E-gaming lawsuit thrown out
Justice Gordon Campbell finds ‘no genuine issues requiring a trial’
A $50-million lawsuit filed against the provincial government related to the e-gaming saga has been dismissed for the second time by a supreme court justice.
A previous lawsuit $25 million filed by Capital Markets Technology Inc. was dismissed in 2016. In an amended statement of claim, filed against the provincial government and a total of 14 defendants, CMT alleged several members of the Robert Ghiz Liberal government, including Ghiz himself, committed misfeasance in a public office related to the egaming initiative.
Between 2009 and 2012, members of the Ghiz government pursued a plan of establishing P.E.I. as a regulatory hub for online gambling. CMT had been involved in providing a financial services platform for this initiative and was later briefly engaged as a possible contractor to provide a similar platform for a tourism loyalty card program.
In a ruling obtained by The Guardian, Justice Gordon Campbell noted the defendants had argued that none of the issues raised by CMT required a trial.
“Upon hearing the motions and reviewing all submissions, the court found there were no genuine issues requiring a trial and granted summary judgment to all defendants,” Campbell wrote.
“The plaintiffs’ action was dismissed in its entirety.”
CMT had claimed that a memorandum of understanding reached between it and Innovation P.E.I. in 2012 had been violated. CMT alleged an exclusivity clause contained in the MOU had been violated. CMT also alleged that government officials deliberately tampered with e-mails related to the e-gaming initiative and subsequent contract with CMT, in order to keep these e-mails from being publicly disclosed under Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
In his 172-page decision, Campbell cited multiple examples of case law related to the charge of misfeasance in public office. In one case, Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, Campbell noted the argument that public officials must have deliberately committed illegal actions and must have been aware that these actions were illegal in order to have committed misfeasance in public office.
“The bar for establishing misfeasance in public office has indeed been set high,” Campbell wrote.
For several of the defendants included in the CMT statement of claim — including former finance minister Wes Sheridan, former chiefs of staff to the premier, Chris LeClair and Allan Campbell, and former senior director of Tourism P.E.I. Brad Mix – Campbell found the allegations related to misfeasance were meritless.
For Ghiz’s actions related to the erasure of e-mail accounts, Campbell noted that it was standard practice for e-mail accounts of former government officials to be erased. Campbell said that CMT had not proven that evidence was deliberately destroyed.
“His testimony was confirmed on cross-examination, and was not contradicted by any other testimony,” Campbell wrote of Ghiz.
“While the destruction of information was intentional in that it occurred as a result of a deliberate act and not an accident, it occurred in the regular course of business, or as ‘a matter of standard practice.”
Overall, Campbell awarded costs to the defendants, and ruled against any option of another amended statement of claim.
Campbell’s opinion was at times scathingly critical of the amended statement of claim filed by CMT.
“The plaintiffs have failed completely to substantiate their allegations against the defendants. It is due to the complete lack of any credible or reliable evidentiary basis for the plaintiffs’ claims that they are being dismissed in their entirety,” Campbell wrote.