Newspaper reporter fired over condo deal

Veteran Vancouver Sun real estate reporter used position improperly, says arbitrator

A daily newspaper in Vancouver was justified in firing a real estate reporter who took improper benefits from a developer, a British Columbia Arbitration Board has ruled.

Wyng Chow was fired after an anonymous caller left Patricia Graham, the editor-in-chief of the Vancouver Sun, a voice mail on Aug. 5, 2004, expressing concern about the paper’s coverage of real estate issues. The caller mentioned Chow by name and alleged the veteran reporter had improper dealings with a developer regarding the purchase of a condo.

Graham was deeply concerned by the voice mail and called a meeting with Chow and a representative of his union on Sept. 14, 2004, at which time the voice mail was played.

Chow, who had been with the paper for 32 years, said there was no truth to the allegations. He said there had been problems with a condo he bought from Concord Pacific — the floor plan had been changed between the time he bought it and the time it was built. He moved into that condo in 1997 with his wife. They lived there for a couple of years, but were unhappy with it so they moved. He said he sold the condo at a loss in 2000 and then purchased a new condo in 2001, at a price below market, from Concord Pacific.

Chow said the discounted price on the second condo was compensation for the fact the floor plan on his original condo was drastically different than what he was shown at the time of purchase. He said he could not disclose the details of that deal because he signed a confidentiality agreement.

All this took place while he was on the real estate beat for the Sun, and he wrote numerous articles about Concord Pacific during that time.

Graham said she was “stunned” by Chow’s admissions at the Sept. 14 meeting. From her point of view, these were serious allegations that went to the heart of journalism and put the paper’s credibility at stake.

On Dec. 6, 2004, the newspaper gave Chow a “notice of contemplated dismissal” as required by the collective agreement. After the termination, letters written by Chow to Concord Pacific were disclosed.

In those letters Chow used profanity, insulting language and referenced his position with the newspaper. Graham reviewed the letters and found them to be disgusting, unbelievable, profane, insulting and nasty. She said she would have terminated Chow’s employment on the basis of these letters alone, even if he hadn’t received a benefit from Concord Pacific.

During the hearing, it became clear Chow had received compensation for the change in the floor plan before he bought the first condo — to the tune of about $15,000. There was nothing inappropriate with that deal, though Chow should have disclosed to the ¬Vancouver Sun the potential conflict of interest from him having a beef with Concord Pacific, the arbitrator said.

Nevertheless, had the matter ended there, the Sun would not have had cause to terminate his employment, the arbitrator said. Chow had a legitimate issue over the problem at his first condo, but it was resolved in less than a month when the developer agreed to reduce the price by $15,000. Chow agreed to buy it at that price. At that point, his private dealings with Concord Pacific should have been over and his job would have been secure.

But Chow then vehemently pursued Concord Pacific about getting out of the condo and into one that was more to his liking. That dispute ran from June 11, 1997, to Sept. 18, 2001. During that period, Chow wrote 10 articles in the Sun under his byline covering Concord Pacific.

“(Chow) was obligated to inform his employer of the existence of this dispute, with its potential for conflict of interest, as it was with a party that he covered on his beat,” the arbitrator said. “This he failed to do.”

The arbitrator said Chow was well known to Concord Pacific’s management because of his position with the newspaper.

“He was in a position of some influence concerning business and real estate and his articles could have an impact,” the arbitrator said. “In his letters to Concord Pacific, I find that he referred to and relied upon his position as a reporter with the newspaper and the business relationship that he had established with Concord Pacific. He did so for the purpose of extracting a benefit by way of compensation for himself.”

Chow paid $269,000 for the second condo, a discount from the list price. In accepting that price, Chow knew he was paying significantly below market price, the arbitrator said.

The bottom line from the arbitrator’s point of view: Chow received a financial benefit with the second condo, for which there was no legitimate basis, from a party on his beat as a reporter for the newspaper.

The arbitrator agreed Chow’s letters to Concord Pacific were “disgusting, unbelievable, profane, insulting and nasty.”

“In a vulgar, unseemly manner, he strove to gain satisfaction from Concord Pacific, a party on his beat,” the arbitrator said. “This was the language he used in the endeavour to exploit his position as a reporter with the newspaper, for his own benefit. His reprehensible conduct called into question his own integrity and that of his employer.”

The Vancouver Sun did not have a written policy that forbade what Chow did, but the arbitrator agreed with the editor’s position that “it was generally understood in the newsroom as an unwritten code of conduct, journalistic ethic or rule that a reporter must not take a benefit from a party on his or her beat.”

The arbitrator said an employment relationship between the Sun and Chow was no longer viable for a variety of reasons, including the fact Chow:

•denied that he took a secret benefit and persisted in the assertion he had done no wrong;

•did not grasp that he owed a duty to his employer to disclose that he was in a position of conflict;

•did not appreciate the fact he had exploited his high-profile position as a reporter to extort a benefit from a party on his beat;

•did not fathom the gravity of his misconduct or he was sadly dishonest.

The Sun never accused Chow of showing bias in his reporting, and there was no evidence that any article he wrote was slanted unfairly for or against Concord Pacific.

For more information see:

Pacific Newspaper Group Inc. v. C.E.P., Local 2000, 2005 CarswellBC 1936, 137 L.A.C. (4th) 12 (B.C. Arb. Bd.)



What the caller said in the voice mail

Below is a partial transcript of the message left by the anonymous caller on Patricia Graham’s voice mail:

“... a number of your reporters, specifically one Wyng Chow has been taking money from various developers and sweetheart deals, for example Concord and Prompton did a deal with him regarding his condo or whatever. You really have to question what is going on in your real estate reporting. I think you should take a good look at it. Thanks.”



Chow's letters

To view the letteres written by Chow to the developer click here.

To read the full story, login below.

Not a subscriber?

Start your subscription today!