanges
captured by the emails comprising the complaint. My reading of the document was that much
of the witness testimony captured personal opinions about me as an individual and did not
relate, directly or indirectly, to the specific complaint that precipitated the process. I became
concerned that the investigator had expanded the scope of the investigation beyond any
reasonable connection to the complaint. The Preliminary Statement of Facts is attached as
Exhibit 23 to this Affidavit.

34

95. In particular, the investigator had accepted as evidence:

a. emails from third parties that predated the first email exchange provided by the
Complainant;
b. emails from third parties that extended well beyond the last email exchange provided
by the Complainant;
c. emails and witness statements that had no bearing and no relation to the contents of
the exchange between the Complainant and myself.

96. The investigator argued that the expansion of the evidentiary base was appropriate as they
related to the incidents alleged. In the view of the investigator, the incidents in question
appeared to be the tone and context of the email exchanges comprising the complaint rather
than the specific details of the complaint itself. These emails did not address the issues of
copying emails to others or stating an intention to file a complaint with PSIC. In other
words, they did not appear to be related to the harassment complaint.

97. Regarding the witness testimony of my Commissioner colleagues, I note the following:

a. In late February 2015, Vice-Chairperson Pentefountas invited me to his office for a

chat while I was in Ottawa for an FCM. Having spoken with the investigators as a
35

witness, he expressed serious reservations to me with respect to the complaint

process. He indicated that, in his view, it was clear that the investigators had already
made their minds up and that they were unbelievably biased against me. He warned
me that the fix is in. I replied that I was prepared to go to Federal Court to defend
myself, if necessary;
b. Prior to my discussion with Vice-Chairperson Pentefountas, I had an SMS exchange
with Vice-Chairperson Menzies who expressed similar concerns following his
interview with the investigators, namely, that they had clearly made up their minds
and that it was a foregone conclusion that they would find me in contravention of the
Policy. Later, in person, Vice-Chairperson Menzies expanded upon the experience
and indicated that the investigators had dominated discussion during his interview
and repeatedly stressed that the Chairperson was a highly decorated and respected
executive in the public service. He also indicated that the investigators appeared to be
giving career advice to him such that it was safest for him to not get too involved in
the complaint process as, typically, in these situations, the impugned executive was
quietly dismissed from their post without much public attention. In the view of ViceChairperson Menzies, the investigators seemed inordinately focused on the
Chairperson until he commented that the complaint was between myself and Ms.
Cliff, at which point the investigators hastily turned their questioning back to the
complaint itself. Lastly, Vice-Chairperson Menzies indicated that the investigators
appeared resistant to include in his statement his position that a toxic environment

36

was already evident at the Commission prior to the raising of my issues with the
Chairperson and the Complainant1; and
c. In April 2015, while I was in Ottawa for an FCM, Commissioner Molnar confided to
me that her interview with the investigators had lasted approximately two hours and,
of that time, the investigators spoke for almost 1.75 hours. She further confided that
the investigators appeared to be attempting to convince her that the policies and
processes that the Chairperson was enacting were necessary in order to allow him to
fulfill his mandate from the government. Lastly, Commissioner Molnar indicated that
the investigators appeared to be resistant to her inclusion in her witness statement of a
statement that indicated CRTC staff was hostile towards Commissioners.

98. I replied to the Preliminary Statement of Facts on March 13, 2015. In this final, twenty-five
(25) page filing before receiving the Final Investigative Report, I articulated the entirety of
my legal and procedural concerns with the Preliminary Statement of Facts. My reply to the
Preliminary Statement of Facts, dated March 13, 2015, is attached as Exhibit 24 to this
Affidavit.

99. In total, the final Reply contained approximately sixteen (16) pages of what I considered to
be errors of law, fact and/or policy in the Preliminary Statement of Facts. In my view, there
were dozens of errors, large and small, committed throughout the complaint process.

In this respect, I note that the investigators redacted this portion of Vice-Chairperson Menzies witness statement.

37

100.

In terms of procedural concerns, I noted serious issues with the independence of the

process and the manner of the investigation itself. The lack of independence of the
complaints process offended basic principles of administrative law. In particular, three areas
were problematic:

a. the selection process for the investigator;

b. the selection of the Secretary-General as ultimate arbiter of the complaint; and
c. an incomplete evidentiary base.

101.

With respect to the selection of the investigator, I submitted that it had been done in a

manner contrary to that which was agreed upon at the outset of the investigation. Given my
appointment as a Governor-in-Council appointee on good behaviour, and further given that
neither the Chairperson nor the Secretary-General have any legal authority over appointees in
terms of a reporting capacity, it was not only necessary but incumbent upon CRTC senior
management to ensure that the selection of the investigator was done in a fair, transparent
and independent manner. By breaching the agreed upon process without explanation or
justification, the Chairperson and Secretary-General breached the basic principles of natural
justice.

102.

Furthermore, Mr. Traversys selection as ultimate arbiter of the complaint raised serious

administrative law concerns given his proximity to interested parties in the complaint. As a
member of the Direct Reports Committee, Traversy was in an obvious conflict of interest.
38

Additionally, as Traversy reports directly to the Chairperson, the decision-making process

was not truly independent. Lastly, Traversy gave evidence as a witness in the investigation.
One of the most basic rules of administrative law is that an adjudicator cannot simultaneously
be a witness in a proceeding and adjudicate that same proceeding.

103.

I had also been partially unable to secure relevant evidence to counteract the facts or

allegations of the Complainant due to fear of reprisals. I could not bring relevant evidence
forward from witnesses, including evidence that the process that the Complainant attempted
to enshrine in her September email was, in fact, a new process and evidence that CRTC staff
fears to assist me with valid requests for assistance due to corporate practices established by
the Complainant and the Chairperson such that I am not to be treated in an equitable manner.
I argued that the investigators could not accurately assess the complaint in the absence of
such information and, yet, could not assure confidentiality to those employees during the
investigation.

104.

In terms of the manner of the investigation, I raised concerns respecting the manner of the

questioning, the investigators understanding of the legal and policy framework underpinning
the governance of the CRTC and the inappropriately expanded scope of evidence and
analysis. I also commented on what I had observed to be bigotry at the CRTC or, at
minimum, a strong resistance to issues of diversity as well as a deeply ingrained culture of
fear at all levels of the Commission.

39

The Final Investigation Report

105.

On April 2, 2015, upon receipt of the Final Investigation Report (the Report), it became

apparent that the investigator had ignored the many factual, legal, policy and Code of
Conduct-related concerns articulated in my Reply to the Preliminary Statement of Facts. The
previous day, Mr. Traversy had sent correspondence to my legal counsel that indicated that
he was in agreement with the Reports findings. The Final Investigation Report, dated March
17, 2015, is attached as Exhibit 25 to this Affidavit.

106.

Further, Mr. Traversys correspondence made the following recommendations to the

Chairperson:

a. With the exception of the Administrative Officer in the Toronto regional office, I
must copy Traversy on all e-mails that I initiate and send to Commission staff.
b. With the exception of the Administrative Officer in the Toronto regional office, all
calls that I plan on initiating to Commission staff members should be co-ordinated
through Traversys office. I would be asked to call or send Traversys office an email outlining the Commission staff member I would like to talk with and the subject
of the call. Mr. Traversys office would organize the call.
c. I will refrain from any communication with Complainant.

40

d. No changes to the open dialogue that takes place between the Applicant and staff
during Full Commission Meetings, Broadcasting Committee Meetings,
Telecommunication Commission Meetings and panel meetings.
e. That a copy of the report be sent to the Minister for her review and consideration on
any further action that may be required.

107.

By letter dated April 7, 2015, the Chairperson indicated his agreement and acceptance of

both the investigation decision and Mr. Traversys recommendations. The April 7, 2015
letter is attached as Exhibit 26 to this Affidavit.

108.

In the Final Investigation Report, the investigator made the following determinations that

both the Secretary-General and the Chairperson accepted:

a. My behaviour since February 2014 was inappropriate and constituted harassment

towards the Complainant;
b. I attempted to undermine the Complainants credibility with her superiors and staff
and Commissioners;
c. I humiliated the Complainant in front of colleagues by sending emails to her staff,
colleagues and Commissioners;
d. Staff was subject to my aggressive behaviour; and

41

e. On September 17, 2014, I threatened the Complainant so as to try to intimidate and

coerce her to comply with my demands. I further attempted to destroy her career
and reputation.

109.

Furthermore, the investigator reached conclusions that had nothing to do with the

complaint, itself. In my view, these conclusions revealed a bias on the part of the
investigator given their complete irrelevance to the legal and factual analysis that comprised
the investigators mandate which, to date, has yet to be shared with me and their
specifically personal animus towards me. Namely:

a. My behaviour created a toxic work environment;

b. My conduct is not compatible with that of a CRTC Commissioner or the interests of
the CRTC;
c. I am not a team player;
d. I refuse to acknowledge the role of the Deputy Head of the CRTC; and
e. My behaviour is disrespectful.

110.

No evidence in the complaint process supports these absolute conclusions and it is

unclear as to why the investigator would have engaged in these analyses. Furthermore, the
investigator based her conclusions on determinations that cannot be assessed against any
discernible legal or policy standard. Specifically, there is no legal or policy standard of

42

inappropriate or aggressive that is applicable to the Policy such that the investigator may
rely upon it to form a conclusion.

111.

In my view, the totality of the investigators conclusions cannot be substantiated by fact,

law or policy. It remains my view that the scope of the harassment investigation and its
findings far exceed the parameters of the Complainants harassment complaint.

112.

The complaint consisted of only seven (7) email exchanges occurring over a period of

approximately seven (7) months. My only interaction with the Complainant since February
22, 2014 was by email. We did not have any in-person meeting and did not correspond by
telephone. As well, at no time since February 22, 2014 did she request to speak with me
about her concerns, nor did the Chairperson, Secretary-General or any other Commissioners
request to meet to address any concerns stated in the Complainants complaint.

113.

I am also concerned that the investigator has mischaracterized evidence.

114.

For example, while there is a difference of role between a Commissioner and CRTC staff,

I consider all individuals that I interact with at the CRTC to be colleagues of mine. This is
especially so, considering my past experience as a Senior Policy Analyst and Legal Counsel
with the CRTC. Nonetheless, the investigator determined that I never considered CRTC staff
and the complainant as colleagues.

43

115.

I also consider that certain findings are tantamount to a personal attack on me and my

character. It describes me as rude and arrogant, and finds that my conduct has created a
difficult and stressful and toxic work environment. I am essentially being blamed, in
whole, for what I consider to be ongoing and persistent challenges within the CRTC.

Additional Email Exchanges Relevant to CRTC Governance

116.

I had serious concerns with internal CRTC rules, process, procedures and policies and

their impact on the independence of members of the Commission. These concerns, however,
were not confined to my exchanges with the Complainant.

117.

Initially, I made several good faith attempts to reach out to the Chairperson, himself. It

was my hope that the processes in place had preceded his arrival at the Commission or that
he would be sensitive to the importance of preserving Commissioners independence. Upon
commencing my work as Commissioner, I had my executive assistant reach out to his office
to arrange for a face-to-face meeting.

118.

My efforts to establish a dialogue with the Chairperson were ultimately unsuccessful.

Over the course of my first two years at the CRTC, I have had only three face-to-face
exchanges with the Chairperson:

44

a. A videoconference introductory conversation that comprised twenty (20) minutes of

discussion in August 2013. It took approximately six (6) weeks for my assistant to
arrange for the call as the Chairperson refused to make himself available before that
date;
b. An eighty (80) minute in-person conversation that occurred in January 2014 during
which the Chairperson enumerated my behaviours which he found to be of
annoyance. Specifically, the Chairperson extolled his ability as a mentor, spoke at
length about his mentorship relationship with then Heritage Minister James Moore
and offered to act as a mentor/executive coach to me as well. I politely declined the
offer, feeling it was an inappropriate offer given the independence associated with
each Commissioner position; and
c. A thirty (30) second exchange in a hallway after I declared an intention to write a
dissent for the first time in March 2014.

119.

Accepting that a meaningful in-person relationship with the Chairperson was unlikely, I

took to using email as a means to converse with him. With respect to the exchange at Exhibit
3, for example, in which the Complainant alleged that the Chairperson had the authority to
deny staff support to members of the Commission in instances where he did not approve their
speaking engagements, I reached out the Chairperson directly. The exchange with the
Chairperson is attached as Exhibit 27 to this Affidavit.

45

120.

The Chairperson replied that he did not feel that email exchanges were the best means by

which to have conversation and that he would call me to address my concern. However, he
never did so. He further stated his impression that my exchange with the Complainant was
quite aggressive and that oral interaction is better.

121.

To the best of my recollection, the Chairperson has never called me when he indicated

that he would do so.

122.

I also disagree that my correspondence was aggressive. I speak directly in person and

also in writing; my dissenting and concurring opinions as Commissioner attest to that fact. I
take my duty as a commissioner very seriously and felt that these were important issues that
needed to be raised in order for me to do my job well. My communication style is not
intended to intimidate or offend, but rather is intended to facilitate clear and unambiguous
communication when expressing my perspective.

123.

The April FCM in-camera lunch first alerted me to the potential of the Chairperson and

CRTC senior staff improperly asserting authority over Commissioners. After that luncheon
meeting, I became attuned to watching for similar such situations and voicing my concern
with respect to the appropriate process and procedures. It did not take long for such a
situation to arise.

46

124.

Three days following the exchange found at Exhibit 27, I had another exchange with

the Chairperson respecting adherence to CRTC by-laws. This exchange with the Chairperson
is attached as Exhibit 28 to this Affidavit. On May 26, 2014, the CRTC Secretariat
circulated research reports for review by members of the Commission.

125.

There are seven methods of Commission decision-making: the BCM-SC, the BCM-WA,

the TCM-WA, BCM, TCM, FCM and Panel decisions. The BCM-SC stands for
Broadcasting Commissioner Meeting Sub-Committee. It is a committee comprised of three
(3) Commissioners, selected by the Chairperson, who decide on routine or non-contentious
broadcasting applications. Next, there is the BCM/TCM-WA. WA stands for walkaround. These are email meetings; CRTC staff circulates documents to the full Commission
who vote on items via email. These email meetings occur 2-3 times monthly. Next, there is
BCM and TCM, the Broadcasting and/or Telecommunications Commissioner Meetings.
These meetings occur via videoconference and deal with files/matters of mid-tier
importance and occur 1-2 times monthly. The most important files are decided by FCM
which occur in person approximately 6-8 times annually or via Panel when a hearing is
required. Panels are selected by the Chairperson.

126.

I asked whether the reports had been commissioned using CRTC By-law #23. By-law

#23 requires that a committee comprising the full Commission authorizes the contracting of a
third party for the creation of a research report. By-law #23 is attached as Exhibit 29 to
this Affidavit.

47

127.

It was at this point in my term that I discovered the Chairpersons true perspective on his

authority over the Commission; namely, that his designation as Chairperson and his
associated responsibilities under the Financial Administration Act (FAA) superseded the
restrictions set out by the governance structure under the CRTC Act. I asked for clarification
respecting the interplay between a duly enacted by-law of the CRTC Act and the provisions
of the FAA. The Chairperson refused to address the issue.

128.

I decided to pursue the issue given its relative importance to the proper functioning of the

CRTC. The Chairperson was suggesting that the CRTC was a department under the ambit of
the government and he the Deputy Minister; in my view, the CRTC was an independent
entity with a specialized mandate and particular governance structure designed to ensure that
the decision-makers i.e. the Commissioners had maximum flexibility to exercise their
vote according to their discretion, expertise and skillsets. These concepts were, and continue
to be, mutually exclusive. Given that CRTC legal counsel was in a conflicted situation, I
urged the Chairperson to seek an independent legal opinion.

129.

In response to my suggestion for an independent legal opinion on CRTC governance, the

Chairperson reacted strongly, suggesting that I had personally attacked both he and CRTC
Senior Legal Counsel. He then once again offered me the services of an executive coach
the same role he had offered to serve for me once previously.

48

130.

I took great pains to reply to his email in a balanced and fair manner, articulating what I

viewed to be the lack of clarity respecting the roles and powers of Commissioners and
explaining that I was asking questions in order to ensure that the CRTCs structure accurately
represented its governing legislation and the principles underpinning its appointments. I
asked for his suggestion as to how best to engage in the analysis necessary to clarify the
governance structure of the CRTC. He did not reply to the email.

131.

On June 13, 2014, almost two weeks after the aforementioned exchange, I wrote to the

Chairperson again. Having received no reply from him respecting my concerns regarding
CRTC governance, I made the following suggestions:

a. CRTC Senior Legal Counsel, Christianne Laizner, be asked to provide a legal opinion
on the governance issues discussed to that point (as well as others);
b. In the event that Ms. Laizner felt that she was in a conflicted position not an
unreasonable position, in my view then the Department of Justice be tasked with the
legal opinion; and
c. The analysis should be opened to include the participation of other Commissioners.
The June 13, 2014 email is attached as Exhibit 30 to this Affidavit.

132.

In terms of the substantive questions to be asked, I proposed the following:

49

a. Firstly, what is the interplay between the applicable provisions of the Financial
Administration Act and a by-law duly enacted pursuant to the CRTC Act?;
b. Secondly, I suggested that we then ask for an interpretation of the scope of
application of the provisions of the CRTC Act; and
c. Lastly, I suggested that we should ask for a summary of the general powers and tools
available to members of the Commission, the Vice-Chairs of the Commission and the
Chairperson of the Commission.

133.

Again, the Chairperson neither acknowledged receipt of, nor replied to, the email or the

suggestions contained therein.

134.

On August 1, 2014, approximately six (6) weeks later, an email was circulated by CRTC

Secretariat with the subject line Chairmans Absence. The Chairperson was going to be out
of the country on vacation leave and he had designated certain responsibilities to CRTC
senior staffers. The August 1, 2014 email is attached as Exhibit 31 to this Affidavit.

135.

I noted that, in the absence of the Chairperson, it was the Commission that authorized a

temporary designation of the Chairpersons responsibilities to one of the CRTC Vice-Chairs.

The Chairpersons chief of staff replied that only the CEO responsibilities had been
delegated; the Chairperson remained available to exercise his Chairperson duties. When I
asked a follow-up question to determine what powers, responsibilities and duties were

50

allocated to the role of Chairperson and which were allocated to the role of CEO, the
Chairperson replied:

Exercising my powers as both deputy head and chairman, no one shall be doing anything to respond to this
latest query from you. Thank you. Move on.

136.

I found this email to be greatly disturbing. The question that I had asked was one of basic

CRTC governance; it was information that should have been readily available. In fact, in my
view, it was information that should have been provided to each Commissioner upon
appointment. Mr. Daniel Roussy, CRTC Senior Legal Counsel, was copied to the
Chairpersons email and I decided to follow up with him directly. I asked him three specific
questions:

a. Does the Chairman/CEO have the ability to deny me legal support for a valid inquiry
designed to understand the legislative and operational framework underpinning the
proper functioning of the Commission?;
b. If so, from where does this power derive?; and
c. In your capacity as senior counsel, can you confirm for me that your role is to serve
the Commission as a whole?

51

137.

The purpose of my last question was to determine whether Mr. Roussy was of the view

that CRTC lawyers had a legal and/or ethical obligation to serve all Commissioners equally
(rather than prioritizing the requests and directions of the Chairperson).

138.

Given that Ms. Laizner, his direct superior, was away from the office, he asked for a

delay until August 19, 2014 in order to reply to my query. I agreed to the proposed timing.
By September 4, 2014 almost three weeks after his requested date of extension I had
received nothing from Mr. Roussy. I followed up with him. The resulting exchange was one
of the most perplexing I have experienced with a lawyer since my return to the Commission.
The August 4, 2014 email and September 4, 2014 email are attached as Exhibits 32 and
33 to this Affidavit, respectively.

139.

Mr. Roussy refused to answer direct questions in his replies. He claimed that it was

properly the role of the Legal department to answer questions by Commissioners respecting
only the Broadcasting Act, the Telecommunications Act, the Canada Anti-spam
legislation (CASL) and the Fair Elections Act. He even claimed that it was appropriate to
answer questions from the Chairperson respecting the application of the Financial
Administration Act. There was no mention, however, of questions pertaining to the
application of the CRTC Act.

140.

I tried again with Mr. Roussy. I asked him directly whether the Chairperson had the

authority to deny legal support to Commissioners when they asked questions about the

52

CRTCs governance structure. He replied that the Legal department answered questions
respecting CRTC by-laws and voting rules and would not get drawn into personal
dissension between Commissioners. I tried again with Mr. Roussy and asked for a yes or
no answer. He replied that I was attempting to draw Legal into perceptions that are
inappropriate in tone and context. I sent one last email and explained that I was simply
trying to understand the process of getting the information that I needed if Legal was not
prepared to provide it. He replied that he could not advise me further but that the Legal
Sector has no concerns regarding governance issues.

141.

One week later, I received word that the Complainant was implementing a memorandum

that would require Commissioners and the Vice-Chairpersons to submit themselves to the
authority of Direct Reports a committee composed of CRTC Senior Staff and chaired by
the Chairperson. It was clear from the emails from Mr. Roussy that the Legal department had
no concerns with it. It was further made clear that they would not entertain discussions
respecting the legal concerns that I forwarded to the Complainant. Additionally, it is notable
that the Chairperson was copied on several of my email exchanges with the Complainant
he is a member of the email group *Commissioners and never chose to respond, interject
or make his perspective known. Lastly, the Secretary-General had also chosen not to address
my legal and Code of Conduct-related concerns.

142.

This was the context that I faced when confronted by the Complaint; an organization

composed of senior staff and a Chairperson who refused to address any of the serious legal,
policy and Code of Conduct-related issues that I had raised previously. This was not a
53

situation isolated to the Complainant; my relationship with the whole of CRTC senior staff
was strained due to my insistence on addressing governance issues that the Chairperson did
not wish to discuss.

Conclusion

143.

This complaint process is based on a series of emails pertaining important policy and

legislative issues for the CRTC that I proactively and persistently tried to raise with staff. The
issues concerned censorship, questionable changes in governance structures and persistent
denial of services to Commissioners. Many of the issues and questions I raised with the
Complainant and other members of senior staff were never addressed or answered. My
persistent and unanswered email inquiries to Commission staff and direct reports of the
Chairman and CEO, regarding these issues, and the Chairpersons ongoing refusal to address
these concerns, led to allegations of harassment.

144.

As the aforementioned issues are important, I engaged other Commissioners who are

equally affected by these matters. In an effort to resolve the issues, obtain answers and
expedite a response, I suggested to the Complainant that, at some point, if my concerns
continue to be ignored, I may be required to engage PSIC.

145.

While I acknowledge that my correspondence with the Complainant was, at times,

difficult, it was in no way designed to offend or personally attack her. I never intended to
54

affect her reputation or career in any way. It is regrettable that this matter has reached this
point and it is a function of dysfunctional governance issues that I believe to be at the root of
the discussions at issue in this complaint.

146.

As a Commissioner, I have an obligation to ensure that the CRTC and the

Commissioners that comprise the CRTC - remain capable of serving the public interest in an
unencumbered manner. I have continuously expressed my concern that the independence of
Commissioners has been undermined and that this has inhibited their ability to engage their
roles and responsibilities. These concerns have yet to be acknowledged and it is the failure
to address these issues that has resulted in the difficult environment at the CRTC. In
particular, in the seven email threads that comprise the complaint, I raise concerns with
respect to:

Censorship by the complainant and, by proxy, the Chairperson of the CRTC;

Changes in CRTC governance that directly infringe upon my independence as a

Commissioner; and

Repeated instances of denial of service by CRTC staff without adequate explanation or

justification.

147.

Over and above these stated concerns, I have also observed the following questionable

practices that have been instituted or confirmed by the Chairperson and his staffers or have
been informed of such practices by CRTC staff:

55

The requirement that Commissioners subject their stakeholder meetings and speaking
engagements to a committee chaired by the Chairperson for approval before receiving
staff support of any kind;

Meetings between the Chairperson and CRTC staff are routinely conducted in the
absence of other Commissioners during which the Chairperson amends staff
recommendations of briefing documents in order to ensure that they reflect his
preferences prior to being presented to the Commission;

News releases and other public documents which purport to speak on behalf of the
Commission are routinely released to the public without any consultation with the
Commission itself;

Consultations with Commissioners who do not sit on a panel, a legal requirement under
the Broadcasting Act, can and have been cut short arbitrarily by the Chairperson;

Commissioners who choose to accept speaking engagements without the approval of the
Chairperson are barred from posting their speaking points on the CRTC website;

Commissioner phone bills, phone records and credit card bills are monitored and
scrutinized by a member of CRTC HQ in Gatineau rather than an independent, third party
auditor (which I understand to be the process prior to the arrival of the current
Chairperson); and

Dissenting opinions of Commissioners have been delayed in their release with no

reasonable explanation.

56

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Shoan, Raj
Feb ru

ry-2 O-20L4

2:t2 P M

Raja Khanna
Re:

Offthe record comment

the same view. I was not aware this was the case. I will attend to it. Thanks for bringing it to my
attention.
I share

Sent from my BlackBerry L0 smartphone on the Rogers network.

From: Raja Khanna

Sent: Thursday, February 20,2014 2:05
To: Shoan, Raj
Subject: Off the record comment

PM

Rai,

I did the Choicebook this morning before my panel, here are all the names in the mock scenarios

used

in the choicebook.

