I’m posting this here because I think the issue is important. More to follow.
Email from Guy Sprung:
“I am truly sorry and deeply ashamed as an Equity member that Guy Sprung has had to go through this.”
Diana Leblanc
Winner 2015 Governor General’s Performing Arts Award for Lifetime Artistic Achievement
Greetings.
You may be aware that I was forced to take legal action against my own association, Canadian Actor’s Equity Association, after it took away my right to work in theatre based on allegations that in an astonishing and unequivocal Québec Superior Court judgement were found to be “unjustifiable”.
Equity, by its own actions and inactions, gave me no choice but to initiate the court proceedings.
At its meeting, on June 25th, National Council received multiple requests urging it to accept its responsibilities and compensate me for my legal expenses. Requests that had been signed by a range of members of our association, including members of the Order of Canada, winners of the Governors General’s Award for Performing Arts, previous National Council Executive members, a winner of the Academy of Canadian Cinema Television’s Earle Grey Award for lifetime achievement and multiple Dora Award winners. National Council did not even bother to discuss the formal requests.
So, CAEA National Council has forced me to go back to court to seek damages and compensation.
I am asking for financial assistance to help me cover past and present legal costs. To this end I have started a Go Fund Me campaign at: https://gofund.me/513c17be.
More background on the allegations and court proceedings are detailed on the Go Fund Me site.
The March 15, 2024 QC Superior Court judgment is now a matter of public record and can be read in its entirety at:
If I had allowed the Equity judgement against me to go unchallenged, it would have had a far-reaching impact on director/playwright/actor relationships in theatres across Canada. If you care about Justice, if you care about respect for the work in a respectful working atmosphere in theatre rehearsals across our country, I urge you to visit the Québec Superior Court site.
Please circulate this email to as many of your own personal associates, friends and colleagues that might take an interest in helping me ensure CAEA respects its responsibilities to its Constitution and to all of its members with “equity.”
With immense gratitude,
Guy Sprung
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good (men) to do nothing,”
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
As an Equity councillor in this session, I take exception to the suggestion that council “did not bother to discuss the formal requests.” I assure you this council (that was not constituted at the time of the complaint) has discussed at length and voted freely – aware of the responsibilities it owes to the membership – both the complainants and Mr Sprung. That council remains a democratic institution, where majority rules must be considered a bastion of its founding principles, whether any given outcome is amenable to even the most decorated among us.
To suggest we are adhering to anything less than the standards set out for us in council policy and sober consideration is frankly baseless and disrespectful.
Truly,
Ron Kennell
It’s my understanding that not so much as an apology was issued…..that does not sit well, nor does it inspire me with confidence in my Association.
Ron, with respect, I am sorry to have to contradict you.
President of CAEA wrote to me immediately after the June National Council meeting. Note he says the formal request for council action was “not accepted for discussion”, either at the June meeting or in the future.
Here is what he wrote on the subject of whether the request to compensate me was discussed:
From: Equity Council President
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 at 18:10
Subject: Re: Tuesday Meeting
To: Guy Guy
…….”While I have your attention I should let you know that at yesterday’s meeting, your RCA (Request For Council Action) to have Council reconsider its decision regarding repayment of your legal fees was not accepted for discussion. The motion to accept RCA-350 for inclusion on a future agenda was defeated after a brief debate.”
If you go to my GoFundMe site at: : https://gofund.me/513c17be
you will find more detailed background to the case. Read my essay: What Went Wrong?
Ron, in any case, thank you for your concern. You are the very first councillor in three years to acknowledge (directly or indirectly to me) that there is an issue.
Best wishes,
guy
In his note, I am surprised that Mr. Kennell ignored the deeply concerning failure of the Disciplinary Panel of the Canadian Actors’ Equity Association in Mr. Spung’s case to assess evidence properly, or even, in some cases, to assess it at all. Given the Court’s repudiation of that decision, one might reasonably expect that the Canadian Actor’s Equity Association would pay all or some of Mr. Sprung’s costs to right a wrong that should never have happened. Our desire to reconcile with First Nation’s people does not mean we can suspend fair and just processes in our inquiries. In fact, the contrary is true: it is all the more important to have a sound process in emotionally charged situations to ensure a just result for all concerned. Here, the Disciplinary Panel suspended Mr. Sprung based on a dangerous process, which included accepting the complaints without attempting to weigh or assess them critically.
