Quest University is denying allegations that it breached contract with its former president, Peter Englert, while also accusing him of failing to act in the best interest of the school.
The school, which is the defendant in this case, says Englert “breached his common law, fiduciary and contractual duties under the employment contract to the defendant.”
Furthermore, the university accuses Englert of “failing to act with integrity, fidelity, good faith and in the best interest of Quest.”
The school adds Englert engaged “in conduct that did or could have harmed Quest.”
The new details surrounding this legal dispute are contained in a statement of defence that Quest filed in the Vancouver registry of the Supreme Court of B.C. on Oct. 6.
The case started when Englert filed a lawsuit against the school alleging that Quest told him his employment was ended, effective immediately, on May 7.
Englert’s notice of civil claim stated that Quest “failed to pay to the plaintiff his severance entitlement due pursuant to the terms of the contract of employment.”
However, Quest’s statement of defence denies this accusation.
“The defendant denies that the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed, as alleged or at all,” the university says in the document.
“The plaintiff has been paid all amounts owing to him.”
This includes an annual base salary of about $300,000, benefits and six weeks’ vacation.
Quest is opposed to granting damages and any other relief sought by Englert.
In addition to those points, a substantial portion of the statement of defence is devoted to recounting specific cases where the university alleges Englert did not act in the school’s interest.
Quest says Englert modified a lease agreement with the Almoner Foundation for two of its student housing facilities.
The modification increased Quest’s rent by around 23 per cent and removed the school’s right of renewal, according to the university’s statement.
The school says previous income from student residences did not cover the increase in rent payable to Almoner.
Furthermore, Quest says “The loss of the right of renewal was a benefit to Almoner and a detriment to Quest, which may negatively affect Quest’s ability to offer residences, potentially limit the student population and pose challenges for both Quest and students.”
Englert allegedly modified the lease without informing the board of the new terms and without seeking the board’s approval to sign the contract, according to the school’s statement of defence.
Quest also says Englert entered into an agreement on behalf of the school with the Eden Glen Foundation.
This deal, according to the university, obligated the school to provide the foundation with a portion of Quest’s land to satisfy Eden’s obligation to the District of Squamish to provide parklands in connection with Eden’s property development.
It’s alleged that this agreement would prevent Quest from disposing of this designated land without Eden’s consent for an indefinite period.
Furthermore, Quest says the deal would’ve indefinitely given Eden the right to call on Quest to provide the land in the event that the District required parklands as part of Eden’s property development.
The agreement doesn’t say what Quest received in exchange for agreeing to provide this land to Eden, says the school.
This deal was allegedly executed without reporting to the board or seeking its approval, Quest says.
However, the school adds that Quest has since been released from its obligations under this agreement with Eden.
In its statement, the university also raised questions about Englert’s conduct in a legal dispute between Quest and the District of Squamish.
Quest and the District are in a legal dispute regarding development cost charges.
The school alleges that Englert filed the lawsuit against the District without informing the board.
“The board did not find out about the lawsuit until after the notice of civil claim had been filed,” says Quest. “The lawsuit harmed Quest’s relationship with the District, which as the local government, is important to Quest’s success.”
“It appears that Quest is being used by the other plaintiffs as a way to avoid making certain payments to the District,” the school says later in its statement, regarding the university’s lawsuit against the District.
The statement of defence says on another occasion, Englert allegedly said in board meetings that a consortium of foundations had “firmly committed” to either guarantee or to loan directly to Quest about $25 million.
“The plaintiff [Englert] knew or ought to have known that these representations were not true or was reckless as to their truth,” says the school. “The foundations in question had no intention of funding Quest at this level and in fact did not have the capacity to do so.”
As a result, the board declined an alternative financing proposal in favour of loans from the foundations, the university says.
The next occasion listed by Quest involves admissions.
In March 2017, the chair asked Englert to provide the board with the school’s enrolment information, the school says.
It’s alleged that Englert said there was no reason to be concerned about the university’s enrolment numbers.
The chair asked Englert to notify her if the board had any reason to be concerned about Quest’s admissions, and over a period of several weeks, the board continued to ask Englert for enrolment information.
Quest alleges that Englert was “substantially unresponsive to the board’s requests.”
The board was provided with enrolment information in April 2017, the university says.
“The board learned that enrolment was significantly behind expectations and projections,” says the school. “Given application and funding dates, it was very late, with little opportunity to avoid catastrophically low enrolment.”
“Extraordinary intervention” was required to recover the situation, Quest says.
The school’s statement of defense then lists other occasions when Englert is alleged to have failed in communicating with the board.
The document also adds Englert was allegedly disparaging the board.
The Chief contacted Englert’s legal counsel and asked if either Englert or his lawyer would be willing to respond to these allegations.
Robin McFee, who is Englert’s lawyer, provided a written email response.
He wrote: “Dr. Peter Englert is disappointed that rather than fulfilling Quest University’s contractual obligations to him, the board of directors has chosen to advance unfounded allegations against him in the B.C. Supreme Court proceedings. Dr. Englert has no desire to debate these matters in the press. Rather, he is confident that the B.C. Supreme Court will determine that there is no merit to these allegations. Dr. Englert at all time fulfilled his duties and responsibilities as the President and Vice Chancellor of Quest University to the benefit of and in the best interests of Quest University in the face of considerable obstacles presented by financial challenges that pre-existed his tenure and the ongoing intervention by members of the Board of Directors in the day-to-day administration of the University’s affairs.”
Quest was also contacted for comment.
“Quest University Canada can't comment on matters that are before the courts, but is confident that our legal counsel will defend the case successfully,” reads an email from James Martin, a spokesman for the school.