Jeannine
Doreen
Sierra
Phan
Andrew
Mary
Matthew
Richard
Louise
Claire
Ethan
Eva

Robert
Chris
Mario
Jenny
John
Notice anything missing? I see B white men and B white women, and 1 unknown, Does not sound like
the Canada I live in. I am just saying in case there is someone you could quietly nudge on this. This is
my personal view, not necessarily Blue Ant's.
Raja

Warsalee Rehana
Shoan, Raj
May-09-14 2:27 PM
Cliff, Amanda
Laizner, Christianne; Charron, Phl; Mulln, Andrea
RE: Bi-annual technicalseminar - Ryerson University

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:

Subject:

Canclice ha nclles her ovyn speeche s on eve ry occa sio ni he r point lva s that sh e p refe rrecl to keep her spea king
engagenents private v,hich is, of course, her right as a Conrnrissioner.
I don't believe

that the point you are making rvas entirely clear to all of the Commissioners in attendance. Saying that

Comnrs has no role to play in approving/clenying speaking ettgagements but then denying them support v'rhen they
choose to speak lrithout consulting you is contradictory; it is effectively doing indirectly urhat yot are prohibited from
doing drectly. lt is an assertion of control ,,rhere none is ',varranted or allot,ed.
It is possible, of course, that the confusion is at nry end; I shall consult my fellolv Comntissioners on this point and get
back to you shortly.
Raj

From: Cliff, Amanda

Sent: May-09-2074 2:05
To: Shoan, Raj

PM

Cc: Laizner, Christianne; Charron, Phil; Mullin, Andrea

Subject: Re:

B-an nual technical seminar

- Ryerson University

Hi Raj

Jean-pierre concluclecl by saying that staff uroulcl provicle support when Cotlnlissioners r,,ere essentially being asked to
speak at an event vs the various other events where a Comnrissioner nay also v'ish to speak/present.
You nray recall Candice, for exanrple, nlentioning that she handles her orrtl speeches on those occasions.
Sorry for the corrfusion.

From; Shoan, Raj

Sent: Frday, May 09, 2014 01:57
To: Cliff, Amanda

PM

Cc: Lazner, Chrstianne; Charron, Phil; Mullin, Andrea

Subject: RE: Bi-annual technical serninar - Ryerson University
Hello Amanda,
Thanks for the enlail. l'nl sonlewhat confusecl by the secorrd statenlent n it;are you sayirtg that staff won't be proviclecl
to assist nre? That seenls to run counter to lvhat '.ve all cliscussed at the FCM last lleek; trantely, that Cotttms has no role
to play in appro,ringlclenying speaking engagelnentsof Conrnlissioners and that staff assistance will be provided if
sufficient aclvance notice of the engagement is provicJecl. ln this case, lanl provicling a rnontlr's notce, Can you corrfirnl

that staff lvill be assignecl to assist rne, please?

Raj

From: Cliff, Amanda

Sent: May-09-2014 1:02 pM
To: Shoan, Raj
Ccl Laizner, Christianne; Charron, phil
Subject: Fw: Bi-annual technicalsemnar - Ryerson University
Hi Raj
itlo problent at allrvith you attending ancl presenting.
As cliscussed at the in-camera FCM lunch, rve appreciate
being
informed,

ln the case r'vhere it is considered a strategic

opportunity for the cRc and you sr!
are \JJrrrq
essentially being asked to attend and
speak, staff lviil provide support.

Will be sending out a sunary of the cliscussion

soon,

From : Perreault, pierre-Marc

Sent: Friday, May 09, 2OI4 12256 pM

To: Cliff, Amanda

SubJect: Fw: Bi-annualtechnical seminar - Ryerson
Universty

From Shoan, Raj <Raj.Shoan@cftc.gc.ca>

Sent: Friday, May g, ZOI+ tt:iZ frl=To: Perreault, pierre-Marc
Cc: Mullin, Andrea; Rancourt, Eric

Subject: RE: B-annual technical seminar _ Ryerson

University
Hi Pierre-Marc,

That'stoobacl; inmyview,theseare precselythetypesof

engagementsvr/eshoulcjbeseekingout.Fortoolong,the

conlnlissior has conveyecl a sense of 'aloofness'and

clistance to-inclustrystakeholcJers. l,m sure these people
have
never even met a cRTc commissioner * l'hch
is a shame, lsn't that the whole point of the conversation
lvith
canadians? Accessibirity shourd be a hailmark
of the conrmission.

I've decided to attend the event; I think it

uill be interesting to fearn about the technology of rV in
an era of rapid
transition and change. r've copied Eric Rancourt
to this emarso he is arrare that rriil bettenuing. Eric, they,ve
asked
me to present on June 12; f'll contact them and
ask whether they vroulcl like nle to do a keynote
address
or
simply
a
presentaton.
Cheers
Raj

Raj Shoan
('onrlrissioner, ( )ntai.itr Region

('rrrrsciilet' , Rgitru clc t'OLriario

("lli!'ii

r[c lit rittli,ltlii'tisirrl ci r!c'i tc:lJcrrnjlir.rir;"!ri(,i

clrilii.,nirci,
2

Crurtdiiirt llaclicr-tcL-'i'isit)n rn(l'Icls'conntriritalions Ctrlilnrisso:

-Iornutr-r,
5-i St. Clair Avertu{ }:ast. Srrite 614.
ONl', Nf-+T I \f2

Iei-,Slequ&cts.sc-.ti
'l'lrhorre 'l'elclllone 416-95-l-(r36!) -'flcopieur'l
Facsinrilci
Ciruvernfl ncirt clu ('n rratla | (tru\ ct^ltten
\1

tllss-g

1d s u ir'.-

z-,r,:tl:-nul-Elxs'

416-9-51-,4.1

crf' Catt arla

'

l'git olu-us-sr Ttrigc!

From: Perreault, Pierre-Marc

Sent: May-08-2014 1152 PM
To: Shoan, Raj
Cc: Mullin, Andrea

Subject: Bi-annuaI technical seminar - Ryerson University

Commissioner Shoan,
There was a discusson on this invtation at this morning's senior management meeting,
It is senior management's vew that there are no strategic opportunities for the CRTC n the attendance of this
conference given its highly technical nature.
ln addition, given the current Let's Talk TV proceeding there is a potential for conflict of interest. As such, CASP will not
be sending any engneers/staff

to the conference.

Regards,

Pierre-Marc Perreault
Gestionnaire la Senslbilisation / Manager, Outreach
Communications et Relations Externes / Communications and External Relations
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des tlcommunications canadiennes (CRC)
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)
Les Terrasses de la Chaudire
1 Pronenade du Portage, Gatineau, QC JBX 481
Tlphone I Telephone: (Brg) 953-5199
Tlcopieur I Facsmile: (8191 994-0218
Portable I Mobile: (819) 635-4386
E-rnail: olerre-nlarc.oerreaull@crtc.oc.ca
Gou'rernement du Canada I Governnlent of Canada

r.r.r.crtc.oc.ca

Ounr", l'environnernent avnt d'imprilr;r ce corriel,/thnk cf the nvlrnrent llefor printrng thrs emaii

Warsalee Rehana
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:

Subject:

Shoan, Raj
June-02-14 11:06 PM
Cliff, Amanda
*Commissioners
RE: Unauthorized Amendments - BEAC Speech

Thank you, Anlancla. I fiave chosen

the explanaton.

to copy all Conrnrissioners; l'm sure most of them are just

as curiotls as I was as to

perfectly
I'nr not sure what you find to be so 'unfortunate'. Perhaps you nean ar,.kward? ln either case, I think these are
normal conversations to have at senior levels of agencies and,.frankly, necessary to the proper functioning of an
organization

not unclerstand t/hat you nrean by 'this is holv it works r,vith Ministers, rho are also independent,' Can you please
explain further? I fail to see holv this situation s analogorrs. Ministers generally preside over clepartnrents, lvhich are
vehicles for developing government policies ancl prograrns, and generally are required to consult tlith other Ministers
I rJo

and held to account by the prime Minister. The CRTC is an agency independent of governrnent rith a specialized
mandate established through multiple statutes, comprising commissioners appointed by the government but each of
lvhom operate in<leperrdently of ore another. That inclependence is crucial to the proper functioning of the
Commission. Where does it say that speeches delivered by independent Cornrnissioners must be 'approved'? And
please?
approved by r,vhom - the Commission or someone else? Can you provide me with legislative or policy authority,
Raj

From: Cllff, Amanda

Sent: Monday, June 02,2014 B:30

PM

To: Shoan, Raj

Subject: Re: Unauthorzed Amendments - EEAC Speech

Rai,

Notwithstanding that a Conrmissioner nay adjust their remarks in delivering a speech, speeches postecl on the
r,ueb site are those that have been approvetl.

CRTC

This is hor,v it trorks r,vith Ministers, who are also indepenclent.

My apologies if it ras not clear to you that your re-insertion of the flat footed remark cante after the speech
approved.

taras

From norl on, and as is clone with Ministers, we rvillbe sure to mark speeches posted on the CRTClveb site as "check
against delhrery",

lharren't copiecl allCornnrissioners on this reply because I find it allso ttnforttnatePut some headphones on ancl listen to Brian Eno's jttst Another Day on Earth'

From: Shoan, Raj

Sent: Monday, June 02,20L4 05:46
To: Clff, Amanda

PM

Cc: *Cornrnissioners
SubJech Unauthorized Amendments

BEAC Speech

Hello Amanda,

It has been brought to my attention that my

BEAC speech on the cRTC website has
been altered without my consent;
the reference to many canadian broadcasters
being caught 'flat-footed, by Netflix has been deleted.
why was this
statment deleted and according to what
legal authorityl altering my spoken words after
the fact without my consent
strkes at the very heart of my ndependenc
as a commissioner. can you explain this action, ptease?
Raj

Raj Shoan
Comruissioner I Ontario Region
Conseiller lRgion de I'Oniario

conseil de la radiodiffusion et des trcommunications

canadiennes I
canadian Radio'television and relecommuncations
conmission
55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 24,
Toronto, ONT, M4T tM2
Raj.Shoan@crtc.gc,ca
Tlphone I Tetephone 416-954-6269 Tlcopieur J Facsimi le 416-g54-6341
Gouvenrenrent du Canada Gouvernment
oianada
I
w$'$'.crtc.gc.c4 SSu,qz=nousut-l$1llg

Fbuorv us on

n ilter

Thank yor"r, \llancla. I ha,,,e choserj to copy all Cornntissioners; l'nr sure rrlost of ther are jttst as curious
as I ru,as s to the explanation.

l'n not sure r,';hatyou fincl to be so'gnfortunate'. Perhaps you mean awkr';ard? ln eithercase, lthink
these are perfectly normal conversatiors to have at senio;'le'els of agencies ancl, frankly, necessary to
the proper functionng of an organization.
not unclerstancl r,,hat yor nrean by'this is hov,,'t v,rorks r,vith Ministers, \'lho are also inclepenclent.'
Can you please explan further? lfalto see how this sitttation is analogous. Ministers generally presicle
over clepartments, ,r,vhich are vehicles for cleveloping government policies and programs, and generally
are requirecl to consult r,,ith other Minsters ancl held to account by the Prime Minister. The CRTC is an
agency inclependent of governrnent rrith a specalized manclate established through rnultiple statutes,
comprising Comnrissioners appointed by the governnent but each of r,,honr operate independently of
one allother. That indepenclence is crucial to the proper functonng of the Conrmission, Where does it
say that speeches deliverecl by inclepenclent Commissioners nlust be'approved'? And approved by
v.hom the Conrmission or someone else? Can you provide me r,vith legislative or policy authority,
I clo

please?
Raj

From: Cliff, Amanda

Sen Monday, June AL20L4 B:30 PM
To: Shoan, Raj
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Amendments - BEAC Speech
Raj,

Notrrithstanclng that a Comntissioner may adjust their remarks in delivering a speech, speeches posted
on the CRTC web site are those that have been approvecl.
This is how it rorks rith Ministers, l,rho are also inclepenclent'

My apologies if it

l^as

not clear to you that your re-insertion of the flat footed rernark came after the

speech lras approvecl.

From norl on, and as is clorte r,,ith tvlinisters, we r,vill be sure to mark speeches posted on the CRTC lveb
site as "check against clelivery".
I

haven't copied all Commissioners on this reply because I find it all so unfortunate,

Put some headphones on and listen to Brian Eno's JLtst Another Day on Earth,

Fromt Shoan, Raj

Sent: Monday, June 02,20L4 05:46
To: Cliff, Amanda

PM

Cc: xCommissioners

SubJect: Unauthorized Amendments -

BEAC Speech

Hello Amanda,

It has been brought to my attention that

my EEAC speech on the CRTC website has been
altered without
my consen the reference to rnany canadan
broadcasters oeng caugr,t ,flat-footed, by Netflix
has been
deleted' why was this statement deleted
and according to what legal authority? Altering
my
spoken
words after the fact without my consent
strikes at the very heart oimy independence
as a
Commissioner. Can you explain this action,
please?
RaJ

Raj Shoan
Comrnissioner I Ontario Region
Corseiller lRgion de l,Oniario

conseil de la radiodifftision et des tlcommunications

canadiennes r
canadian Radio-terevisior and r"te.qor*u-ni"J;#il^r"i;''"'

55 St. Clar Avenue East, Suite 624,

Toronto, ONT, tvl4. lM2
Rai.Shoa8@crtc.gc.ca
Tlphone I Telephone 416-954-6269 Ttcopieur I Facsirni le 416-9s4-6343
Gouvernement du Canada

IGouvemment oirnua
rvlvlr'.cttc.gc.ca Ssuivez:no$s srrr Ts:ittr S
Follorv
I

us en

Trr.ittel

..t-

From: Shoan, Raj

Sent: May-09-20t4 2:27 PYI
To: Clff, Amanda
Cc: Laizner, Christianne; Charon, Phili lullin, Andrea
Subject: RE: Bi-annual technical seminar - Ryerson University
Canclice hanclles her or,vn speeches on every occasioni her point

rv,ras

that she preferred to keep her

speaking engagements prvate which s, of coltfse, her right as a Conlnrissioner.

don't believe that the point you are making was entirely clear to all of the Commissoners in
attendance. Saying that Comms has no rofe to play n approving/denying speaking engagements but
then denying them support when they choose to speak lvithout consulting you is contraclictory; it is
effectively doing indirectly !vhat you are prohibitecl from cloing directly. lt s an assertion of control
I

where none is r,arranted or allor,recl.

It is possible, f course, that the confusion is at nTy encl; I shall consrtlt my fellolv Conrmissioners on this
point and get back to you shortlY.
Raj

From: Cliff, Amanda

Sent: May-09-2014 2:05 PM
To: Shoan, Raj
Gc: Laizner, Christianne; Chanon, Phil; Mullin, Andi'ea
Subject: Re: Bi-annualtechnical seminar - Ryerson University
Hi Raj

n-pierre concluclecl by saying that staff r,vould provide support when Contmissioners v'ere essentially
beng asked to speak at an event vs the variorts other events where a Commissioner may also rlish to
speak/present,

Jea

You may recall Canclice, for exampte, mentioning thal she handles lrer own speeches on those occasions,
Sorry for the confusion.

From: Shoan, Raj

Sent: Friday, May 09,2014 0l:57
To: Cliff, Amanda

PM

Cc: Laizner, Christianne; Charron, Phil; Mullin, Andrea

SubJect: RE: Bi-annual technical seminar - Ryerson University

Hello Amanda,
Thanks for the elrrail. I'nl sonrewhat confusecl by the second statenlent in ii; are yotrsayirrg that staff
lron't be proviclecl to essist rle? That seens to run counter to r.vhat,.'le all clisctssecl al the FClvl last
r,veek; namely, that Corlnls lras no role to play in appro'ring/dertying speaking engagentenlsof
Conlntissioners arrcl tht staflassistance v'ill be provicled if sufficient advance rrotice of the errgagentetrt

is pt'cr'ided. f tl ihis cse,

lam :rorri<jing a nrcritii

s i'rctice. Ca;r you corfirnl

assist nre, please?

that stff

v,,ill be assigned tc

Raj

Froml Cliff, Amanda

Sent: May-09-2014 1:02
To: Shoan, Raj

pM

Cc: Laizner, Christianne; Charron, phil

SubJect: Fw: Bi-annual technical seminar - Ryerson Universty

Hi Raj

l{o problerl at all rvith you attending arrd presenting. As discussed at tlre in-camera FCM lunch,
n
appreciate being inforrned,

Itt the case where it is consdered a strategic opportutity for tlre CRTC and you are essentially
being
asked to attend and speak, staff vuill provde support.

Will

be sending out a summary of the discussion soon.

From: Perreault, Pierre-Marc

Sent: Friday, [r4ay 09, 20i4 12:56
To: Cliff, Amanda

pM

Subject: Fw: Bi-annual techncal seminar - Ryerson University

From: Shoan, Raj <Raj.ShoaB@crt.qc.ca>

Sent: Friday, May 9, 2014 I1:52 AM

To: Perreault, Plerre-Marc

Ccl Mullin, Andrea; Rancourt, Eric
Subject: RE: Bl-annual technical seminar - Ryerson University
Hi Pierre-Marc,
That's too bad; in rny vie\ , these are trecisely the types of engagernents we shoulcl be
seeking out, For
loo long, the Conlntission has coliteyed a sense of 'aoofness'and distance to ndustry stakeholders.
l,nt
sure these people have never even n'let a CRTC Comrlissoner vyhich s a shame. lsnit
that the whole
:ont of the conversation tt ith Canadians? Accessibilty should be a hallnrark of the Commission.

l'r'e decided to attend the event; lthink it rvillbe interesting to learn about the techrrology of
TV in an
era of rapid transition and cltange. l'te copied Erc Rarcourt to this emailso he is arvare
ihat lv,,ill le
attendng' Eric, they'rre asked rrle to present on June 12; l'll contact thern and asl< rt,lretlier
they v,,orrld
like nle to do a keynote address or sirnrly a presentation.
Cheers

Raj

Raj Shirair
C(rntliss iir!er j (.)nt ario l{egi o:r
C'onsei[eL i Rgior: de l'Oirtirrir-r

Coits.'il

ce Ia

lacliirtlilhtsitttr et rles tl"'otultuications cauitc{ietltcs

'I'elec'otmttnications ('otuissioti
C'anaclian l{aclitreler isicrn alld
55 St, ('lair'.,\veuue East, Srrite (r2.1, TcrronLo, ONI',

Nf4l lN{2

Raj.Shoan(CIcrtc. gc.ca

'Ilphone -felephone 416-9-1-629 - 'l'lcopeur Facsnrile 416-9-sJ-6343

|
I
Gouvenlerttertt tlu C'anacla I G rlltYerrunelrt of Cattacla
uwrLcllg,sc. W Soo.r.osuLtut-Tsiltsr i W Lg[e\'lts-a!-rlgcr
From : Perreault, Pierre-Marc

Senh May-08-2014 1:52 PM

To: Shoan, Raj
Ccl Mullin, Andrea
Subjec* B-annual technical seminar - Ryerson University
Commissioner Shoan,
There was a discussion on this invitation at this morning's senior management meeting

It is senior management's view that there re no strategic opportunites for the

of this conference given ts highly technical nature.

CRTC

in the attendance

ln addition, given the current Let's Talk TV proceeding there s a potential for conflict of nterest. As
such, CASP will not be sending any engineers/staff to the conference.
Regards,

Pierre-Marc Perreault
Geslionnalre la Sensiblllsation I Manager, Outreach
Comrnunications et Relations Externes / Conlmunications ancl External Relations
Conseil de la radiocliffusion et des llconrmuncatons canadiennes (CRTC) /
Canadian Radio-lelevision and Telecommunications Gommission (CRTC)
Les Terrasses de la Chaudire
1 Promenade du Portage, Gatneau, QC J8X 481
Tlphone I Telephone: (819) 953-5199
Tlcopieur I Facsimile: (e19) 994-0218
Portable I Mobile: (81S) 635-4386
E-mail : plerre-marc.oeneaull@crtc.gc.ca
Gouvernement du Canada I Government of Canada
vr/y.cftc.oc.c

'?
lT"-=^...r:i=-,---rr:-ia-r-i.:i'i::::,-.=':t:.-.-"1.':,--i:t:i';"---'1-at:':'-::".:iitS="-'+

Source URL: http://www.hollvwoodreoorter.com/news/canadian-reoulator-broadcasters-cauoht-flat-707552

Canadian Regulator: Broadcasters Caught lFlat-Footed' By Netflix

10:544M PDT 512812014 by'Etan Vlessing

.1

.10

.0

fillilrl

The criticism came as a CRTG commissioner urged the domestic radio industry to avoid
napping as automakers design new on-board technologies to capture audio content.
TORONTO - A Canadian TV watchdog has criticized local broadcasters for being asleep on the job as Netflix came north four years ago to
compete in their market.

"l don't want to see a repeat of the Netflix experience, when many, if not most, broadcasting companies were caught flat-footed," Raj Shoan, a
regional commissioner for the CRTC (the country's broadcast regulator), said in a May 22 speech to the National Conference of the Broadcast
Educators Association.
Shoan also warned the Canadian radio industry against napping as automakers design "an interactive dashboard of the future" to access audio
content beyond AM/FM radio.

"...There's a major curve in the road ahead for radio and I hope industry is paying attention," he added.
Netflix Canada was launched in September 2010 as the first international expansion for the U.S.-based video streaming giant.
Netflix Canada today overshadows the domestic TV market with over two million subscribers, and only Rogers Communications stands out among
legacy cable or satellite TV carriers in making plans for a Netflix-like streaming video service.
"Everyone knew the battle for control of the living room was coming. Five years ago, there was an opportunity for Canadian companies to take a
leadership role in the online space," shoan told the Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, conference.
"However, since the launch of Netflix less than four years ago, broadcasters have been playing catch-up," he added.

The CRTC has consistently ruled against regulating Netflix Canada, despite industry calls to do so, as it argues Canadian broadcasters are not
disadvantaged while competing aganst the U.S. streaming giant for viewers.
Links:
[1] http://pinterest.com/pin/create/buttoni?url=www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/canadian-regulator-broadcasters-caught-flatRegulator: Broadcasters Caught &#039;Flat-Footed&#039; By Netfl x

090/2015

Emal

d Sep{eribrr- n14 - Memo re Dntic Speakirq

Req,lesls ard Conference - Part 2.ldm

From:

Shoan, Raj

Senh

September-16-20L4 9:18 AM

To:

Cliff, Amanda
*Comm issioners; *Commissoners
Assstants; Traversy, Iohn
RE: Memo re: Domestic Speaking Requests and Conference

Cc:

Subject:

lmportance:

High

Amanda
There are a number of statements n your response that are problematic. It is precisely for this reason that, in
previous email exchanges with you, f have repeatedly sought legal confirmaton of the acceptability of the

proposed operatonal and policy approaches. I encourage you to seek legal opinions regardng the ability to
enct certan practices and policies as there appears to be a lack of understanding of the legal framework
underpnning the proper functioning of the Commission which, in my respectful vew, damages the credibility of
these proposals. Given your lack of legal background, this is completely understandable; thus, a comprehensive
legal opinion respectng the overall governance structure of the CRTC would benefit all levels of management.
You have reiterated the following:
"With regard to speaking events, in order to rnanage workload and the competing demands on my team, I have agreed to
provide support to all Commssioners equally when, from policy, legal and communicatons perspectives, the CRTC
mnagement team recommends that a speech be delivered on behalf of the Commission."

ln your original email, you stated the following

"ln terms of speeches and presentations, for prtcipation recomrnended by DRs, Comrnuncations provides

turnkey

service to the Chairman, Vice-Chairmen, Commssioners and DRs""

There is functionally no difference between the two statements other than the inclusion of a reference to
workload and competing demands. 'CRTC Management Team' is synonymous with 'Direct Reports' in the
context of this exchange. I mantain my position, irrespective of the terminology used, that the ultimate decisionmaker s the Charman, who by his own admission has no ability or role in making such decisions or dstinctions
gven that the Vice-Chairmen and Commissioners do not constitute staff. lf the implication is that the 'CRTC
Management Team' does not include the Chairman, then the nterpretation is considerably more problematc, as
it suggests that CRTC Management Staff has the ability to supervise the Vice-Chairmen and Commissioners, an
authority denied even to the Chairman.
A basic principle of statutory interpretation is that, when two statutes apply to a given situation or organization,
a harmonious interpretation of both pieces of legislation should rule. The noton that the Chairman, as Deputy
Head, can exercise authority denied to hm as the Charman contradicts this legal principle. The more reasonable
nterpretaton is that the Chairman's authority as Deputy Head ends in so far as it conflicts with the limits
imposed on him as the Charman. A,s the Vice-Chairman and Cornmissioners do not serve as staff under the
supervision of the Charman pursuant to the CRTC Act, the Financial Administration Act (FAA) cannot grant him
this authority. Moreover, it is a stretch to argue that an act focused narrowly on fnancial accountability can grant
the Chairman direct authority over his Commissioner colleagues.
I fully acknowledge the concern with respect to workloa d and/or competng demands. A more impartial
approach, however, would be a balanced policy that would ensure each Commissioner receives support
according to clearly defined critera, articulated need and transparent choices. This would be in accordance with

05015

Email of Septernb 162014- MernoreDwnestrcSpeakiruRequeslsandCferer- Part2.tffn

the CRTC's Code of Conduct and bsic principles of administrative law. The proposed approach here provides no
information with respectto selecton criteria, need, demand and/or balanced selections.
You further stated:
"This does not fetter the independence of Commissioners to deliver remarks of their own accord or to disagree with the
management team's recommendation and decline a speaking engagement."

The independence of each Commissioner is contingent upon equal access to and from relevant information,
analyses, support and advice. lt is precisely for this reason that preferential treatment of Commssioners is
prohbted by the CRTC Code of Conduct. Without equal access to relevant information, analyses, support and
advice, Commissioners could be placed at a disadvantage when adjudicating matters or making decisions,
increasing the risk of appeal of Commission decisions and/or damaging the integrity of the Commission's
decision-making process.

lf Commissioners delver remarks of their own, but they are not accessible on the CRTC website, or are
censored/edited after the fact, those Commissioners are demonstrably disadvantaged vis--vis their
counterparts. lt undermines their independence and sends a public message that their authority is subject to the
approvalof staff and/ar the Chairman - neither of which is accurate. The equality of Commissioners is measured
by equal access to - or equal ability to refuse * staff support,
ln addition, you stated:
"My team also provides some other types of support to alI Commissioners. Assigning that work is my resportsibility and
prerogatve."