Whether in Salem or the McCarthy hearings in the United States, the rush to judgment based on incendiary allegations without a rigorous, fair, and evidence-based analysis is always a grave and present danger and can lead to miscarriages of justice. To what extent, if at all, this happened here, I will let the reader decide for her or himself by discussing Mr. Justice Phillips’ Decision.
Mr. Justice Phillips concluded that “several” problems that “undermine the reasonableness of the analytical process followed” by the Disciplinary Panel. I summarize them below. Note: References below to TPI refer to a third-party investigator hired by the Disciplinary Panel to help them investigate the claims.
1. The Discipline Panel claimed to have assessed the “credibility” of the evidence, an assertion, according to Justice Phillips,
“that was flatly denied by the TPI [Third-Party Investigator], who, twice during the hearing of the application for judicial review, and without hesitation either time, candidly stated that his investigation entailed no assessment of credibility whatsoever. And yet, in many instances, he was faced with conflicting accounts of a given point. In the evidence compilation, one finds no attempt to reconcile or otherwise reach factual conclusions. It consists merely of a succession of paragraphs indicating no more than so-and-so stated this, whereas someone else stated that. There is no substantive discussion.” [paragraph 84]
“Bald facts are lined up one after the other. In the final report, an equally bald conclusion then follows “substantiating” this or that. There is no sense that the TPI was able to gauge the relative weight to be given to this or that account. Nor does one sense that the TPI was able to put facts into context. His evidence compilation, later distilled to its essence to constitute his final report, is little more than the aggregate of a lengthy series of isolated assertions.” [paragraph 85]
2. Justice Phillips discusses the Disciplinary Panel finding that Mr. Sprung is discriminatory against specific individuals based on their background:
“Following other unrelated statements gleaned here and there from a myriad of situations of which absolutely no detail is afforded the reader, the TPI concludes that applicant was “more open and positive” to certain people based on gender, age and ethnicity. The reader of such words cannot but come away with a staggering impression of the disparity between the gravity of the conclusion and the shallowness of its basis. The same must unfortunately be said of the Disciplinary Panel’s laconic reasons on this point.” [Paragraph 88]
3. Justice Phillips also discusses complaints relating to the use of the word “savage” in the production:
“Finally, points 12 and 30 deal with the word “savage.” As we have seen, applicant — as playwright/director — and cast, in a process of very open collaboration that dated back at least to the second workshop phase in 2019, had eschewed an approach that would, for example, censor Mark Twain’s classic Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, anti racist though it is, or, closer to home, an attitude, espoused by some, that would condemn the mere mention of certain works by Pierre Vallières and Yvon Deschamps, anti-racist though they are as well. Protecting people from being reviled with hurtful invectives is one thing. Crass cultural illiteracy is quite another. Playwright and cast had successfully navigated those tumultuous waters. There had been the inclusion in the script of a clear explanation of the intent, to be spoken by the actress at whose instance much of this solution had come to be and who, ironically, would later be among the complainants. The swear jar donation to charity was an elegant final touch. The enormous significance of this point went unappreciated. [Paragraph 56]
Conclusion
I will attach verbatim the last three Paragraphs from Justice Phillips’ Decision:
[93] If applicant is to be faulted with anything, it is for having been too open to the cast’s critiques and suggestions, thereby perhaps creating inappropriate expectations and a blurring of people’s respective roles. At the end of the day, no reasonable conclusion can be reached other than to say that certain members of cast exhibited conduct which lacked professionalism. To point the finger at applicant in that context amounts to turning the whole matter on its head.
[94] It cannot be disputed that the point of the play was to fight discrimination against First Nations, with a view to furthering the laudable objective of reconciliation, the importance of which has often been stressed by the Supreme Court of Canada.[57] When the stated objective of the entire theatrical exercise is precisely to combat such problems, and when one has gone to great lengths to achieve those ends, to then have one’s slightest utterance, involuntary eye movement and spasmodic reflex of the diaphragm held up to minute scrutiny, is to be held to an impossible standard.
