Ex-Premier Glen Clark found not guilty in leaky roof, home renovation, gambling affair

 

Citation:

HMTQ v. Pilarinos and Clark

Date:

20020829

 

2002 BCSC 1267

Docket:

CC001402

Registry:  Vancouver

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

     

AGAINST

DIMITRIOS PILARINOS AND GLEN DAVID CLARK

     

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

 

OF THE

 

HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE BENNETT

 

 

Counsel for the Crown

W. Smart, Q.C.,
J. Esson
& J. Austin-Olsen

 

Counsel for the Accused, Pilarinos

 

I. Donaldson, Q.C.
& D. Clements

Counsel for the Accused, Clark

D. Gibbons, Q.C.,
R. Fowler
& M. Nathanson

 

Date and Place of Trial:

September 10, 2001 to

June 28, 2002

 

Vancouver, BC

 

[1]            Glen David Clark is the former Premier of British Columbia.  Dimitrios Pilarinos is a former friend and neighbour of Mr. Clark.  They face charges of corruption arising from Mr. Pilarinos' failed attempt to obtain a licence to operate a casino from the government of British Columbia.

[2]            Mr. Pilarinos faces nine counts on the indictment and Mr. Clark faces two.  The counts are as follows:

COUNT 1:

 

DIMITRIOS PILARINOS, between December 1, 1997, and October 1, 1998, at or near Vancouver and Penticton and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, while having dealings with the Government of British Columbia relating to an application for a casino licence, gave to an official of the said Government, to wit, GLEN DAVID CLARK, Premier, President of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Assembly of the said Government, or to a member of the family of the said Clark, a reward, advantage or benefit, to wit, improvements to real property, as consideration for co-operation, assistance or the exercise of influence in connection with the granting of a casino licence, being a transaction of business with or a matter of business relating to the said Government, or a benefit that Her Majesty in right of the said Government is authorized or entitled to bestow, CONTRARY TO SECTION 121(1)(a) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.

 

COUNT 2:

 

DIMITRIOS PILARINOS, between December 1, 1997, and October 1, 1998, at or near Vancouver and Penticton and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, while having dealings with the Government of British Columbia relating to an application for a casino licence, gave to a minister of the Government of British Columbia or an official of the said Government, to wit, GLEN DAVID CLARK, Premier, President of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Assembly of the said Government, a reward, advantage or benefit, to wit, improvements to real property, as consideration for co-operation, assistance or the exercise of influence in connection with the granting of a casino licence, being a transaction of business with or a matter of business relating to the said Government, or a benefit that Her Majesty in right of the said Government is authorized or entitled to bestow, CONTRARY TO SECTION 121(1)(e) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.

 

COUNT 3:

 

DIMITRIOS PILARINOS, between April 1, 1997, and January 31, 1999, at or near Vancouver and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, offered to give to an official of the Government of British Columbia, to wit, GLEN DAVID CLARK, Premier, President of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Assembly of the said Government, a reward, advantage or benefit, being a 15-per-cent interest in or share in the proceeds of the operation of a licensed casino, as consideration for co-operation, assistance or the exercise of influence in connection with an application for a casino licence, being a transaction of business with or a matter of business relating to the said Government, or a benefit which Her Majesty in right of the said Government is authorized or entitled to bestow, CONTRARY TO SECTION 121(1)(a) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.

 

COUNT 4:

 

DIMITRIOS PILARINOS, between April 1, 1997, and January 31, 1999, at or near Vancouver and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, while having dealings with the Government of British Columbia relating to an application for a casino licence, offered to give to a minister of the Government of British Columbia or an official of the said Government, to wit, GLEN DAVID CLARK, Premier, President of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Assembly of the said Government, a reward, advantage or benefit, being a 15-per-cent interest in or share in the proceeds of the operation of a licensed casino, as consideration for co-operation, assistance or the exercise of influence in connection with an application for a casino licence, being a transaction of business with or a matter of business relating to the said Government, or a benefit which Her Majesty in right of the said Government is authorized or entitled to bestow, CONTRARY TO SECTION 121(1)(e) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.

