J'Accuse: Canada's Identity Follies

Theatre Director Guy Sprung's Double Cancellation

Italian Theatre, Roanne, France

Life is short and truth works far and lives long: let us speak the truth.

Arthur Schopenhauer

This article was originally posted on subtack under the title: Theatre Director Guy Sprung's Ticket to Hell. I have altered the title in this expansion of this article. The lastest, complete, and canonical version is here, on my website.

Identity Rules. Quality is Unrecognized or Hated

In the Canadian Arts and so-called intellectual establishment scene, tell me your identity, and I'll tell you what kind of person you are and if your book, film, TV show, poem, or artistic work is worth publishing. Daily, published poems or books include a pious affirmation of the sexuality, gender, race, and other enobling characteristics of the writer, along with a Land Acknowledgement. Few of these souls have any idea that Indigenous peoples often fought over the same land with one group taking if from another. Few, if any souls, understand "Elena Ferrante's" words, "Once a book is published, it has no need of an author."

Today, in Canada, it is the reverse: the quality of an artistic work is largely irrelevant, provided you have the right identity. Rather than a hierarchy of quality, insight, and form, we have a hierarchy of background, of so-called "equity-seeking groups." Instead of literary achievement, which can bring insight to all citizens and help bring the country forward into the 21st Century, we speak to the doctrinaire who want to see their pious dogmas affirmed, instead of interrogated.

And all this is justified by a view of history that is so devoid of knowledge and complexity in its moral judgements it is cartoonish, and not like the good ones one finds today. I know, because I spent several years writing and publishing a book of history, "Who Speaks for the River?" This article shows the tragic consequences of this blinding identity-think in Canada, both for justice, and for works of art.

This story about Theatre Director Guy Sprung shows what happens when we stop thinking, and simply slot each person or the country of Canada itself into this or that category, instead of using any form of analysis whatsoever. There are real, and substantial costs for this form of willful blindness, both for the victim, and for the fate of reason itself. The further we sink, the further we are capable of going. The United States shows a similiar principle today, but from the oppositve political angle.

Fatally Flawed

On November 28, 2021, after a fatally flawed investigation and decision, the Canadian Actors' Equity Association Disciplinary Panel censured iconic Canadian theatre director Guy Sprung for "improper conduct" and "discrimination” for alleged conduct during final rehearsals for his play Fight On! Sprung was banned from working with Canadian Equity actors for one year. He had little choice but to mortgage his house and gather the money to appeal to the Superior Court.

The decision of Superior Court Justice Mark Phillips, released on March 15, 2024, Guy Sprung v. Canadian Actor's Equity Association, is a stern and lucid judgment reversing and repudiating the injustice against Sprung. The main problem with the Canadian Equity decision wasn't that the reasoning was bad or wrong; it’s that there wasn't any reasoning at all, only summary guilt. It’s hard not to wonder if Sprung’s guilt had more to do with the identity of the parties than anything resembling a fair process.

Yes, Sprung was completely vindicated. But this process, from the initial allegations to redemptive decision, stole years of Sprung's life, years when work was nearly impossible to get. And 2.5 of these years, after the finding of guilt, Sprung lived under the dishonour of guilt for so-called “discrimination" based on age, gender, and ethnicity – a career death sentence. Even after his vindication, many choose to remain willfully blind to Sprung’s plight to let their dogmatic slumber remain undisturbed.

As with a plane crash, one wonders how this disaster happened. It would be a mistake to only blame those who made the decision. No doubt they thought they were doing the right thing. How could their “right thing” have been so horribly wrong? The answer, in my view, goes well beyond the Canadian Equity Disciplinary Panel and leads to a stinging indictment of the values today of many in the Canadian cultural and institutional elite.

In the past few years we in Canada, meekly following trends in the United States, have too often forgotten the importance of sound evidence-based analysis and judged each unique person collectively based on their background, using odious notions of group guilt and group sanctity.

We all share a common flawed humanity and, at times, inhumanity. No justice or sound interpretation in history, art, literature, theatre, or investigations can ever come from the rotten tree of bias. In Canada, we like to think that injustices only occurred in the past. We forget that past injustices had broad popular support at the time. They also do today. The scapegoats change, but the danger to human rights remains.

No Good Turn Goes Unstoned

In 2020, Guy Sprung was in his early 70s. He'd been fighting one kind of injustice or another for fifty years. He'd done almost everything you could do and succeeded. In London, he helped to found and run the left-wing community Half-Moon Theatre. Will Wat, a play he conceived and co-wrote about the 1381 Peasants' Uprising, was praised by John Mortimer in The Observer as "One of the best things I have seen as a critic."

