Justice and Equity -Fight On!

Just got this email from actor Thomas Butler in Vancouver.

"Guy, I just read your "What Went Wrong?" description of the Equity imbroglio. I am so upset that you have been put through this ordeal. The sleep and peace of mind that this must have cost you. After all your contributions to theatre in Canada and to be treated so, is unforgivable.

The actor that didn’t read their script before starting rehearsals should be suspended for unprofessional conduct.

I can understand an actor taking a job for the paycheque but once you sign your contract you have an professional obligation to give it your best efforts.

As for feeling slighted in rehearsal; that’s the time for arguing with passion and emotion. It’s theatre for heaven’s sake. I have felt hurt, embarrassed, inadequate, insecure , angry and confident and proud. That’s part of the process. If it was easy, everyone would do it.

I got my Equity membership in 1975.

I was so proud that I was part of something special. The behaviour of my association in their treatment of you has tarnished that sense of pride.

Canadian Actors Equity Association, my association should do the right thing and compensate you. They made a mistake. They should have the courage to admit it.

As one Equity member to another, I’m sorry you’ve been put through this.

Tom

The Story – The Quick Read!

In January of 2021 I was notified by Canadian Actors’ Equity Association of allegations that I had acted unprofessionally in February and March of 2020 during rehearsals for my play Fight On!

Equity formed a Disciplinary Panel to investigate the allegations and hired an outside investigator to interview myself, the complainants, and seven witnesses.

In November of 2021 the Disciplinary Panel determined I was guilty, allegedly basing its findings on the 183 pages of evidence and a report filed by the outside investigator.

In January 2022 National Council refused to hear my appeal and my right to work was taken away.

I was forced by Council’s actions and inactions, to initiate legal proceedings to prove my innocence. Going to court was the only avenue of appeal open to me.

On March 15, 2024 Quebec Superior Court, after a two-day trial, in an extraordinary and unequivocal Judgement, quashed the Disciplinary Panel’s determination, declaring it, on the basis of the facts, to be “unjustifiable.”

Here is the link to the full QC Superior Court Judgement. It makes for interesting reading.

https://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccs/doc/2024/2024qccs850/2024qccs850.html?resultIndex=1&resultId=98a8feb0626b4ec0906fe20ed2a1d28f&searchId=2024-03-21T13:33:32:326/da5c5dc11f5747ca850071e925c15bd2

On March 25th, 2024 I was told in an email from the President of Equity, that council recognizes, “the judicial review has exonerated you in all respects relating to the disciplinary complaint.”

After three years of agony, and no work, finally I had been “exonerated.”

But, despite having forced me to take legal proceedings to prove my innocence, Council has refused to compensate me for my legal costs!

On June 25th, at its June monthly meeting, National Council had before it a request, signed by senior members of our association, that Equity pay all my legal costs.

The next day I got the following email from the President, “…your request to have Council reconsider its decision regarding repayment of your legal fees was not accepted for discussion.”

The request had been signed by members of the Order of Canada, winners of the Governor General’s Lifetime Achievement Award in the Performing Arts, by multiple Dora Award winners, by previous members of Council, by previous Executive members of Council and even by a long-serving former President of Equity Council.

Council did not even bother to discuss the request! What an insult to those senior artists who have given so much to Canadian Theatre.

Now Equity has forced me to take them back to court to seek damages and compensation.

I need help to pay my legal bills, past and present. Hence this Go Fund Me campaign.

According to its financial statements on Equity’s website, for the fiscal year ending in March 31st, 2023, Equity had an annual operating surplus of $942,242. There is no reason to believe that for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2024 the surplus will be any less. (We will get the exact figures for this year at the Fall AGM.)

My legal bills (to date) are $66,959. Carried at the moment by my credit cards and a bank loan. Equity could pay those costs without blinking.

