Controversy continues to swirl at the Penticton Art Gallery as its longstanding curator, who was laid off by the board back in August, officially filed a civil lawsuit against the Penticton Art Gallery Society on

Thursday.

It has also been confirmed that more board members have resigned, including president Dr. Claude Roberto along with Bob Doull and Banu Tulemen.

Roberto and Doull were part of a team of executives from PAG who provided information and answered questions during a heated, standing-room-only information session that took place Monday at the gallery.

The board was under attack during much of Monday’s meeting as PAG members asked difficult questions about Crawford’s layoff, the termination of veteran PAG gift shop manager Karen Walls and the future of the non-profit organization.

Crawford had announced publicly that he would not be returning to his job after the layoff expires in November.

Crawford officially filed a civil lawsuit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Penticton claiming he was mistreated over the past several months.

“Beginning in or around 2024, the plaintiff experienced significant bullying, harassment and an overall toxic, dysfunctional and exclusionary workplace environment,” said the official statement of claim.

The statement of claim further states particulars that include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Exclusion from board of directors’

meetings.

• Aggressive and intimidating communications by board members towards

Crawford.

• Board members usurping and undermining Crawford’s role by engaging in activities solely under his purview.

• Failure to engage, investigate or take appropriate action in response to numerous reports of exclusion, toxicity and bullying and harassment.

• An overall lack of transparency with respect to Crawford’s role, the actions of the board and steps taken towards improvement.

Monday’s meeting was the first time the board spoke publicly about Crawford’s layoff after his more than 19 continuous years of service.

Crawford’s civil action further states that he raised concerns to the board on several occasions, most recently during a meeting on Aug. 15.

In response to Crawford again raising concerns, a member of the board stated the board could simply “terminate his position,” states the claim.

“On Aug. 14, the same day the plaintiff raised the above concerns, the defendant informed the plaintiff he was being placed on a temporary layoff, effective Aug. 16,” reads the statement of claim.

“At the conclusion of the meeting, the defendant provided a letter to the plaintiff outlining the details of the temporary layoff.”

The lawsuit claims Crawford was “blindsided” by the temporary layoff. Prior to the meeting on Aug. 15, he had no knowledge whatsoever that the defendant was considering this course of action.

“At no time did the plaintiff consent or agree to the temporary layoff. The plaintiff requested he be permitted to attend the defendant’s headquarters to retrieve his personal items on Monday, Aug. 18, which he did under escort. The defendant also directed the plaintiff to hand in his keys and disabled access to his work e-mail.”

On Aug. 22, Crawford’s lawyer sent a letter to the PAG board stating his client did not consent to the temporary layoff and that Crawford considering himself “constructively dismissed from his employment,” said the statement of claim.

“On or around Aug. 22, the defendant issued a press release which inaccurately implied and/or misrepresented that the plaintiff consented to the layoff.”

The lawsuit further claims breach of contract, stating the PAG board was not contractually entitled to place Crawford on temporary layoff and Crawford was entitled to treat the defendant’s act of paying him on temporary layoff as a constructive dismissal from his employment, which he promptly communicated to the defendant.

“As the defendant did constructively dismiss Crawford from his employment on Aug. 15, the defendant failed to provide reasonable notice of termination and as a result, Crawford incurred loss of compensation for the duration of the reasonable notice period,” states the claim.

At the time of his dismissal, Crawford was 55 and had been employed at the art gallery on a continuous basis for 19 years.

“The plaintiff has taken, and continues to take, diligent steps to mitigate his losses by seeking comparable employment,” states the claim. “Despite his efforts, the plaintiff has yet to secure any new employment as of the date of this filing.”

As a result of a breach of contract, Crawford has sustained and will continue to sustain damages equal to the loss of all compensation he would have received during the reasonable notice period, states the claim.

“The conduct of the defendant was a material and fundamental breach of its obligations of good faith and failing dealing owed to the plaintiff and caused the plaintiff to suffer damages and losses,” states the claim.

“It was in the contemplation of the parties that in the event the defendant breached its duty of good faith, the plaintiff would suffer loss and damage greater than the loss and damage attributable to the loss of employment.”

Crawford is being represented by HHGB lawyers from Vancouver.

None of the allegations in the civil action have been proven in court. The board has yet to file a legal response to the allegations made in the civil action.

Crawford previously won the Penticton & Wine Country’s Business Leader of the Year Award in 2020 for, in part, bringing a Bob Ross exhibition to the gallery during the COVID pandemic.