 

COUNT 5:

 

DIMITRIOS PILARINOS, between December 1, 1997, and October 1, 1998, at or near Vancouver and Penticton and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, while having dealings with the Government of British Columbia in relation to an application for a casino licence, conferred a benefit with respect to those dealings, being improvements to real property, on an official of the said Government with which he was dealing, to wit, GLEN DAVID CLARK, Premier, President of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Assembly of the said Government, directly and through a member or members of the family of the said Glen David Clark, without the consent in writing of the head of the branch of Government with which he was dealing, CONTRARY TO SECTION 121(1)(b) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.

 

COUNT 6:

 

DIMITRIOS PILARINOS, between April 1, 1997, and March 2, 1999, at or near Vancouver, Burnaby and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, having or pretending to have influence with the Government of British Columbia or with a minister or official of that Government, to wit, GLEN DAVID CLARK, Premier, President of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Assembly of the said Government, accepted a reward, advantage or benefit, to wit, a share in a company or the right to share in the proceeds of a proposed casino, as consideration for co-operation, assistance or the exercise of influence through the said Clark, in connection with an application for a casino licence, being a transaction of business with or a matter of business relating to the said Government, or a benefit that Her Majesty in right of the said Government is authorized or entitled to bestow, CONTRARY TO SECTION 121(1)(d) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.

 

COUNT 7:

 

DIMITRIOS PILARINOS, between April 1, 1997, and March 2, 1999, at or near Vancouver, Burnaby, Victoria and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, for a fraudulent purpose, did conceal something, to wit, the participation of one PASCHOS KATANAS as legal or beneficial owner of shares in a company seeking a casino licence, or participant in the proceeds of the operation of a proposed casino, such thing being concealed from the Ministry of Employment and Investment of the said province in connection with an application made or pending for a licence to operate the said casino, CONTRARY TO SECTION 341 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.

 

COUNT 8:

 

DIMITRIOS PILARINOS, between April 1, 1997, and March 2, 1999, at or near Vancouver, Burnaby, Victoria and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, with intent to defraud, omitted a material particular from a document, to wit, an application to the Ministry of Employment and Investment of the said province for a casino licence, such material particular being the fact that one PASCHOS KATANAS was a principal or partner in the proposed casino, or legal or beneficial owner of shares in the company seeking the said licence, CONTRARY TO SECTION 397(1)(b) of THE CRIMINAL CODE.

 

COUNT 9:

 

DIMITRIOS PILARINOS, between December 1, 1997, and March 5, 1999, at or near Vancouver, Penticton and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, did commit the offence of breach of trust in connection with the duties of the office of an official of the Government of British Columbia, to wit, GLEN DAVID CLARK, Premier, President of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Assembly, in relation to an application made to the said Government, by 545738 B.C. Ltd., a company in which DIMITRIOS PILARINOS held an interest, for a Government licence to operate a casino; and in particular:

 

      (a)   by providing benefits to Glen David Clark in relation to renovations done on Mr. Clark's Vancouver residence and his Penticton summer cottage while the application, by the said company in which Mr. Pilarinos held an interest, for a Government licence to operate a casino was under consideration by the Government; and

 

      (b)   requesting and/or encouraging Glen David Clark to render assistance with respect to the said company's casino application;

 

CONTRARY TO SECTION 122 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.

 

COUNT 10:

 

GLEN DAVID CLARK, between December 1, 1997, and March 5, 1999, at or near Vancouver, Penticton, Victoria and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, did commit the offence of breach of trust in connection with the duties of his office as an official of the Government of British Columbia, to wit, Premier, President of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Assembly, in relation to an application made to the said Government by 545738 B.C. Ltd., a company in which DIMITRIOS PILARINOS held an interest, for a Government licence to operate a casino; and in particular:

 

      (a)   by accepting benefits from Dimitrios Pilarinos in relation to renovations done on his Vancouver residence and his Penticton summer cottage, while the said application was under consideration by the Government of British Columbia;

