This article is an extract from the 5th edition of Government Procurement.
In its May 2022 decision in R. v. James, the British Columbia Supreme Court found the defendant guilty of breach of public trust and fraud under $5000 for improper clothing expenses claimed while serving as the Clerk of the House for British Columbia’s Legislative Assembly. While the court dismissed many of the charges in relation to other claimed expenses, it ruled that the defendant made improper expense claims in relation to certain clothing that were claimed as work-related “chamber attire”:
Conclusion
One might well question the wisdom of some of the purchases, and for some of them their business or LABC-related purpose is less than clear or convincing.
However, except for some of the clothing purchases, the evidence does not show them to have been purchases for Mr. James’s own personal purposes.
The exceptions are the purchases for the dress shirts and tie purchased at Brooks Brothers in January and August, 2018, and the suit purchased at Ede & Ravenscroft in August 2018. For those, which had a total value of $1,886.72, I find that Mr. James dishonestly described them as for chamber attire when he knew they were not, and received reimbursement on that false basis.
With respect to these, Mr. James breached the standard of conduct in a serious and marked way, and he knew it would deprive the LABC of funds he ought not to have been reimbursed. His purpose was a dishonest one, to benefit himself at the public’s expense. The elements of breach of trust by a public official and fraud are proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Counts 5 and 6 are proven in relation to those 2018 clothing purchases, but not in relation to the numerous other purchases of various kinds.
VERDICT
On the charge in count 2, breach of trust as a public official by improperly obtaining and keeping a long service award, Mr. James is not guilty.
On the charge in count 3, breach of trust as a public official in relation to the purchase and use of a trailer and a wood splitter paid for with public funds, Mr. James is not guilty.
On the charge in count 4, fraud in relation to the purchase and use of a trailer and a wood splitter paid for with public funds, Mr. James is not guilty.
On the charge in count 5, breach of trust as a public official by submitting claims and receiving reimbursement for personal travel expenses, Mr. James is guilty in relation to the purchases of dress shirts and a tie from Brooks Brothers in Vancouver in January and August 2018, and a suit from Ede & Ravenscroft in August 2018.
On the charge in count 6, fraud by submitting claims and receiving reimbursement for personal travel expenses, Mr. James is guilty in relation to the same expenses as in count 5. Those expenses had a total value of $1,886, so Mr. James is guilty of fraud under $5,000.
The court subsequently imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a period of three months, to be served in the community, including a month of house arrest, two months of overnight curfew, and travel restrictions outside of the province, along with a restitution order of $1886.72 and a $200 victim fine surcharge. In arriving at that sentence, the court summarized a series of aggravating circumstances, noting that false expense claims were a breach of public trust committed by the senior-level official responsible for legislature’s spending of public funds, which showed disrespect for the duty to lead and protect the public institution:
Aggravating Circumstances
The offence has some aggravating features.
Although all offences under s. 122 by definition involve a breach of the public’s trust, Mr. James’s offence breached that trust at its very heart. As Clerk of the LABC, Mr. James held the highest level of responsibility (apart from the Speaker, an elected MLA) within a public institution on which society fundamentally depends. The importance of the position to the public is reflected in the fact that his appointment as Clerk was made by vote of the House. It is also reflected in his generous salary and benefits. Further, Mr. James was specifically responsible for, among other things, the management of LABC public funds, the very funds from which he drew for his own personal purposes in committing the offence.
Mr. James’s motivation for the offence can only have been personal gain – nothing in the evidence in the trial or the sentencing proceedings suggested a misguided altruism or similar explanation.
Given the dollar amount involved in the offence, considered in light of Mr. James’s generous salary and benefits, he must have viewed the public purse as easily available for his personal use, and his false claims as trivial and very unlikely to be detected – why else take the risk. This attitude shows a disrespect for his duty to lead and protect the institution that so importantly serves the public.
Mr. James’s conduct had some deliberation to it. His offence involved three separate false claims, each made at a different time in the year 2018. Each of the claims included a false statement, some of those in Mr. James’s handwriting, to describe the clothing as though it were House attire, which would have been properly reimbursed under the uniform policy, when in fact it was ordinary business wear, which was not properly reimbursed.
As this case illustrates, the misuse of public funds, even in relatively small amounts, can result in criminal sanctions against public officials since the courts put a high premium on preserving the integrity of public spending.