If you consult the Constitution of Equity as posted on its website, you will see that Object (vii) listed among the Objects of our association is: “to assist members in pursuing their lawful rights and remedies.”

Equity should abide by its own constitution and assist me in pursuing my lawful rights.

This is not a matter of personalities, mine or anyone else's. This is a matter of principle.

Let’s make sure that in our small world of Canadian Theatre, at least, Justice is upheld.

I am fighting here to ensure that my own association lives up to its obligations and does the right thing. But I need your support to help me pay my lawyers bills and court costs, past and present.

These are tough times for all of us. A small donation will be welcome as a sign of solidarity. Something more than a small donation will be of huge help in the battle.

I give you this undertaking. If we can get CAEA to finally accept its obligations and compensate me, I will return your donation back to you.

Thanks folks, May you never be the victim of injustice. It is no fun.

All the best to you,

Fight On!

(Once again it is OK to, “roll your eyes or sigh” in rehearsal without being charged with discrimination!)

**********

Below, please find "What Went Wrong?" a more detailed description, including some of the more questionable aspects of the Disciplinary Panel’s determination, of why I was forced to take CAEA to court.

If you do get a chance to read the full Judgement, you will find it difficult to disagree with the QC Superior Court verdict that one, “cannot but come away with a staggering impression of the disparity between the gravity of the conclusion (taking away my right to work) and the shallowness of its basis.” And: “The outcome of the decision is so at odds with the factual context that the decision by the Disciplinary Panel is unjustifiable on a reasonable basis.”

*********

Also, below, find a copy of the Globe & Mail article that gives a decent, quick, background to the issues. After that, a copy of the request sent by a group of senior artists that Council reimburse me for my legal costs.

Here is the link to the full QC Superior Court Judgment:

https://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccs/doc/2024/2024qccs850/2024qccs850.html?resultIndex=1&resultId=98a8feb0626b4ec0906fe20ed2a1d28f&searchId=2024-03-21T13:33:32:326/da5c5dc11f5747ca850071e925c15bd2

The Story -What Went Wrong?

How could this have happened? Why?

I’ve been a member of Equity for over 50 years. I’ve been Artistic Director of four different theatres across this country, five actually if you include the semi-professional company I started at McGill after graduating. I have founded things like Dream In High Park which this summer is celebrating the incredible milestone that over 1.5 million Torontonians have enjoyed accessible, affordable Shakespeare since I founded it in 1983.

I never wanted to take my own association to court, so why did it have to happen?

The Disciplinary Panel ended up making a determination that was, as the Judge in his verdict made clear, not substantiated by the facts. If I had been permitted to see the outside Investigator’s 183 pages of evidence and his report and then given an opportunity to defend myself in person, I would have had the chance to convince the panel to respect the facts. But I was not afforded that opportunity.

According to our Bylaws, after the Disciplinary Panel had made its determination, I had the right to request an Appeal. I did make the formal request to have my Appeal heard, but never having been permitted to see the 183 pages of evidence, I had no facts to argue for that Appeal. I was never permitted an Appeal. Even more astonishing, nobody on Council, which was determining whether I should be granted the right to appeal, read either the Investigator’s report or the 183 pages of evidence. Equity President confirmed this to me in an email of June 25ththis year. “Council never read the Investigator's report because your appeal application to have the decision reviewed was not accepted” I find this shocking. Council denied me a right to appeal without having bothered to look at the Investigator’s report or any of the evidence?

There it is. By its own actions, or rather inactions, Council forced me to take my own association to court. Québec Superior Court was the only appeal process available to me.

It is unfortunate that neither the President, nor anyone on Council read the 183 pages of evidence. They would have found it impossible not to come away, as the QC Superior Court Judge did, “with the staggering impression of the disparity of the conclusion (i.e. to take away my right to work) and the shallowness of its basis.”