 

      (b)   by failing to inform the Minister of Employment and Investment that Dimitrios Pilarinos was doing, or had done, work on his Vancouver residence and Penticton summer cottage and that he had received benefits in relation to that work from Mr. Pilarinos;

 

      (c)   before, during, or after receiving the said benefits from Mr. Pilarinos, by assisting 545738 B.C. Ltd. and Mr. Pilarinos in various ways in advancing his casino licence application, including: disclosing to Mr. Pilarinos the official "scores" assigned to 545738 B.C. Ltd.'s application and that of its competitor and exerting influence, directly and/or indirectly, on the Minister of Employment and Investment, Michael Farnworth, to approve the application by 545738 B.C. Ltd. and to facilitate the said company in changing the location of its proposed charitable casino;

 

      (d)   after receiving the "Karmelita" fax in February 1999, by procuring or permitting the use of the influence of his office in order to protect his personal interests rather than those of the public, including: delegating to George Ford responsibilities with respect to the said fax without disclosing to him his true involvement in connection with the casino application by 545738 B.C. Ltd.; and

 

      (e)   after receiving the "Karmelita" fax in February 1999, by failing to ensure that the contents of the said fax were disclosed to the police or to the Ministry of the Attorney General or to GAIO or to Minister Farnworth or to those assisting the Government in dealing with the casino application by 545738 B.C. Ltd. and by acting contrary to the public interest in advising Mr. Pilarinos that one or more Greek "informants" were providing information to investigators concerning the casino application by the said company and thereby jeopardizing ongoing police and GAIO investigations.

 

and in so doing breached the statutory, expressed, implied or accepted rules, guidelines or terms of office applicable to him as Premier, President of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Assembly, including the oaths of office taken by him and the provisions of the Members Conflict of Interest Act, CONTRARY TO SECTION 122 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.

 

COUNT 11:

 

GLEN DAVID CLARK, between December 1, 1997, and October 1, 1998, at or near Vancouver and Penticton and elsewhere in the Province of British Columbia, being an official of the Government of British Columbia, to wit, Premier, President of the Executive Council and Member of the Legislative Assembly of the said Government, accepted or agreed to accept directly or indirectly from a person having dealings in regard to an application for a casino licence with the said Government, to wit, DIMITRIOS PILARINOS, a reward, advantage or benefit for himself or through a member of his family, to wit, improvements to real property, without consent in writing of the head of the branch of the said Government of which he was an official, CONTRARY TO SECTION 121(1)(c) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.

 

[3]            The Criminal Code provisions relating to the charges are as follows:

Section 121.(1) Frauds on the government

1)    Every one commits an offence who

            a)    directly or indirectly

 

                  (i)   gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to an official or to any member of his family, or to any one for the benefit of an official, or

 

(ii)  being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person for himself or another person,

 

a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with

 

(iii)  the transaction of business with or any matter of business relating to the government, or

 

(iv)  a claim against Her Majesty or any benefit that Her Majesty is authorized or is entitled to bestow,

 

whether or not, in fact, the official is able to cooperate, render assistance, exercise influence or do or omit to do what is proposed, as the case may be;

 

(b)   having dealings of any kind with the government, pays a commission or reward to or confers an advantage or benefit of any kind on an employee or official of the government with which he deals, or to any member of his family, or to any one for the benefit of the employee or official, with respect to those dealings, unless he has the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government with which he deals, the proof of which lies on him;

 

(c)   being an official or employee of the government, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from a person who has dealings with the government a commission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind directly or indirectly, by himself or through a member of his family or through any one for his benefit, unless he has the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government that employs him or of which he is an official, the proof of which lies on him;

(d)   having or pretending to have influence with the government or with a minister of the government or an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept for himself or another person a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with

 

(i)   anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or

 

(ii)  the appointment of any person, including himself, to an office;

 

(e)   gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to a minister of the government or an official a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with

 

(i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or

 

(ii) the appointment of any person, including himself, to an office;

 

      Breach of trust by public officer

 

122.  Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.