[95] The outcome of the Decision is thus so at odds with the factual context that it is unjustifiable on a reasonable basis.[58]
[96] The Disciplinary Panel’s Decision is therefore unreasonable and will be quashed. For the reasons set out above,[59] the appeal decision must logically suffer the same fate.
Robert Girvan
Former Crown Attorney & Defence Lawyer
Author, “Who Speaks for the River?”
Well I too am surprised by my respected colleague Ron’s comments and the seeming lack of recognition of the judicial ruling and the salient points that Justice Phillips makes. One of the many comments made in explaining CAEA Council’s lack of apology or recompense to Mr. Spung by Equity President Scott Bellis was:
“ Council recognizes that these processes are not comfortable for the members involved, particularly for Respondents whose alleged behaviour may not be substantiated by the investigative process, but also considers them a necessary measure.”
To paraphrase MacKenzie King “Guilty if politically necessary; but not necessarily guilty.”
Alas, this is not the first time that CAEA council has abused and obstructed a member and denied fair representation for the airing of an issue of directorial behaviour. My dear friend Patrick Christopher (RIP) was summarily driven out of the association more than a decade ago under similar circumstances to the situation of Mr. Sprung. Those serving on Council at the time might profit from considering their behaviour at that time.
Having read the material related to this issue, I find this situation has exposed a flaw in the dispute an complaints process of the CAEA. We have so much to be grateful for by being members of CAEA, and I appreciate the diligence of the council members who give their time and care to managing the many concerns of members. However in these times of high sensitivity to our racial diversty, gender diversty, harrassment, etc., CAEA needs to find a far better way to investigate complaints, and to avoid swift condemnation like this one. My theory is that FEAR is at the heart of the CAEA’s action against Guy Sprung. Fear of setting a foot wrong or saying the “wrong” thing when a hugely sensitive issue involving Indigenous experiences and voice comes to their table. There is a better way.
I was cast in Fight On! I witnessed the events which lead to CAEA’s judgement against Guy Sprung and his suspension for reasons as defined in the Superior Court decision. I have many times emailed and spoken to CAEA Council members about what happened to cause Mr. Sprung’s suspension. CAEA has at no time invited me to address Council about what I witnessed. Particularly regarding the behaviour of some the complainants in rehearsals.
My last contact with CAEA has been an email from Mr. Scott Bellis in response to my email to him regarding the cost to CAEA of this sorry affair:
On Sun, Jul 7, 2024, at 9:24 PM Noel Burton wrote:
Hi Scott,
I think I’ve asked this before, but how much is all this costing CAEA?
Very sincerely,
Noel
Scott Bellis replied on July 15:
Hi Noel,
Apologies for the late reply, I just opened a show this weekend.
Yes, you did enquire about costs earlier in one of our exchanges. At the time, I did not have the info.
The costs for the complaint process itself, plus the costs for the court case, including travel and accommodation for Equity staff, would be in the $30,000 range, with approximately 2/3 of that for the investigator’s work. Equity’s legal costs for the case appear to be less than Mr. Sprung’s by a wide margin. They are deemed by Council to be a necessary expense, as representation at the judicial review was obligatory.
The complaint investigation costs are also a necessary expense when a complaint is accepted for examination by Council.
All the best,
Scott Bellis
he/him/his
Council President
BC & Yukon Councillor
Canadian Actors’ Equity Association
A $30,000 range? For an incompetent investigation?
Sincerely,
Noel Burton
As I have tried to make clear, it is not about individual personalities, mine or the President of CAEA. This is a matter of principle. In not assisting me in “pursuing (my) rightful rights and remedies” Council has ignored its own Constitution.
Here is a document Imposted on my Go Fund Me site that might be of interest.
guy sprung
The Story -What Went Wrong?
How could this have happened? Why?
I’ve been a member of Equity for over 50 years. I’ve been Artistic Director of four different theatres across this country, five actually if you include the semi-professional company I started at McGill after graduating. I have founded things like Dream In High Park which this summer is celebrating the amazing statistic that over 1.5 million Torontonians have enjoyed accessible, affordable Shakespeare since I founded it in 1983.