If members of National Council had read the evidence they would have seen, as the judge did, that the vast majority of the allegations against me were thrown out as irrelevant or unsubstantiated. And in the statements collected by the Investigator, witnesses repeatedly contradicted the complainants. In the evidence, one of the complainants admits not to have bothered to read the script before the first day of rehearsal. Shocking, unprofessional behaviour. The evidence also shows that a second complainant admitted they hated the script but only signed the contract for the paycheck. The kind of bad faith that would scuttle any rehearsal atmosphere. And a third complainant actually wrote snide remarks about the director (me) onto the script of the leading actor sitting next to them during the very first reading of the play!

Yes, you can blame me for naïve casting, but then, rather than working with the same people over and over, I like to give new artists an opportunity. A characteristic of my track record. On this one, I ended up getting burnt.

But there is more, and worse. Apparently, according to the Investigator’s findings, I reacted to concerns in rehearsal by “rolling (my) eyes and sighing.” So, if you sigh or roll your eyes in a discussion of serious issues in rehearsal this is proof of discrimination and grounds for an artist to be suspended from our association? Would any reasonable person, reading those words, even come close to that conclusion? In paragraph 94 of his judgment the judge ridiculed Equity for its determination on this point, “…to have one’s slightest utterance, involuntary eye movement and spasmodic reflex of the diaphragm held up to minute scrutiny is to be held to an impossible standard.” (Did you just roll your eyes when you read that?)

A second finding of the Investigator that Equity based its determination on was:

“The evidence has substantiated that Mr. Sprung: referred to (one of the complainants) as a “fundamentalist” in response to a concern (they) expressed …”

I am not sure why using the word “fundamentalist” in a discussion is grounds for suspension, but the judge correctly refers to the 183 pages of evidence to show that the complainant and I actually “resolved the issue in rehearsal with the complainant being satisfied at the time” and in the complainant’s own words we “parted amicably.” How can the Disciplinary Panel then use this as grounds to suspend me?

A third assertion made by the investigator is: “The evidence has substantiated that: Mr. Sprung interacted with some actors in a way that was seen as more open and positive based on their gender, age and ethnicity.”

As the judge points out, the investigator does not provide a single specific shred of evidence to back up this assertion. (BTW, the Investigator admitted in court that after I started court proceedings, he erased all of the tapes of his collected evidence statements. He claimed he had no storage space. Hmmm…I guess he does not have a hard drive, or has not heard of iCloud?)

In any case, reread the assertion. It does not actually say I interacted negatively with any actor. The statement actually confirms that I acted “open and positive” with all actors. I am merely guilty of acting “more open and positive” with some rather than others. And I get suspended for this? It is accepted industry practice to treat some actors with different sensitivity in rehearsal. Imagine being lucky enough to work with, say, Martha Henry (bless her), in her later years. She would, of course, be treated differently than, say, an actor just out of theatre school. On a play I was directing, a year before the pandemic shutdown, just before the rehearsals were to start, the lead actress broke her leg. She wanted to continue with the play, I wanted her to continue. We rewrote the script to reference her injury, she played the part in a cast. I drove her to rehearsal every day and then drove her home at the end of the day and helped her up the stairs. Yes, I treated her differently than the other actors in the play and so, according to the Disciplinary Panel, I was guilty of discrimination. I should have been suspended from Equity.

No wonder the Judge in paragraph 95 of his judgement states: “The outcome of the decision (i.e. depriving me of my right to work in theatre) is so at odds with the factual context that the decision by the Disciplinary Panel is unjustifiable on a reasonable basis.”

Can you blame me for feeling like I was being thrown under the bus? Can you see that I had no choice, for my own sake and for the sake of future rehearsal atmospheres in theatres across the country but to take legal action against CAEA?

You can be sure that in future, thanks to my taking CAEA to court, respondents in similar cases will probably be permitted to defend themselves in person. You can be sure that in future Council will think twice before denying a respondent the right to appeal. Let’s also hope that in future all actors will feel professionally obliged to read the script before signing on and if they don’t like the script or can’t support the project an actor will have the decency to decline the contract. Playwrights can have greater confidence their rights will be respected in rehearsals and can insist that actors stick to the script they have signed on for.

