Was former B.C. legislature clerk Craig James justified in purchasing souvenir items due to a lack of formal travel expense claim policies?
That very question was the focus of testimony in B.C. Supreme Court this week after a legislature document from 2013 submitted by executive financial officer Hilary Woodward raised the spectre that there may have been a guideline, or some form of policy, on travel expenses.
To date, after four weeks of witness testimony, the Crown has painted the picture that no policies existed and James’ expenses were beyond what a reasonable person would expect to be compensated for.
James faces two counts of fraud and three counts of breach of trust.
“I will concede the bulk of the evidence shows there was no travel [expense] policy. This document, it’s not a policy but a default guideline that could be used for reference,” said prosecutor David Butcher.
Woodward is said to have brought a suitcase of documents for prosecutors and defence to review mid-trial, causing delays in how the sides would proceed and thus pushing back closing arguments to next week.
While Butcher described the document as a reference point for legislature staff to go with, Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes determined through discussion that the document would do little to assist the court, and so Butcher withdrew his questioning of it.
Butcher then asked Woodward how she would have handled her own travel expenses, drawing objections from defence lawyer Gavin Cameron that he was leading Woodward.
Butcher explained he was “trying to assist the court” in showing what the reasonable test for reimbursement would be for any other senior legislature official.
Holmes allowed Butcher to continue and Woodward explained that filing James’ expenses “was the most challenging part of my job.”
Woodward previously testified she did her job, including approving submitting expenses to payroll, alone. Her boss was James, who she said set the tone for expense claims when she began her job in 2013.
Cameron cross-examined Woodward to explain James’ justification for the many souvenir items — that they were for staff gifts or events. Cameron then went on to show that, among the thousands of pages of documents, Woodward never questioned James about his many travel expenses over the course of five years, with the exception of three emails she sent to other staff inquiring about some expenses.
“I don’t see a thing documenting a concern with Mr. James’ expenses,” said Cameron, to which Woodward replied, “Yes I would agree with that.”
Cameron noted there indeed was no reimbursement policy that indicates what would or would not be eligible for travel expenses. He previously argued that Woodward and many others who appeared to disagree with how James expensed certain claims, including business clothing, were well within their duties to object, especially regulated chartered professional accountants overseeing the organization’s finances.
The Crown has suggested James, the legislature’s de facto CEO, placed himself in a number of conflicts of interest.
James is also accused of breaching policies to obtain nearly $260,000 from a retroactive retirement policy. James’ defence has relied on a legal interpretation he obtained from one of the legislature’s lawyers at the time of the payout.
He is also accused of improperly using legislature property for personal gain, such as that of a wood splitter and trailer initially purchased as emergency equipment.
On Friday, Cameron questioned Woodward about the wood splitter, alluding to how there was no dedicated space on legislature grounds for it, and thus it was kept at James’ home for approximately a year.
The trial’s evidence stage is expected to conclude by Tuesday.