 

      Fraudulent concealment

 

341.  Every one who, for a fraudulent purpose, takes, obtains, removes or conceals anything is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

 

      Falsification of books and documents

 

397.  (1) Every one who, with intent to defraud,

 

(a)   destroys, mutilates, alters, falsifies or makes a false entry in, or

 

(b)   omits a material particular from, or alters a material particular in, a book, paper, writing, valuable security or document is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

 

[4]            Corruption of government employees and government officials is rampant in some parts of the world.  Fortunately, Canada has had few allegations of corruption at any government level.  No doubt this is due mainly to the honesty and relative prosperity of Canadians.  However, it is also due to the fact that the police in this country are free to investigate government corruption unfettered from interference by the state.  British Columbia’s legislated requirement of retaining a special prosecutor outside of the employ of the government further protects the ability of the authorities to investigate and proceed with appropriate charges without fear of reprisal from government.  Also, our corruption laws place a high standard of behaviour on government officials and employees, one that is not required of the general public.

[5]            Regardless of the outcome of this trial, our free and democratic society requires such allegations be investigated and a prosecution undertaken if there is evidence which meets the threshold required for charges to be laid.  Anything less would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Overview of the Facts

 

[6]            Mr. Clark and Mr. Pilarinos met as a result of their respective wives' participation in their local pre-school.  The families struck up a friendship and they, along with several other families in the neighbourhood, would meet several times a month for potluck dinners.

[7]            Their relationship was one of “good neighbours” and they did not socialize together outside of their circle of family friends.  At the time of the alleged offences, Mr. Clark and Mr. Pilarinos had only known each other for three or four years.  They had little in common except for the shared activities of their children. 

[8]            Mr. Clark was the Premier of the Province of British Columbia.  Mr. Pilarinos, at the time, was involved in the construction industry.

[9]            Mr. Pilarinos was also a friend of Steve Ng and Paschos Katanas (who is also referred to as Paskalis and Paskali).  Mr. Ng owned several hotels in the Lower Mainland, including the North Burnaby Inn and the Marble Arch Hotel.  Mr. Katanas operated the Lumbermen’s Social Club out of the North Burnaby Inn.  The Lumbermen’s Social Club ran an illegal gambling operation and Mr. Katanas had come into conflict with the Gaming Commission as a result. 

[10]        Mr. Pilarinos knew both Mr. Katanas and Mr. Ng, likely meeting when Mr. Pilarinos did some renovation work on the Lumbermen’s Social Club (as conceded in the argument of Mr. Pilarinos). 

[11]        In March 1997, the provincial government announced its intention to expand gaming in British Columbia and the creation of the Lotteries Advisory Committee (LAC).  A “Request for Proposals” (RFP) was distributed later that summer inviting proposals for destination casinos, charity casinos and bingo halls. 

[12]        In June 1997, 545738 B.C. Ltd. was incorporated.  This company was held by Steve Ng, Paschos Katanas and Dimitrios Pilarinos.  On October 21, 1997, 545738 B.C. Ltd. registered with the LAC under the RFP process indicating an interest in applying for a casino licence.  The application itself was long and detailed.  Appendix G of the application requested detailed personal information from the applicants, including information regarding any previous gambling experience.  A partially completed Appendix G in the name of Mr. Katanas was seized at his home.  It was dated October 25, 1997.

[13]        On October 30, 1997, Mr. Katanas was removed as a director of 545738 B.C. Ltd.  Mr. Pilarinos and Mr. Ng became the sole directors.  On November 24, 1997, the company submitted its application for a charity casino to be operated at the North Burnaby Inn.  The application was professionally prepared.  A large local law firm and an accountant represented 545738 B.C. Ltd.  The application was accompanied by fees of $18,000.00.

[14]        In spite of being removed as a director, the wiretap evidence showed that Mr. Katanas continued to be consulted about matters relating to the casino application.  He was also observed by police surveillance officers several times meeting with Mr. Ng and Mr. Pilarinos.  The Crown contends that Mr. Katanas was a silent partner in the casino operation but was removed from the application because of his previous difficulties with the Gaming Commission.  This allegation is the substance of Counts 7 and 8.