I never wanted to take my own association to court, so why did it have to happen?
The Disciplinary Panel ended up making a determination that was, as the Judge in his verdict made clear, not substantiated by the facts. If I had been permitted to see the Outside Investigator’s 183 pages of evidence and his report and then given an opportunity to defend myself in person, I would have had the chance to convince the panel to respect the facts. But I was not afforded that opportunity.
According to our Bylaws, after the Disciplinary Panel had made its determination, I had the right to request an Appeal. As I was not permitted to see the 183 pages of evidence, of course, I had no facts to argue for an Appeal. So CAEA never granted me the right to Appeal. Even more astonishing, nobody on Council, which was determining whether I should be granted the right to appeal, read either the Investigator’s report or the 183 pages of evidence. Equity President confirmed this to me in an email of June 25ththis year. “Council never read the Investigator’s report because your appeal application to have the decision reviewed was not accepted” I find this shocking. Council denied me a right to appeal without having bothered to look at the Investigator’s report or any of the evidence?
There it is. By its own actions, or rather inactions, Council forced me to take my own association to court. Québec Superior Court was the only appeal process available to me.
It is unfortunate that neither the President, nor anyone on Council read the 183 pages of evidence. They would have found it impossible not to come away, as the QC Superior Court Judge did, “with the staggering impression of the disparity of the conclusion (i.e. to take away my right to work) and the shallowness of its basis.”
If members of National Council had read the evidence they would have seen, as the judge did, that the vast majority of the allegations against me were thrown out as irrelevant or unsubstantiated. And in the statements collected by the Investigator, witnesses repeatedly contradicted the complainants. In the evidence, one of the complainants admits not to have bothered to read the script before the first day of rehearsal. Shocking, unprofessional behaviour. The evidence also shows that a second complainant admitted they hated the script but only signed the contract for the paycheck. The kind of bad faith that would scuttle any rehearsal atmosphere. And a third complainant actually wrote snide remarks about the director (me) onto the script of the leading actor sitting next to them during the very first reading of the play!
Yes, you can blame me for naïve casting, but then, rather than working with the same people over and over, I like to give new artists an opportunity. A characteristic of my track record. On this one, I ended up getting burnt.
But there is more, and worse. Apparently, according to the Investigator’s findings, I reacted to concerns in rehearsal by “rolling (my) eyes and sighing.” So, if you sigh or roll your eyes in a discussion of serious issues in rehearsal this is proof of discrimination and grounds for an artist to be suspended from our association? Would any reasonable person, reading those words, even come close to that conclusion? In paragraph 94 of his judgment the judge ridiculed Equity for its determination on this point, “…to have one’s slightest utterance, involuntary eye movement and spasmodic reflex of the diaphragm held up to minute scrutiny is to be held to an impossible standard.” (Did you just roll your eyes when you read that?)
A second finding of the Investigator that Equity based its determination on was:
“The evidence has substantiated that Mr. Sprung: referred to (the complainant) as a “fundamentalist” in response to a concern she expressed …”
I am not sure why using the word “fundamentalist” in a discussion is grounds for suspension, but the judge correctly refers to the 183 pages of evidence to show that the complainant and I actually “resolved the issue in rehearsal with the complainant being satisfied at the time” and in the complainant’s own words we “parted amicably.” How can the Disciplinary Panel then use this as grounds to suspend me?
A third assertion made by the investigator is: “The evidence has substantiated that: Mr. Sprung interacted with some actors in a way that was seen as more open and positive based on their gender, age and ethnicity.”
As the judge points out, the investigator does not provide a single specific shred of evidence to back up this assertion. (BTW, the Investigator admitted in court that after I started court proceedings, he erased all of the tapes of his collected evidence statements. He claimed he had no storage space. Hmmm…I guess he does not have a hard drive, or has not heard of iCloud?)