He returned to Montreal and worked as a director, often for Centaur Theatre. In 1983, he came to Toronto to run the Toronto Free Theatre, which was also very successful. Sprung also founded the Shakespeare in the Park and the Canadian Stage Company. In 1990, he directed a play at the Pushkin Theatre in Moscow, then returned to Québec and worked as a director, writer, actor, and literary columnist for the Montreal Gazette.

In 1999, he created Infinithéâtre to engage contemporary issues in Montreal, with a focus on Québec writers, to try to help develop the evolution of society. Many productions engaged social issues in an innovative way: the bilingual version of Beckett's Endgame, The Daily Miracle by David Sherman about the decline about the print media, Joe Louis, also by Sherman, about anti-black racism, an anti-war play set in Iraq, a play about sexual harassment in the clothing industry...and the list goes on.

In February 2020, continuing his tradition of theatre engagé, his play Fight On! was in final rehearsals. The tickets had been sold. Fight On! is a satire about the historical events surrounding the encounter in 1885 between Northwest Mounted Police officer Francis Dickens, son of writer Charles Dickens, and Cree Chief Big Bear. In his published version of the play, Sprung describes it as "an über-Brechtian epic theatre, exploring the full range of theatrical devices: masks, puppets, audience participation, broomstick horses, manic quick changes, video, etc." Sprung gleefully explains that he "purloins... snippets of dialogue" that are taken from "the father himself, Charles Dickens."

Fight On!

Justice Mark Phillips described Fight On! as an "ironic deconstruction of colonial attitudes towards Indigenous peoples," and was "obviously written with tremendous sensitivity towards the subject matter." During the writing and rewrites, Sprung had received input from noted Indigenous playwright Drew Hayden Taylor and from the M'Chigeeng First Nation. The play was workshopped and received very positive reviews from critics, and Sprung revised the play based on the input of many, including one of the actors who later complained against him.

During this phase of preparation, issues arose about the use of the words "savage" and "Indian" in the play and were resolved in the following way. Every time either of the two above words was used, a Loonie [ 1 $ ] would be placed in a "swear jar," and over 400$ would later be raised for the Native Women's Shelter in Montreal.

The script also included an explanation of the use of the word “Indian", and the word "Savages," noting that these are dehumanizing words, and are "objectionable and painful," but the Indigenous actors have "agreed to use the word in its historical context..." This resolved the issue, and the words in the script were to be read by one of those actors who later complained against Mr. Sprung.

By December of 2019, the cast had been hired, including several First Nations actors, and the actors had received the script. At the first full rehearsal, one of those who later complained against Guy Sprung read the script for the first time three months after she received it. By the second week of rehearsal, things began to unravel. One of those who later complained about Guy Sprung was displeased that her character was not "feminist" enough, being too much of a 19th–century Dickensian woman." By the third week, a second person who later complained against Guy Sprung started to "replace the lines in the script with others of his own," for his character, Smiley.

On March 6, 2020, Guy Sprung asked Indigenous actors for a note for inclusion in the program expressing their perspective on the play. They did so. The experience being involved in the play was difficult, “Yet, what excited" them about this piece, was that the play would lead to an exploration of the truths of our shared history." They spoke of colonialism and stated, "while it will always be problematic to appropriate the voices of indigenous characters to serve white narratives, hopefully through this theatrical reimagining, settler audiences can find a way into a much bigger and complex conversation." They also spoke positively about their overall experience: "Present and vocal allyship from the team, ongoing conversations, and respect for our lived experiences as Indigenous people, has been integral to this process."

Since portions of the script were in Indigenous languages, on March 7, a Mohawk "language keeper" provided language coaching for the actors who would need to speak in Indigenous languages. One of the actors who would later complain against Guy Sprung, "who had not read the script before the commencement of rehearsals and who was thus unaware that she would be required to speak Indigenous languages in the play, expressed fear that she would embarrass herself in front of her community."

The play would be opening in a little more than a week. Two days later, on March 9, the actress who had been afraid that she might embarrass herself in front of her community did not show up for rehearsals. Later the same day, her agent sent an astonishing number of "actionables" for Guy Sprung, in consultation with a few other actors. No explanation is given why these significant requests were not made before this late date.

