School trustees deny ‘toxic workplace’ claims

The School District 57 Board of Education is denying ex-superintendent Anita Richardson’s allegation that she suffered maltreatment during her time at the posting.

“There is no basis in law for an award of punitive damages because the School Board did not engage in any extreme, harsh, vindictive, reprehensible, malicious behaviour,” according to a response to Richardson’s civil claim filed on behalf of the board.

The document was filed Aug. 2 at the Prince George courthouse, roughly 3 1/2 weeks after Richardson filed a claim in which she alleges she “experienced a toxic work environment and bullying and harassment” over the one year she held the job before taking a leave of absence.

Trustees did agree with Richardson that in the aftermath of taking the leave, she filed a complaint alleging they breached both the school board’s respectful workplace policy and rights and responsibilities policy and, in turn, a third party was brought in to investigate the complaint. But they deny Richardson’ allegation that it was seven weeks after the complaint was filed that the investigation was started, although a specific date was not provided in the response.

They also deny Richardson’s allegation that the summary of the investigator’s findings confirmed and substantiated several of her complaints, but do not provide further details on what the investigator specifically states.

Trustees and Richardson also differ on the reasons for her eventual dismissal.

On that note, they advised Richardson that she was going to be let go because her relationship with area First Nations was “difficult and there was a lack of trust” and that her continued employment as superintendent “would make a constructive relationship with the First Nations very difficult.”

In her notice of claim, Richardson agreed those were the reasons she was given but contends her relationship with First Nations was good and that it was the trustees’ conduct that undermined it.

Trustees also say Richardson was given three additional days to respond to the reasons given for her termination. They agree with Richardson that she had asked for a copy of the investigator’s report and, in response, she was given a redacted version but for reasons of privacy.

In a separate filing, the school board also disputes that the B.C. Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the matter. Reasons for this were not set out in the filing but in the response to Richardson’s claim, it is contended that she is defined as a worker under the Workers’ Compensation Act and that any claims she may have for damages are barred by operation of the WCA.