We are all fighting for a respectful workplace but that also means respecting the work itself in the workplace.

In an e-mail to me on March 25th this year, President of our National Council conceded that after the QC Superior Court Judgment I had been “fully exonerated.”

Despite the fact that I have been exonerated, and that it was Equity’s actions that gave me no alternative but to seek legal action to prove my innocence, Equity is refusing to compensate me for my lawyer’s expenses.

That is why I have to go back to court to seek damages and compensation.

If I had not stood up to CAEA, the Disciplinary Panel determination against me could have had far-reaching impact on director/playwright/actor relationships in theatres across Canada. If you care about Justice, if you care about respect for the work in a respectful working atmosphere in theatre rehearsals across our country, please support me in my battle.

Yes, go ahead folks, roll your eyes or sigh in rehearsal, it is once again safe, thanks to me taking CAEA to court.

I reiterate, this is not a matter of personalities, mine or anyone else's involved. This is a matter of principle.

Let’s make sure that in our small world of Canadian Theatre at least, Justice is upheld.

Sorry about all the reading.

Thanks folks,

Fight On!

guy

********

Here is a copy of the formal request for CAEA National Council action at its June 25th meeting. Other individual letters, that I know of, were sent by RH Thomson, David Ferry, Fiona Reid, and Noel Burton.

At its meeting of June 25th, CAEA National Council did not even bother to discuss this request for action!!!

"We, the undersigned, request Council to reconsider its decision of May 25th, 2024 not to compensate Mr. Guy Sprung for his legal expenses incurred achieving Justice in the Quebec Superior Court.

On March 15, 2024, the Quebec Superior Court rendered a scathing decision against CAEA (paras. 81-96). The Court quashed the decision of November 28, 2021 of the Disciplinary Panel of CAEA dealing with the complaint of four cast members of the play Fight On! and quashed the appeal decision of January 27, 2022 of CAEA regarding the same matter. More importantly, the Court dismissed the complaint against Mr. Sprung as being “unjustifiable on a reasonable basis.”

Please understand that we completely endorse the importance and necessity of having policies like the Respectful Workplace Policy and the Not in OUR Space Policy to ensure that we have a safe and respectful workplace that permits and encourages victims to speak up and feel safe.

But the complainants’ allegations were proven to be completely without foundation. As the Judge was able to determine, the complainants acted “unprofessionally” and the “evidence” compiled by the outside investigator was never assessed for credibility and did not support and in some places actually contradicted the allegations against Mr. Sprung.

This case highlights the disastrous consequences when an organization makes a decision based on something other than on the truth and facts.

The lack of a reasonable assessment of the complaints by the Disciplinary Panel, and the National Council’s subsequent actions and inactions gave Mr. Sprung no other choice but to take his own association to court.

In an e-mail dated March 25th, 2024, CAEA President Scott Bellis confirmed to Mr. Sprung that “the judicial review has exonerated you in all respects relating to the disciplinary complaint.”

It was Council that forced Mr. Sprung not just to seek Justice for himself but to ensure similar injustices do not happen to other members of our association.

As stated in the Constitution posted on our website, Object (vii) of CAEA is:

(vii) to assist members in pursuing their lawful rights and remedies.

The National Council took away a senior member’s right to work unjustly, then failed in its fiduciary duty to assist the member to, “pursue their lawful rights and remedies.”

To ensure CAEA abides by its own constitution and for the sake of the honour of our association, we urgently ask Council to compensate Mr. Sprung fully for the legal expenses he has incurred seeking Justice for himself on behalf of all our members.