The role of CRTC staff is to supplement the work of the Commission, legally defined as the seven (7] current
Commissoners" lt has no authority independent of the Commission (other than authority designated to the CASL
staff group). lt has no uthorty over the Commission. l'm concerned by your use of the word 'prerogative' as it
impf ies that decisions can be made arhitrarily, irrespective of the legislative scheme set forth by parliament. Can
you please clarify?

Additionally, you have stted:

"This is not a new process. The purpose of the memo was to clarify internally who does what."

This memo ws the first I have heard of ths process subsequent to our April FCM conversation. Consequently,
would be grateful if you would share with me the written policy that was in place prior to this memo being

circulated.
Lastly, you have stated:
"The memo on domestic events was prepared forJean-Pierre as Deputy Head. lt describes our internal prcesses. A similar
note was prepared for international events."

would kindly request that you provide me wth the written policy for international events as well. I would like to
review it to ensure interpretve consistency.
I

ln addition to the foregoing, I noticed that you have failed to address numerous points/questions and concerns
brought forward in my original correspondence. For your convenience, I have pasted them below for your
consideration:
file:///Crusersibstroarrurnents/CRTC/Comgar/Addiloral%zfmails%20foro62JR%2ApdcatiodEmail%Z0of/o20se$ernbso2016o/0N2014o/o?o/p?...

217

0sw15
e

Emal of Septernber 16

f4 - Memo

re Domtic Speakrg Requesls and Corference - Part

Ztn

Communications has recommended a process that allows the Chairman to do ndirectly what he does not
have the authorty to do drectly, namely, direct and supervise the Vice-Chairmen and Commissioners as
members of staff;

A process was proposed that has questionable support amongst the Commissioners and was circulated
to regional staff without Commissioner consultation or for Commssioner information;

The memo fails to adhere to essential behaviours for the public service outlined in the Code of Conduct,
namely:

providing decision makers with allthe information, analysis and advice they need;

working together in a spirit of openness, honesty and transparency; and

o acquiring, preserving and sharing knowledge and information,

s

as approprate;

The memo also fails to adhere to essential values and expected behaviours for the CRTC, namely:

o lt does not preserve the impartiality

of the Communications department as it purports to bestow

preferental treatment to the Chairman; and

lt does not provide decision-makers {i.e. the Commissoners) with all the information, analyses and
advice they may need.

Communcatons has a positive duty to serve each Commissioner equally and with the utmost
impartiality in order to ensure that our website, our communications and our decisions rflect the will of
the Commission as a whole; and

the CICAcf does not give the Chairman priority treatment by any department/sector and nor should
he/she be accorded any such preferential treatment in the absence of discussion and consultation with
his fellow Commissioners or in contravention of the CRTC's Code of Conduct.

lf the Legal Department appropriately chooses to recuse itself from this analysis, the Commission can discuss how
best to pursue these issues themselves including. but not limited to, consultation with the Department of
Canadian Heritage, the Department of Justice, the Treasury Board Secretariat and/or Public Accounts Committee.
Thank you for your full consideration of questions/concerns I have raised. I look forward to a reply that is on
pont and reflective of the rof e of CRC staff to serve the Commission as a whole.
Raj

Raj Shoan
ommissioner I Ontario Region
Conseiller I Rgiott de I'Ontario
Conseil de Ia radiodiffusion et des tlcommunications canadiennes
ian Radio-te levision and Te lscommurcations Commis s ion
55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 624.'l'oronto" ONT, M4'f' lMz

Canacf
R a i. S

hoanrl ctc. ec ca
.

Tlphone I Telephone 416-954-6269 - Tlcopieur I Facsimile 416-95&6343

Couvernement du Canada I Gouvernmerit of Canada
"a

r\rv)r,qft.g.a.

ilsuivgz-'

rcr|

:Lriitlqll.orv-us

tr'Iitte.

Fronn: Clff, Amanda

f le-///C:/users/bstparDoctrner{s/CRTC/Comda{nt/Addtld%zffimails%20foro20JRo/qz0AFdctitrr/Ernait%}of/62Seernber962016%20014o/o*yoz..

fl7

0902015
Email cf Sdernlrl"
$ent: September-Ls-z}t4 1 1 :29 AM
T Shoan, Raj

2f14 - Merno re Dqnestic Speakirg Requests and Confermce -

Part 2.ltn

Cc: *Commissioners; ECommissioners Assisnb

Sbject: Re: Memo re: Dornestic Speaking Requests and Conference
Raj,

The memo on domestic events was prepared for Jean-Pierre as Deputy Head, lt describes our internal processes.
A simllar note was prepared for international events.

My primary responsiblty vis a vis Regional Commssioners is to ensure the provision of administrative support.
My team also provides some other types af support to all Commissioners. Assigning that work is my responsibility
and prerogative.

With regard to speaking events, in order to manage workload and the competng demands CIn my tearn, I have
agreed to provide support to all Commissioners equally when, from polic legal and communications
perspectives, the CRTC management team recommends that a speech be delivered on behalf of the Commission.
This does not fetter the ndependence of Commissioners to deliver remarks of their own accord or to disagree
with the management team's recommendaton and decline a speaking enggement.
Ths s not a new process. The purpose of the mem was

to clarify internally who does wlrat.

Frorn: Shoan, Raj

Sent: Friday, September L2,20L4 01:11PM
To: Cliff, Amanda

Cc: *Commissioners; *Comm issione Assi st nts

Subjec: Memo re: Domestic Speaking Requesb and Conference
Hello Amanda,

I am in receipt of your Memo to the Chairman and CEO (attached) that was distributed to regional staff on
September 9,2014. As you can imagne, I have serious reservations that this Memo fundamentally undermines
the independence of the Vice-Chairmen and Commissioners to the benefit of the Chairman and consolidates in a
substantial way far more power in the executive offices of the Chairman and CEO than Parliament intended.

At the outset, I think it is important to clarify our understanding of certan terms so we are speaking in clear,
unambiguous language. My understanding is that the term Direct Reports {DR} refers to a body that is chaired by
the Chairman and CEO, Jean-Pierre Blais, and consists of the CRTC's senior staff. Given that the Chairman chairs
the DR meetings, I can see no functional distinction between the Office of the Chairman and the adminstrative
decisions exercised by the DR; effectively, the Chairman is still the decision maker. Accordingly, for the purposes
of this email and a going forward basis, I will not differentiate between the DR and the Office of the Chairman;
they are, in practice. one and the same.
ln your Memo, you make the following statements:

lnvitations to Commissioners, requests for CRTC staff to play a speaking role and invitations to events
where there may be an interest on the part of a number of staff to attend, should be forwarded to the

09ffi0f5

Emi of September 16 14 - Merno re Dqnestic Speaki RequesE and

fersce - Part z.htm

Outreach Team in Communicatons. This team will consult wth Direct Reports;

The Outreach Team is offering to respond to invitations to all executives, the Vce-Chairmen and
Commissioners in consultation with their respective Assistants;
The Outreach Team has a postve duty to assist the Chairman in terms of briefing materials but no such
duty for the Vice-Chairmen and Commissioners;

e ln terms of speeches and presentations,rpdrtcpaton

recommended bt DRs, Communications provides

a turnkey service to the Charman, Vice-Chairmen, Commissioners and DRs;

"

Depending on workload, Sector Services may also be able to provide advice for those preparing their own
speaking points; and

Creative Services provides input as needed (e.g. images) and Web Services posts the check-against delivery
version of the document on the CRTC website.

Backgrund
This Memo does not exist in a vacuum; it follows discussions at an in-camera lunch held during the April 2014
FCM and, furthermore, sveral email exchange between you and I over the role of Communications over this
calendar year. Let's review that background once agan.

At the April FCM, Christianne Laizner presented a powerpoint presentation that elicited a strong reaction from
the Commissioners. Without materially breaching the confidentiality of the exchange that followed, the
Chairman made unequivocal statements to the effect that:

the Chairman's office has no role to play in approving or denying stakeholder visits by Commissioners;
there was no obligation for Commissioners to inform Communications of their stakeholder meetingsj and
staff support for speaking engagements would be provided to Commssioners, if desired and if ample
notice has been given.

Commissoners were encouraged to voluntarily engage with Communications and Legal to acquire the
appropriate information to make an informed decison but it was confirmed there was no obligation to do so. ln
the context of this dscussion, the independence of each Commissioner, rightlg was the focus of the participants.

Subsequent to the Aprl FCM, I have had two notable interactions with Communications respecting its role at the
Commission. ln the first instance, my assistant, Andrea Mullin, engaged with Communications in good faith to
inform them of a speaking engagement I had chosen to accept in June 2AL4with the Society of Motion Picture
and Tefevision Engineers (SMPTE). She requested the assistance of Communications. Cornmunications declined to
assist; the email exchange can be found appended to this email. ln this exchange, when queried as to the basis
upon which Communications was refusing to assist, you indicated that the Chairman had not approved the
speaking engagement. I noted that the Chairman had no role to play with respect to approving/denying my
speakng engagements and, by denying me staff support, the Chairman was doing indirecty what he stated he
could not do directly. You declined to address this statement. This same issue {i.e. "for participation
recommended by DRs") is now captured in the document you circulated to regional staff.
ln the second instnce, after a speaking enggement with the Broadcast Educators Association of Canada {BEAC),
the text of my speech on the CRTC website was altered by Communications. ln an exchange with you, appended
to this email, you indicated that the speech was altered at the request of the Chairman as he did not approve my
speaking points. I asked for the legal authority upon which the Chairman could require approval of an
ndependent Commissione/s speaking points. You declined to address my legalcncern. This same issue (i.e.
file:///Crtusers/beflo{lornertsiCRTC/tn$ainUAdditid%20Emails%20for%20JRo/s20ApdicatoryEmail%200fli620Se$anber%2016%2U014%*o2...

5t7

0f15

Email of

Seflans

16 2Of 4 - Memo re

Dsnestic Speaking Re@ests and Confererrce - Pad 2.fm

check-against-delivery version) is now captured in the document you circulated to regional staff.

Applcoble law
Subsection 6(2) of the

CRTC

Act states as follows:

(2) The Chairperson is the chief executive officer of the Commission, has supervision over and direction
of the work and staff of the Commission and shall preside at meetings of the Commission. (emphasis
mine)

Staff is further defined at section

I as follows:

The officers and employees necessary for the proper conduct of the Commission's business shall be
apponted in accordance with the Palic 5e'vice Employment AcJ.

Commissioners are appointed pursuant to an Order-in-Council issued by the Government of Canada. ln other
words, according to the CRTC Act, Commissioners are not staff.
Anlysis
Let's start with a discusson of what the 'CRTC' is so we are on the same page. The CRTC is an agency
independent of government wth a specialized mandate established through multiple statutes, comprising
Commissioners appointed by the government but each of whom operate independently of one another. That
independence is crucial to the proper functioning of the Commission; each Commissioner has one vote and they
are expected to exercise that vote using their respective experences, expertise and knowledge, as well as staff
support, to inform their decision-making. lmportantly, the CRTC Act does not provide for veto for any member
over any matter and the Chairmen and Vice-Chairman do not have votng rights whch establish a priority over
other Commissioners. As members of the Commission for adjudicating and decision-making purposes, all
Commissioners are equal. This equality is reflected by the fact that quorum of the Commission at an FCM is a
simple majority.

totalifi, however, the Memo that you sent to regional staff drastically undermines the independence
and equality of the Vice-Chairmen and Commissioners vs--vis the Chairman. By requiring Chairman preapproval for speeches and presentations, and by establishing a gatekeeper role of the Charman to the CdTC
website, you have directly restricted the ability of Commissioners to reach out to their respective constituents
and/or stakeholders. Moreover, it effectively ensures that if a Commissioner exercises their ability to not engage
with the Outreach Team - as is their right - they will be denied access to briefing materials and the support of
sector services. ln short, Communicatons has recommended a process that indirectly allows the Chairman to do
what he cannot do drectl namely, direct and supervise the Vice-Chairmen and Commissioners as members of
staff.
Taken in

further dismayed that you have chosen to ignore two explicit reguests on my part for additional information
respecting the internal processes of the Communications department. lnstead, you have proposed a process in
your Memo that has questionable support amongst the Commissioners and circulated it to regional staff without
our consultation or for our information.
I am

The CRTC's Code of Conduct is applicable to both you and the Chairman in this context. I fail to see how your
Memo adheres to the essental behaviours for the public service outlined in the Code of Conduct, namely:

providing decision makers with all the information, analysis and advice they need;

0tm2015

Email of SegnUer 16 14 - Merno re

Detic

Speakirg Reqrests arJ

Cmfersce - Part

working together in a spirit of openness, honesty and transparency; and

acquiring, preserving and sharing knowledge nd informton, as appropriate.

2.1*rn

Furthermore, with respect to essential values and expected behavours for the CRTC, I fail to see how your

Memo:

preserves the impartiaf ity of the Communcations department as it purports to bestow preferentiaf
treatment to the Charman; and

o provdes decison-makers (i.e. the Commissoners)

with all the information, analyses and advice they may

need.
The CRTC is legally defined as the body composed of the members appointed to the Commssion by Orders-inCouncil. This means, by definition, every document issued by the organization is representative of the seven (7)
current Commissioners. Accordingly, Communications has a postive duty to serve each Commissiorer equally
and with the utmost impartiality in order to ensure that our website, our communcations and our decisions
reflect the will of the Commission as a whole. The Chairman may, of course, supervise and direct staff but only in
so far as t does not conflict with the essential character and nature of organization; the CRTC Act does not give
him priorty tretment by any department/sector and nor should he be accorded any such preferentialtreatment
in the absence of discussion and consultation wth hs fellow Commissioners or in contraventon of the CRTC's
Code of Conduct.

ln conclusion, I suggest that your proposed process be openly discussed and debated by Commissioners at the
October FCM prior to implementation. I further reiterate my requests for the information contalned in my
previous emails. With respect to your offer to respond to my invitations, I decline to accept i instead, effective
immediatel I would like you to date stmp every piece of correspondence sent to HQ to my attention and send
it, unopened, to my office as soon as it arrives or shortly thereafter. Your prompt compliance with this request s
most appreciated.
Raj

Raj Shoan
Commissioner I Ontario Region
Conseiiler I Rgion de I'Ontario
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des tlcommunications canadiennes

Canadia n Radio-television and Telecommunic ations Commiss ion

55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 624, Toronto, ONT, l./.4T lMz
Rai. Shoan{Dcc. ec.ca

Tlphone I Telephone 4l95+6269 -'flcopie ur I Facsimile 416-9 54-6343

Gouvemement du Canada I Gowerament of Canada

www.crtc.Bo.cr i;ISuivez-rous sur Twjtte'I lo"' Irllorr,-us on lrl,-tcr

fle/i/C/Users/bshoaiVDoflmers/CRTC/Comilaint/Additirato20Emailso/o2of%20JR%20ApdictionrEmail%20cfl,620Se9ntu%ffi16o/o?fPf14oh-a/o2...

Zn

Shoan, Raj

From:
Sent:
To:

September-15-2Ot4 10:13 AM
Traversy, John
FW: Memo re: Domestic Speaking Requests and Conference
BN - Domestic speaking requests conference.pdf; Email Exchange re SMPTE
Appearance.doc; Email Exchange re Unauthorized Changes to Online Speech.doc

Subject:
Attachments:

lmportance:

High

Good morning John,

the CRTC, do you have any comment on the email below in your capacity as the
Secretary-General? A written reply would be appreciated.
As the senior public servant at

Raj

Raj Shoan
Commissioner I Ontario Region
Conseiller I Rgion de l'Ontario
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des tlcommunications canadiennes
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 624,Toronto, ONT, M4T 1M2
Raj.Shoan@crtc.ec.ca
Tlphone I Telephone 416-954-6269 - Tlcopieur I Facsimile 416-954-6343
Gouvernement du Canada I Gouvernment of Canada
E
E Follow us on Twitter
www.crtc.gc.ca Suivez-nous sur Twitter I
I

From: Shoan, Raj

Sent: September-L2-20L4
To: Cliff, Amanda

1 : 12

PM

Cc: xCommissioners; xComm issioners Assista nts

Subject: Memo re: Domestic Speaking Requests and Conference

Impoftance:

High

Hello Amanda,

receipt of your Memo to the Chairman and CEO (attached) that was distributed to regional staff on September
9,2014. As you can imagine, I have serious reservations that this Memo fundamentally undermines the independence
of the Vice-Chairmen and Commissioners to the benefit of the Chairman and consolidates n a substantial way far
more power in the executive offices of the Chairman and CEO than Parliament intended.
I am n

At the outset, I think it is important to clarify our understanding of certain terms so we are speaking in clear,
unambiguous language. My understanding is that the term Direct Reports (DR) refers to a body that is chaired by the
Chairman and CEO, Jean-Pierre Blais, and consists of the CRTC's senior staff. Given that the Chairman chairs the DR
meetings, I can see no functional distinction between the Office of the Chairman and the administrative decisions
exercised by the DR; effectively, the Chairman is still the decision maker. Accordingl for the purposes of this email
and a going forward basis, I will not differentiate between the DR and the Office of the Chairman; they are, in
practice, one and the same.
ln your Memo, you make the following statements:

.
.
.
.
.
.

lnvitations to Commissioners, requests for CRTC staff to play a speaking role and invitations to events where
there may be an interest on the part of a number of staff to attend, should be forwarded to the Outreach Team
in Communications. This team will consult with Direct Reports;
The Outreach Team is offering to respond to invitations to all executives, the Vice-Chairmen and
Commissioners in consultation with their respective Assistants;
The Outreach Team has a positive duty to assist the Chairman in terms of briefing materials but no such duty
for the Vice-Chairmen and Commissioners;
ln terms of speeches and presentations, for participation recommended by
turnkey service to the Chairman, Vice-Chairmen, Commissioners and DRs;

DRs,

Communications provides

Depending on workload, Sector Services may also be able to provide advice for those preparing their own
speaking points; and
Creative Services provides input as needed (e.g. images) and Web Services posts the check-against delivery
version of the document on the CRTC website.

Background
This Memo does not exist in a vacuum; it follows discussions at an in-camera lunch held during the April 2014 FCM
and, furthermore, several email exchange between you and I over the role of Communications over this calendar
year. Let's review that background once again.

At the April FCM, Christianne Laizner presented a powerpoint presentation that elicited a strong reaction from the
Commissioners. Without materially breaching the confidentiality of the exchange that followed, the Chairman made
unequivocal statements to the effect that:

.
.
.

the Chairman's office has no role to play in approving or denying stakeholder visits by Commissioners;
there was no obligation for Commissioners to inform Communications of their stakeholder meetings; and
staff support for speaking engagements would be provided to Commissioners, if desired and if ample notice
has been given.

Commissioners were encouraged to voluntarily engage with Communications and Legal to acquire the appropriate
information to make an informed decision but it was confirmed there was no obligation to do so. ln the context of
this discussion, the independence of each Commissioner, rightly, was the focus of the participants.
Subsequent to the April FCM, I have had two notable interactions with Communications respecting its role at the
Commission. ln the first instance, my assistant, Andrea Mullin, engaged with Communications in good faith to inform
them of a speaking engagement I had chosen to accept in June 201-4 with the Society of Motion Picture and Television
Engineers (SMPTE). She requested the assistance of Communications. Communications declined to assist; the email
exchange can be found appended to this email. ln this exchange, when queried as to the basis upon which
Communications was refusing to assist, you indicated that the Chairman had not approved the speaking engagement.
I noted that the Chairman had no role to play with respect to approving/denying my speaking engagements and, by
denying me staff support, the Chairman was doing indirectly what he stated he could not do directly. You declined to
address this statement. This same issue (i.e. "for participation recommended by DRs") is now captured in the

document you circulated to regional staff.

ln the second instance, after a speaking engagement with the Broadcast Educators Association of Canada (BEAC), the
text of my speech on the CRTC website was altered by Communications. ln an exchange with you, appended to this
email, you indicated that the speech was altered at the request of the Chairman as he did not approve my speaking
points. I asked for the legal authority upon which the Chairman could require approval of an independent

Commissioner's speaking points. You declined to address my legal concern. This same issue (i.e. check-againstdelivery version) is now captured in the document you circulated to regional staff.

Applicable low
Subsection 6(2) of the CRTC Act states as follows:
(2) The Chairperson is the chief executive officer of the Commission, has supervision over and direction of the

work ond stoff of the Commission and shall preside at meetings of the Commission. (emphasis mine)
Staff

is

further defined at section 8

as

follows:

The officers and employees necessary for the proper conduct of the Commission's business shall be
appointed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act.
Commissioners are appointed pursuant to an Order-in-Council issued by the Government of Canada. ln other words,
according to the CRTC Act, Commissioners are not staff.

Analysis
Let's start with a discussion of what the 'CRTC' is so we are on the same page. The CRTC is an agency independent of
government with a specialized mandate established through multiple statutes, comprising Commissioners appointed
by the government but each of whom operate independently of one another. That independence is crucial to the
proper functioning of the Commission; each Commissioner has one vote and they are expected to exercise that vote
using their respective experiences, expertise and knowledge, as well as staff support, to inform their decision-making.
lmportantly, the CRTC Act does not provide for a veto for any member over any matter and the Chairmen and ViceChairman do not have voting rights which establish a priority over other Commissioners. As members of the
Commission for adjudicating and decision-making purposes, all Commissioners are equal. This equality is reflected by
the fact that quorum of the Commission at an FCM is a simple majority.
Taken in totality, however, the Memo that you sent to regional staff drastically undermines the independence and
equality of the Vice-Chairmen and Commissioners vis--vis the Chairman. By requiring Chairman pre-approvalfor
speeches and presentations, and by establishing a gatekeeper role of the Chairman to the CRTC website, you have
directly restricted the ability of Commissioners to reach out to their respective constituents and/or stakeholders.
Moreover, it effectively ensures that if a Commissioner exercises their ability to not engage with the Outreach Team as is their right - they will be denied access to briefing materials and the support of sector services. ln short,
Communications has recommended a process that indirectly allows the Chairman to do what he cannot do directly,
namely, direct and supervise the Vice-Chairmen and Commissioners as members of staff.

further dismayed that you have chosen to ignore two explicit requests on my part for additional information
respecting the internal processes of the Communications department. lnstead, you have proposed a process in your
Memo that has questonable support amongst the Commissioners and circulated it to regional staff without our
consultation or for our information.
I am

The CRTC's Code of Conduct is applicable to both you and the Chairman in this context. I fail to see how your Memo
adheres to the essential behaviours for the public service outlined in the Code of Conduct, namely:

.
.
.

providing decision makers with all the information, analysis and advice they need;
working together in a spirit of openness, honesty and transparency; and
acquiring, preserving and sharing knowledge and information, as appropriate.

Furthermore, with respect to essential values and expected behaviours for the CRTC, I fail to see how your Memo:

.
.

preseryes the impartiality of the Communications department as it purports to bestow preferential treatment
to the Chairman; and
provides decision-makers (i.e. the Commissioners) with all the information, analyses and advice they may need

The CRTC is legally defined as the body composed of the members appointed to the Commission by Orders-in-Council
This means, by definition, every document issued by the organization is representative of the seven (7) current
Commissioners. Accordingl Communications has a positive duty to serve each Commissioner equally and with the
utmost impartiality in order to ensure that our website, our communications and our decisions reflect the will of the
Commission as a whole. The Chairman may, of course, supervise and direct staff but only in so far as it does not
conflict with the essential character and nature of organization; the CRTC Act does not give him priority treatment by
any department/sector and nor should he be accorded any such preferential treatment in the absence of discussion
and consultation with his fellow Commissioners or in contravention of the CRTC's Code of Conduct.
ln conclusion, I suggest that your proposed process be openly discussed and debated by Commissioners at the
October FCM prior to implementation. I further reiterate my requests for the information contained in my previous
emails. With respect to your offer to respond to my invitations, I decline to accept it; instead, effective immediately, I
would like you to date stamp every piece of correspondence sent to HQ to my attention and send it, unopened, to my
office as soon as it arrives or shortly thereafter. Your prompt compliance with this request is most appreciated.
Raj

Raj Shoan
Commissioner I Ontario Region
Conseiller I Rgion de l'Ontario
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des tlcommunications canadiennes
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

55 St. ClairAvenue East, Suite 624,Toronto, ONT, M4T 1M2

Raj.Shoan@crtc.gc.ca
Tlphone I Telephone 416-954-6269 - Tlcopieur I Facsimile 416-954-6343
Gouvernement du Canada I Gouvernment of Canada
E
Follow us on Twitter
www.crtc.gc.ca
Suivez-nous sur Twitter

|!

I*I

Canadian adiQ-lelevision and'

Teleconwruncatins Cornrnission

de la

des

llawa. Crrada
KlA'ON2

September 26,2414

Mr. Raj Shoan

Regional'Commissioner, ntario55, St. lair Avenue Hast, $uite 624
Toronto, Ontario, M4T 1M2

Dear Mr $hoan:

Treasury Boad Secretariat's

reasoft, I have decided fo launch an admi

For this

Attached for our information fe a copy of the complaint and a copy of the TBS Polj.y.on
H,Arassment Freventiqfi and Resolutjo""n. As part of the process, you will be afforded an
apportunit! e,pesent any information that you feel ia relevant to the situation and that
shold be taken into considoratien prior to a finaldcision. I will'be iir cqntact with you
shortlr to discuss the next steps in this proces$.
I would like to assutfe you that all information regarding thls pr"ooess is strctly confidential
and will be handted in accordance with the requirements of the ccess to lnformatlon and
,Frivacy Acts,, and the principles of naturaljustc in conducting the investigation of the
complaint. I wih to remind you of your respCInsibilities in this'regard and I appreciate your
cooperation in r$pecting the confidentiality of the complaint and this proce$s"

I remind you that, in accordance with the Tenns and Conditions of mnlovment for Fr|.l":Time
Govqrnorin:punpilJ\npaintqpq, you are expected to uphold the highes ethical standards,
,and are also expected to respect policies to preventand resolve harassrnent. Unless there
is a'speciicwork requirement, it is recommended that you minimize contact with Ms Clitf
until such time as this file is closed.

