An elected president of an Indigenous government in British Columbia has been awarded more than $320,000 in damages after a court found he was constructively dismissed when the board suspended him without following proper procedures.
C.D. was president of the Tahltan Central Government (TCG), which governs approximately 4,000 Tahltan people. He served four terms as president, with each election followed by an employment contract that provided his compensation and governed the terms of his role.
The dispute began during D.’s fourth term when personality conflicts emerged on the TCG board. A group of five board members became hostile toward D., and complaints were filed against him under the organization’s Director Accountability Process.
Suspension without proper process
In November 2023, the board voted 8-3 to place D. on administrative suspension with pay while complaints against him were investigated. However, the British Columbia Supreme Court found the board failed to follow the clearly outlined requirements in its own governance policy manual.
The Director Accountability Process requires several steps before a director can be suspended. Complaints must meet strict criteria, including being filed within six months and containing “a high degree of specificity and a reliable evidentiary framework.” The chief administrative officer must conduct a preliminary assessment, and a complaints committee must review and accept the complaint before any suspension can occur.
“Since the power of administrative suspension can only be exercised under s. 7.3 ‘after a Complaint is accepted, in whole or in part, by the Complaints Committee pursuant to subsection 7.24(a)’, which was not done here, the Board had no authority to suspend Mr. Day,” the court found.
The court noted there was no evidence a complaints committee was even formed, let alone that it reviewed the complaints against D.
Flawed complaints
One of the key complaints against D. was filed by S.M., the secretary-treasurer, based on a legal opinion suggesting D. was in a conflict of interest because his father’s businesses contracted with mining companies in Tahltan territory. However, this complaint concerned events from December 2020 and March 2022 – well outside the six-month limitation period.
M. acknowledged the timing issue in her complaint, writing “being that the 6 month time limit has been exhausted, the board will need to fall back on the society’s act conflict of interest clause where there is no time limit.”
The court found M.’s complaint also lacked the required specificity, seeking “a comprehensive understanding of whether any undue advantages have been conferred upon [Norman’s] businesses” without providing evidence beyond the legal opinion.
Two other complaints were not provided in evidence, meaning the TCG failed to prove they complied with the process requirements.
Employment contract provisions
The court rejected the TCG’s argument that it had authority to suspend D. under his employment contract. While the contract allowed the board to make changes to D.’s duties and responsibilities, the court found this “does not contemplate a suspension of his duties.”
D. had signed documents agreeing to follow the governance policy manual, including the Director Accountability Process, making it part of his employment terms.
Elected official status
The TCG argued D. couldn’t claim constructive dismissal because he should have resigned only as an employee, not from his elected position. The court rejected this “creative argument,” finding it “artificial to bifurcate Mr. Day’s position into these two distinct roles.”
“He was given a contract of employment only because he was elected President. The employment contract served to remunerate him for the position to which he was elected,” the court stated.
Strict interpretation required
The court emphasized that provisions allowing suspension of elected officials must be strictly interpreted in favour of the director. It cited several cases establishing that “the right of being chosen to represent his fellows in a representative body…is one of the dearest possessions of a freeman, and it should not be taken away without clear statutory direction.”
The court noted the complaints were made “in the context of a very difficult political climate on the Board” and that the governance policy manual itself recognizes the potential for abuse “out of a recognition that complaints can impact ‘personal and political considerations.'”
Damages awarded
D. was awarded $320,725 in compensatory damages, covering his salary, housing allowance, development allowance, RRSP matching and bonus payments through the end of his term in June 2025, minus $34,000 he earned after leaving.
The court rejected claims for vehicle expenses and phone costs, finding D. was only entitled to work-related reimbursements under his contract.
No aggravated damages
D. also sought aggravated and punitive damages, alleging the board acted in bad faith. However, the court found insufficient evidence of bad faith, noting the board had received a legal opinion stating D. was in conflict of interest.
“The Board ‘cannot be faulted for accepting … expert advice,'” the court stated. While finding the suspension should have been “better handled and in accordance with the Director Accountability Process,” it concluded the conduct didn’t cross the line into bad faith.
The court also rejected claims about statements made at a later annual general assembly, finding they occurred well after D.’s resignation and involved reporting to membership about TCG’s financial matters.
For more information, see Day v Tahltan Central Government, 2025 BCSC 1363 (CanLII).