The further "actionables" included: Guy Sprung must pay for further consultation with a "language keeper," pay extra to indigenous actors to translate text, he must pay for a "wardrobe/image consultant" regarding the wardrobe of the indigenous character, and the money donated to the Native Women's Shelter must be "paid in full with a written articulation to the shelter as to why the donation is being paid. (i.e. consistent with the use of the word "savage")." Sprung must organize an "An information session regarding the Indian Act, treaties relevant to the community's reference in the play and ongoing issues with the broken treaties." Sections of the Indian Act had to be posted during the play. The note finishes with a paragraph beginning with the following words, "Overall, we're feeling there is a lack of acknowledgment of the special services exceptional to these actors' lived experiences."

Guy Sprung asked his stage manager to schedule a rehearsal for the next day to discuss these issues. However, the actress who had requested these “actionables” and a second actress did not show up to discuss their own grievances.

Justice Phillips later summarized what happened next as follows, "Then those two actresses, as well as the other actor mentioned (who would not be among the future complainants) simply walked out on the production. With those members of the cast having effectively repudiated their contracts, an issue arose as to their contractual entitlement to reimbursement of their travel expenses."

Guy Sprung believed he did not owe them money, as they had broken their contract. Canadian Equity supported the actors, at first claiming that they had quit the production due to "discrimination," and later altered their view that they had left due to an "unsafe workplace," and thus the actors did not breach their contract.

The Allegations

In January 2021, four members of the cast filed a joint complaint with Canadian Equity against Guy Sprung. Each gave a statement against him. It was alleged that he infringed Equity bylaws by: engaged in acts of bullying, discrimination, harassment, racism, sexual harassment, or violence in the workplace; (ii) abused their position, or perceived position, of power in the workplace; and acted in an unprofessional manner in the workplace.

In his Judgement, Justice Phillips summarized the main complaints against Mr. Sprung in the following way: "Various situations were recounted where the words savage, and Indian were discussed once again and where a complainant had expressed discomfort with certain text to be spoken by her when playing the role of Louis Riel. Two complainants related their attempt to rewrite a certain scene, notably because it failed to justify the lack of the Blackfoot language in the play. There was a concern about the Louis Riel character consuming alcohol. There was an issue about safety moving around the stage in a long costume. There was an account of further discussion of the "swear jar" and the manner in which to make the donation therefrom. In many of these situations, the applicant's reaction is described. The foregoing is merely a summary, however, and the full complaint contains much more."

These, then, are the core of the allegations against Mr. Sprung that caused him so much pain, suffering, and expense over the past four years as he tried to clear his name.

The Investigation and Finding of Guilt

The leaders of Canadian Equity formed a disciplinary panel to decide the case and this panel hired an investigator to investigate the allegations. The investigator was initially asked to "determine" whether the Bylaws had been infringed. The investigator's mandate was changed later to a "fact-finding role." The burden would then fall on the Canadian Equity Disciplinary Panel to decide the complaint. The investigator interviewed Mr. Sprung and others whose names had come up during the investigation, including those who complained against him.

In the fall of 2021, the investigator organized the information into 44 categories and prepared a final 183-page report with his conclusions on the 44 points and sent a final version to the Disciplinary Panel in November 2022.

Disciplinary Panel Decision

The Disciplinary Panel found Guy Sprung "guilty of discriminating and improper conduct," based on the following four points taken from the investigative report: Firstly, he had “failed to mention that the play was about Indigenous-Settler relations at the outset of the rehearsals.” Secondly, he had called one actress a “fundamentalist,” and had “scoffed.” Thirdly, he had rolled his eyes and sighed in certain discussions about the word “savage,” and finally, he had made an ironic joke about saving money by using the word “savage” less in the script.

The Disciplinary Panel stated in its written decision that it was "unanimous" that Guy Sprung did engage in "discriminatory" behaviour. Furthermore, that "The investigator's findings show that when confronted with the harm his choices and conduct were causing, rather than acknowledge his behaviour and take steps to address that harm, Mr. Sprung often chose to respond in a way that was dismissive, belittling and demeaning to those who raised the concerns." The Panel decision continues that members must "build open and inclusive work environments that are professional and respect the dignity of all individuals." As the playwright, director, Artistic Director, and having been an Equity member for almost 50 years, Mr. Sprung held an extraordinary position of power in that rehearsal room. With that power comes the responsibility to uphold Equity's professional standards. Mr. Sprung failed in this regard."

As we will see below, the Superior Court Justice had a very different view of events. And, unlike what we see above, he gave good reasons.

