Best Fast

Episode #3: Was Chris LeClair an “Agent of Government”?

CMT made a number of “claims” involving Chris LeClair, who was Robert Ghiz’s Chief-of-Staff from June 12, 2007 until October 17, 2011.   In episode #2, I dealt with Chris LeClair’s investment in a CMT-related business venture and noted that Judge Campbell made no mention of that conflict of interest and insider trading issue with Chris LeClair in his decision.

The more important allegation in CMT’s Statement of Claim involving Chris LeClair had to do with his involvement in recruiting CMT/Simplex to PEI to establish a Financial Transaction Hub.   That information related directly to the promises made  to CMT/Simplex in the government’s “recruitment package” which sought to establish a financial transaction platform hub in PEI, giving CMT a number of preferential benefits, including “first mover advantage” on future business.

CMT provided Campbell all of this documented information in its Statement of Claim and supporting documents:

Recruiting Package

This happened in 2010, long before the MOU was negotiated and signed in 2012.

CMT’s allegations that LeClair was intimately involved with the recruitment of CMT and Simplex in the Fall of 2010 – along with  the documents submitted to substantiate that claim – including a copy of the recruiting package – were never mentioned or addressed in Campbell’s 172 page ruling.

I draw your attention to this because there appears to be a strategy on the part of the PEI government and judicial system to avoid putting anything “on the record” about CMT’s involvement with the PEI government prior to the period of the “Memorandum of Understanding” signed in the late summer and early fall of 2012.

The very same thing happened with my complaint to the PEI Law Society against Billy Dow (See: Disappointing Response….).  Despite my best efforts to direct attention to my complaint being exclusively tied to events in the Pre-MOU period – within which I was arguing the evidence was that Billy Dow was contracted as outside legal counsel on the e-gaming file in early 2010 – my actual evidence was totally ignored, and absolutely no mention or written reference was made to anything prior to the 2012 MOU agreement period of the e-gaming story in the Law Society ruling.

Two-thirds of the  “alleged claims” of CMT (which they’ll have to prove in court with hard evidence) relate to the “pre-MOU” period. However, like the PEI Law Society’s response to my Billy Dow complaint, it appears Judge Campbell decided to ignore those “pre-Mou” claims entirely, focusing exclusively on the MOU part of CMT’s claim against Chris LeClair – and others – in an attempt to make those issues disappear.

Campbell’s View on Whether LeClair was an “agent” of government

Campbell states in his decision (a number of times) that Chris LeClair left government on October 11, 2011 and concludes:

“Para 209: “…I also find LeClair, at times material to this action, not to have been an officer or agent of Government and not to have been performing any public function.”

He went even further, completely removing LeClair as a person relevant to the legal action, in paragraph 268:

268 I find LeClair was not a public officer, Government employee, or agent of the Government, and was not performing any public function, at any time material to this action. Therefore, he cannot be liable for misfeasance in public office.

On the face of it, this claim seems totally bizarre, since a “Chief-of-Staff” to the Premier is clearly an “agent of government,”  and LeClair was most definitely Chief-of-Staff when he recruited CMT/Simplex in 2010, which happened  “at times material to this action.”  Campbell’s statement only make sense if you accept his unstated view that Chris LeClair has nothing to do with this case until the MOU was negotiated in 2012, which is not true.

The Truth?

Chris LeClair was intimately involved with the e-gaming and financial transaction platform file from early 2010 as an “agent” of government (chief-of-staff to the Premier) yet his key role in the recruitment of CMT/Simplex to PEI in 2010 outlined in CMT’s claim was never once mentioned or addressed by Campbell in his decision.

The Consequences?