Canad

jl

nd

lf'ybu,:hviuestiongbuuf thls precrs lcn be renche.d1,8:l9"g5g-6s:8.9.

.Se.r,el

,,John,T,ravefey
'$iffptary Gerera I :and.

'eR,C,V.glres and. Etf ii thmp0n

:At*aohments-

Cenad

'shqutd nst

Page 1 of6

Policy on Flarassment Prevention antl Resolution

H*
Home

Poli

Canad

F'%';3"' $,bi.{i8*'

>

Treasury Bord Policy Suite

on Hrassment Prevention and Resolution

s&

Effective Date

Resources

of Contents

Complete Text

1.1Ths policy takes effect on October lst, 2012.

1.2 This policy replaces the followlng:

ternate Formats

ln.tut"o lnstruments

I
Policy on the Preventlon and Resolution of Harassment tn the

Workplace (2001)

2 Applicatian

nramework
Directlves
Unks

Archlves

2.1This policy applies to the core public administration which lncludes the organizations named

in

Schedule I and the other portions of the federal pubtic administration narned in Schedule IV of the
Ei.n1nci1tAdtqinistration Act unless excluded by speclflc acls, regulatlons or Orders ln Council.

2.ZThe provlsions ln sectlons 6,2.2,6.2.3 and 7 relating to the role of theTreasury Board
Secretariat in monitoring compliance and directlng measures to be taken in response to noncompliance do not apply wlth respect to the Offlce of the Informatlon Commlssloner of Canada and
the itffce of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, the
Office of the Commissloner of Lobbying, the Office of the Commissioner of Offlcial Languages and
the Offlce of the Publlc Sector Integrlty Commissioner. The deputy heads of these organizations
are solely responslble for monltorlng and ensuring compliance with this policy wthtn their
organizations, s well as for responding to cases of non-compliance in acordance with any
trasury eoaid instruments providing principles and guldance on the management of compllance.
2.8 The scope of thls pollcy applles to employee behavlour in the workplace or at any location or
ny event related to work, including white:

r
r
r
r

On travel status,

At a conference where the attendance is sponsored by the employer,

At employer sponsored trainlng activities/information sessions, and
At employer sponsored events, irrcluding social events.

3 Context
3.1 The values of the public sector uphold the practice of respect, fairness and courtesy and the
importance of demonstratlng human dlgnity within professional relationships, Theso are also iore
components of a fair, supportive and ethlcal workplace as envisaged in the Pallcv Framework for
peple Managerrje,Ft and the Workplace Policy (under development). Success in the practice of
these vatuei wii fster a safe and healthy workplace iree from harassment. When allowed to
perslst, harassment has adverse effects on the mental health and engagement of enrployees and
on the qualify of their work, In a complex and demandlng work envlronment that brlngs.together
diverse eope and in whlch collaboratlon fs essential to success, mlsunderstandlngs and
nterpersonal conflicts are inevitabte. The organizational culture has an influence on how
collegues lnteract wlth one another, and should therefore promote the awareness and practice of

lrttp://www.tbs-sct.gc "calpol/doc-eng. aspx'?id=2604 I &section:text

26/09/zAW

Policy ou l{arassurenl Preventiou and Resolution

good communication and effective interpersonal

is everyone's personal responsibility.

Page 2

skf

of

lls. The ongoing effo to demonstrate respect

Interactlons between supervisors and subordinaLes may be especially sensitive because of the
power differential they embody, Exercisng the normal supervisory functions such as assigntng and
appraising work ls not harassment, but how such functions are exercised can rsk giving rise to the
potential for harassment or percepHons of harassment.
Inevitably, there will be occasional lnstancs of conduct that are incompatible with public sector
values, and where inforrnal requests for change in behaviours do not succeed. For such situations,
a more forrnal process remalns necessary, This policy and the associaled Directive on theHarassnentComplain! Process should be read in the spiritthat early, lnformal, and less
bureaucratic approaches are to be sought. even once a formal process has been engaged.

3.2 This policy stresses the responsibility of deputy heads to protect employees from harassrnent
beyond the requlrement of the Canadtari Human Rqhls lgL, wficn forbicis h'arassment on
prohibited grounds of discrlmlnaton, by requiring deputy heads to act on all forms of harassment,
It also responds to the C?nada l=apur Code Part.4 and the Canad?..OccunationAt. He\tth and
Safety Requlations Paft XX-Violence Prevention tn the Work Place, that require evry ernptoyer to
provide ernployees wlth a safe, healthy, and violence-free work environment and dedicate
sufficlent attenton, resources and tme to address factors that contribute to workplace vlolence
includlng bullylng, tesing and other aggresslve or abusive behaviours. Harassment is a factor that
can contribute to the rlsk of workplace violence and must be promptly and adequately addressed.

3'3 eputy heads have the responsibility and are accountable for the establishment and
maintennce of a respectful and harassment-free workplace and for the prompt resolution of
related complalnts. This poficy provides deputy heads with strategic dlrectlon to prevent and
manage harassment in the context of creatng wide-ranging support for a safe and respectful
workplace. It lntends to give enough flexibilfty for tailoring mechanisms and practices to the
distinctive operatlonal needs and culture of each organizatton, Minimum requlrements and
expectations of all orgnizations are stipulated in this poliry and the associated dlrective.
3.4 This policy ls lssued pursuant to Sections 7 and 11,1 of the Financp!.Admtnist+atiqn_Act
3.5 Thls poficy should be read iri conjunction with the following:

t
t
:
r

anaiF l-a.bqqr Code, including the Canada Occupationa! Heal,tl| and Safetv.Regutatons Part XX dealing wtth Vlolence prevenilon tn the Workplace
Canadn Hum?n Rahts At
Values an.d Ethcs Code for the.public Selgf
The principles listed in the polcv Frmework for,pegple Manaqerller!!

3.6 Additional mandatory requtrernents are set out in the:

DirectLve on the Harassmnt

Comptint process

4 Definitions
For definltions to be used tn the interpretation of this policy reter to Append_lx A

5 Policy Statement
5,1 Objectve

hrtp :iiwuw,.rbs-sct.gc.ca/polidoc-eng.aspx?id:Z604

&section:text

26i09nA

Policy on Llarassment Prevention and Resolutiort

Page 3

of6

The obJectlve of thls pollcy is to provlde deputy heads wlth strateglc dlrecttons and set out
expected results to foster a respectful workplace and address potentlal situations of harassment

5.2 xpected resuts

The expected results of this policy are that:

5.2.1 Employee have been given ample opportunity to learn about harassment prevention
strategies, the harassment cornplaint process and their right to a harassment free workplace and
there are effective incentives for employees and mnagers to demonstrate a high level of respect
for people,
5.2.2 Employes have access to an effective, timely and confdential.! harassment resolution
process without fear of reprisal, either through lnformal resolutlon or a formal harassment

complaint process or both;

5.2.? Employees perceive thelr work environment as generally fair and respectful.
5.2.4 There is an enhanced collaborative union-mnagement approach on harassment.

6 Policy Requirernents
6.1 Deputy heads are responsible for:
6.1"1 Ensuring that preventive activlties are in place to foster a harassrnent-free workplace. These
include informlng employees about the employer's commitment to fostering a harassment-free
workplace and ensurlng that results are achieved in a manner that respects employees, Other
posslble preventlve actlvltles are suggested ln the Deflnitlons Section- Ape..ndix3.
6.1.2 Optimizing the use of the lnformal resolutlon processes and ensurlng that those who are
involved in managlng and resolvlng harassment complalnts have the requlred cornpetencies,
including informal confllct resolutlon skllls.
6,1,3 Regularly consulting with bargalnfng agents, lnformal confllct resolutlon practltloners and
other stakeholders on the application of the Dirc.tlve o0 the llarassment.C,,omplaint Prcces.s.
6,1.4 Destgnating an official orofficiats forthe aplication of the Pollcy on HarassmentPreventlon
and Resolutlon and the Dlrectlve on the Ha ra ssment Com l a i nt Process

6.2 Monitoring and rporting requirements

G,2.L Within orgnizations
Deputy heads ar rsponstble for monltorlng compllance wlth thls pollcy and lts assoclated
dl rectlve wlthln thelr organlzatlons.

6.2,2 By organizations
The achievernent of expected results by deputy heads will be assessed by Treasury Board of
Canada Secretariat, Office of the Chief Human Resources Offlcer (TBS/OCIRO) through data
collectlon mechanisms such as the Publc Service Employee Survey and the Management
Accountabillty Framework.

http ://www.tbs-sct.gc.calpol/doc-eng. aspx?id:26041&section:text

26109/20t4

Policy on l',larassment Prel'ention and Resolution

Page 4

of6

Organizatons may be required to provlde additional informatlon considered necessary for

assessing compliance. For example, TBS/OCHRO may conduct focus groups with representatives of
identlfied organizations, in partnershlp with the bargaining agents, to better understand chaltenges

in organizatons wlth relatively poor results.

6.2.3 Governmet*wde
TBS/OCHRO ls responsible for revlewfng this policy and its effectiveness at the five-year mark of

implementation.

7 onsequences
7.1 Deputy heads are responsible for taklng corrective rneasures when significant issues arise
regarding policy compliance. When corrective action is not implemented satisfactorly or in a timely
mannerr the Chief Human Resources Officer may request that deputy heads take corrective actions
and report back on the outcome. Non-complnce wlth this pollcy or failure to take actions
requested by the Chief Human Resources Offlcer may result in Treasury Board taking corrective
actlons,
7.2 For range of consequences of non-compllance, please refer to the Framework for
t o f Com p_!!A n ce.

the1

M a nag me 0

Roles and responibilities of government organizations

8.1 In addition to its monitoring role, TBS/OCHRO assists the designated officials with the

implementation and application of thls policy through the provision of advice and the lssuance of
related administratlve guideltnes and tools, '

References

9.f Other reevant legislatlons/regulations

t

t
r

Acces.s

to InfornAtion Act

Priva.cv Act
Public Servtce Emplevment At.
Officia,l Lanquaq_-s Act

Public Seru"lce Labou.r elations Act

9,2 Related policy nstruments/pubtications

Egltndatio\ ftamework.fpr Treasury Board Polile_s Frameryork for the. Managernent of Compliance
r Pollcv on Sfficial Lanquages,fr Human Refl.ources Mnagement
t Policv on Lanauaae of Work

Guides

.
r
t

Gettinq tp know Infprmal,Cotlfllct Manaaement Svstms CM better

A quide tp the kev-e!_ement,gf an ICMS
PreYenting and Resolvin? Harassme.lt in the t\grkotace:. E_Fuide for manaers

http ://w*u,'.tbs-sct.gc.c a/pol/doc-en g. aspx?i d:2604 1 &section=re.\r

zil09r2A14

Policy

on, .Flarassmeut

t
e

1O

Prevention and Resolution

Page 5

of6

Is it Harassment? A Tool to Gulde Emple,yee.s

.u-d- on Apnlylnq the Harassment Resolution Proes
Investiqation Guide for the Poliqy -o.n H1ras-qn_ej:lt.t Prevention and Rgqlu.tion and Dtrectve on
t h e .tl ? f:,A s_sm e n t Co m p I a n t P ro cess
Restorinq the Workplace Followjno a. Hqf*.slmgltt Complaint: ,4 M\nager's Gude

Enquiries

For nterpretation of this policy. departmental officials should contact TB5 Pubtic...rlguiries,
Employees should direct enqurles about this policy to their responsible departmental offlclals.

Appendix A - Definitions
Ha ra

ssment

(h a rc te m e n t)

irnproper conduct by an indlvidual, that ls directed at and offensive to another lndividuaf in

the workplace, including at any evenL or any locatlon related to work, and that the indlvldual
knew or ought reasonably to have known would cause offence or harm. It comprlses
objectionable act(s), comment(s) or display(s) that dmean, belittle, or cause personal
humiliation or embarrassment, and any act of irrtimldation orthreat. It also includes
hrassmenf wlthin the meaning of the Canadan Human Riqhts Act (1.e. based on race,
national or ethnic origln, colour, religion, age, sex, sexuat orientation, marital status, family
status, disabilty and pardoned convlction).
Harassment ls normally a series of incidents but can be one severe lncldent whlch has
lasting lmpact on the indlvldual,

Harassment prevention activities (activlts de prvention du harclementj

actlvltles whlch alm to reduce the potential for harassment, or perceptions of harassment in
the workplace. These may include:

r
r

r
r
r
r
r

comrnunicating to all employees the lnforrnal and formal processes available to them
to resolve lssues relted to harassment;
communlcatlng to all employees the departmenlal resources avallable such as a
harassment prevention advisors, union representatives, Employee Assistance Program
counsellors, and informal conflict resolution practitloners;
lnforming employees about the employer's commitment to a respectful workplace;
delivering workshops on harassment prevention, nger mnagernent, meaningful
conversations, collaborative problem solving, etc, ;
developing communication toofs;
identifying risk factors;
rnanaging conflicts promptly;
promoting a culture of self-awareness, collaboration and respect; for example, puttlng
in place 360-degree feedback mechanisms or comparable processes to ensure that
resuts are achieved in a manner that respects employees.
providing appropriate trainlng and tools to those who are involved in managlng and
resolvl ng harassment complaints;
staylng vigilant to the workplace cllmate.

http://rwv'w,.tbs-sct.gc..calpol/doc-eng.aspx'iid=26041 &section=text

26109t20r4

Policy orr Harassment Prevention and Resolutjon

Page 6

of6

Informal Resolution Process (processus de rsolution lnformel)

a confldentlal and voluntary collaboratlve problem-solvlng approach such as face to face
conversation, conflfct coachlng, facllttated discusslon or mediation that has the advantage of
addresslng the partles' needs, concerns and mutual lnterests. Informal resolution processes
are also commonly cafled lnterest based conflict resolution, Informal Confllct Management
System (ICMS) and alternatlve dlspute resolution.

Footnotes
l-Rll parties dlrectly lnvolved ln the process are expected to fimlt the dlscussions of all aspects
pertaining to the complalnt to those who need to know,
Dale Modified r 2013-06-26

http://r.lwrv.tbs-sct. gc.c a/po I/doc -eng.aspx?id=2 604 I &section:text

26/0912014

From:
Sent:

Shoan, Raj

lo:

Traversy, John

Subject:

RE:

Octo be r-03 -2014

:28 AM

Confidential

John,

think you may have misunderstood my queries contained in question #1. I am aware of the definition of prima facie.
I was seeking specifics as to the basis of your preliminary determination. For example, in Question 1(a), I have asked
you to identify the allegations; can you identify which statements contained in the letter of the complainant
constitute an 'allegation'for me, please? I am not an HR expert so I can't with any clarity discern between supporting
sentences and sentences which contain allegations for the purposes of the Policy. Given that you have made a
preliminary determination, it is evidently clear to you and I am asking that you provide me with that information.
I

Can you please identify which statements contained in the letter of the complainant consttute "allegations"

for

the purposes of the Policy?

You have defined harassment as improper conduct comprising objectionable act(s), comment(s) or display(s) that
demean, belittle, or cause personal humiliation or embarrassment, and any act of intimidation or threat.
Based on the allegations identified above, can you please identify

for me which aspects of the definition above

have been engaged?

Lastly, the complainant has provided pages of email exchanges in support of her complaint

Given that you have made a preliminary determination, what specific statements contained in those emails meets
the definition of harassment in your view?

Without all of the foregoing information, I am not in a position to respond to the complainant's allegations.
ln addition, I have a follow-up question for you: ln your view, why is an administrative investigation the optimal tool
to meet the 'spirit' of the Policy? What other options did you consider?
Lastly, I am providing with you notice that I will likely be counter-complaining against Ms. Cliff in the coming weeks;
the details of those complaints will be provided once fully compiled. I suggest that you refrain from seeking a third
party arbiter until you have the details pertaining to both complaints in hand; in this way, you will be able release an
RFP to seek an arbiter that can handle all aspects of both complaints.
Raj

Raj Shoan
Commissioner I Ontario Region
Conseiller I Rgion de l'Ontario
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des tlcommunications canadiennes
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 624,Toronto, ONT, M4T 1M2

Raj . ShoanlDcrtc. sc.ca

Tlphone I Telephone 416-954-6269 - Tlcopieur I Facsimile 416-954-6343

Gouvernement du Canada I Gouvernment of Canada
n Follow us on Twitter
E
Suivez-nous sur Twitter
www.crtc.gc.ca

From: Traversy, John

Sent: October-02-2014 10:58
To: Shoan, Raj
Subject: Confidential

AM

Raj,

Before I respond to your questions directly, I would like to provide some background information that
informed my decision.
First, the SCC has specified that the onus is on the applicant to establish a prima facie case. A primo facie
case is one which covers the allegations made and which, if they are believed, is complete and sufficient to
justify a finding in the applicant's favour in the absence of an answer from the respondent: see Ontario
Human Rishts Comm. v. Simpsons-Sears. 1985 CanLll L8 (S.C.C.), 1985 CanLll 18 (S.C.C.), at para. 28. Upon
establishin g a prima fcie case, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide a credible and rational

explanation demonstrating, on a balance of probabilities, that its actions were not discriminatory.
It is also well-established that the threshold for establishing a prima facie case is not a high one (Exeter v.
Canadian Association of Professional Employees, 2009 PSLRB L4 at para. 14; Sault Ste-Marie, 120L21
O.L.R.D. No. 1846, at para. 7l; it is comparatively speaking extremely low. lt has been held by Labour
Relations Boards that only a "slight chance of success" is sufficient to keep an application alive (FMR Group
Limited, 2013 CanLll22062 (ON LRB), at para. 16.
Responses to your questions:

L.

ln your letter of 26 September 2014, you state that you are of the opinion that, on a prima facie
basis,

the allegations satisfy the definition of harassment. Can you clarify for me:

a.
b.

To what allegations you are referring?

Allegations provided in the complaint, copy of which was provided.
What aspects of the definition of harassment have been met on a prima facie basis?
Based on definition in the Policv enHrossm.ent Prevenli.on ond Reso.lu.tion. Appendix A,

o
'

copy of which was provided

Harassm ent (harclementl
o improper conduct by an individual, that is directed at and offensive to
another individual in the workplace, including at any event or any location
related to work, and that the individual knew or ought reasonably to have
known would cause offence or harm. lt comprises objectionable act(s),
comment(s) or display(s) that demean, belittle, or cause personal humiliation
or embarrassment, and any act of intimidation or threat. lt also includes
harassment within the meaning of the Cang.di.an Hurna\ .R.iahts Act (i.e. based
on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation,
marital status, family status, disability and pardoned conviction).
Harassment is normally a series of incidents but can be one severe incident
which has a lasting impact on the individual.

'

ln accordance with the lnvestiqation Guide for the Policv on Horassment Prevention qnd
Resolution and Directive on the Horossment Comploint Process, Criteria to be met to
establish whether there was a breach of the Policy:
o To substantiate the allegations, the investigation must demonstrate that,
according to the balance of probability:

.
.

The respondent displayed an improper and offensive conduct including

objectionable acts, comments or displays, or acts of intimidation or threats, or acts,
comments or displays in relation to a prohibited ground of discrimination under the
Canadian Humon Riqhts Act;
The behaviour was directed at the complainant;
The complainant was offended or harmed, including the feeling of being
demeaned, belittled, personally humiliated or embarrassed, intimated or

threatened;
The respondent knew or reasonably ought to have known that such behaviour
would cause offence or harm; and
. The behaviour occurred in the workplace or at any location or any event related to
work, including while on travel status, at a conference where attendance is
sponsored by the employer, at employer sponsored training activities/information
sessions and at employer sponsored events, including social events.
What evidence provided by the complainant support your preliminary view that the
definition has been met on a prima facie basis?
o lnformation provided in the complaint, copy of which was provided

c.

attempting to discern upon what factual basis you have made a determination that an
administrative investigation is warranted.
I am

2.

with the document or legislative principle that gives you the authority to
conduct an administrative investigation into a Governor-in-Council Appointee in this circumstance?
ln accordance with the Policv on Harassm.gnt.Prevenli.gr! qnd .R^e-sglution,2.t:
o This policy applies to the core public administration which includes the
organizations named in Schedule I and the other portions of the federal public
administration named in Schedule lV of the FinonciqlAdministration Act unless
excluded by specific acts, regulations or Orders in Council.
o ln accordance with the Directive on the Hqrassment Complint Process,2.4:
o ln circumstances where an employee files a harassment complaint against an
individual who is not an employee as defined in Appendix A, managers must apply
the complaint process as established in this directive to the extent possible.
on Horossment Prevention ond
o ln accordance with the lnvestioation Guide for the
L.2 Responsibility and
Process,
Complaint
Resolution and Directive on the Harassment
Authority - Application:
o Though other persons who work for the core public administration such as
contractors, volunteers, temporary workers hired through agencies and Governor
in Council appointees are excluded from the complaint process, managers should
address any alleged harassment involving these individuals in accordance with the
spirit of the Policy and the Directive. Members of the public cannot file a
complaint under the Policy; however management should ensure the alleged
Can you provide me

harassment concerns are addressed.

From: Shoan, Raj

Sent: September-3O-l4 9:50 AM
To: Traversy, John
Subject; Confidential
Impoftance: High
Hi John,

Just a couple of follow-up questions pursuant to the matter that we discussed yesterday. Can you get back
soon as possible, please?

t.

to me

as

ln your letter of 26 Septemb er 2OL4, you state that you are of the opnion that, on a prima facie basis, the
allegations satisfy the definition of harassment. Can you clarify for me:

a.
b.
c.

To what allegations you are referring?

What aspects of the definition of harassment have been met on a prima facie basis?
What evidence provided by the complainant support your preliminary view that the definition has
been met on a prima facie basis?

attempting to discern upon what factual basis you have made a determination that an administrative
investigation is warranted.
I am

2.

with the document or legislative principle that gives you the authority to conduct an
administrative investigation into a Governor-in-Council Appointee in this circumstance?
Can you provide me

Raj

Raj Shoan
Commissioner I Ontario Region
Conseiller I Rgion de l'Ontario
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des tlcommunications canadiennes
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 624,Toronto, ONT, Illl4T lMz
Raj.Shoan@crtc.ec.ca
Tlphone I Telephone 416-954-6269 - Tlcopieur I Facsimile 416-954-6343
Gouvemement du Canada I Gouvernment of Canada
I

www.crtc.gc.ca

Suivez-nous sur Twitter

Follow us on Twitter

From:

shoan, Raj

TO:

Traversy,

November-06-201"4 1L: 19

sent:

subj ect

AM

John

RE: PIAN d'ACtiON -

HARRASSMENT INVESTIGATION

Hello John,
The context that I wish to add is that the process that you, as SecretaryGeneral, assured me of has been unilateral'ly changed without my nput or
consent, calling into question the 1egtmacy of this entire process. t wjsh
to explin
to hr that'it is mv intenf and dsire to have thib matter handled
by psc and that she need not nvest unnecessary time and energy jn her
anal ysi s .

to her this emajl immediately

at her earliest convenience.

please forward
me

and inform her

that she may email

Raj

-----ori

g'i nal Message----From: Trversy,:ohn

Sent: November-06-20L4 9:l-6 AM
To: Shoan, Rj
subject: RE: plan d'action - HARRASSMENT

TNVESTTcATToN

Rai,

r received a coov of the action plan from our independent consultant last
rriday. she is'turrently reviewing all the applicnle 1eg'islation,
reoultions and the treasurv Board-Harassment in the workplace policy. Her
neit steps wll be to ensur that the specific al-legatonb referred to in the
complajnt are clear and have been provided in writing to the nespondent.
she has indicated that she will be fol'lowing up to confirm whether the
complainant and respondent understand their rghts and responsibilitjes prior
to the commencement of the investigation.
The plan c1 earl y explains that you w'il be prov'ided with a comp'lete
opportun 'ity to p rovjde your po-int of view and whatever context you want to
add.

she

will

be contactng you shortly

to

arrange

for an interview

-----ori

gi na'l Message----From: Shoan, Raj

Sent: November-05-1-4 6:07 PM

To: Traversy,:ohn
subject: Re: plan d'action -

HARRASSMENT TNVESTTGATIoN

thank you, :ohn. would you kindly send me a copy of the covernment tender that
you reernced, as well-as the cntact information of the third party, please?
i would like to exp'lain to her the sjtuation from my perspective
Raj

Sent.from_my Blackeerry L0 smartphone on the Rogers network.

or1 gr na

Message

From: Traversy,:ohn
sent: uonday, November 3, 2OI4 !:05 pt'l
To: Shoan, Raj
subject: FW: ian d'action - HARRASSMENT TNVESTTGATToN
eage 1

Raj

Rttached

is the bio of our jndependent third party.

eage

Oldk.cqn - bstnen@hdmall.com

12tZ15

From: iane Laurin (dianelaurin@bellnet.ca)

Sent: November-13-l4 4:36:58 PM
To: bshoangg@hotmai[.com (bshoan99@hotmail.com)

Dear Mr. Shon,

As you are already made aware, I have been mandated to investigate the harassment complalnt subftitted by Ms. Amanda
Cfiff against you. The legal framework is the CRTC Treasury Board Policy on Harassment Prevention ard
Resofulion, Vatues and thics for lhe Public Sector. the Directive on lhe Harassment Complalnl Process and the Tool "ls lt
Harassment? A Tool to Guide Eqployees"

The CRTC Guidelines on Formal Harassrnent Conflict Resolution Mechanisms orovlde:

lhen conflict is not addressed it my escalate lnto allegafions of harassmenl.