Superior Court Decision, March 2024

In April 2024, Justice Phillips overturned the Canadian Equity decision as there were "several" mistakes of reasoning, or more particularly, a complete failure to reason. The investigator's final report "claims to have assessed the credibility" of the parties and other witnesses, yet during a hearing in Court over these matters the investigator twice "candidly stated that his investigation entailed no assessment of credibility whatsoever." Justice Philips notes the grave problem: "And yet, in many instances, he [the investigator] was faced with conflicting accounts of a given point. In the evidence compilation, one finds no attempt to reconcile or otherwise reach factual conclusions." The report is nothing more than "a succession of paragraphs indicating no more than so-and-so stated this, whereas someone else said that.... Bald facts are lined up one after the other. In the final report, an equally bald conclusion then follows 'substantiating' this or that." The final report "is little more than" a list of "a lengthy series of isolated incidents."

During his decision, Justice Phillips illustrates how the evidence compilation was constructed. This gives a real feel how flawed the investigation and later decision was:

Three witnesses confirmed that they felt Mr. Sprung listened more to “older”, “white”, “men” than to members of the cast who did not belong to those groupings.

One witness stated Mr. Sprung was defensive with respect to concerns with the script after the first few days.

One witness stated there was a time stress component to the conversations about the script.

One witness stated the feedback he had given Mr. Sprung were ignored and they felt that their concerns were not validated. The witness stated the rehearsal process included “constant battles” with Mr. Sprung, who continued to argue that the content was supposed to be satire. The witness stated they felt Mr. Sprung did not acknowledge “the fact that a lot of the material was racist”.

One witness stated they felt the rehearsal space was an excellent environment.

The evidence has substantiated that Mr. Sprung interacted with some actors in a way that was seen as more open and positive, based on gender, age and ethnicity. The evidence has substantiated that Mr. Sprung became increasingly defensive when objections to the script were raised.

Here we see, in italics, the summary guilt of Sprung is stated, with no analysis or thought. There is no attempt to assess these allegations, the credibility of those who made them, or weigh them. Nor is Sprung’s response stated here. As Justice Phillips puts it: "There is no substantive discussion." Justice Phillips notes that the Equity Disciplinary panel had the 183-page summary of evidence, and thus, could still conduct a proper inquiry to render a sound decision despite this deeply flawed investigation. However, Justice Philips found that they did not do so. No one made any attempt to reason with the evidence. Without analysis or thought, Guy Sprung was simply... guilty.

Justice Phillips now turns to analyze the Discipline Panel decision. Sprung's first crime was that he supposedly “failed to mention Indigenous-Settler relations.” Justice Phillips concludes that this is a “patently absurd claim that the cast had somehow been taken by surprise to learn that the play was about Indigenous-Settler relations.” He adds that the Discipline Panel Decision “goes on to speak of applicant's resistance to changes in the script, with no sensitivity to the fact that applicant was, after all, the playwright.

Next, Justice Phillips addresses the issue of discrimination: “Following other unrelated statements gleaned here and there from a myriad of situations of which absolutely no detail is afforded the reader, the TPI [investigator] 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. [bold added by me] The same must unfortunately be said of the Disciplinary Panel's laconic reasons on this point."

Sprung's next crime was calling one actress a "fundamentalist" and scoffing. Justice Phillips concluded that neither the investigator nor the Disciplinary Panel "gave any consideration to the fact that the matter had been resolved…that this situation had come to a resolution deemed satisfactory by the complainant herself. The evidence compilation confirmed the same. The complaint itself indicated that the Applicant's "response was remorseful and he apologized," with the complainant being "satisfied with [applicant's] response" at the time.

Justice Phillips next discusses the word savage by noting that Sprung and the cast had, “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."

Justice Phillips ends his decision with a stern critique of some members of the cast. He notes that Sprung, “despite being both playwright and director, was faced with a highly-charged environment in which, quite astonishingly, at least some of the actors, although engaged to perform a set script, with only a few weeks of rehearsals prior to public performance, appeared to think that they were in some sort of improvisational or workshop setting where they were at liberty to criticize the script, propose changes and, in one case, even rewrite their own lines as they saw fit. Clearly, if an actor or actress somehow felt uncomfortable with the manner in which the playwright had chosen to handle the issue of 19th-century discrimination against First Nations by European settlers of the Canadian West, then he or she should simply have declined to participate in the production. All had received the script well ahead of time. Regrettably, some chose to derail the production in the final days of rehearsals."

"If the 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 the cast exhibited conduct which lacked professionalism. To point the finger at the applicant in that context amounts to turning the whole matter on its head.

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. 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."

Justice Phillips ends his decision by noting that the outcome of the Disciplinary Panel Decision is "thus so at adds with the factual context that it is unjustifiable on a reasonable basis, and is therefore "unreasonable," and will be overturned.