Ivan Smith

Barbara Gordon (former CAEA Board member)

Terry Tweed (Former CAEA President)

Peter MacNeill

Tomas Butler

Peggy Coffey

Noel Burton

Robert King

Kyra Harper

Arthur Holden

Brett Watson

Diana Leblanc 2015 GG Award for the Performing Arts

***********

Here is the Globe and Mail article followed by some of the published comments. Helps with background to the story.

Guy Sprung’s Suspension from Actors’ Equity Association was ‘unjustifiable,’ Quebec judge rules

JOSH O’KANE

PUBLISHED JUNE 12, 2024

Globe & Mail

Director-playwright Guy Sprung faced a suspension from the Canadian Actors’ Equity Association a few years ago after several actors became so uncomfortable with his approach to a new play that they filed a complaint against him. Now a Superior Court of Quebec judge has ruled that the suspension was “unjustifiable,” arguing that it was the actors who “lacked professionalism.”

The March, 2024, decision, not publicized until now, outlines Sprung’s attempt to mount a new play in March, 2020, at Montreal’s Infinithéâtre that used Charles Dickens’s son’s career with the North-West Mounted Police in the late 1800s to present “an ironic deconstruction of colonial attitudes toward Indigenous peoples,” Justice Mark Phillips wrote.

Though the play, Fight On!, was shuttered as pandemic lockdowns were rolled out that month, the decision says, it was almost simultaneously derailed by the exit of several actors. Some members of the cast had taken issue with Sprung’s script and narrative approach, in some cases asking for revisions or making changes to their own lines. Four actors later filed a complaint with Equity, alleging they had been discriminated against and that the workplace had become unsafe, which prompted the union to hire a third-party investigator to assist a disciplinary panel.

Sprung was subsequently suspended from accessing union benefits. He appealed, but when that was dismissed, he went to court to dispute the process. In his decision, Justice Phillips described Sprung as the wronged party and blamed the actors.

“At least some of the actors,” the judge wrote, “appeared to think that they were in some sort of improvisational or workshop setting where they were at liberty to criticize the script, propose changes and, in one case, even rewrite their own lines as they saw fit.” If an actor felt uncomfortable with Sprung’s approach, he continued, “then he or she should simply have declined to participate in the production.”

The union politely disagreed with the ruling.

“While we don’t necessarily agree with the judge’s assessment of the third-party investigator’s report, we respect his decision to dismiss the original Discipline Panel decision based on that report,” said Scott Bellis, Equity’s council president, in an e-mail. “We are still confident in our ability to address unprofessional conduct in the workplace when it occurs.”

Sprung said in an interview that he hopes the judgment establishes how boundaries should be respected by professionals in Canadian theatre: “It makes it clear that when an actor signs a contract, they sign a contract to do that script. They can’t then expect to rewrite that script according to their own needs or desires.”

The decision states that one of the complainants had a copy of the script for almost three months before signing their contract on the first day of rehearsals – but had not read the script until that day.

Sprung, 77, has had a long career both in Canada and abroad. He co-founded London’s Half Moon Theatre in the 1970s and has served as artistic director of several institutions, including the former Toronto Free Theatre.

He had workshopped Fight On! for several years, seeking input from members of the M’Chigeeng First Nation on Manitoulin Island, the court filing says, as well as Drew Hayden Taylor, a playwright originally from Curve Lake First Nation in Ontario.

Taylor had even recorded some commentary to be played during the play’s performances. He said by phone this week that while theatre is a “collaborative adventure,” his understanding of Sprung’s situation amounted to more than that.

“Any playwright that’s not willing to listen to the actors is a problematic playwright, for sure, but there’s a difference between a dialogue and a demand,” Taylor said. “I’m very much aware of the collaborative nature of theatre, but some stuff that was being asked for by the performers was, I found, quite astonishing.”

During the workshop phase, Sprung and his collaborators decided to acknowledge each time one of the 19th-century characters used the word “savage” or “Indian” with a “swear jar,” a metallic “ping” that would indicate a donation to the Native Women’s Shelter in Montreal.