Harassmenl can be a serlous hofaled or a repelltlve Tncident.

Harassment is defined as any irnproper conduct by an ndividual tht is direcled al and offensive to nother person or
persons in the workplaoe, and that lhe individual knew or oughl roasonably lo have knovn would cause oflence or harm. lt
comprises any obctionable act, comment or display that demeans, belitls, or causes personal humiliation or
embarrassrrent, and any act of ntimidation or threat. lt includes harassment within the meaning of the Canadtan Human
Rights Act.

A person who believes that he or she has been harassed or faced dlsorirninatlon on any of the prohiblted grounds of
dscrimination outlned in the Canadian Hurnan Rhts Act, and feels thal informal conflict resoltfion mechailsms are nol
appropriale or have lready been tr6d wilhout succesg may submft a formal complalnt of harassment to the Delgaled
Manager for the CRTC.

The Apoendix A of the Guldeline stipulales that:

lf the complalnt is in order, the Delegated Manager acknowledges receipt of it in writing by notifflng the complainant of the
allegalions accepted. The Delegated Manager l$o noties the respondent that a complint has been recelved and lnforms
hinlher of lhe allegations of lhe complaint.
The complalnt willthen be referred to an impartialthird parly for approprate action.

Thus the complaint was referred lo me as an mpartil lhird party for lnvesligation.
ln addition,

the

refer to

CRTC Guldelines on lnformal Conflict Management System

Pulic Service Labour Retatiqns Act, Secton 207
Public Service Employment Act
dda;tex!nl;ctnrsdcdf-$,%a0div/o20dass%3%zddrgtozpadrtgbtlqn%229620clyle%3D962Zl'Hgfi963A%?019.9$588837888tpx%38%20..

1t4

m15

Outlook.com - betnan9g@honall.com

nadin Human Rlghts Act

Access

1o

lnformation Acl

Privacy Act
NationalArchves Act
The Treasury Board Secretarlat Directlve on lnformal Conllict Management Systems
lnformal Conllict Managemenl Syslem Resources Gulde (TBS)
Values and thlcs Code for fhe Public Service (2003)
Gr'evance Procedure (Treasury Board)
lnternal Disclosure of /rongdolng in the Workplace (Treasury Board)

Treasury Board Pollcy on Harassment ln the Workphoe

TheTresury,B.p,Frd lnvesliqaton.Guide flhe PqFpJ on Harassme.nt Prevenlion ald Reoalufion and Directiye,g. th
Har.assment Comolaint Process provldes :

$electing an lnvestlgator
The hvestlgator appointed by te person responsible for managing the harassment comphinl process musl be capable of
conducting an independent lnvestation in a thorough, timety, discreet, and sensltlve nnner n the language of the parties'
and wililestes'choice and should be trained ir: harassment investgatlon feclrnlques. The investigator must b rnparlial and
unbiased.
At tfies, it may be necssry to obtain an investator from outsde the Fedrl Pub$c Service.
Roles and Responsibilities of the lnvestator
The investator ls responsible for managing the harassment investation. Esentaly, the investlgator ls accounlble for:

'

Researshing and plnning the invesfigation including gathering, examlning and recording all retevant evidence from
availab documentation:

'
'

Presenting an fnvestigation plan to the person rerponsible for managing the herassment complaint procssl
ldenti$ing gaps n lnformatlon, potential sources of additional informalion and persons who may be able to supplement
or corroborale lnformatloni

Pnning and preparitrg fnvestigativo and interyiewing questions to asslst ln oblaning the necessry evidence about the
alleged incldenls:

'
.
.
.

Conducting intervlews wlth the parties and relevant wllnesses;

the evidence and circumstances and determinng the substance of each allegatlon;
Praparng the preliminary summary of facts and the investigation report; and

'\ralying

Ensurlng that the partes sre aware of their rights and responsibilities, including the right to be accompanied and
asslsted by a person of tlreir choice.

The lnvestator's Mandate

Once appolnted, the investalor will be provided with a written mandate by the person responsible for managing the
harassment complainl pros that wi{l aulhorize, govern, and focus the ctivities associated wilh the investigation. The
accountabilities listed above should be clerly spelted out in the mandate.
ln summary the process requlres the lnvestigator 1o proceed wilh an interview following which, a sumrnry vrill be provided
to you for your comments and approval. Upon comple{ion of the lnterviews of all parltes and wlnesses, the investator

&fa:ted/tnllctltrsd"ttf"t,%3cdv%cls963D962addndap%20pddrq0ttonr%22%20sgle%3D962in+hdgttj634%2019.9935$S/9tS3px%38%...

Zt4

12ffi,2015

Otdock,cqn - bshmr0@ffirrall.can

prepares a summary of facts, The Summary of facts is sent to lhe responsible officr CRTC who wilt provile you and tie
complainant with a copy for your comments and submiss[ons. Following ths stp, the investator submifs a final report
containing the conclusions and recommendations for CRTC's conEideration.
Mur'el KorngoH \^/exler contacled you on my behalf to sk you whether you were gubmitling a written response to the
complaint nd fiyouwere going lo do so,lhelwe would ppreciate receivlng it by November'25.W6 plan 1 hH th
interviervs lhe week of December 1.
to your questions blow, You hve every right lo submit
preclude the invetti.gton of her complaht.

nflh respect

t complaint agins t Ms. Clitf. To do so does nol

An investator mandated under the Policy *nd Directives is a neutral and independent and ls nt prvy to any discusslons
you may have had wtth CRC.
Again, you have every rgiht to raise any issues yoil may have had with the RTC, l.t h not pertlnent to my mandate to
Investigate the harassment complalnt unless it is prt of your response to the cornplahl.
You have every right lo use ny gal recourse you feel is approprate to brng your bsues to a third parly. You have rhts
and if you feel to li a formal complaint with PSIC, you may do so. Again, kit wil not prectude the investigation of tte
harassment complanl. PSIC carly indicates that you may make a disclosure or a reprisal compfnt lf you make a
discfosure (l assume that b the process you are rferring to), your discbsur will e reviwed to defermine if an
inve$tatofl is warranted. The Comrn'ssloner will notifo you in writing 0f his decision to proceed or not with an investation,

s \i/ll as the easons for hb conclusion.

lf the Commbsioner's decisbn is to investigate, we will advise lhe chief execulive of the organizaton invotued. lf required,
ue willnlso advbe persons against whom llegtins have ben made.
At the end of n hvestigation, you wrlf be notified of the CommisslonerS tndings and you my be sked to partcipate s a
witness durhg the course of the hvestgation'
Hence an investigation is not automatc and may take a long time for a decsn, I refer you to lhe provisions of the
Sevants Dischsure FrotcLlnlf $.G. 205, c.+6)
ln tha meantime, a harassment complinf

!g

b serious nd reed prompt resolutionr

trust you will nd the above hetu|

Begin forwarde.d message:

Fromr Raj Shoan <bshoan99@hotmail.com>

Date: Novernbe112,2A14 4:20:A4 PM EST

To:"mlcvvqx!.pr@sympati " <trrkw.exlf@sympatco.ca>

Subject Re: Complaint
Hetlo again Muriel,
Before I engage in a discussion of replies and deadlines, would you kindly answer the
following questions for rne, please?

Dd the official CRTC representative inforrn you of my intention to file a

1?05m15

Clodccn - bshoflg@ffinl l.com

unter-complaint ginst Ms" Cliff?;

'

Did the offcial CRTC representatve inform you that I had been pr.eviously

assured of a process for this complaintand that your selection as adjudicator

of

this eomplaint is in breaeh of the promised process?;

Did the official CRTC representatve inforrn you tht, over the past calendar

year, I have expressed legal nd poliry concerns pertaining to the actions of

Ms; Cliff, the CRTC Chairman, the Segetary-Genrl and qther members of
senlor staff?; and

Did the official CRTC representatve lnform you that I have held informal
dlscusslons with PSIC and informed the Secretary-General of my intention

to

have this matter referred to PSIC for adjudicaton given that the issues at play
in this complaint, amongst other things, directly affect pslc's jurlsdiction?

A prompt repty to these quer:ies would he greatly appreciated,

Raj Shoan

.&ldE{tT{;cfidrt r{8,j63cdv.96?0ctass96sDj6?srgrFg6anpertdngoungtZAO*VleltSX?Attisltfl63A9tt9"gtg06*ffiis88$f,tgts%A0...

:111

FW: Complaint
Diane laurin (dianelaurin@bellnet.ca)
L7/11120L4

To: bshoan99@hotmail,com Cc:'Bastien, Alain-Denis'

From: Dianc laurin (dianelatrin@betlnet.ca)

Sent: November-l7-14 8:24:03 PM

To:

bshoan99@hotmail.com
Cc:'Bastien, Alain-Denis' (alain'denis.bastien@crtc.gc.c.a)

Good evening Mr. Shoan,

I have reviewed your submission and I refer you to the Codc of Values and Ethics, Treasury
Board Policy, Guidelines and Tools on harassment. These instruments apply to public servants
and the process is well described. I refer you to these.

I have been mardated to investigate a complaint against you. Pubic Servants have a right to
complain of harassment against a G I C. Intention to file a complaint does not preclude and stop
the process of investigation of a harassment complaint. Moreovet, as I indicated to you,
submitting a complaint under the Public Se{vants Disclosufe Protection ,4ct does not guarantee
you an investigation by the Commission. I refer you to the Act and Regulations in this regard. A
eoniplaint under that act does not stop the investgation. Processes can be parallel. The purpose
of the PSDPA is very different to a complaint of haassment by a public servant against a GIC. A
compliant under the PSDPA concrns the disclosure of a wrongdoing or a complaint on a
reprisal.

I also want to higtight provisions ofthe Terms and Conditions of Employment for Full-Time
Governor in Council Appointees where it is stated at section 2.2 that Govemor in Council

appointees &re expected to uphold the highest ethical standards and to respect the principles

of

any code of conduct applcable to th agency, board or commission to which he or she is

appointed.

of Conduct stipulates in its introduction: The Values and

Ethics Code of the Public Sector and the CRTC Code of Conduct provide us with guidance and
support in oru'activities. As an independent admin.istrative tribunal responsible for regulating and
supervising the Cnadian communication system, the CRTC has developed its own code of
conduct outlining CRTC specfic values and expected behavours that support alrd augment the
Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector.
Please also note that the CRTC Code

Effective September 6,20L2, the CRTC Code of Conduct applies to all individuals employed by
the CRTC. The Commissioners are governed by their own values and ethics instruments refcrred
below.
The Code adds that ths Vice-Chairpersons ard Conrmissioncrs are also subject to specific
statutes and guidelines that govern the conduct and actions of Govemor in Council appointees

whife in office, specifically the Conflict of Interest Act, the Ethcal Guidelines and Statutory
Standards of Conduct etc.

The Employer and in particular, Treasruy Board, is very concemed about harassment. The
employer takes a complaint of harassment very seriously arid must ct promptly. The allegations

Clff are serious and CRTC

choice but to follow the process.
raised by ivfs.

as any other Federal Institution is requirecl, has no

It is your r{ght to or not participate in the investigation. Horvever, I intend to cxamine witnesses
during the {!rst two weeks of December2A14,

If this date is inconvenient, could you please propose another date

within the period December 2 to 12 inclusive. If you wish, I cn approach the CRTC to ense
I have suggested ecember 2.

your availability to atterd the examination. The CRTC does recognize the priority of a
hatassnent complairrt and wilt accommodate the process *"ithin your schedule.
I will apprise the CRTC of the situation.
You have asked tbr a telconference. It is not necessary as you have been invited to an interview
and you will be able to raise your issues and provide information relevant to the complaint at that
time. Howevern I am sure you will find it trite to remind you that the harassment investigation

will

with th 4llegatio:rs raised by Ms" Cliff Anry oher issues not relevant to the
harassmer eomplaint are t0 be raised in another forum.
on!) deal

Last, you have informed.rne that youhave made an aress to information request. The Act
requires CRTC to respond within 30 days. It is obvious tltat this investigatlon will not conclude
within fhe prescribed time under the Ag""$s to Infonnatipn Acl. A request for information under
the Act does not preclude and stop the investigative process. I refer you to the Acss to
Jlrfofrfratign Aci h fhis.respect. Vou have aright to ubmit documents in response to the
complaint and these can be submitted at any time prior to the final report.

I trust the a-u-ov

Rswrs y,,our questions and m*tters raised.

Diane Laurin, LL.E, Med C

Investgatof
,Laurin & Associates

Conflict Management and Mediation

1506-55'5t-la u rent Bou levard

ottwa (Ontariol KlK 4Fl9

Tet: {613} 749'2397

Cel* {6}7zo-3L52
dianelaurin@bellnet.ca
Frorn: Raj Shoan fmlto:bsho$

$entr Mondar, Novembe r,!7, 2Q74'2:2 1 FM

To: Diane'Laurn

Subje*:

RE:

Complaint

Hcllo M. Laqrin

Thanlt you for a comprehensive reply to my questions. Please allow me to explain the rationale
for asking thcm; I recognize that there may be some confusion at your end as to why I am
reticent to engage in this process as constructed:

Cliff based on the legal/policy inconsistcncies of her

work/advice 1o date goes the heat of her complaint ofharassment. You cannot assess
one without examining the other. If, in fact, her wot'k raises serious legal and policy

"A countet-complaint

against Ms.

implications, then the exchanges in question that form the basis of her allegations are
perfectly valid. To decid otherwise would be to suggest that a G-i-C appointee can not
ask goveniance questions about an organization rvithout exposing themselves to

allegations of hamssment. I asked whether you \4ere aware that I had expressed a
desire to fle a counter-complaint because^ in my view, Ms.

Cliffs complant

and my

counter-complaint need to be assessed concurrently. I zun still in the process of drafting

my oftcial csunter-complaint against Ms. Cliff bccause it takes substantial personal
time to conduct the necessary legal research. Furthermore, I am awaiting the results of
an ATIP request (this is confidential). Can you please confirm, in the event that it is

will continue, that you would

be

prepaled to address each complaint in tandem in this process in the interests

of

decided that your participation in this process

procedural frirness?;

.As you are arvare, the Treasury Board Harassment Policy does not directly apply to G-i-C
appointees- In instances where allegations of harassrnent are rnade againsl G-i-C

appontees, the 'spirit'of thc Policy applies. When the allegations were originally
made against me,I was contacted by the CRTC Secretary-Gefleral, John Traversy, and
rve agreed to a process to resolve this complaint. That process is as

follows: an RFP

would be released to solicit proposals to act in this process and the Secretary-General
would bring to me 3-4 proposals to choose from. l'le assured me that no adudicator
would be selected for this process wthout my input or approval. This process was put
in place to nsure procedural faimess to all parties.

.As you knou'n afterwards, this process was completely disregarded and yoru firm was
selected as adjudicator of this complaint without my input or approval, This fact is
pertinent to this cornplaint as I have been vocal over the pst year rcspecting legal,
procedural and policy inconsistencies at the hghest levels of CRTC management.
including actions of the Secretary-General and the Chairman. The complainant n this
process is herself rvidely acknowledged as the Chairman's most loyal confidante and

they have known each other for years, dating back to their days at Heritage Canada.

Given the relationships at the highest level of the CRTC, and given my outspoken
objections to the actions of senior management. it was vitally important to have the

utmost impartiality and appearance of tirness in this process. That appearance

of

faimess has been breached by senior mflagenrent's selection of your fnn. I say this
not as a criticism of you or your employees/company; this is not intended as a personal
attack. CRTC Senior managenent has inappropriately changed this cornplaint process

without consultation and, in my view, it would now be best to have it completely

handled by a neutral, affi's length third party to restore procedural farness. Lastly;
.Section 6.1.1 of the Directive on the Harassrnent Complaint Process states that the
process should respect the principles of procedural fairness towards the
complalnant, the respondent and all

oarties involved, It further states that it

should be made clear to employees that if a complaint on the same ssue ls or has
been dealt with through another avenue of reourse, the complaint process
_o.th_er

under this directive will not proceed further and the file will be closed, I
have already made clear to the Secretary-General and now tc yourself that I have
been in touch with PSIC and they have encouraged me to flle an offlclal complalnt.
I fully intend to do so but requlre time to draft a comprehensive document.
Moreover, PSIC ls a_party to this procsg now; as confirmed by the SecretaryGeneral in an email to me,the primary basis for tlris complaint is that I
indicated I would file a complaint against Ms, Cliff against PSIC ff she proceeded
with a curse of action. It was that stated lntention that forms the basis of this
process as Ms. Cliff alleges that t humiliated her ard thus constftuted
'harassment'. This goes to th heart of PSIC's Jurisdiction; the complalnant is
arguing that my reference to an official process open to afl public servants is
sanctlonable behaviour. If one follows this argument to its logical conclusion. then
it would have a massive chilling effect on the desire of publlc servants to use PSIC
as an option when dealing with potentlally lllegal public servce activity, PSIC
should be lnvolved n this process as a party given the implicatlons to lts
jurlsdlctlon - which is why I contacted them ln the first place.

.
ln terms of timing, apart from the serious concerns that I have raised above, the timelines you
have proposed are completely ru:workable for me. I am en route to Ottawa today for a week of

Full-tirne Commissioner Meetings; here are hundreds of pages of leading and staff consultation
that much occur in that context. The hllowing Monday (Nov 24), I commence a ninc (9) day
Telecornmunications Hearing that

will involve

the reading of thousands of pages, hundreds

documents and the drafting of dozens of questons for appearing parties, My evenings and
rveekends for the next threc weeks are entirely booked up with these lvork-relaled

responsibilities.

of

suggest we schedule a conference call later this week to discuss this matter firther. Please let

me know of your availabilities; unfortunately, over lunch and during the evenings will likely be
best firr me. I apologize in advance but it is a busy time for me. I would also tike to thank you for

your ongoing patience in this matter. I trust you can respect the fact that I have serous concenn
wth this process for the aforementioned reasons and, as such, would like to proceed in a carefhl
and deliberate rnanner in order to ensure that principles of naturat justice are being respected,
Raj

I*I

Conseil de la radiodiffuson el des

tlcommunications canadiennes

Canadian Hadio-television and

Telecommunications Commission
Oltwa, tanada
K1A ONz

March 73,2075
Ms. Diane Laurin

Investigator

To Ms. Laurin:
Marcellus told Horatio in Shakespeate's Hmlet "Something is rotten in the stte of Denmatk." ft is a
statement that suggests in Hanlet that the ettors in question derive from the actions of those at the highest
levels of the land. Having paticipated in good faith in this flawed process, it is this remark that has recurred

to me repetedly over the past few weeks. There is something rotten at the highest levels of the CRTC. My
experience in participating in this biased process has only deepened my resolve to expose to the Canadtan
public the dubious practices of those who have brought these specious allegations against me.
This document comprises in full my comments on the translated Preliminary Statement of Facts provided to
me by my legal counsel on February 19 , 2075. Specifically, this document encapsulates:

.
.

concerns with respect to the procedural irregularities with this process;

concerns with respect to the culture

of

fear at the Commission and the latent prejudice contained

in

comments ptovided by the complainant and her cited uitnesses; and

comments respecting Parts

I-VI of the Pteliminary

Statement of Facts.

reiterate my position that the cited email exchanges t most constitute worlace conflict and mutual
disagreement. They do not constitute harassment as alleged. In the context of this complaint, the

complainant is attempting to characterize legitimate and proper legal and policy objections as constituting
unreasonable demands demonstrative of aggressive, inappropriate behaviour. Instead, ttempts by the
complainant, the Chairman and their allies to avoid answering legitimate legal and policy concerns
respecting governance issues fundamental to the proper functioning of the Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) should be rejected outright.
Below, I enumerate the various errors in law, otganizaaonal challenges and evidentiary concerns that I have
with this complaints process. I have also suggested additional witnesses to be contacted in order to
counteract the false impression that the complainant, the Chaitman and theit allies have attemPted to create
of me. Finally, following the detailed recitation of my objections and concetns with the process employed, I
have articulated the potential next steps to be employed if and when a decision is rendered that presumes to
fnd me in breach of the policy in question.

Canad

Comments Respecting Procedunl Deiciencies

At the outset of this complaint process, I expressed serious concerns regarding its independence from
affected parties. At the urgng of my legal counsel, I participated in good faith; it has become apparent,
however, that the defciencies that I have consistently identified throughout this ptocess have prevented my
evidence from receiving proper and suffcient consideration and sificandy increased an eventual finding
in support of the complainant and, by implication, the Chairman. The concerris about the investigation
process can be separated between those affecting: (a) the independence of the process; and ) the mannet
of the investigation.

I-c,k of Independence
The lack of independence of the complaints process offends basic principles of administrative law and will
render any potential analysis by the investigators or decision by the Secretary General tainted by bias. Three
areas in particular are problematic: (a) the selection process for the investigators; ) the selection of the
Secretary-General as ultimate arbiter of the complaint; and (c) an incomplete evidentiary base.
(a) tlte selution

prosr

tlte inuesttors

f was contacted by the Secretary-General, John Travetsy, in September 2074 and informed of the complaint.
In order to ensure independence, transparency and faitness, Mr. Travetsy, a member of the contentious
Direct Reports committee, informed me that he would issue an RFP to solicit proposals by firms to assist
with the investigation. Mr. Traversy further assured me that both the complainant and I would be presented
with a list of potential firms for our input and approval. Lasdy, Mr. Traversy insisted that no investigator
with a previous history with either the complainant or I would be selected and that the process would take
several months to complete.
In late October 2074,Mr. Traversy contacted me once again to inform me that an investigatot had been
unilaterally selected for the complaiflt process. then I asked why our agreed upon selection process had
been changed, Mr. Ttaversy declined to answer the question. \7hen I queried on what basis this investigatot
had been selected, Mr. Traversy declined to nswet the question. lMhen I suggested that deep expertise with
CRTC governance and communications law were prerequisites for any potential investigator, Mr. Traversy
dismissed the question and insisted the investigators were qualifed. No assurances were provided that the
investigators had no previous history, petsonal or professional, with the complainant or any other party
adverse in interest, such as the Chairman.

In an email to the investigator on Novemb er

77

,2074,I

raised this issue with her:

have been vocal over the pst year respecting legal, procedural and policy inconsistencies at the highest levels of
CRTC management, including actions of the Secretary-General and the Chairman. The complainant in this process is
herself widely acknowledged as the Chairman's most loyal confdante and they have known each other for years, dating
back to theit days at Heritage Canad,a. Given the relationships at the highest level of the CRTC, and given my outspoken

"...I

objections to the actions of senior mnagement, it was vitaily important to have the utmost impartialiry and appearance
of fairness in this process . T-hat appeannce of fairne ss has been breached by senior managementrs selection of your frm.
I say this not s a criticism of you or your employees/company; this is not intended as a petsonal attack. CRTC Senior
management has inappropriately changed this complaint process without consultation and, in my view, it would now be
best to have

it completely handled by neutrI, arm's length third party to restore procedural fairness."

Neither the Secretary-General nor the investigator addressed this breach of procedutal fairness.
(b) the ukction of tte Secretarl-Generl a titimate arbiter oJ tlte coruplaint

Mr. Travetsy futher informed me that he would be the ultimate arbiter of the investigator's
recommendations and fnal report. There re serious concerns with Mr. Ttaversy's selection given his

proximity to interested parties in the complaint:

o
o

Mr. Traversy reports directly to the Chafuman, a witness in this process who has provided evidence
in support of the complainant. The Chafuman has also petsonally approved every contentious
process and legally dubious procedute at issue in the email exchanges between the complainant and
I;
Mr. Traversy has on at least one occsion - when I requested budgetary support fot a stakeholder
tour of Montreal to inappropriately exert authority over me; and
^ttempted
Mr. Traversy is a member of the Direct Reports committee, the authority of which has been a
primary source of contention between myself and complainant.

There ate also indications that Mr. Traversy may have ptovided evidence to witnesses in suppot of
activity that would preclude his ability to continue as a neutral and
allegations made by the complai n flt7 ,

objective decision-maker for this matter. In totaliry Mt. Traversy's selection by the Chafuman as decisionmaker for this process does not meet ny objective test of independence.
) an inconphte euidentiary barc

Given the fotegoing lack of independence associated with this ptocess, I have been partially unable to
secure relevant evidence to counteract the facts or allegations of the complinnt due to feat of reprisals.
Below, I discuss further the culture of fear presently in place at the CRTC. In practical terms, it means that
cannot bring relevant evidence forward from witnesses due to a feat of reptisal, including:
a

evidence that the process that the complainant attempted to enshrine in het September email was, in
fact, a new process; and

evidence that CRTC staff fears to assist me with valid requests for assistance due to co{porate
pmctices established by the complainant and the Chairman such that I am not to be treated in an
equitable mnner.

E rid.rr.. ofJean-Piere Blais, paragraph 17, emal,exchange between Ms. Lehoux and the respondent
a

This evidence goes directly to the assessment of the legitimacy of my queries and theit legal and policy basis.
The investigators cannot accurately assess this complaint in the absence of such information and, yet,
cannot assure confidentiality to these employees during the investigation process given their proximity to
CRTC senior mnagement.

