Accuser in B.C. trial pressed on handling of Vander Zalm at 1991 probe

Share

Ted Hughes, British Columbia's former conflict of interest commissioner, has ended his testimony in a defamation case after a heated exchange with a lawyer defending former premier Bill Vander Zalm.

The cross-examination of Mr. Hughes by Frank Potts, in the Supreme Court of B.C. on Wednesday, was often testy. But it came to a head as the defence lawyer pressed the witness to explain why Mr. Vander Zalm had not been afforded some basic legal rights during a 1991 inquiry into allegations of misconduct.

Mr. Potts wanted to know why Mr. Vander Zalm, who was premier when he was accused of mixing government and private affairs in the sale of his business, had not been allowed to have a lawyer present during questioning by Mr. Hughes, who was then acting conflict commissioner, and why he hadn't been given transcripts of the proceedings.

"I did the best I could under the circumstances," Mr. Hughes said, after stating that the informal process he'd used, in which he both investigated and reached a judgment, had been agreed to by Mr. Vander Zalm in advance.

And transcripts, he said, were provided to Mr. Vander Zalm's lawyer with the undertaking that the contents not be shared, for fear those who had yet to be examined might tailor their answers.

But Mr. Potts noted that in his conflict report, Mr. Hughes had said he was concerned that the inquiry hadn't been public – and he demanded to know why Mr. Hughes had failed to raise that option at the time.

"I did, I did," stammered Mr. Hughes, who seemed upset and turned to Madam Justice Laura Gerow to say he was confused about what he could say.

Earlier in the trial, Mr. Hughes, who is 84, had been cautioned by the judge for giving hearsay evidence, in which he quoted third parties who are not being called as witnesses in the case.

In an apparent move to allow Mr. Hughes, a former judge, to recover his composure, and perhaps to relieve tensions in the courtroom, Mr. Potts called for an unscheduled break in proceedings.

After the judge and jury had left, Mr. Hughes said to Mr. Potts: "I don't need a break. I'm ready to go."

When the proceedings resumed, Mr. Potts went back to the same line of questioning, demanding to know why the option of a public inquiry, which would have afforded Mr. Vander Zalm greater legal protections, including the right to cross-examine witnesses, hadn't been offered.

Mr. Hughes said the process was one of Mr. Vander Zalm's own choosing, because he had asked for an expedited inquiry, hoping to clear the air of allegations he acted inappropriately when he and his wife, Lillian, sold Fantasy Gardens, a theme park they owned in Richmond. Instead, Mr. Hughes produced a report that found Mr. Vander Zalm was in an apparent conflict of interest. Mr. Vander Zalm resigned the same day the report was released.

Mr. Hughes, who is suing Mr. Vander Zalm for statements made in his 2008 autobiography, Bill Vander Zalm: For The People, said a full public inquiry could not have been completed in the tight time frame he was given.

In the book, Mr. Vander Zalm accuses Mr. Hughes of being involved in a plot with the NDP to oust him from office, in return for getting a full-time posting as B.C.'s first conflict commissioner.

But former NDP premier Mike Harcourt, who was called as the second witness in the case, denied that his party had in any way colluded with Mr. Hughes.

"Was there any setup [whereby Mr. Hughes would be rewarded in return for a negative report on Mr. Vander Zalm]" Geoffrey Gomery, a lawyer for Mr. Hughes, asked Mr. Harcourt.

"No," replied Mr. Harcourt, who was on the stand for under an hour.

Mr. Vander Zalm has yet to testify.