Casting for Fight On! was complete by the end of 2019, with a plan to mount it at Infinithéâtre, where Sprung was also artistic director.

The decision does not fully name the actors involved but says the cast had divergent responses to Sprung’s script. Three Indigenous cast members wrote a note for the play’s program that said “hopefully through this theatrical reimagining, settler audiences can find a way into a much bigger and complex conversation.”

Elsewhere, the decision says, one complainant said a character she would play “was not enough of a feminist to her liking, being too much of a 19th-century Dickensian woman.” One complainant’s agent sent a “list of actionables” to Sprung, describing a “lack of acknowledgment of the special services exceptional to these actors’ lived experiences.”

Actors began leaving the production, and in January, 2021, four cast members filed a joint complaint through Equity against Sprung. Equity’s disciplinary panel found Sprung “guilty of discrimination and improper conduct,” the November, 2021, decision reads, and imposed the one-year suspension, barring him from accessing Equity services such as insurance or retirement benefits.

Equity said this would not have affected his ability to work on other productions, adding that the suspension was actually put on hold because of the legal process and that Sprung had not served any part of it.

But Sprung said he took the union to court to disprove any allegations that he might be racist. “I hated the idea of taking my own association – I’ve been a member for 50 years – to court, but I had no choice. I had to do it,” he said.

Comments:

I love you Scott, but it's outrageous for Equity to suggest it disagrees with a higher decision about one of its members. That's that. Take the note, as the saying goes. Or would Equity change the judge's lines too..

_

Once upon a time, CAEA had (until recent years) a very thorough process for dealing with member versus member complaints which included the true concept of universal Justice …for ALL. Which meant that there was a process by which the accused was entitled to a robust process of presenting their side and appealing any disciplinary decision that they believed was in itself unfair or even unjust. From reading the Judge’s ruling, this basic right was denied Mr. Sprung…surely for instance, the “independent” investigator, nor council’s disciplinary committee, heard Drew Hayden Taylor’s POV? And their comments to the journalist re this story indicate that despite the legal ruling they believe that they are right. They believe that Mr. Sprung is, in their eyes, in some kind of “wrong.” This is likely a case of circling the wagons by Equity. Shame on them.

_

Too bad the article did not quote more from the judgement as linked above. Apparently, according to the Equity disciplinary procedure Mr. Bellis is so proud of, if you “sigh or roll your eyes” when in discussion of an important issue, this is proof of discrimination and bullying and warrants depriving a member of their right to work. Equity should be ashamed of themselves.

-The full 34 pages of the judicial decision in Sprung c. Canadian Actors' Equity Association [2024, QCCS] can be found, in English, at: https://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccs/doc/2024/2024qccs850/2024qccs850.pdf

_

Comments to the story that were published in G&M:

In my view, the facts as presented in the decision emphasize how thankful we should be for Canadian courts.

Mr. Sprung really has been a key figure in Canadian theatre. Among other accomplishments, he was:

"the artistic director of the Toronto Free Theatre from 1982 to 1988. During this time, he conceived and founded the outdoor Shakespeare in High Park, the largest outdoor Shakespeare venue in North America.

[. . .]

"He was co-founder and first sole Artistic Director of The Canadian Stage Company, an Associate Director at the Stratford Festival, and interim Artistic Director of the Vancouver Playhouse Theatre Company and has taught at the National Theatre School of Canada and the Conservatoire d'art dramatique de Montréal."

~ wikipedia

_

Her role "...was too much of a Dickensian woman."

What exactly did she expect from a play set in the 1880s?

Good for Sprung. Brave behaviour in today’s entitled, ideological world. And kudos to Drew Hayden Taylor who never fears to call it as he sees it. It takes real courage and principles.

_

Are you even in the biz in Canada? Do you have the same deep, rich history in theatre as Guy Sprung or Drew-Hayden Taylor?