In any case, reread the assertion. It does not actually say I interacted negatively with any actor. The statement actually confirms that I acted “open and positive” with all actors. I am merely guilty of acting “more open and positive” with some rather than others. And I get suspended for this? It is accepted industry practice to treat some actors with different sensitivity in rehearsal. Imagine being lucky enough to work with, say, Martha Henry (bless her), in her later years. She would, of course, be treated differently than, say, an actor just out of theatre school. On a play I was directing, a year before the pandemic shutdown, just before the rehearsals were to start, the lead actress broke her leg. She wanted to continue with the play, I wanted her to continue. We rewrote the script to reference her injury, she played the part in a cast. I drove her to rehearsal every day and then drove her home at the end of the day and helped her up the stairs. Yes, I treated her differently than the other actors in the play and so, according to the Disciplinary Panel, I was guilty of discrimination. I should have been suspended from Equity.
No wonder the Judge in paragraph 95 of his judgement states: “The outcome of the decision (i.e. depriving me of my right to work in theatre) is so at odds with the factual context that the decision by the Disciplinary Panel is unjustifiable on a reasonable basis.”
Can you blame me for feeling like I was being thrown under the bus? Can you see that I had no choice, for my own sake and for the sake of future rehearsal atmospheres in theatres across the country but to take legal action against CAEA?
You can be sure that in future, thanks to my taking CAEA to court, respondents in similar cases will probably be permitted to defend themselves in person. You can be sure that in future Council will think twice before denying a respondent the right to appeal. Let’s also hope that in future all actors will feel professionally obliged to read the script before signing on and if they don’t like the script or can’t support the project an actor will have the decency to decline the contract. Playwrights can have greater confidence their rights will be respected in rehearsals and can insist that actors stick to the script they have signed on for.
We are all fighting for a respectful workplace but that also means respecting the work itself in the workplace.
In an e-mail to me on March 25th this year, President of our National Council conceded that after the QC Superior Court Judgment I had been “fully exonerated.”
Despite the fact that I have been exonerated, and that it was Equity’s actions that gave me no alternative but to seek legal action to prove my innocence, Equity is refusing to compensate me for my lawyer’s expenses.
According to the Canadian Actors’ Equity Association Constitution, one of the objects of our association is:
Object 2. (vii) to assist members in pursuing their lawful rights and remedies.
CAEA clearly has not upheld its own constitutional obligations in this matter.
That is why I have to go back to court to seek damages and compensation.
If I had not stood up to CAEA, the Disciplinary Panel determination against me could have had far-reaching impact on director/playwright/actor relationships in theatres across Canada. If you care about Justice, if you care about respect for the work in a respectful working atmosphere in theatre rehearsals across our country, please support me in my battle.
Roll your eyes or sigh in rehearsal, it is once again safe, thanks to my taking CAEA to court.
I reiterate, this is not a matter of personalities, mine or anyone else’s involved. This is a matter of principle.
Let’s make sure that in our small world of Canadian Theatre at least, Justice is upheld.
Sorry about all the reading.
Thanks folks,
Fight On!
guy
It is absolutely astonishing that an actor turns up for the first day on the job and had not read the script. Did she even audition? Was she a full member of C.A.E.A.?
The whole thing sounds appalling.
I am so sorry that you had to go through this Guy, and I do hope Equity has learned its lesson.
Thanks, Merle. Nice to have your understanding.
Got this email from Tom Butler in Vancouver:
Tom Butler
Guy, I just read your ”What Went Wrong” description of the Equity imbroglio. I am so upset that you have been put through this ordeal. The sleep and peace of mind that this must have cost you. After all your contributions to theatre in Canada and to be treated so, is unforgivable.
The actor that didn’t read their script before starting rehearsals should be suspended for unprofessional conduct.
I can understand an actor taking a job for the paycheque but once you sign your contract you have an professional obligation to give it your best efforts.
As for feeling slighted in rehearsal; that’s the time for arguing with passion and emotion. It’s theatre for heaven’s sake. I have felt hurt, embarrassed, inadequate, insecure , angry and confident and proud. That’s part of the process. If it was easy, everyone would do it.
I got my Equity membership in 1975.
I was so proud that I was part of something special. The behaviour of my association in their treatment of you has tarnished that sense of pride.
Canadian Actors Equity Association, my association should do the right thing and compensate you. They made a mistake. They should have the courage to admit it.
As one Equity member to another, I’m sorry you’ve been put through this.
Tom