[15]        Local municipal government support (called “Host Local Government Support”) was mandatory before the provincial government would consider an application.  The proposed host municipality was required to indicate whether it supported gambling (or in some cases, increased gambling) in its community.  Once a municipal government supported gaming, it had no control over where a facility would be located, except within its ability to zone.

[16]        After some confusion, the City of Burnaby agreed to expand gambling in its community and accepted charity casinos and bingos.  It did not approve destination casinos.  However, Burnaby was strongly opposed to a casino located at the North Burnaby Inn.  The North Burnaby Inn location was not zoned for a casino and the City had no intention of changing its zoning.  This position was clearly communicated to the provincial government.   The City had already zoned a location on Halifax Street for a casino.  The owner of this location, Derrick Luu, was also applying for a casino licence in Burnaby.

[17]        All proposals had to be evaluated by the Gaming Audit Investigation Office (GAIO), an investigative body under the auspices of the Attorney General's Ministry whose task it was to investigate the suitability of proponents to operate gaming facilities.  GAIO performed a thorough investigation of all aspects of the application, including an investigation into the personal integrity of the applicants.  Only applicants who received GAIO approval could receive a licence. 

[18]        In January 1998, the assigned investigator of the North Burnaby Inn proposal, Mark Everitt, decided to postpone the investigation of the application because he considered it unlikely that the proposal would receive approval-in-principle from the provincial Cabinet. 

[19]        In the meantime, Glen Clark had a leak in his roof.  Mr. Clark was in Victoria and Mrs. Clark called Mr. Pilarinos to look at the leak because she was concerned that it might cause electrical problems.  The Clarks postponed repairing the roof because they wanted to renovate the upstairs of their home, which would require the installation of a new roof.  Thus, in the spring of 1997, Mr. Pilarinos was aware that the Clarks had a leaky roof and that they were considering a renovation.

[20]        Mr. Pilarinos went to an architect, Edward Palad, with the plans of the Clarks’ home and retained him to prepare designs for the renovation.  He did this, according to the Clarks, without their knowledge or permission.  There is no evidence of where Mr. Pilarinos obtained the plans.  It is possible he obtained them from City Hall.

[21]        Mr. Palad provided Mr. Pilarinos with the designs on December 10, 1997 and testified that it takes him about two weeks to prepare design plans.  Mr. Pilarinos therefore likely met with him around November 26 or 27, 1997.  Thus, Mr. Pilarinos was obtaining designs, unsolicited, for Mr. Clark, within days of the submission of his casino application on November 24, 1997.

[22]        On December 17, 1997, Mr. Pilarinos applied for a building permit for the renovations to the Clarks’ house.  The estimated value of the renovation on the building permit was $9,586.00.   He made this application without the knowledge of the Clarks.  Mr. Pilarinos arrived at the Clarks' house just before Christmas with an equivalency permit and advised them that they owed him money for this permit.  Mr. Clark gave Mr. Pilarinos a cheque for $310.00 on or around December 24, 1997.  Mr. Clark was unhappy about this, as it was an unexpected expenditure just around Christmas.

[23]        The Clarks had considered hiring Mrs. Clark’s cousin as the contractor for their renovation.  When they learned that he was not available, the Clarks decided to retain Mr. Pilarinos.  There was no written contract between them.  Mr. Clark testified he told Mr. Pilarinos he wanted everything above board.  He was concerned that the GST might not be paid as construction workers have a reputation for working for cash.

[24]        Mr. Clark wrote a cheque to Mr. Pilarinos on February 22, 1998 for $574.00 as reimbursement for the building permit.

[25]        The renovation occurred during three weeks in June 1998, commencing June 8, and was substantially completed by June 29.  Some finishing work was completed in July.  [Ex. 38 Tab 7].  The renovation consisted of adding a dormer to an upstairs bedroom, building a small deck off this bedroom, installing a gas fireplace, and moving a window.  A new floor and closets were installed and the roof was replaced.  It was a relatively small renovation.  Mrs. Clark was responsible for organizing and supervising the renovation since Mr. Clark was seldom home, except on weekends.

