Former union supervisor denies lawsuit’s misconduct claim

A former supervisor at OPSEU — one of many province’s largest public sector unions — says he denies “any and all” allegations of misconduct contained in a $24-million lawsuit in opposition to him and two different former senior workers, and that he “took all crucial steps to make sure” the union was conscious of any ties he needed to corporations it did enterprise with.

In a press release of defence filed with Ontario’s Superior Court docket of Justice, Stephen Ward says he “particularly denies any and all allegations of negligence, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary obligation, breach of contract, conversion, fraud, deceit, conspiracy or another such wrongdoing as alleged” within the assertion of declare filed final month by the Ontario Public Service Staff Union, and that “at no level did (he) ever interact in any surreptitious or illicit conduct.”

Ward held quite a lot of positions inside the union, and was supervisor of operational companies from 2018 till he was fired final December, the union stated in its assertion of declare.

Along with Ward, the lawsuit names former first vice-president/treasurer Eduardo Almeida and Maurice Gabay, former administrator of the union’s monetary companies division. The union alleges in its assertion of declare that between them, the three had undeclared ties to a minimum of 15 people or companies and accuses them of a scheme together with funds for bogus or unfinished work in addition to kickbacks.

The lawsuit got here on the heels of a $6 million-plus lawsuit additionally launched by the union in Ontario’s Superior Court docket, alleging monetary irregularities by Almeida, Gabay and former long-time president Warren “Smokey” Thomas.

Ward shouldn’t be named within the first lawsuit, and Thomas shouldn’t be named within the second.

Not one of the claims in both lawsuit have been examined in court docket. Of their statements of defence within the first case, Thomas and Gabay have referred to as the allegations outrageous and unfounded. Thomas has additionally stated the case in opposition to him is politically motivated.

Present OPSEU president JP Hornick and first vice-president Laurie Nancekivell have stated that “as a result of we’ve commenced authorized motion, we stay very restricted by way of what we will repeat or touch upon publicly presently … We all know that a lot of these updates may be unsettling, however we imagine it’s essential that you simply — and all members — know what’s taking place, in order that we will proceed to construct belief and transparency throughout the group.”

In its assertion of declare within the second lawsuit, OPSEU alleges that Ward, Almeida and Gabay “brought on the union to have interaction and pay the seller defendants a complete of over roughly $30,000,000, whereas they held an possession curiosity in and/or have been in any other case related to these distributors … they acquired funds, or ‘kickbacks’ from the seller defendants, together with as salaries and dividends … (and) took steps to hide their conduct, together with by circumventing the union’s buying and tendering coverage, manipulating the estimates submitted as a part of any tendering processes, manipulating invoices to fall inside the $50,000 approval threshold to keep away from the oversight” of the board.

The assertion of declare additionally alleges “they brought on the union to pay the seller defendants for services that weren’t really offered and/or to overpay for any services that have been, together with by vital mark ups and overcharges; and so they brought on the union to switch automobiles, or pay for automobiles that have been registered, to sure of the seller defendants.”

The assertion of declare alleges that “at no time did Almeida, Gabay and Ward speak in confidence to the union their relationships with the seller defendants and their clear battle of curiosity” as required.

Ward, in his assertion of defence, stated he “delivered all invoices, accounts and different such related documentation to his acceptable superior(s), who in flip would direct (Ward) to make any crucial modifications as they might deem acceptable.”

The assertion of defence additionally says Ward “at no time …(had) any authority to approve any invoices on his personal” and “took all crucial steps to make sure his superiors have been always conscious of his involvement in any exterior corporations or organizations, and guaranteed him” that there was no battle of curiosity.

It additionally says Ward “had no motive” to imagine that his work wasn’t taken to the union’s board and “duly accepted,” and stated the union “comes with unclean arms and/or in any other case is the creator of their very own misfortune for any improper approvals.”

SHARE: