Review Finds 3+ Didn’t Know About Ex-Employee’s Alleged Fraud Involving Clients
MONCTON – A third-party review into allegations against former 3+ Corporation employee Daniel Bard and implications on the economic development agency for Moncton, Riverview and Dieppe found that 3+ is not legally liable for the impact of Bard’s alleged misconduct.
3+ retained Fredericton-based law firm Pink Larkin to look into allegations of breach of trust on Bard’s part during his employment at the corporation, as well as his private business. The firm also looked into allegations that 3+ employees were aware of and assisted him with his private business dealings.
The investigation, carried out by lawyer Joel Michaud, concluded that Bard’s alleged fraudulent activities were not known or authorized by the corporation or its staff. 3+ CEO Susy Campos said the investigator was independent of 3+ and its affiliates.
Saly and Clinton Davis had accused Bard, who was 3+’s VP of investment attraction from July 2016 to January 2018, of defrauding them when they went to the corporation for business advice and mentorship. Campos said they came to the corporation with the allegations last August.
The Davises said they’re disappointed in the findings and that many parts of their story weren’t included in the report.
“This is quite a watered-down Kool Aid,” said Saly. “It doesn’t address any of the things that they were allegedly investigating – the primary one being, why was Daniel Bard working for them, and two, why were we paired with him?”
They had gone to the corporation seeking a mentor for business advice in 2017. It was a good year for their salon and hair products franchise, having made a profit for the first time since they took over the business.
“We went into this saying we are young business owners, we don’t know what we’re doing,” Saly said.
“We went to 3+, and part of our request…was that we requested a business mentor,” she said. “Why was an email sent to three different people in three different departments not knowing where the hell to refer us? Wouldn’t it be logical that we would be referred to the small business advisor?”
According to the report, Bard asked the Davises to work with him on a “huge project” that involved the grouping of many businesses under one corporate umbrella, which would eventually “go public.” The Davises will contribute a hair salon, a product line and a training school.
At first, Bard didn’t ask for a financial contribution and the Davises agreed to work with him. But in September 2017, Bard asked for money and the couple gave him $25,000 (U.S.) and signed a letter of intent. According to the report, the money order was made to Bard’s investment firm VM Venture Management, and no receipt was provided in the name of 3+. The report said the Davises knew they were dealing with Bard and not 3+ in this transaction.
Saly said Bard told them they needed to prove their commitment to the project by formally making a monetary investment. But they were under the impression all of Bard’s dealings with them, done while he was a 3+ employee, were sanctioned and backed by 3+. Saly said they would “absolutely not” have invested in the project had Bard not been a 3+ employee, and had other employees not told them good things about him.
“We’ve never trusted Daniel. We trusted 3+,” she said.
They went by that same trust in 3+ when they took Bard’s advice to liquidate their business and not renew their franchise contract even though they were finally making a profit, and take out loans.
Lack of Background Checks
The review’s findings show Bard had claimed he had international contacts in various industries that would help him attract business to Moncton. It also shows that “very few checks” – which amounted to an Internet search – were done before offering him the position although the evidence of his claims was somewhat disputed during the hiring process. While the CEO at that time remembered reviewing his CV, no CV was found in the corporation’s records.
But the former CEO said Bard was an extremely attractive candidate for the position because of his claims about his contacts and wealth, among other things.
However, the CBC reported that a year before he started at 3+, Bard was let go from his role as executive director of the Petitcodiac Riverkeeper after one year because he wasn’t able to deliver on similar claims of connection that would bring money into the organization.
Campos, who only became CEO shortly before the allegations came to light, told Huddle that 3+ has a letter noting he resigned from that position and was not let go.
Ronald Babin, chair of the Petitcodiac Riverkeeper, confirmed that Bard resigned from the organization with a letter dated December 1, 2016.
Campos added that she can’t speak to what was done or not done at the time because she wasn’t a 3+ employee then.
“But I can tell you based on the investigation document that for instance, the court cases were civil, they weren’t criminal. So a criminal check wouldn’t have brought up any of those civil cases,” she said. “Even if background checks would have been done, it wouldn’t have shown any issues with Bard, and based on our legal advice and the investigation confirms that 3+ doesn’t have any legal liability.”
According to the report, upon his hiring, Bard also signed a Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement for Employees form that stipulates he won’t “engage in any other employment, occupation, consulting or other activity relating to the business in which the agency is now or may hereafter become engaged, or which would otherwise conflict with my obligations to the agency.”
Saly said 3+ should “own up to this mistake” because it’s “responsible” for vetting the people hired to become mentors.
“Take accountability for the actions that took place under their umbrella,” Clinton said. “There are tools that you can use to vet people you’re hiring for important positions, and it just wasn’t done.”
The RCMP is investigating Bard’s dealings, and civil lawsuits have also been filed against Bard, according to court records. One company called HIL Group Inc. recently won the case against him and his company, VM Venture Management.
Campos said she “regrets” the impact of the action of the corporation’s former employee, but said it doesn’t represent 3+. She said policy changes will be made at 3+ following the review.
That will include making the hiring process more rigorous for all positions by including a credit check, among others; ensuring the code of conduct signed by employees is reviewed with them annually; develop a whistleblower policy; review the Bring Your Own Device policy; and boost the conflict of interest policy to require employees to seek written approval from the corporation if pursuing external opportunities.
RELATED: 3+ Orders Independent Review Related To Allegations Against Former Employee