Manner of Inuesttion
From the beginning of the complaint process, I have raised concerns respecting the mannet of the
conducted investigation. ,{s the process progtessed, the following concerns have become apparent.
Manner of pae$ioning

At my December interview, it was appatent that the investigators had detetmined my 'guilt'prior to the
commencement of the meeting. The meeting commenced with a heated exchange between the investigators
and my former legal counsel, Steven Levitt. For several minutes, the investigators insisted that Mr. Levitt
uas forbidden from speaking in his role as my legal counsel. Mr. Levitt propedy defended his role s one to
preserve the integrity of the process to tlle benefit of his client. Throughout the three-hour interview, the
body language of the investigators vas one of doubt towards me. I was repeatedly interrupted by one
investigator when I was speaking to tlre point whete the othet investigator asked her to rcfnin ftom doing
so. Additiona, one investigator would shake her head when I was reping to questions ot would frown
openly - clear indications that she had pre-determined my guilt in het own mind. In fact, after the
completion of the investigators'initial round of interviews, one Commissioner contacted me to stte that
they were appalled at the obvious bias of the investigators and to watn that 'the fix is in.'
Understnding of l-qa//Poligt Franeaork of

CRTC

It was also apparent that the investigators may not have fully understood the legal and policy framework
governing the Commission, including that:
a

The CRTC Code of Conduct is legally binding on all employees and the Chairmn. A separate Code
of Conduct applies to Governot-in-Council appointees; and

The Chairman has no legal authority to direct or supervise Commissioners. Each Commissioner cts
independently of another.

of CRTC governance are critical to an analysis of the complaint. If these facts are accepted,
then my questions were legitimate and proper in the context in which they were asked. Legitimate and

These two facts

proper questions cnnot constitute harassment.

Inaroriate Expanded Scoe of Anasis and Eaidence

As noted by

-y

legal counsel throughout this process, the scope of analysis and evidence for this complaint

has been impropet expanded. The basis of this complaint is ptoper limited to seven (7) email exchanges
betueen myself and the complainant (three (3) of which included on myself and the complainant).
Therefore the scope of the investigation should propedy query whether only those email exchanges were
improper and offensive, whether those email exchanges constituted series of incidents each causing the
complainant hatm and, if so, whether I knew ot teasonably ought to have known that those specifc email
exchanges would cause such harm. Instead, the investigation has now been impropedy expanded to include
evidence wholly untelated to the initial complaint, including, inter alia, my use of a stress ball during
videoconferencing, Paulette Leclait's interaction with me during a December 2013 Christmas party, my
alleged behaviour during unspecified meetings and witness' personal views of my attitude, personality, style
and physical demeanour. Such evidence lacks even a semblance of relevance to the issues proper raised

in

this complaint.

it is evident that the Chakman, through the

complainant and this process, is attempting to indirecdy sanction his legal authority. On at least three (3)
separate occasions, I requested that the Chairman engage a qualified law ftm to conduct an independent
legal analysis tespecting the authority gtanted to him by statute in order to clafrfy the CRTC's govemance
stflrcture. The Chairman has ignored the requests to address very serious legal issues in an open, trnsparent
and fur mnner. Instead, I am concemed that this complaint process has been co-opted to ptovide a mearis
to legally validate the expanded authority of the Chairman. This is inapptopdate for the following reasons:
In addition to the inappropdately expanded evidentiary

base,

The investigators were selected by the Chairman ot the Secretary-General, two individuals with

vested interest in the result, without input from me;

o

The investigators, to my knowledge, have never appeared before the CRTC at aheating and have no
expertise in communications law; and

The investigators appear to lack

a basic understanding

of the provisions of the CKTC Act.

Given the foregoing, no value should or will be placed on any legal opinion of the investigators beyond the
scope of the complaint in question. The investigators have no expettise in applying rJr.'e CRTC Act ot
associated communications law instruments.

Comments Respecting Latent Bgotty and Cultute of .Feat

I wish to comment generally on the nature of statements ptovided by senior staff of the Commission as well
as those of other Commissioners. It is evident that this process has become about chatacter assassination. It
is a witch hunt. I am alarmed that emails and statements that tange ftom bizanely irrelevant to hearsay to
falsehoods and, ultimately, bear no relation to the evidence that comprised the initial complaint for this
process have formed apart of the investigative findings.

Furthermore, it is concerning that the investigators of this process would be oblivious to the latent bigotry
contained in several of the sttements of witnesses and the complainant to this proceeding. Namely:
a

The complainant's obscute tefetence to women not being treted as equals in the past - implying
that I, s a young man of ethnic descent, am displaying a misogynistic attitude potentially
characteristic of my particular cultural heritage;

The complainant's dismissive refusal, in the email thread of February 22-24,2074, to address a basic
lack of diversity in name selection for a public survey; and

The witness Mr. Simpson's obsetvations that

I have "too much energy" and can't control my

emotions - imping that, as a young man of ethnic descent, I may be mentally unstable ot a drug

addict.

In totality, the implicit meaning of these sttemerits is clear: as a young man of ethnic descent, I should not
only refrain from asking questions telating to the governnce of the CRTC but that I am not entided to
basic answers and information respecting the proper functioning of the Commission and should simply be
grateful to have been appointed. I should allow staff to exetcise authority and judgments ptoper exetcised
by -y office and refuain from asking questions relating to my tole and those of staff. I do not 'belong' and
senior staff has no intention of according me vith the appropriate respect due to my office and station. Or,
as the witness Paulette Leclair, CRTC Public Affairs }anage4 declared in her testimony: I simply "no longer
exist."
The latent bigotry of seniot staff ptedisposes them to negatively viewing my behaviour without considering
mote reasoned and rationale interpretation. Once acknowledged, it becomes evident that senior staffs
^
perceptions of my behaviout ate rrot in line with reality. ,t review of the evidence provided by the
complainant and her witnesses confirms this fact:

- a member of senior staff who wrote a t'o page email to me over my innocuous
of the word 'forbidden', claiming a hidden desire on my p^tt to discredit her;
Mr. Blais - the Chaitman who ws more inclined to send an official letter of warning to me over one
line in an email when a simple phone call would have resulted in a reasoned explanation for the
statement; or

Ms. Laizner

The Complasnant
use

- the CRTC senior legal counsel who felt her integrity had been attacked when I

reasonably asked fot a meeting to go in-cameta, avald and legitimate request at most board
meetings when necessary to discuss sensitive matters.

Their pre-dispositions towards negatively viewing me in every interaction bettay their own ptejudices. I have
been blessed to work for many outstanding otgattjzaf.lons over my careet but have never encountered the
type of obstinate refusal displayed by the Chairman and his Direct Reports over the simple st of legal and
policy questions. Rather than engaging in a teasoned, rationale exchange respecting articulated legal and
policy concerfls, the Chairman and his seniot staff allies prefer to either ignore reasonable requests ot atta.ck
the questioner - neither of which cultivates an opefl, trnsprent and fafu co{porate culture.
6

!hat is cteated instead can only be described as a 'cultute

of fear': an institutional

state of being where fear

of reprisals trumps open dialogue. This complaint itself is symptomatic of this cultute; from wdting
dissenting decisions that opined that the CRTC had broken the law to requesting legal and policy

information to challenging proposed processes, I had painted alarge target on my back and the Charman
and his allies were only too quick to attack. There is ample evidence of this dysfunction at the CRTC.

In the recent 2014 Public Service Employee Survey, only 360/o of employees indicated they feel they can
initiate a formaJ. recourse process without f.ear of rcpisal, which is lower than in the overall public service.
This figure is all the mote glaring when one considers that only 73o/o of CRTC employees participated in the
survey. Assuming that those who chose not to participate are the most cynical of ot disengaged from the
CRTC as an organtzation, the actual number of employees who feel they can initiate a formaJ, recourse
process without fear of reprisal is likely closer to 25o/o. This implies a vast majority of CRTC employees
clear fear teprisals when challenging their superiots.
!itnesses to this complaint process have themselves alluded to this culture at the Commission:
a

As noted by Mr. Simpson, staff 'risks itself by defying the Chairman

have become commonplace at the CRTC; and

Mr. Perreault noted that, by speaking my mind, I was risking reprisals from the Chaitman in the
form of denied access to Hearing Panels.

These re not the only examples of which

- an admission that reprisals

I am atxate. As noted above, CRTC employees

have expressed

support for me and my queries but fear publicly supporting me would expose them to jeopatdy ftom their
superiors:

A CRTC Analyst

assisted me with a speaking engagement that was refused support from the

complainant's team. The analyst worked diligently over a weekend. After the speaking engagement,
I purchased a thank you card and a glft certificate to a movie theatre as a thank you gift for the
analyst. The analyst, however, returned the gift to me, indicating nervously that the analyst was
hrppy to help but did not wish to risk the wrath of seniot mangement by letting it be known that
the anast had accepted a thank you gift or had helped me;

Anothet CRTC employee has confirmed to me that the proposed process is, in fact, a new process
created by the Chairman and executed by his allies in senior management. This employee feats
reprisals from the complainant and her team, however, and will only participate in a court
ptoceeding in which this employee's identity can be protected; and

One seniot membet of CRTC management has pdvately disclosed their desire to help but, given
they have a famtly, cannot dare to dsk the Chairman's reprisals.

There

er

something rotten in the state of Denmatk and it certainly is not a Commissioner who honesdy and

rorously defends his statutory independence

- despite the tisk of reprisal. rhen senior staff will not or

7

cannot answer basic legal and policy questions regarding the puqpose of their activity, larger questions
should be asked about the proper functioning of an organiza:tio.

Comments Respecting Patt

I of the Pteliminary

Statement of Facts

With respect to Part I, no cited correspondence betu/een the complainant and I contain 'insinuations' or
'unfounded accusations' against the complainant. Specifcally:

In the email thread of February 24,2074,I asked fot information respecting the selection of names
in a Communicationsled ptoject that were ostensibly reflective of a broad ctoss-section of
Canadtan society. The query came from a member of the public and was appropriate given the
policy objectives of the BroadtaslingAct.There were no insinuations or unfounded accusations;
In the email thread of May 9, 2074, when being denied staff support, I made the argument that the
denial of staff support was in contravention of the CRTC Act. Specifically, I argued that requiring
approval of speaking engagements of Commissioners in otdet to obtain staff support ws n
assertion of authority over the actions of Commissioners - under the guise of a 'strategic
opportunity' analysis - without any sttuto{f or policy authority. This was a clear and explicit legal
question. Thete was rro insinuation ot unfounded accusation. f was seeking basic cladfication of an
administrative decision;

o
o

In the email thread of May 28-June 2,2074,I replied to several allegations made on the part of Ms.
Cliff to discredit ,ne to member of her staff and copied that staff member on my reply. In this
^
case, it was the complainant who was making unfounded accusations aginst me;
In the email thread ofJune 2,2074,I argued that amending the online, written text of a speech that I
had delivered eadier that week constituted censorship and that there was no legal or statutoqy
authority to require pre-approvl of my speaking points or fot Communications to act as gatekeeper
of the CRTC website. This was another direct legal question. Thete was no insinuation or
unfounded accusation;

In the email thread ofJuly 24,2074,which dealt with another denial of staff support with respect to
an initiative involving YouTube/Blue Ant Media, I questioned on what basis staff support had been
denied to me. This was another direct legal question. There uas no insinuation or unfounded
accusation; and

In the email threads of September 12-76 and September

77

,2074,I raised sedous legal and policy

concerns respecting a proposed memo that ultimately culminated in a statement of intent to engage
the Office of the Public Service Integtity Commissioner (PSIC).

I indicated that the process

proposed by Ms. Cliff and management fundamentally undermined the independence of the ViceChairmen and Commissioners of the CRTC. Again, these were direct legal questions. There were

no insinuations or unfounded accusations.

Additionally, no cited correspondence between the complainant and I consists of behaviour that can be
charactenzed as intimidating, coercive ot aggressive. The record is clear that the complainant does not
report to me nor do I have the ability to directly sanction her behaviour. ,{.s such, I have no ability to
8

'coerce' or 'intimidate' the complainant to action. Additionally, citing the option of engaging PSIC was a
perfectly valid coutse of action and in ne vith the role and mandate of PSIC. To find otherwise would be

to dramatically undermine the ability of PSIC to oversee and supervise the actions and behaviour of fedetal
public servants.

Comments Respectng Patt

II

of the Prclimnary Statement of Facts

\ith respect to Part II, ptior to the selection of Ms. Laurin as investatot of the complaint, I was assured
byJohn Traversy, Secretary-General, in a telephone converstion on September 29,2074 that Mr. Traversy
would present a list of at least three (3) potential investigators to both the complainant and me in order to
allow each of the affected parties to provide their input as to the selection of an apptopriate investigator.
Mr. Traversy offered this approach as a measure to ensure the independence of the process, the competency
of the investigator and overall fairness. In late October 2074,Mr. Traversy abruptly informed me that an
investigator had been selected to explore the complaiflt. Mr. Traversy offeted no explanation for the change
in process and did not explain on vhat basis an investigator had been selected.
Prior to my engagement in the complaint process, I expressed serious concerns with respect to the
independence and applicability of the complaints process. Specifcally, I have indicated to both Ms. Laurin
and Mr. Traversy that the breach of the selection process was a serious issue and, further, Mt. Traversy's
role of ultimate adjudicator of the complaint was particular problematic as he was a member of the Direct
Reports Committee. I have repeatedly, throughout my appointment, contested the authority of the Direct
Reports Committee over my activity given that it has no legal standing and is chaired by the Chairperson of
the CRTC - who also is forbidden by statute from 'directing' or 'supervising' Members of the Commission.
Furthermore, Mr. Traversy himself has attempted to impropedy assert authority over my acnvit:tf and, given
my strong opposition to CRTC govemance stnlctrues apptoved by Mr. Traversy, the seniot public servant
at the Commission, I expressed concern over Mr. Traversy's role as decision-maker and suggested that PSIC
would be a mote apptopriate, independent forum.
Both Ms. Laurin and Mr. Traversy oted my concerns with respect to the independence of the process
and insisted that I had no option but to participate in the process as established.
The investigator, Ms. Laurin, acknowledges that my statement that, if my legal and policy concerns are not
addressed, I will engage PSIC 'precipitated' the complaint.
Ms. Laurin states that one hundred and eighteen (118) emails/documents ate relevant to the complaint
despite the fact that the complaint only comprises thirty-fve (35) emails. In Ms. Laurin's view, the'tone'and

'ln M^y 2074,intesponse to a request for budgetary funding in order to allow the respondent to visit CRTC stakeholders in
Montreal, Mr. Traversy contacted the respondent to indicate that the Chairman saw no 'strategic value'in the visit. lfhen asked
by the respondent if this ment that he would not receive funding for the stakeholder tour, Mt. Ttaversy repLied "It mens you
can't go." The respondent reminded Mr. Traversy that neither he not the Chairman had the legal authority to control the
movements of the respondent, My. Traversy did not protest this fact. The respondent was forced to conduct the tour using
personal funds.
9

'context' of the additional emails make the infotmation 'relevant' to the alleged hatassment. In
ReneaedPoltcy on Harassment Prevention and Resolution nd tlte neaDirecttve on the Hatassment
Complaint Process - Frequent Asked puutions, it states:
lWhile harassment is normally a series of incidents, one severe, unrepeated incident that has a lasting impact

an

ndudual may constitute harassment, [emphasis added]

The Treasury Board Policy is clear that it applies to an individual and not a group or orgatizatton. As such,
the expanded scope adopted by Ms. Launn contradicts the Policy by accepting as relevant information and

documentation which do not involve the complainant in any respect.

Furthermore, the Treasury Boatd Policy is available to all employees of the CRTC. The information deemed
relevant by Ms. Laurin could have been brought forwatd by the pertinent individuals in the fotm of an
harassment complaint at any time through a separa;te complaint and separate process specific to their
interactions with me. Their decision to refrain ftom doing so - particulay tn light of their personal
connections and the factthat I have no direct authodty over them - highlights the fact that, in their view,
none of the interactions or documentation constituted harassment. Accordingly, it is incongruous and
contradictory that Ms. Laurin finds such information televant to this complaint when, individually, the
vitnesses did not feel

it necessary to prlrsue

Comments Respectng Part

III

a complaint against me.

of the PrcIiminary Statement of Facts

The investigators have failed to cite and consider basic princles of natural justice and procedural law.
Requirements of nafural justice and ptocedunllaw vary depending on the context. As noted the Supteme
Court of Canada, the cofltext m^y v^ty depending on the following:

o
o
o
o
o

the ntlrre of the decision being made and process followed in making it;
the nture of the statutory scheme and the term of the statute pursunt to which the body oPertes;

of the decision to the individual ot individuals affected;

the legitimate expectations of the person challenging the decision; and
the impottance

the choices of procedure made by the agency itself.

lil4ren assessing the suitable requirements for

the following administrative law safeguards:

o
o
r
o
.

particulat context, it is necessary to consider one or mote

of

the right to be heard;

a fait oppotunity to present a case whenevet interests might be adversely affected by a decision;

freedom ftom a teal bias or apprehension of bias;

a decision based on evidence and

not on speculation ot suspicion;

afl assurnce of expettise on behalf of the investigator or decision-maker;

10

o
o
o

the ability to call witnesses in support of a case, where relevant;

the ability to present all evidence relevant to make a case; and

other such protections that may be relevant under law in order to preserve the integtity and
impartiality of an administrative decision-making process.

The CRTC is a quasi-judicial, independent tdbunal tasked with ovetseeing and supervising the multi-billion
dollar broadcasting and telecommunications indusries of Canada.It is normally granted a high degtee of
deference by courts in the course of its decision-making given its specialized expertise. I am a Governot-inCouncil Appointee. f am one of seven (7) Governor-in-Council Appointees presently in place at the CRTC.
The allegations against me are serious and could have a profound impact on my present and future
employment in the federal public service.
Given the foregoing, the complaint process established at the CRTC should have ensured the highest degtee
of impartialiry fairness and independence. Instead, my concerns were expressly ignored. In addition, there
have been innumerable procedural law violations and discrepancies which are enumerted in the section
below.

Comments Respectng Patt IV of the Pteliminary Statement of .Facts

to Part fV, in stating that an intent to harass the complainant is not a relevant consideration,
the investigators failed to note that the legitimate and proper exercise of my authority or responsibility does
not constitute harassment.

rJith respect

Comments Respectng Patt V of the Ptelimnary Statement of -Facts

With respect to the Part V, the preliminary sttement of facts makes several ettots andf or omissions:
a

fn terms of the descrtion of the CRTC, while it is true that it is an administrative tdbunal, it is also
a quasi-judicial agency that operates in an independent mnner from the govemment. Fufthermote,
the CRTC is lega defined by the CRTC Act as the body composed of the membets of the
Commission. This means that, at present, the CRTC is lega defined as the body represented by its
seven (7) present membets;

During the time of the alleged incidents and allegations, the composition of the CRTC varied. There
were sevefl (7) Commissioners until May 2074 when Commissioner Elizabeth Duncan depated the
CRTC,leaving six (6) Commissioners. The composition remained at six (6) Commissionets until
August 2014 when Commissioner Yves Dupras joined the CRTC as the Regional Commissioner for
Quebec;
tMhile the Chaiperson has the sttutory ability to supervise and direct staff of the CRTC, the
Commissioners of the CRTC are expressly excluded from the definition of staff under the CRTC

Act. Accordingly, the Chailperson has no sttutory authority to supervise or direct members of the
Commission. This restriction is in evidence in others ateas of CRTC governance as well. For
11

All votes are equal

and no Commissioner, including the Chaiqperson, has super priority or a veto. No statutory priority
is accorded to the offce of the Chaerson over other Members of the Commission. In this respect,
the CRTC operates in a manner tesembling an equitable board;
All employees of the CRTC, including the Chairperson, are tequired to adhere to and abide by the
CRTC Code of Conduct as a condition of employment. In this respect, although the Chaiqpetson
has the uthority to supervise and direct staff, the employees of the CRTC are conttctually
obligated to serve the Commission - legally defined as the body tepresentative of the present
Members. The Code of Conduct grants the Chairman no special or preferential treatment at the
expense of other Commissionets;
The Financial Adninistration Act imposes on the Chaiqperson, as deputy head, cettain financi.
repoting obligations to the Treasury Board Secretariat. Thete is no explicit ptovision of the Finncial
Adninitration Act rhat confers pou/er to the Chairperson to supervise or direct Members of the
Commission in contravention of the CRTC Act. Reporting obligations caffiot be interpteted as
example, in terms of decision-making, each Commissioner has one vote to cast.

power-confetring provision
a

s;

Generally speaking, policies, guidelines, memotanda and directives have no legal force ot effect.
Specifically, they cannot be used to deny authodty granted by statute or grant authority denied by
statue;

In terms of my qualifications:
o I was previously employed as an analyst and telecommunications lawyer at Industry Canada;
o I was previously employed as an analyst, lawyer and senior advisor at the CRTC;
o I was employed as a midlevel regulatory executive at Astral Media Radio Inc.; and
o I was employed as a mid-level regulatory executive at the CBC.
My expedence and qualifications ate unique in the industry and, to my knowledge, I am the only
lawyer inCanada to have practiced law with both Industry Canada and the CRTC while also having
acted as a rcgolatoty executive with a private broadcaster ('A.stral) and the national public broadcastet
(CBC). In other words, my expertise n this arca of the law is broad and deep; and
The structure of the CRTC is unique in that, while I do not have direct supervisory authority over
employees, each CRTC employee is hired to serve the Commission, of which I am a member.In
conttac)a and legally obliged to serve the whole Commission
other words, CRTC employees
^te
but, presendy, only the Chairperson has the authority to direct and supervise them. This means that
individual Members of the Commission can proper request information and assistance from
CRTC staff but cannot discipline them in any respect; they can only recommend that the
Chaitperson do so.

Comments Respecting Patt VI of the PrcIimnaty Statement of -Facts

\X/ith respect to Part

VI, corrections and clarifications regarding the sttements of the complainant

and

witnesses ate provided below.

t2

Euidence of the Comlainant

a

Pa

graph 7:

I categorically

deny the complainant's statement that

I received

a mandate to "take on

the old guys in grey suits" and that f was "the new young guy." I did not, at any point, convey this
message or statement in my initial conversation with the complainant;
a

Paragnph 2: At no point in this exchange was I 'aware' of the complainant's discomfort. The email
exchange cleay demonstrates only my confusion with her reticence to provide the infotmation that

I
a

requested;

Pangraph 4: There are a number of factual and legal errors implicit in the statements made in this
p ar agr

o
o
o

aph. Specif ically:

The CRTC did not develop the process in question. The statement is factually and legally
incorrect. The CRTC, as defined by the CRTC Act, is the body composed of each Member
of the Commission. To my knowledge, this process has never been approved by the CRTC
and I certainly have never voted to approve such a process;
Direct Repofts, an intemal committee of the Chaitperson's creation, has no legal standing
and no legal authority to exercise any authority on behalf of or over the CRTC;
Direct Reports has no legal authority to assess 'strategic opportunities' on behalf of the
CRTC. Furthermore, the Commission has not delegated such authority to Direct Repotts;
CRTC senior staff is welcome to raise conflicts of interest with Commissionets at any point
in time; however, CRTC staff only opertes in an advisory tole. The complainant ptoposed a
process whereby the opinion of staff can supersede the decision or discretion of
Commissioners. This is contrary to the CRTC Act. CRTC senior staff has no authority ovet
Members of the Commission. Their role is purely advisory. By denying staff support at its
discretion, CRTC senior staff is asserting statutory authority that does not exist;
Exercises of discretion on the patt of senior staff due to limited resources should always be
made in ttaflspaterrt and equitable basis in ordet to ensure that no Member of the
^
Commission is receiving preferential tretment in accotdance with e CRTC Act.The
complainant has consistendy refused to address the equitable allocation of Iimited staff

fesoufces.
a

for staff to deny a Member of the Commission with staff

assistance on the basis of 'sttategic opportunity'. Futthermore, I introduced a legal rgument to
PalLgraph 5: There is no legal authority

which CRTC senior legal counsel was copied; namely, arbiuarily denying staff support when
Commissionets choose not to submit to the authority of Direct Reports does inditectly what staff is
not permitted to do directly through sttute. This legal atgument was ored by both the
complainant and CRTC senior legal counsel;
a

Pa:agraph 6:

used the term 'colleague' in its broad sense, namely, that employees of the CRTC are

all colleagues of one another.

consider Eric Rancourt to be my colleague, as well as all other

employees of the CRTC;

a

ParagraphT: Neither CRTC senior staff nor the Chailperson of the CRTC has the legal authority to
'approve' speaking engagements of Members of the Commission. There is no articulated authodty

13

under the CRTC A6t. Asserting an authority to approve speaking enggements offends the
testriction in the CRTC Act against directing and supervising Members of the Commission.

In

addition, standard practice in the public service varies from orgarizanon to otganization and has no
bearing on the proper functioning of the CRTC;
a

Paragraph B: The complainnt hs misrepresented the chronology of facts. Aftet

speech, a version of the speech containing the statement

delivered my

in question was not only posted on the

CRTC website but also disttibuted via email to industry stakeholders. The contentious statement
was contained in this initial distribution. It ws removed on afrerl received media attention for my
remarks. Afterwards, an industry stakeholder brought to my attention that the speech had been
altered without my consent. Subsequent email exchanges in which I questioned the authority of the
complainant to censor my spoken words were legitimate and proper given the serious legal
implications of the complainant's actions;
a

Pa::agrph9: The complainant is imping that Treasury Board policies and guidelines can grant the

Chaiqperson authority to direct and supervise Members of the Commission. This is legally incomect.
Futhermore, both the complainant and the Chairperson have asserted that financial obligations
imposed by the Financial Adninistration Act grant the Chaiqperson the authority to direct and

of the Commission. Ag"in, this is legally incorrect. Basic principles of statutory

inteqpretation stte that, when two statutes rnay apply in a given situation, a hatmonious
inte4pretation of both statuts rules. This is why, traditionally, ftnancial audits of Commissioners'
travel expenses have been conducted by independent, thitd prry accounting fitms. Their
ssessments allow the Chaitperson to meet Treasury Boatd and Financil Adninitration Act
requirements without assetting authority over Members of the Commission. This ptactice and
supervise Members

others, however, have been unceremoniously removed by the Chairperson on an

ex

parte basis and,

today, CRTC staff and members of the Chairperson's office teview Commissioner expenses,
including monitoring phone calls made by Commissioners in their monthly bills. This is wholly
inappropriate;
a

Paragraph9: As indicated in my Reply to the Complaint of Jamary 79,2075, my statements in this

context were based on objective reporting by Google that indicate that users of YouTube over the
age of 55 comprise only 2.9o/o of total users. My follow up queries as to whether the interest level of
younger CRTC employees was cnvssed further buttresses this point. I was simply dtawing the
complainant's attention to the fact that the typical uset of YouTube is below the age of 55 and that
reing on the interest level of the Direct Reports did not cpture the interest of the target
employees;

Paragraph 71: There are a numbe r

of

facrual omissions and legal errors in this paragraph.