[26]        By mid-July, the Clarks had paid Mr. Pilarinos $8,000.  He told them he thought they owed an additional $2500-3000, but he did not have all of the outstanding bills.   The Clarks thought they should pay him more because the job took longer than anticipated.  They decided to give him a cheque for $5,000.00.  Dale Clark gave the cheque to Mrs. Pilarinos sometime between July 24-31, 1998.  Around August 5, 1998, Mr. Pilarinos went to Mr. Clark’s house, said the cheque was too much and produced his itemized bill for $11,200.00.  This amount did not include the bill of $400 for the design work, which Mr. Clark testified, he paid Mr. Pilarinos for in cash.  Mr. Pilarinos ripped up the cheque that had been given to him by Mrs. Clark.  After satisfying himself that Mr. Pilarinos felt he had been paid, Mr. Clark wrote Mr. Pilarinos a cheque for $3,200.00.  The difference between the two cheques was $1,800.00.  Mr. Pilarinos told Mr. Clark, “if you want to do anything, give me some chickens.  That’s what we do in Greece”.  Mr. Clark later gave Mr. Pilarinos a unique Inuit hunting knife. 

[27]        The Crown called two quantity surveyors to testify regarding the value of the renovation.   Their evidence was thoroughly and effectively challenged in cross-examination.  Mr. Sanft’s report was so replete with errors in calculations that I cannot give it any weight at all.  Mr. Stregger’s report was more helpful, especially the summary of invoices, which analyzed all of the receipts of the purchases made by Mr. Pilarinos or Mr. Clark from which the progress of the renovation could be tracked.  However, Mr. Stregger also made several errors. 

[28]        The renovation was done as economically as possible.  Mr. Clark helped install the floor and painted the house.  Sub-contractors did much of the work and their work and materials are accounted for with receipts.  I find that the cost of the renovation was $11,200.00 (rounded up) as noted by Mr. Pilarinos in his informal bill to Mr. Clark, save and except the architect's designs and Mr. Pilarinos' labour, neither of which were included in the bill.  The amount paid for the renovation by the Clarks was also $11,200.00.  There was no mark-up on any of the materials that could have accounted for Mr. Pilarinos' compensation, nor was there any contractor fee charged. Based on a “cost-plus” arrangement, Mr. Pilarinos did not receive payment for his work.  The renovation took approximately three weeks.  Mr. Pilarinos arranged for numerous sub-trades, including drywall, plumbing, gas fitting and electrical.  Mr. Pilarinos also worked on the job himself doing tear down, installing flooring and some carpentry.  Based on a fixed estimate, Mr. Pilarinos was overpaid, as the estimate was $10,000.00.  There was no direct evidence of what arrangements were made between Mr. Pilarinos and Mr. Clark, other than that Mr. Clark said he wanted to ensure that Mr. Pilarinos was compensated for his work. 

[29]        Mr. Clark acknowledged at trial that Mr. Pilarinos was not compensated for his work.  Mr. Clark said that when he looked at the bill, there was no payment for Mr. Pilarinos.  Mr. Clark said he pressed him on this, but Mr. Pilarinos was adamant that the bill reflected all that was owed and that he would not accept any more money.  Mr. Clark said it was not clear when he wrote the cheque for $3200 that Mr. Pilarinos was not paid for his labour.  Mr. Pilarinos was persistent and Mr. Clark eventually relented and accepted that $3200 was what he owed Mr. Pilarinos.

[30]        There is no direct evidence of how many hours Mr. Pilarinos worked on the project.  In cross-examination, Mr. Stregger, one of the quantity surveyors, agreed that an estimate of the hours Mr. Pilarinos worked could be in the range of 108 hours, which would be valued at approximately $2000.00.

