Wong v. College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners & Acupuncturists of British Columbia, 2004 CarswellBC 2167, 2004 BCSC 1212 (B.C. S.C.). Randy Wong was the registrar for the non-profit College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia, constituted under the province’s Health Professions Act.
He was, in effect, the college’s chief executive officer, responsible for the overall administration of the society, including its financial administration.
In 2000 the college auditor expressed a concern to the board that the college did not have any accounting system in place and the board directed Wong to implement one.
In November the next year the direction was again made. In 2002 there were numerous discussions with Wong about it. In March 2003 the auditor sent a letter to each member of the board and to Wong outlining his concerns that an accounting system had still not been set up.
At an April 2003 meeting Wong assured the board a system would be up by June.
By October this had still not been implemented. In the interim the auditor had discovered no financial records for the previous accounting year had been recorded in an accounting system. (The auditor had given Wong a system in which to record financial data in 2002 but the system hadn’t been used.)
In June 2003 Wong presented the Board with a budget for approval. Since no report of all revenues and expenditures for the previous year or any other financial statement had been produced in support, the board refused to approve the budget as requested.
The board directed Wong to provide additional financial information and documentation and to redo the budget in a correct form, with the necessary supporting information.
Wong’s improper transcription of board minutes resulted in the decision that all future meetings be tape recorded. In addition, the president of an organization with an affiliation with the college also complained about difficulties in dealing with Wong.
In November a chartered accountant audited the college. The audit found irregularities totalling more than $50,000, alleged improper charging of overtime pay and alleged misappropriation of funds and diversion of college property.
Wong was terminated by the unanimous vote of the board. He argued that the board did not fulfill its duty of procedural fairness and that he ought to be reinstated, paid all lost income and be awarded special costs.
In the case of a statutory officeholder, he claimed, there is an implied right of fairness which must be met prior to any termination of employment.
He claimed that while there were outstanding issues regarding his day-to-day running of the college, he did not perceive his employment to be in jeopardy.
He should have been provided with complete notice of reasons for the decision to terminate, an opportunity to consider the allegations, and an opportunity to speak to the board before a final decision to terminate was made. Not being given at least this opportunity, he argued, amounted to the board’s failing its duty of fairness.
The British Columbia Supreme Court rejected Wong’s arguments. The board’s decision as a whole was not unreasonable, which is the only reason the higher court would overturn it.
Wong was well aware of the board’s complaints about the absence of an accounting system, a need which had been reiterated to him many times over several years, the court ruled.
Even thought there was no structured hearing immediately before the decision was made to terminate his employment, there was complete “communication of the broad grounds of dismissal in advance of the termination.”
The court also noted that Wong’s employment contract provided that the board may terminate his employment without notice on the grounds of just cause, including gross neglect of duties.
The court called Wong’s claim that he was unaware of the particulars of the board’s issues “disingenuous and… completely contradicted by the body of evidence tendered by the college.”
It “flies in the face of Wong’s difficult tenure as registrar and the fact that all of the complaints had been raised at least six months prior to his dismissal.”
Wong’s application was rejected, and he was ordered to pay court costs.
He was, in effect, the college’s chief executive officer, responsible for the overall administration of the society, including its financial administration.
In 2000 the college auditor expressed a concern to the board that the college did not have any accounting system in place and the board directed Wong to implement one.
In November the next year the direction was again made. In 2002 there were numerous discussions with Wong about it. In March 2003 the auditor sent a letter to each member of the board and to Wong outlining his concerns that an accounting system had still not been set up.
At an April 2003 meeting Wong assured the board a system would be up by June.
By October this had still not been implemented. In the interim the auditor had discovered no financial records for the previous accounting year had been recorded in an accounting system. (The auditor had given Wong a system in which to record financial data in 2002 but the system hadn’t been used.)
In June 2003 Wong presented the Board with a budget for approval. Since no report of all revenues and expenditures for the previous year or any other financial statement had been produced in support, the board refused to approve the budget as requested.
The board directed Wong to provide additional financial information and documentation and to redo the budget in a correct form, with the necessary supporting information.
Wong’s improper transcription of board minutes resulted in the decision that all future meetings be tape recorded. In addition, the president of an organization with an affiliation with the college also complained about difficulties in dealing with Wong.
In November a chartered accountant audited the college. The audit found irregularities totalling more than $50,000, alleged improper charging of overtime pay and alleged misappropriation of funds and diversion of college property.
Wong was terminated by the unanimous vote of the board. He argued that the board did not fulfill its duty of procedural fairness and that he ought to be reinstated, paid all lost income and be awarded special costs.
In the case of a statutory officeholder, he claimed, there is an implied right of fairness which must be met prior to any termination of employment.
He claimed that while there were outstanding issues regarding his day-to-day running of the college, he did not perceive his employment to be in jeopardy.
He should have been provided with complete notice of reasons for the decision to terminate, an opportunity to consider the allegations, and an opportunity to speak to the board before a final decision to terminate was made. Not being given at least this opportunity, he argued, amounted to the board’s failing its duty of fairness.
The British Columbia Supreme Court rejected Wong’s arguments. The board’s decision as a whole was not unreasonable, which is the only reason the higher court would overturn it.
Wong was well aware of the board’s complaints about the absence of an accounting system, a need which had been reiterated to him many times over several years, the court ruled.
Even thought there was no structured hearing immediately before the decision was made to terminate his employment, there was complete “communication of the broad grounds of dismissal in advance of the termination.”
The court also noted that Wong’s employment contract provided that the board may terminate his employment without notice on the grounds of just cause, including gross neglect of duties.
The court called Wong’s claim that he was unaware of the particulars of the board’s issues “disingenuous and… completely contradicted by the body of evidence tendered by the college.”
It “flies in the face of Wong’s difficult tenure as registrar and the fact that all of the complaints had been raised at least six months prior to his dismissal.”
Wong’s application was rejected, and he was ordered to pay court costs.
