Just as Rob Ford was about to take office in Toronto last week, an arbitrator’s ruling related to a cancelled 2010 conference for Ontario’s Crown lawyers hinted at the prospects of a public outcry on the lines of the new mayor’s campaign against the so-called “gravy train.”
The case, R. v. Association of Law Officers of the Crown, involved the lawyers’ annual conference held at the Blue Mountain Conference Centre near Collingwood, Ont., planned for May 5-7 of this year.
It never took place due to government concerns about the optics of paying for the association, which represents roughly 750 lawyers and articling students (excluding the province’s criminal law division), to hold the event at the tony resort. It had taken place there in previous years.
The ruling by arbitrator Christopher Albertyn notes the government’s particular concerns given the challenging recessionary and fiscal environment.
As he noted, the association was ready to go ahead with the conference, which the government had committed to funding under its collective agreement with the lawyers, when assistant deputy attorney general Malliha Wilson began raising concerns about it in February. By then, cancelling it would force the association to forfeit its $20,500 deposit to Blue Mountain.
To its credit, the association worked with the government to try to resolve the problem. For its part, the province proposed potentially cheaper government-owned venues, such as the Kempenfelt Conference Centre and Georgian College.
But Kempenfelt, with only 79 rooms available, couldn’t accommodate the 400 people expected to attend, while Georgian didn’t have availability at the scheduled time. In the meantime, the association generously offered to subsidize the roughly $600 cost per person for the conference.
The result would be a 50-per-cent reduction in the government’s contribution, according to the ruling.
Wilson, however, responded that “unfortunately, Blue Mountain will not be an acceptable venue.” In the end, the government reimbursed the association for the lost deposit.
The association, in turn, grieved the cancellation based on the government’s obligation to support the conference.
Albertyn, in his Nov. 22 decision, ruled the government had breached the collective agreement. In doing so, he noted that the province’s support was subject to fiscal and operational considerations.
On the fiscal front, he noted that given the union’s subsidy offer and that a cheaper and still suitable alternative wasn’t available, the government failed to make its case.
On the operational question, he said that while optics may be a legitimate concern, it was reasonable to expect that the public, should the media make an issue of the conference, could “make their judgment on the basis of accurate information and not a sensational misapprehension.”
In the end, Albertyn declined to award damages but ordered the government to support the conference at Blue Mountain next year.
On the whole, it’s clear that both the province and association tried to act reasonably. Certainly, the idea of sending lawyers to a resort during hard times would raise predictable complaints about gravy trains. The association, however, responded in a responsible fashion.
Nevertheless, the ruling did note that cheaper alternatives at various post-secondary institutions would have been available at other times. So rather than send lawyers to Blue Mountain next year, the association should use the time it has to explore those other options.
Of course, given that many of its members likely work in Toronto, can’t we save the hotel costs and hold the conference in the provincial capital next year at a government facility? That would truly debunk an outcry over gravy trains.
The case, R. v. Association of Law Officers of the Crown, involved the lawyers’ annual conference held at the Blue Mountain Conference Centre near Collingwood, Ont., planned for May 5-7 of this year.
It never took place due to government concerns about the optics of paying for the association, which represents roughly 750 lawyers and articling students (excluding the province’s criminal law division), to hold the event at the tony resort. It had taken place there in previous years.
The ruling by arbitrator Christopher Albertyn notes the government’s particular concerns given the challenging recessionary and fiscal environment.
As he noted, the association was ready to go ahead with the conference, which the government had committed to funding under its collective agreement with the lawyers, when assistant deputy attorney general Malliha Wilson began raising concerns about it in February. By then, cancelling it would force the association to forfeit its $20,500 deposit to Blue Mountain.
To its credit, the association worked with the government to try to resolve the problem. For its part, the province proposed potentially cheaper government-owned venues, such as the Kempenfelt Conference Centre and Georgian College.
But Kempenfelt, with only 79 rooms available, couldn’t accommodate the 400 people expected to attend, while Georgian didn’t have availability at the scheduled time. In the meantime, the association generously offered to subsidize the roughly $600 cost per person for the conference.
The result would be a 50-per-cent reduction in the government’s contribution, according to the ruling.
Wilson, however, responded that “unfortunately, Blue Mountain will not be an acceptable venue.” In the end, the government reimbursed the association for the lost deposit.
The association, in turn, grieved the cancellation based on the government’s obligation to support the conference.
Albertyn, in his Nov. 22 decision, ruled the government had breached the collective agreement. In doing so, he noted that the province’s support was subject to fiscal and operational considerations.
On the fiscal front, he noted that given the union’s subsidy offer and that a cheaper and still suitable alternative wasn’t available, the government failed to make its case.
On the operational question, he said that while optics may be a legitimate concern, it was reasonable to expect that the public, should the media make an issue of the conference, could “make their judgment on the basis of accurate information and not a sensational misapprehension.”
In the end, Albertyn declined to award damages but ordered the government to support the conference at Blue Mountain next year.
On the whole, it’s clear that both the province and association tried to act reasonably. Certainly, the idea of sending lawyers to a resort during hard times would raise predictable complaints about gravy trains. The association, however, responded in a responsible fashion.
Nevertheless, the ruling did note that cheaper alternatives at various post-secondary institutions would have been available at other times. So rather than send lawyers to Blue Mountain next year, the association should use the time it has to explore those other options.
Of course, given that many of its members likely work in Toronto, can’t we save the hotel costs and hold the conference in the provincial capital next year at a government facility? That would truly debunk an outcry over gravy trains.
- Glenn Kauth