[31]        If Mr. Pilarinos charged a percentage of the job as a contractor, the amount could range from $1,120.00 as a 10 per cent fee to $2,240.00 as a 20 per cent fee.  The sum of $1,800.00 is a 16 per cent fee.  Mr. Stregger used 15 per cent as the contractor’s mark-up.  I find that it is reasonable to value the work done by Mr. Pilarinos, not compensated by the Clarks, at $1,800.00.  The Clarks obviously intended to pay Mr. Pilarinos more than the estimated price for the job.  The evidence thus suggests that this was not a fixed price contract.

[32]        Meanwhile, the North Burnaby Inn casino application was proceeding through the government approval process.  The personal data (Appendix G) had been sent to GAIO, though, as noted, the application was not given immediate attention by GAIO, as it was not considered likely to receive Cabinet approval.

[33]        On February 18, 1998, Michael Farnworth was appointed Minister of Employment and Investment by Mr. Clark.  This was a promotion for Mr. Farnworth.  This Ministry included the Gaming Portfolio.  When he was appointed, Mr. Clark advised Mr. Farnworth that Mr. Farnworth, in essence, served at Mr. Clark’s pleasure.  Mr. Clark also mentioned to Mr. Farnworth that he had a friend who was applying for a casino licence.  Mr. Clark told Mr. Farnworth that he did not want to be involved in the decision-making process with respect to the casino applications.  It is after this date that Mr. Clark paid Mr. Pilarinos for the building permit.  The evidence is not sufficient to say with any certainty whether the Clarks had finally settled on Mr. Pilarinos for their renovation by the February 1998 meeting with Mr. Farnworth.

[34]        On April 10, 1998, the appointments to the Lotteries Advisory Committee lapsed and on April 28, 1998, the Gaming Policy Secretariat was created.  Mark MacKinnon was the Executive Director. 

[35]        The casino licence applications were thoroughly scrutinized by initially the Lotteries Advisory Committee and later the Gaming Policy Secretariat.  A system of independent evaluation was in place, designed by Robert Scarpelli from PriceWaterhouseCoopers Inc.  The applications received scores based on a number of different criteria.  Neither the Derrick Luu application nor the North Burnaby Inn application received a good score.  Out of a possible 190 points, the Luu application received 56 points and North Burnaby Inn application received 88 points. 

[36]        Once the scores were tabulated and a report on each application was prepared, the matter was submitted to the Minister, Mr. Farnworth.  He initially brought his recommendations to Cabinet and Cabinet would determine whether to grant approval-in-principle.  The approval-in-principle did not mean that the proponents were granted a licence, but it did mean that their application would continue through the process.  An applicant also had to receive approval from GAIO before a licence would be granted.  Once those hurdles were overcome, the applicant still had to negotiate an agreement with the Lottery Corporation.

[37]        A Cabinet meeting was held on May 6, 1998, during which several casino applications from northern British Columbia were granted approval-in-principle. The next Cabinet meeting was at the end of July.  Sometime in June, Mr. Farnworth met with Adrian Dix, who was Mr. Clark’s principal secretary, confidante and good friend.  Mr. Farnworth told Mr. Dix that Mr. Clark was a friend of one of the proponents.  Mr. Dix replied, “I hate friends of the Premier”.  Mr. Dix did not give evidence on this point, thus, although I accept this statement was made, it is not evidence of the truth of the contents.

[38]        Mr. Dix said he met with Mr. Clark on July 13, 1998.  Mr. Clark told him that one of the applicants, Mr. Pilarinos, was  a friend.  Mr. Clark told Mr. Dix to ensure he was kept out of the process surrounding Mr. Pilarinos’ application.  Mr. Dix said he spoke to Mr. Farnworth on July 17, 1998 and they agreed that Mr. Clark would play no role in the decision with respect to Mr. Pilarinos’ application.  Mr. Farnworth did not recall this part of the conversation, but I am satisfied that it occurred as it is consistent with the conversation Mr. Clark had with Mr. Farnworth in February.  I find that this was the same meeting referred to by Mr. Farnworth, although their recollections differ. 

[ More: 2002bcsc1267.htm ]