Specifically:

the Memo drafted by the complainant encapsulated a process strongly opposed by

Commissioners t n in-camera lunch when originally raised by senior legal counsel in April
2074;

the document did noT"clattfy" any existing ptocedure. It ptoposed a new procedure that had
never been approved by the Commission and, in fact, was opposed by Commissioners in

t4

o
o
o

Apnl2014.In addition, when asked to bring forward evidence that the process had
previously existed, the complainant ws unable to do so;
As made clear to the investigators t the December 2014 interview, I have witnesses who can
attest to the fact that the proposed procedute is entirely new to the Commission but cannot
bring such witnesses forward due to their fear of tepdsals from CRTC senior staff;
The complainant ambiguously refers to a 'long-standing' request without referring to who
made the request. In the interests of procedwal fairness, she should reveal who made the
request given the contentious nature of the subject matter;
,A,s noted previously by me, the complainant uses the term 'prerogative'without an
acceptable definition. The complainant, as a staff member employed to serve the
Commission, has no authority to refuse a legitimate request for assistance by a Member of
the Commission.

Pangraph 72: The CRTC Code of Conduct is a pre-condition to employment vith the CRTC. The
complainant has a legal obligation to adhere to the CRTC Code of Conduct. ,{.s a Membet of the
Commission, my requests as to how the processes and proposals of the complainant adheted to the
CRTC Code of Conduct were legitimate and entitely proper;

o Pa graph 73: In this paragraph, the compiainant has made several factual ertots and statements:
o It is unclear as to why the complainant would be 'shocked' when she was aware of strong
o
o

opposition by Commissioners to her proposed approach as far back as Apr.2074;

It is gtossly inappropriate of the complainant to raise the issue of sexism in the workplace
when I have only raised legal and policy concerns in my email (discussed above); and
I have never suggested that staff should be available to address my requests without any
reserve. I have tepeatedly acknowledged that limited resources can impact staff assistance
and, as such, a fast and ffansparent process should be put in place to ensufe that no one
Commissioner receives ptefetential treatment ovet anothet.

ParagraphT4: The basis for my email was a legitimate concern about CRTC governnce. The 'simple

intemal process' that the complainant sought to impose guaranteed staff support for the
Chaiqperson and subjected staff support for othet Commissioners to the apptoval of Ditect Reports
- a staff committee chaired by the Chairperson. In other'/ords, the process proposed by the
complainant allows the Chailperson to 'direct and supervise' Members of the Commission in
violation of the CRTC Act. These concerns were known to both the Chairperson and the
complainant;

c
o
o

Pa:'gl:aphT5: The contents of the email exchanges between myself and the complainant consisted

of legitimate and proper concerns respecting CRTC governance, policy approaches and legal issues;
Pa:graph 76: My emails were sent in reply to the distribution of the disputed memorandum. The
timing of my emails reflect the complainant's decision to distribute the disputed memorandum
during a maior hearing;
Pangraph 77: At no time did I make a threat to the complainant. The potential use of PSIC was a
valid, legal option available to me, and citing the availability of an option avatlable to all public
servants cannot constitute harassment ot a thteat; afld

15

Patagaph 19: The email in question raised a legitimate legal and policy objection to
place

- the very process captuted

a process

in

by the disputed memorandum.

Euidence of the Resondent

a

Paragraph 7t In addition to being a CRTC analyst and broadcasting and telecommunications

regulatory lawyer, I was also employed as an executive at Astral Media and CBC. I have
unquestionable industry experience.

am very famitat with the CRTC and the legal and tegulatory

ftamework.
a

Pangraph2: The CRTC is an independent administrative tribunal and each Commissionet is

independent from each othet; this is to ensure the integrity and independence of each vote is
protected. My primary roles are nvo-fold: (a) to adjudicte as a member of the tribunal; and

teach

out to stakeholders in my region.

Pangraph3: The emails that fotm the basis of the complaint consist of questions or infotmation
that I was seeking from staff and were appropriate requested in the circumstances. As a
Commissioner, I was entitled to raise cofrcerrs and seek the clanftcations and responses being
sought in the perforrrance of my duties. $7ith respect to the Chairperson, in my view, interactions
between the Chairperson and me do not fotm part of the complaint as they did not include the
complainant. Furthet, the Chairperson has the ability to file a complaint against me if he is of the
view that the legal and policy questions being asked are in breach of policy. He has chosen not to do
so. As well, I submit that the Chairperson ignored serious policy and legal concerns that I previously
raised with him and refused to discuss those concerns. The Chaitpetson attempted to address alegaJ,
concern on only one occasion in a brief email reply and refused to ansv';er any subsequent questions
on the subject. I requested that alegal. opinion be obtained. The Chaitman has refused/ignoted the
request to seek alegal opinion.
a

to the Februarv 23 emal, exchanse:

The names in question were used in a public survey;
My query was desed to ensute that survey's composition adhered to Broadca$ingActpolicy

Parapryaoh 5: \X/ith resoect

o
o

objectives;

o
o

The complainant's response to my inquiry ("Are you sedous') was dismissive and
inappropriate, e specially for staff responding to a Commissioner; and
This initial exchange with the complainant set the tone fot all of the subsequent email
exchanges.

It is not completely accwzte to state that the complainant does not 'work' for me; the
complainant works fot the Commission, of which, as a Commissioner, I am a member. There may
be circumstances in which CRTC employees crinot serve Commissioners adequately, such as in
PangraPth 6:

instances of lack of expertise or resources, but in my view, the appropdate solution is to fotmulate

an apptoachwhereby limited resources ate shared equally between all Commissioners and not
allocated solely to the benefit of certain Commissionets. Denying service to Commissioners uith no
suitalrle explanation or proposed service solution is not appropitate;

t6

Parawaoh 7: \X/ith resbect to the Mav 8 email exchanEe:

o
o
o
o

requirement fot Commissioners;

It is contrary to my understanding of the law and policy;
I argued that the denial of staff support was in contravention of the CRTC Act,
At the Apr in-camera meeting, the Chairman confirmed that neither he nor senior staff had

a role to play in approving or denying stakeholder visits or speaking engagement; and

This email exchange was copied to others by the complainant, not by me. As such, the
complainant cannot argue that I 'humiliated' or 'bullied'her in this instance.

The process proposed had never previously been

Pangraph 9: In the email thread of May 9, 2074, when being denied staff support, I argued that
requiring approval of speaking engagements of Commissioners in order to obtain staff support was
an assertion of authodty over the actions of Commissioners - under the guise of a 'strategic
oppornrniry' analysis - without ny statutory or policy authority;

Pangraph 15: This paragraph does not accurately reflect what I stated. The point that I was trying to
make is that certain members of senior staff - Amanda Cliff, PauletteLeclait, Denis Carmel and
others - are long-time friends and allies of the Chaiqperson andpnottze his needs over those of
other Commissioners. Furthermote, it is clear from the record of this proceeding that these
individuals report to the Chaiqperson about all kinds of Commission activity. As such, I felt that I
could not trust them;

Paragraph 76: My issue isn't regarding the merit of a teview.

I do not have

a concern

with a legal or

factual review. My concern is with pre-approval and the fettering of the independence

of

Commissioners;
a

Parawaoh 17: With resect to the Tulv 23 email exchanEe

I was seeking confirmation that the

perspective of younger CRTC employees had been accounted for. My follow up questions in
the email confirm this fact;
o The investigators' statement that "it was not an invitation" is wrong; it seems to indicate that
I was being directive to staff. This is not the case; it vs my intention to offer the YouTube
seminar to interested staff members and find ways to de-fray their travel costs so they could
leatn from new media experts;
o The complainant did not reply to my email and therefore I could not kno\/ she had taken
issue with my email. Given the complainant's previously distespectful and dismissive replies,
f suspect any further detailed explanation would not have made a diffetence. Howevet, had
the concetn been raised, I would have explained my comment.
Paragraph 18 $7ith respect to the Chairman's August 1 letter, I did not reply to the Chairman's
letter as the Chairman had not addressed any of my previously atticulated legal and policy concerns.
The August 1 letter does not form part of the complaint as the complainant was not copied and
whether I replied is not relevant to the complaint;
Paragraph 202 There was nothing inappropriate about the tone or contents of the email to Ms.
Motzney. I was asking legitimate and proper questions;
was not being cdtical of the respondent's age.

17

Paragtaph23: This alleged incident does not form patt of the complaint and has nothing to do with
the Complainant or the complaint. It is not relevant. Furthermore, in the time that I have been
employed at the CRTC, I have witnessed Commissioners eating, texting, emailing and, in some
cases, sleeping during CRTC meetings. I do not see ny televance to my playing with a stress bll
while awaiting my tum to speak in the context of this complaint;
Paragraph 24:

I did not say I was deceived by Ms.

Leclair. Rather, I was disappointed in the plan she

produced because it did not remotely teflect what I had asked for;

o
o

Paragraph 28: The context of this pangraph is the May 28 emal, exchange;

Palzsrah 39: There is a spellinE error.

It

should read "the tone of lti emails".

Euidence ofJ ean-Pierce B lais

Pa

or
is
no
is
this
testriction.
There
clear on
supervising Members of the Commission . The CRTC Act
particular responsibility accorded to the Chairman in terms of the CRTC's reputation that is greater
than the general responsibility on the whole of the Commission. All Commissioners wnt to protect
the reputation of the CRTC and increase public trust in the institution;

Pangraph 2: Commissioner independence cannot be cuttailed under the guise of fiscal management
in the absence of open, trnsparent and fau information respecting those fi.scal limitations. The
independence of the Commissioners is fundamental to the proper functioning of the CRTC and
should properly be accorded the highest priority and preservation when administtative decision-

aph 7: The Chairman's authority to manage the organizatton does not extend to ditecting

making is conducted;
a

of several exchanges between myself and the

complainant. I do not acknowledge the authority of the Chairman to deny staff support to
Commissioners under the concept of 'strategic opporhrnity'. To allow for such an authority would
be to concede that the Chairman may decide when and how an independent Commissioner can
express themselves on subjects propedy within CRTC jurisdiction; in otlrer words, that the
Chairman can ditect and supervise Members of the Commission. This authority is exptessly denied
to the Chairman undet t},e CRTCAct.Furthe4 this process assumes a degtee of oversight ovet
Commissioners by the Chairman that is inappropriate. Commissioners do not report to the
Palz;grp]n3: This process has been the subject

Chauman.Individual Commissioners as Governor-in-Council appointees report, ultimately, to

Parliament. The Chairman has no authotity to intercede in that telationship;
a

Patagraph 5: The Chairman's personal views of me are immatedal to this complaint. InJanuary
2074, the Chakman offeted himself as a coach to me. The Chairman stated that he had acted as a
coach toJames Moore when Mr. Moore was in the position of Minister of Canadian Hedtage and
that he would be willing to coach me in the same manner. I was troubled by this offer as, in my

view, it could impact the perception of my independence as Commissioner. I felt the offer was
^
very inappropriate but did not articulate those concerns. I simply thanked the Chairman fot the
offer in order to maintain a peaceful working telationship. Furthermote, as this exchange does not
involve the complainant,it is immaterial to te complaint;
18

Palagraph 6: The Chairman has no knowledge of my likes or dislikes and cannot attest to either.

have been clear that the practices adopted by the Chutman offend my independence as a
Commissionet. The Chaitman has consistendy ignored my concerns;

PangraphT: The exchange to which the Chairman refers was a light-hearted exchange between
myself and a member of senior staff. Denis Carmel is one of the Chairman's oldest ftiends. Mt.
Carmel implied that the Churman ws my 'boss'. I was merely reminding Mr. Carmel that thete is
no reponing relationship between myself and the Chairman, a fact that many in the industry do not
seem aware of. Futthermore, as this exchange does not involve the complainant,itis immaterial to
the complaint;
Patagraph 8: The Chairman has no knowledge of my views on specific ditectives or policies and
cnnot attest to them. Furthermore, as this exchange does not involve the complainant, it is

immaterial to the complaint;

Paragraph 70: This exchange does not involve the complainant and is immaterial to the complaint.
was merely seeking cladfication on the application

of a CRTC byJaw. There was nothing

unteasonable about the exchange;

o
o
o
o
o
o

Paragraph 77: This exchange does not involve the complainant and is immaterial to the complint;

Pangraph 72t This exchange does not involve the complainant and is immatedal to the complaint;
Paragraph 73: This exchange does not involve the complainant and is immaterial to the complaint;

Pangraph 74: As stated previously, there was a perfecdy reasonable explanation for my statement.
The Chairman's written correspondence \/as unnecessary, inappropdate and reflective of an
institutional bigotry that is discussed further above;
Paragraph 15: This exchange does not involve the complainant and is immatetial to the complaint;
PatagraphT6: In this patagraph, the Chairman has implicated the Secretary-General as having
evidence applicable to this complaint. The Chairman has also named the Secretary-General as the
ultimate arbiter of the complaint. Basic principles of natutal justice indicate that the SecretaryGeneral cnnot be both witness and adjudicator. As discussed above, the independence of the entire
process has been destroyed;

Paragraph 17: These exchanges do not involve the complainant and arc immatetial to the complaint.
Furthetmote, the Chairmn was not copied to the email exchange bet'ween myself and Ms. Lehoux.

That exchange was copied to the Secretary-Genetal.

If

the Secretary-General forwarded that

exchange to the Chauman for evidentiary purposes for this complaint, then the Secretary-General

r
o

caffiot act as final arbiter for this process as it would offend basic pdnciples of natural justice;
Paragraph 18: The Chairman's personal views of me ate immaterial to the complaint. I have an
excellent working relationship with CRTC staff with the exception of the Chairman and his allies.
Pangraph20: The Chairman's personal views of me arcimrr,ateal to the complaint.

t9

Eaidence of Torz Penteantas

o

Pangraph 7: Mr. Pentefountas did not attend the meeting in person; he attended via phone and was
not in the room. Mr. Pentefountas is factually incorrect that there were no discussions on the
subject; in fact, the discussion u/ent on for so long that the commencement of the FCM meeting was
delayed by almost thirty minutes. Commissioner Molnar and Vice-Chair Menzies were the most
vocal opponents of the proposed process. I agreed with them and supported their position;

Paragraph 4: Mr. Pentefountas has no knowledge of my thoughts and cannot attest to them.

Euidence of Steplten Simpson

It is important to put this witness' testimony in its propet context. Mr. Simpson

was one

of the most

vocal opponents of the Chairman's expanded po\rers until he received approval from the Chairman
to fly business class for work-telated ttavel. Since that time, Mr. Simpson has become docile and
subservient to the Chaitman's agendas;

am trying to 'get' to the Chaitman thtough staff. Mr.

Simpson has no knowledge of my mindset and has no ability to attest to such things. I am very
awarc of my responsibilities as Commissioners and am a far more active and engaged Member of the
Paragra?th 3: Mr. Simpson is incorrect that

Commission than Mr. Simpson;

Patagra?th 4: Mr. Simpson cannot ttest to what 'all' Commissioners were thinking

ot feeling

^t ^ny
given time. The thoughts or feelings of the Commissioners do not involve the complainant ad are
irrelevant to the complaint;

Paragraph 5: The contents of this pangraph do not involve the complainant and are itelevant to the

complaint;

o
o
o

Parag ph 6: The contents of this paragtaph atelargely factually incorrect and inaccutate. The dinner
to which Mr. Simpson is refering was attended by two others, not one. The idea discussed was
received favourably by the group, with Mr. Simpson indicating that it was 'exacdy the kind of idea'
that was needed for the situation. I was not ag;tated and did not make a scene at the restautant;
PangraphT: I wholly agtee that it is a privilege to serve Canadians;
Paragraph 8: In this pangraph, Mr. Simpson acknowledges a cultute of reprisal at the CRTC that
inhibits the proper functioning of the CRTC. This mattet is discussed in more detail above;
Pangraph 70: I have no knowledge to what Mr. Simpson is refetdng when he sys tht I have taken
the 'jurisdictional fght to the streets.' I vould be happy to address it if more information can be
provided.

20

Euidence of Candice

Paragraph 1:

Molnar

agtee that thete was ample discussion at the table around the issue of the fettering

discretion of the Commissioners.

disagree that

of

it was agreed that Ditect Reports could oversee

stakeholder and speaking enggements of Commissioners;

a

Paragra[th 4: The summary of this pagaph mischaracterizes the witness' testimony. Ms. Molnar
was not stating that

I should

have known better than to raise the issues that

I did; only that I should

In this respect, I disagtee with Ms. Molnar as the CRTC Code

of Conduct binds both the complainant nd the Chairman and both are responsible for justifying
their actions in light of the Code.
have raised them with the Chairman.

Euidence 0f Christianne l-^aiqner

a

It

is important to put this witness's testimony in its proper coritext:

Ms.Latzner was copied on only one of the cited email threads that comprise this complaint.
not addtess the legal concerri raised in that

She was copied by the complainant. She did

exchange;

Ms. Laizner is a membu of the Direct Reports comrnittee whose authority

have repeatedly

questioned;

o
o

Ms. Laizner has approved every contentious process and procedure at issue in this complaint

without addressing my legal concerns; and

Ovet her brief term as CRTC senior legal counsel,Ms. Luznet has overseen, without any
meaningful legal analysis, the gteatest mount of consolidation of authority in the office of
the Chairman in the history of the otgarizatton.

the fact that the content of my email consisted of

legitimate and ptoper questions respecting the legal, policy and Code of Conduct-related to a
proposed process. As senior legal counsel, Ms. Laizner should be aware that legitimate and proper
questions of this fashion cannot constitute harassment;

Paragraph 5: Ms. Laizner's statement is incorrect. In my view, Commissioners acknowledged that

Patagraph 7: Ms. Laizner's testimony

ores

legal counsel was always available to assess conflict of interest when necessary and that staff support
would be made availablewith adequate notice. Ms. Laizner is attempting to justifu her presentation's
recommendations that Commissioners should subject themselves to the authority of Direct Reports;
a

Palagraph 6: My concerns with the process proposed by the complainant are well documented in

this process. Ms. Laizner neglected to mention that the process in question spent several weeks in
the Legal department under her direct review and drafting.

It

is notable that Ms. Laizner has not

addtessed any of my stated concerns, namely:

o
o

the process bestows preferential tretment to the Chairman over other Commissioners;
the process subjects Commissioners to the authorify of Direct Reports, a committee chaited
by the Chafuman, that puqports to exercise authodty over Commissioners without any
legislative support; and
21

the process provides no objective ctiteria for the allocation of staff support in instances
limited resources in otder to ensure that no Commissionets is receiving prefetential

of

tfetment.

ParagraphT: Ms. Laizner's petsonal views of me areimmaterial to the complaint. I have not tteated
either the witness or the Chief Compliance and Enforcement Officer disrespectfully. In the example
cited by the witness, the Commission was discussing the delegation of legal authority to the Chief
Compliance and Enforcement Officer and I was asking reasonable questions respecting the
expertise of staff. These were legitimate and proper questions;

Paragraph B: Discussions respecting the governance of the CRTC do not constitute 'personal
disputes'. The questions raised by me were legitimate and proper in the context of the emails;

c
o

Pangraphg: I insist on email correspondence in order to errsure mesure of accountability in my

exchanges with senior staff. This is a legitimate and appropriate request;
Pa graph 70: Requesting anin-camera session during a Commission meeting is a perfectly
legitimate and acceptable practice. It is odd of the witness to interpret it as an attack upon her
integrity.

Eaidence of Paalette Leclair

o

It is important to put this witness' testimony in its proper context:

o
o
a

Ms. Leclair is one of the Chairman's best friends; and

Ms. Leclair reports direcdy to the complasnant.

Paragraphs 1-11: With respect to the initial portion of the witness' testimony:
o it is irelevant to the complaint as it does not relate to evidence submitted by the
complainant;

^fly

Stakeholder outreach is clear a fundamental aspect of being a Commissioner. As such, it is

irrelevant that my request v/as a 'first' for the witness. Thete should have been ample
expertise in-house to deal with the basic request;

Ms. Leclait's version of events is factually incorrect:

The request to create a stakeholder outrech database was made on August 29,2073
during a videoconference ttended by myself, Ms. Leclair, Ms. Mullin and Ms.
Shewfelt. I was very clear about my expectations rvhich I viewed to be very basic;
Ms. Leclair assured me that she could delivet what was required by late September
2073;

'

Ms. Leclair did not deliver the ptoject as promised in Septembet 20t3.In the
interim, a member of her team confdentially provided me with a copy of the initial

of my expectations fot the

draft of the plan. It did not remotely confotm to
^fly
project and had been incorrecdy dtafted t Ms. Leclair's instructions;
I fnally received Ms. Leclair's first draft of the requested database template in
November 2073.Itwas essentially the same as the dtaft that I had received in

22

September 2013 with a few sections temoved. No new information had been added.
It did not remotely confotm to the required specifcations;

. I ananged

for two conference calls with Ms. Leclait in Novembe r 2013 to discuss
my concerns with the draft she had provided. Ms. Leclair cancelled both calls at the
last minute. Finally, I reached Ms. Leclait and we agreed, at Ms. Leclair's request, to
speak at the CRTC Chdstmas Patty;
Ms. Leclair's recitation of the conversation held at the ChdstmasParq is incorrect. I
explained that I had requested the stakeholder database and sategy months ago and
still had nothing suitable. I further noted that I had given my first public speech in
October 2073 at the OAB Annual Confetence in which I had announced my
intention to reach out to stakeholdets across the province and yet still had nothing to
go on. I did indicate to her that if she was unable to do what ws requested, she
should have simply told me instead of sitting on it for three months. I stated that, as
I had made a public nnouncement to conduct stakeholder outreach, without an
outreach database and plan, I was the one who would look foolish and not Ms.
Lecla'r;

reiterate that I was not drunk, v/as not inappropriately dressed, did not act
inapptopriately in arry way or yell at nyone and, in fact, departed the party to retum

to my hotel by 11 pm.
a

Pangraph 12: The witness is incorrect; the proposed procedure had never been in place priot to the
Chairman's arrival. Furthermore, my reaction is perfectly logical as the process had been strongly
opposed by multiple Commissioners at the pril FCM in-camera lunch;

namely, that the respondent 'no longer exists' in her view illustrates an animus toward me, and supports my submission, above, that the culture at the CRTC is
Pangra?th 74: The witness' attitude

one of latent bigotry.

Euidence of Pierre-Marc Pereaalt

It is important to put this witness' testimony in its ptoper context:

o
o

Mr. Petreault reports directly to Ms. Leclair; and

Mr. Perreault has been promoted aggtessively by the Chairman and is regarded as one of the
Chairman's'favourites' amongst staff.
Pal:agraph 2: Mr. Pereault is factually incorect. The speech in question uas a speech that I gave to
the Society of Motion Pictures and Television Engineers (SMPTE) association.

o Paragraph 5: Mr. Perreault has no knowledge

o Pa graph 6: Mr. Perreault has no knowledge
o

of my tJroughts and cannot ttest to them;

of my intetactions with CRTC staff and cnnot attest

to them. I am not disrespectful to CRTC staff;

Pa:ragraphT: There was nothing disrespectful about my request to go in-camera during a
Commission meeting. It was perfecdy valid and useful in terms of allowing Commissionets to fteely
speak their minds. I am not contemptuous of staff. I do not openly crincize staff during meetings.
23

Disageement does not constitute criticism.

meetings when they do exceptional work;
a

In fact,I

go out of my v/ay to compliment staff during

Paragraph 8: In my view, there was no conflict of interest. The initiative involved the exploration of
issues pertaining to exempt undertakings that are not curently regulated by the CRTC. My emails

I was expressing genuine confusion and frustration;

Pangraph 17: I take issue with the witness' chancterization of my actions as being demonsttative of
pannoia. The witness is not a medical doctor, cnnot diagnose the illness and is cleady being

'/efe not insulting.

a

defamatory;
a

Pangraph

1.2:

I was dressed appropriately for the occasion. My attire is immatetial to this complaint.

Addtonal lYitnesses
Throughout this complaint process, the complainant and her allies have sought to paint an inaccutate,
incomplete representation of my interactions with CRTC staff. While I categorically reject this evidence as
false and immaterial to the complaint in question, I recommend that the investigator contact the following
CRTC employees with whom I interact on a regulat basis:

o
o
o

Andrea Mullin, Executive Assistant, Ontario Regional Commissioner

Donna Shewfelt, Manager, Regional Offces
Margarct Kennedy, Executive Assistant, Ontado Regional Commissionet art-time)

These individuals can attest to my behaviout and act as character references. Specifically, these individuals
can attest to the fact that

have a positive wotking relationship with members of CRTC staff.

Conclusion
The Treasury Board's Poligt

of

Harassnent Preuention and Resolation sttes as follows:

where a single incident is perceived as harassment, the person who made the remark or exhibited the behaviout
of the impact of their action, so the individual who feeis harassed should try to communicate
construcrively the impact of the behaviour to that person. This will provide n opportunity for that person to recrify the
unwanted behaviour and also serve to make it clear, if the behaviour reoccurs, that it is not acceptable.

In

cases

my not be aware

In addition ro my position that every question that I raised was legitimate and proper, the following facts are
also salient in the context of this complaint:

o
o

The complainant has never communicated with me in person on a one-on-one basis;

The complainant has refused mediation as a tool to constructively addtess workplace conflict, to the
extent that it exists;

r
o

Virtually the entirety of the complainant's professional interactions with me have been via email;
The tone and content of the complainant's emails to me were disrespectful and dismissive;
24

The complainant has nevet addressed my legal, policy and Code of Conduct-related questions to an
appropriate extent; and

The complainant knowingly attempted to enshrine

as procedure a process she

knew to be opposed

by members of the Commission.

In short, this is not an instance of harassment. Instead, the record demonstrates the existence of a senior
executive who evidenced little desire to tte t member of the Commission with the respect due to his office
^
and avoided answering the most basic of legal, policy and Code of conduct-based quedes respecting her
activities and conduct. The complainant should not be permitted to use a validly constructed harassment

policy as a shield to firlflling her contrctual duties to the Commission. The complainant should not be
petmitted to pdoritize her loyalty to the Chairman above her oath as a public servnt.

It

seems apparent, however, that based on the foregoing there is a significant probability that the

investigators for this complaint will find me in violation of the Policy. Given this ptobabity, and the serious

implications of such a recommendation,

of this mattet so that, to the extent

necessary, I may pursue all appropriate procedures to protect my dghts - including both legal proceedings in
the Federal Court or elsewhere and reporting these matters to other govemment officials.

f remain

ask for a prompt resolution

avaslable to provide any additional

information required for your investigation.

Sincerely,

RajShoan
Commissioner, Ontario
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

25

From:
Sent:
To:

Subject:

Shoan, Raj
June-02-2014 9:20 AM
Blais, Jean-Pierre
RE: BCM WA - 26.05.14 Ad hoc

HiJ-P,
Thanks for your email. As you suggested, I took the weekend to consider my reply. lt will be rather lengthy but I hope
you can appreciate my desire to resolve the differences that presently exist between us.

Apart from the email exchange that precipitated this reply, I took the time to consider the current state of our
professional relationship. lt strikes me that we have continually found ourselves in this situation over the past year;
raise an issue, there is an exchange and, very quickly, the situation escalates from defensiveness to frustration.

the past few days as, l'm sure you would agree, our ability to have a healthy
exchange of viewpoints would make our professional relationship a more fruitful one. There is no ill-intention on my
part so, with a renewed approach, I hope that we can put these types ofexchange behind us.
I have given this a lot of thought over

From my perspective, I believe this situation is occurring for a variety of reasons. Generally, the lack of clarity
respecting the roles and powers of Commissioners, including yourself, is causing some tenson. Specifically, the
manner by which each of us chooses to communicate with one another only exacerbates that tension. l'll explain

took the time to review the Orientation Binder that I received upon arriving at the Commission. While it contains a
lot of useful information, what it lacks is a clear explanation of the tools and powers at a Commissioner's disposal.
Why is this important? A Commissioner, as you know, is an independent appointee charged with serving the public
interest. That independence - from both staff and other Commissioners - is crucial to the effective functioning of the
office.
This is fundamental information for any appointee. Understanding, at a basic level, what they can or cannot do in
relation to other Commissioners is at the heart of the Commission's decision-making process. An individual
Commissioner's independence is paramount but they are all part of one Commission. There is a balance to be struck
in the public interest. This is information that has been altogether lacking for Commissioners today and, as I noted, it
is the cause of some tension.
I

The problem being identified, the next logical question becomes how best to address it. I don't presume to speak on
behalf of my colleagues and I have no idea whether any of them have attempted to acquire the clarity required to
conduct their affairs. My sense is that they have not and I further suspect that a primary reason for their reluctance
to do so is a lack of understanding of how to navigate the culture of government. lt can be an intimidating thing to
enter an organization such as the CRTC. The rules, the structure...for most people, it's a mystery. Furthermore, few of
them are lawyers and would not necessarily know to begin with the legislation and go from there; they would assume
that the structure presently in place is there for a good reason and would not presume to challenge it, even if

discontent.
organization (as a former staffer).
Understandably, I am less intimidated than my colleagues in challenging the structures presently in place, particularly
those that I feel may infringe upon my independence as a Commissioner. As I said, this does not come from a place of
ill intent; I am acting as any reasonable lawyer would act n the same situation. I am asking questions in order to
ensure that our structures accurately represent our governing legislation and the principles underpinning our
appointments. lt is not personal. I put my queries in writing because it allows for both understandingand
accountability. We have already experienced at least one alleged 'miscommunication' stemming from an exchange at
an in-camera, in-person meeting and I am anxious to avoid another.
I am a regulatory lawyer by trade and very familiar

with the

CRTC as an

You have demonstrated a reluctance to conduct these discussions via email. You are entitled to that choice, I
suppose. When the starting point of discussion stems from a growing frustration respecting clearly defined roles and

powers, however, and one party initiates discussions in writing only to be told by the receiving party that they do not
choose to communicate in that manner, frustrations can become exacerbated. Nevertheless, I am willing to set aside
such frustrations in the spirit of finding an amiable solution to this quandary. Given your reluctance to discuss this
matter in writing, how do you propose to proceed with the analysis?

With respect to your request that I retract certain statements, I have re-read our email thread and found most of its
content to contain non-offensive language or statements. That said, upon reflection, I am willing to retract two
statements. I stated that I can understand and appreciate that you would not want to engage in a conversation that
could potentially restrict your powers going forward. I made this inference based on the fact that you evidenced a
willingness to engage in the conversation when the answer was ostensibly cut and dry but backed away when I raised
questions. Nonetheless, I concede that I cannot know your motivations for choosing to engage (or disengage) in a
conversation. As such, I retract that statement.
Secondly, I alleged that Christianne is reportng to you on the activities of other Commissioners. I made this inference
based on the fact that you claimed to have personal knowledge of my exchanges with Christianne about the by-laws.
Given that I did not give you that information, I presumed that Christianne had. The truth is that it is possible that
someone else informed you of my interest in the CRTC's by-laws. As such, I retract that statement.
I look

forward to your suggestion as to how best to engage in this legal analysis.

Raj

Raj Shoan
Commissioner I Ontario Region
Conseiller I Rgion de l'Ontario
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des tlcommunications canadiennes I
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 624,Toronto, ONT, M4T 1M2
Raj.Shoan@crtc.gc.ca
Tlphone I Telephone 416-954-6269 - Tlcopieur lFacsimile 416-954-6343
Gouvernement du Canada I Gouvernment of Canada

www.crtc.gc.ca = Suivez-nous sur Twitter

|!

Follow us on Twitter

From: Blais, Jean-Pierre

Sent: May-28-20L4 11:54 AM
To: Shoan, Raj
Subject: Re: BCM WA - 26.05,14 Ad hoc
Raj,
I suggest you take the next few days to re-read your recent emails carefully, to reflect the impression they leave on
the reader, and to consider withdrawing them, in particuler your scurilous allegations attacking Christianne's
professional reputation and integrity, as well as my own.

to respond impetiously to this email without taking

the appropriate time to reflect. I can certainly wait until after the weekend to receive your decision to withdraw your
Please fight the urge, which I have observed over the past year,

comments.
My offer earlier in the year, to provide you with the services of an executive coach, stands.

Jean-Pierre Blais
Prsident et premier dirigeant I Chairperson & Chief Executive Officer
CRTC

8L9.997.3430

De : Shoan, Raj
Envoy : Tuesday, May 27, 20L4 LL:52 AM
: Blais, Jean-Pierre
Objet : RE: BCM WA - 26.05.14 Ad hoc
understand and appreciate that it is generally your approach to avoid any conversation in writing that could limit
your ability to exercise certan authority on a going forward basis. This is, however, an important question that
req uires cla rification.
I can

The question then becomes: how do we address the question at hand? Obviously, I think we would both be in
agreement that this is an internal discussion and matter that should remain internal. This raises a problem.
Christianne's job is to serve the Commission - by legal definition, all of us and not just one of us. You, however, have
the authority as CEO to supervise staff. ls it appropriate to ask Christianne to resolve an issue of interpretation
between two Commissioners, particularly when she reports directly to one of them and the other has no direct
authority over her? You've already demonstrated that you have personal knowledge of my exchanges with
Christianne, which demonstrates that she is reporting to you on the activties of other Commissioners. A reasonable
person could question whether she is the appropriate person to conduct this legal research given that relationship.
The other alternative, I suppose, would be to seek an independent legal opinion from the Department of Justice.

would appreciate your views on this in writing. Phone conversations or meetings in person can often be reinterpreted in hindsight. Written words are far more difficult to contest. There is always BBM and PlN, as well
I

Raj

From: Blais, Jean-Pierre

Sent: May-27-20L4 11:05 AM
To: Shoan, Raj
Subject: RE: BCM WA - 26.05.14 Ad hoc
Thanks for the background. I was well aware of

it.

But you really did not answer my question

ln any event, as I mentioned to you before, I don't intend to engage conversations of this nature through emails.

De:

Shoan, Raj

mai 2014 10:50

Envoy
=27
A : Blais, Jean-Pierre
Objet : RE: BCM WA - 26.05.14 Ad hoc
A bit of background: I originally asked Christianne for a list of all CRTC by-laws so I could better understand my
responsibilities and obligations related to FCM, BCM, TCM and the Review Panel for DNCL. I discovered that there is
no by-law for FCM or the Review Panel but that there was an active by-law for something called the Research
Committee. I was going to suggest that we codify our roles and responsibilities for FCM, CASL and the Review Panel in
by-laws so we better understood our obligations - and to help any new Commissioners who may be named in the

future.

Then, this week, Secretariat sent a walk around BCM email asking for approval to add two reports to the public record
of a proceeding. Having just read the by-law respecting the Research Committee, I naturally was curious as to
whether that process was used. You're telling me that it was not. So my question is what is the interplay between
duly enacted by-laws of the CRTC and the application of certain provisions of the FAA? The by-law says you were
supposed to get Commission approval to undertake/sponsor research. You say the FAA gives you that power
unilaterally. Which rules?
Raj

From: Blais, Jean-Pierre

Sent: May-27 -20L4 10:38 AM
To: Shoan, Raj
Subject: RE: BCM WA - 26.05.14 Ad hoc
Raj,

To what end?

De:

Shoan, Raj

mai 2014 10:35

Envoy
=27
A : Blais, Jean-Pierre
Objet : RE: BCM WA - 26.05.14 Ad hoc
Thank you - that's very interesting. What then is the interplay between by-laws enacted pursuant to the CRTC Act and
the provisions of the FAA? ls this something that Christianne can explain in more detail?
Raj

From: Blais, Jean-Pierre

Sent: May-26-20L4 4207 PM
To: Shoan, Raj
Subject: RE: BCM WA - 26.05.14 Ad hoc
Raj,

This work was done pursuant to the authority of the Financial Administration Act. The CRTC is listed in schedule 1.1
of the FAA, is deemed to be a department with powers, authorites and obligations outlined therein. These are to be
exercised by the deputy head, subject to policies and directives of Treasury Board. The CRTC is part of the core public
administration. Like public servants in every other department, CRTC staff may initiate work, including contracting for
research and other studies. Such work must occur within the framework of the FAA, including delegations, policies,
directivesand procedures. This includescertifications pursuanttosection 32,33 and 34of the FAA. lam ultimately
accountable for these activities as the "accounting officer".

De:

Shoan, Raj

Envoy : 26 mai 20L4 L4:38

A : Blais, Jean-Pierre
Objet: FW: BCM WA - 26.05.14 Ad hoc
HiJ-P,

With respect to the reports that were the subject of the BCM WA this morning, were they selected in accordance with
by-law #23 of the CRTC? By-law #23 created the Research Committee. The Research Committee is supposed to be

comprised of the full Commission. When research is commissioned, is it subject to approval by the designated
quorum?
Raj

From : Secretariat/Meeti ngs

Sent: May-26-20L4 11:01 AM

To: xCommissioners; xCommissioners Assistants; Frenette, Rachelle
Cc: Craig, Michael; xBroadcast - Radio Policy & Applications; xBroadcast - SWAT; *CASP - Strategic Policy/Politiques
stratgiques; *CRTC Decisions; xlegal; xsecrtaria Barratt, Neil; Berlad, Terry; Bettencourt, Teresa; Binette, Daniel;
Blais, Marianne; Bombardier, Manon; Brosseau, Marie; Carmel, Denis; Carriere, Paula; Cafter, Sheehan; Charron,
Rachel; Clment, Sylvie; Cliff, Amanda; Coulombe, Danielle; Curtis, Jonathan; Da Silva, Maria; Daigle, Lynda; Dion,
Mireille; Foster, Peter; Gauthier, Louise; Gill, Donna; Hill, Sydney; Hutton, Scott; Julien, Sylvie; Leclair, Paulette; Lee,
Tse Wae; Lemaire, France; Lowry,Tom; Maisonneuve, Diane; Marleau, Rachel; Matas, Yair; Moore, Denise; Morin,
Marie-Claude; MoEney, Barbara; Myner, Andranne; Perrault, Lynne; Petitpa, Brice; Poirier, Mlanie; Prince, Patricia;
Processus-Process; Pye, Daniel; Rita, Mlanie; Robillard, Sbastien; Roy, Jade; Roy, Lynda; Seidl, Chris; Sirois, Martine;
Traversy, John; Ventura, Cindy; Vye, Douglas; Warsalee, Rehana; Williamson, Micheline
Subject: BCM WA - 26.05.14 Ad hoc

Veuillez trouver ci-joint des documents pour votre ottention. Vos commentqires sont reguis pour 11 h
00 le mercredi 28 moi 2OL4 (heure d'Ottawa)./

Attoched please fnd tms for your considerotion. Your comments are equested by 11:00
o.m. Wednesdoy 28 Moy 2OL4 (Ottowo time).

Subject:

Shoan, Raj
June-13-2014 tL:24 AM
Blais, Jean-Pierre
Next Steps - Legal Analysis

lmportance:

Hieh

From:
Sent:
To:

Hello J-P,

It has been almost two weeks since our last correspondence on the legal issues that I have raised. ln the spirit of
moving forward with the analysis of the legal questions I have now endeavored to raise with you on at least three
separate occasions, I am writing today with a draft proposal detailing how we might collaboratively tackle this issue
Procedural lssues

With a view to keeping this analysis in-house as much as possible, it is my recommendation that Christianne be asked
to provide a legal opinion on the issues I have already raised with you (as well those proposed below) as it is her duty
to serve as in-house legal counsel to the whole of the Commission. ln the event that she declines to conduct the
analysis, as she may feeljustifiably uncomfortable providing input given her potential conflict in this matter, it should
be referred to the Department of Justice for an independent legal opinion. Of course, each of us will have an
opportunity to ask follow up questions to either Christianne (or the DoJ lawyer) upon receipt of said legal opinion
which will provide an opportunity to clarify any aspects of said legal opinion, as necessary.
ln the best interest of the Commission, our fellow Commissioners should not only be made aware of the discussions
taking place but should also have the opportunity to ask questions and/or 'appeal' the legal opinion ultimately
received.

it is important that we agree that any legal aspect of the analysis will not be
other. ln the event that the legal analysis is referred to a party external to the
Commission, each party should also agree to disclose whether or not they have personal history and/or a professional

To ensure the integrity of the process,

discussed without the presence of the

relationship with any lawyer working on the file.

strongly believe that this process will not only ensure that we are tackling this issue in a fair and equitable way but
also in a manner which ensures that the integrity and best interests of the Commission are maintained at all costs.
I

Substntive lssues
ln terms of the legal issues to be addressed, I suggest that we begin by requesting an answer to the specific legal
question(s) raised in our initial email exchange: what is the interplay between the applicable provisions of the
Financial Administration Act and a by-law duly constituted pursuant to the CRTC Act?
Secondly, I suggest that we then ask for an interpretation of the scope of application of the provisions of the CRTC
Act. I have a few questions in mind for this analysis.

to members of the Commission, the

analysis, we should ask for clarity
ln
this
Commission.
Vice-Chairs of the Commission and the Chairperson of the
respecting whether the source of the stated powers are a function of internal convention, policy, regulation or law.
Lastly, we should ask for a summary of the general powers and tools available

Concluson

ln my view, the foregoing approach is a fair method by which to address the issues outstanding between us.
encourage you to take the weekend to think about what I have proposed and provide me with your feedback and/or
I

an alternate proposal by end of business on Monday, June 16th, after which point I will begin to assess my next steps
for this analysis.
Regards,
Raj

Raj Shoan
Commissioner I Ontario Region
Conseiller I Rgion de I'Ontario
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des tlcommunications canadiennes I
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 624,Toronto, ONT, M4T lM2
Raj.Shoan@crtc.gc.ca
Tlphone I Telephone 416-954-6269 - Tlcopieur I Facsimile 416-954-6343
Gouvemement du Canada I Gouvernment of Canada

www.crtc.qc.ca

Suivez-nous sur Twitter

|!

Follow us on Twitter

From:

Blais, Jean-Pierre

Sent:
To:

August-04-2014 5:03 PM

Cc:

Charron, Phil; Traversy, John; Roussy, Daniel

Re: Absence du Prsident / Chairman's absence

Shoan, Raj

Subject:
Raj

Exercising my powers as both deputy head and chairman, no one shall be doing anything to respond to this latest
query from you. Thank you. Move on.
Envoy de mon iPad

LeAug4,20L41:49PM,''Shoan,Raj''<@>acrit
Oh, I understand the distinction that you're making. For my understanding, can you provide me with
list of powers/responsibilities that Scott/ohn will be exercising in the Chairman's absence?

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.

From: Charron, Phil

Sent: Monday, August 4,20L4 L:47 PM
To: Shoan, Raj; xCommissioners
Subject: Re: Absence du Prsident / Chairman's absence
Hi Raj; Scott and John will only be actng Deputy Head during this time (CEO). JP will continue
available if needed to make any decisions as Chairman. Thanks. Phil

to be

Original Message

From Shoan, Raj

Sent: Monday, August 4,20L4 1:40 PM
To: Charron, Phil; xCommissioners
Subject: Re: Absence du Prsident / Chairman's absence
I'm confused by this email, Phil. According to subsection 6(3) of the CRTC Act, in the absence of the
Chairman, it is the Commission that authorizes one of the Vice-Chairpersons to exercise the powers of
the Chairman. The Commission being, of course, the current members. On what authority were Scott
and John delegated powers to act as Chairman?

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.

From: Charron, Phil

Sent Monday, August 4,20L4 1:36
To: xCommissioners

PM

Cc: xCommissioners Assistants

Subject: Fw: Absence du Prsident / Chairman's absence

Hello everyone; please see email below for information regarding acting assignments while JP is out of
the office. Thanks. Phil
From : Cloutier, Carol ine <ca rgli ne,cloutier@crt, gc.ca >

Sent: Friday, August L,20L4 11:01

To: xDirect Reports

AM

Cc: xDirect Reports Assistant; xFinance & Administrative Seruices

Subject: Absence du Prsident / Chairman's absence

Bonjour,
Veuillez noter que le Prsident sera l'extrieur du bureau du lundi 4 aot au vendredi
2014 inclusivement.

1-5

aot

En son absence
Scott Hutton exercera son pouvoir de signature

titre d'administrateur gnral lundi le 4 aot

201,4;

John Traversy exercera son pouvoir de signature titre d'administrateur gnral du 5 aot au L5

aot 2014 inclusivement.

Svp faire suivre ce courriel aux personnes intrimaires s'il y a lieu.

Veuillez diriger tous les appels et correspondance u Cabinet du prsident comme toujours
Merci!
,l.r*rrkr**rX*Xt****k{.)ktt(tl.tk{<**

Good morning,
Please note that the Chairman

will be out of the office from Monday August 4to Friday August

1-5, 2074, inclusively.

During his absence:

Scott Hutton will exercise his signing authority as deputy head on Monday August 4, 2074;
August 5 to August 1sth,
f ohn Traversy will exercise his signing authority as deputy head from
2014, inclusively.
Please forward this email to acting people if necessary.

Please route ll calls and correspondence to the Chirman's office s usual.

Thankyou!

Caroline Cloutier
Bureau du prsident I Chairman's Office
Agente administrative I Administrative Officer
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des tlcommunications canadiennes I
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
1, prom. du Portage, difice central, Les Terrasses de la Chaudire, Gatineau Qc JBX 481
ca rol i n e. cloutier( crtc. qc. ca
Tlphone I Telephone 819-997-3430
Tlcopieur I Facsimile 819-953-1555
Gouvernement du Canada I Government of Canada
www.crtc.oc.ca
<imageOO1,jpq>Suivez-nous sur Twitter | <imageOO1,ipq>Follow us on Twitter

From:
Sent:
To:

Roussy, Daniel

Subject:

RE: Absence

August-05-2014 11:07 AM
Shoan, Raj

du Prsident

/ Chairman's

absence

Bonjour Raj,
Considering the fact that I am only acting while Christianne is away, I am a little uncomfortable in providing you
fulsome answer on this one without consulting her . lf you do not mind, I would like to wait upgn her return on

Tuesday August 19th and answer you properly thereafter.

I

trust this is acceptable!

DR.

From: Shoan, Raj

Sent: August-05-14 10:01 AM
To: Roussy, Daniel
Subject: FW: Absence du Prsident / Chairman's absence
Hello Daniel,

wanted to give you an opportunity to comment on this matter. I asked you, legal counsel for the Commission, to
provide me with a list of powers that will be exercised by delegates in the CEO's absence. According to the email
below, the Chairman/CEO has cancelled my request.
I

ln your view as senior counsel, given the independence of each Commissioner from another, does the Chairman/CEO
have the ability to deny me legal support for a valid inquiry designed to understand the legislative and operational
framework underpinning the proper functioning of the Commission? lf so, from where does this power derive? Lastly,
in your capacity as senior counsel, can you confirm for me that your role is to serve the Commission as a whole?
Raj

From: Blais, Jean-Pierre

Sent: August-04-2014 5:03 PM
To: Shoan, Raj
Cc: Charron, Phil; Traversy, John; Roussy, Daniel
Subject: Re: Absence du Prsident / Chairman's absence
Raj

Exercising my powers as both deputy head and chairman, no one shall be doing anything to respond to this latest
query from you. Thank you. Move on.
Envoy de mon iPad
Le Aug

4,2014 L:49 PM, "Shoan, Raj" <Rai.Shoan@crtc.Ac.ca> a crit

Oh, I understand the distinction that you're making. For my understanding, can you provide me with
list of powers/responsibilities that Scottlohn will be exercising in the Chairman's absence?
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.

From: Charron, Phil

Sent: Monday, August 4,20L4 I:47 PM

To: Shoan, Raj; xCommissioners
Subject: Re: Absence du Prsident / Chairman's absence
Hi Raj; Scott and John will only be acting Deputy Head during this time (CEO). JP will continue to be
available if needed to make any decisions as Chairman. Thanks. Phil
Original Message

From: Shoan, Raj

Sent: Monday, August 4,20L4 1:40 PM
To: Charron, Phil; xCommissioners
Subject: Re: Absence du Prsident / Chairman's absence
I'm confused by this email, Phil. According to subsection 6(3) of the CRTC Act, in the absence of the
Chairman, it is the Commission that authorizes one of the Vice-Chairpersons to exercise the powers of
the Chairman. The Commission being, of course, the current members. On what authority were Scott
and John delegated powers to act as Chairman?

smartphone on the Rogers network.

Sent from my Blac

From: Charron, Phil

Sent: Monday, August 4,20L4 1:36
To: xCommissioners
Cc: *Commissioners Assistants
Subject: Fw: Absence du Prsident

PM

Chairman's absence

Hello everyone; please see email below for information regarding acting assignments while
the office. Thanks. Phil

JP is

out of

From : Cloutier, Ca roline < ca rolne.cloutier@crtc. gc..ca >

Sent: Friday, August I,20L411:01 AM
To: *Direct Reports
Cc: xDirect Reports Assistant; xFinance & Administrative Seruices
Subject: Absence du Prsident / Chairman's absence

Bonjour,
Veuillez noter que le Prsident sera l'extrieur du bureau du lundi 4 aot au vendredi L5 aot
2014 inclusivement.
En son absence:

Scott Hutton exercera son pouvoir de signature

2014;
pouvoir de signature
f ohn Traversy exercera son
inclusivement.
2074
aolt
Svp faire suivre ce

titre d'administrateur gnral lundi le 4 aot

titre d'administrateur gnral du 5 aot au 15

courriel aux personnes intrimaires s'il y

lieu.

Veuillez diriger tous les appels et correspondance ou Cabinet du prsident comme toujours
Merci!
X*XX,lc,*{<*,*t*t**r<*t<*r<*****

Good morning,

Please note that the Chairman

!5,

will be out of the office from Monday August 4 to Friday August

2074, inclusively.

During his absence:

will exercise his signing authority as deputy head on Monday August 4, 2074;
Traversy will exercise his signing authority as deputy head from August 5e to August 15,

Scott Hutton
John

201.4, inclusively.

Please forward this email to acting people if necessary.

Please route

all

calls and correspondence to the Chairman's office as usual.

Thankyou!

Caroline Cloutier
Bureau du prsident I Chairman's Office
Agente administrative I Administrative Officer
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des tlcommunications canadiennes I
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
1, prom. du Portage, difice central, Les Terrasses de la Chaudire, Gatineau Qc JBX 481
ca rol i n e. cloutier@cftc. qc. ca
Tlphone I Telephone 819-997-3430
Tlcopieur I Facsimile 819-953-1555
Gouvernement du Canada I Government of Canada
www.crtc,gc.ca
<imaoeOO1.jpo>Suivez-nous sur Twitter I <imaqeOO1.i.pj>Follow us on Twittef