No doubt a rehearsal process is complex and often stressful both for the director and actors, and no one, including this writer, is perfect. One could write a book or play about this complexity and the various particular characters involved in a rehearsal process, set against the broader political climate of the moment. Precisely what happened in the rehearsal process here is not clear due to the nature of the investigation, but we have a good idea of its essential elements from the Court decision.

In this essay, rather than focusing on personalities, I have focused narrowly on the decision by the Disciplinary Panel and the Judicial Decision reversing it. I do so, because the desire to have a rehearsal process that is humane for all involved is legitimate, while at the same time, it is not only actors who can be badly treated, but the director, particularly given the political climate at the time, and continuing today. I note three broader points based on the Court Decision below.

A Horrendous Emptiness

After reading this thorough judgment of the Court, I was left with three crucial broader questions about the Guy Sprung case. Firstly, how had the investigator and the Equity Disciplinary Committee managed to overlook or ignore the fact that the future complainants, in their final communication with Guy Sprung on March 9, voiced no objection to the use of the word "savage" in the play? How could Sprung ever be guilty of the use of a word that his own complainants agreed with at the time? This is astonishing.

Surprisingly, the Equity Disciplinary Panel did not take another obvious, more generous, and sound interpretation of events: That due to different conceptions of theatre, some of the actors and Sprung disagreed on several points, at times heatedly. Tremendous battles could occur that have nothing to do with gender, ethnicity, or age, but due to these different conceptions of theatre. One vision is that of Guy Sprung, Drew Hayden Taylor, and most fine playwrights and artists from all traditions: it is better to confront the reader or viewer with the sharp edges of truth, whether ironically, or seriously, than to hide from it, bury it, or banish it to create a supposedly "safe" space that never has and never will exist. And if it did in some enforced way, it would be more akin to a hell of the repression of free speech and free humanity than a heaven of justice.

This is why awful words like "savage" or "Indian," or other such words, used initially with a vicious intent, are, when used in theatre or art with a good intent, to engage, to reveal, with the goal of a reconciliation of humanity, then, in this context, the use of such words can be justified, transformed, redeemed, as in part, the theatre is to hold a mirror up to an at times awful nature. The reason this view is so vital is that there are no good or bad groups intrinsically, but good and bad values, and political or historical periods. In this context, tragically, horrors from the past can return in old or new forms today, renewing old scapegoats or creating new ones.

When Fight On! appeared as a book, Drew Hayden Taylor wrote a graceful, funny, and wise Forward, noting that in the decades Sprung has "served" in Canadian theatre, "he has helped mold what today could be considered Canadian theatre at its best." Taylor was "honoured" and "flattered" to "participate in" Sprung's "magnificent creation, Fight On!." He writes that "the scope of Fight On! is breathtaking. It's as vast, colourful, and as rich as the country it portrays." This generous vision crosses divides and honours differences. Sadly, it is the exception in this harsh story.

The other point of view, the fundamentalist or literalist view, is that the use of such words in any context is evil. In bad social media-infested times, when public opinion is whipped up, fundamentalist views tend to crush all subtlety. The fundamentalist view also has a long lineage, with much less noble consequences, such as banning books or theatre, whether based on extreme left or right politics.

Secondly, how had the positive feelings from the March 6th note to go in the program for the play – the "vocal allyship from the team, ongoing conversations, and respect for their "lived experiences as Indigenous people," which had been "integral to this process," had, a mere three days later, become a "lack of acknowledgement" of the work of these actors? This is one of the most perplexing aspects of this entire story. What accounts for this radical change, this profound reversal, and this astonishingly long list of new "actionables" at the last minute?" Was this list meant to derail the play to protect someone from embarrassment? Why were these obvious issues not even mentioned in the decision by the Equity Disciplinary Panel?

Thirdly, more generally: Why did neither the investigator nor the Equity Disciplinary Panel ever try to engage with the evidence, to try to understand what happened, and give a verdict based on the evidence and good reasons? What accounts for this horrendous emptiness and silence? Was Sprung simply guilty due to his background, and that of his accusers?

Overwhelmed

It might be helpful to remember the historical moment which had to have structured and impacted the Equity Disciplinary Panel Decision. Firstly, Canadians and the entire world had been overwhelmed by COVID and an unprecedented shutdown. Everyone was forced to mostly remain inside their houses and find a social life through computers and a terribly divisive and inflammatory social media. Secondly, on May 25, 2020, after Fight On! was cancelled, but before the actors complained against Sprung, the African American George Floyd was murdered by a white police officer in Minneapolis. As a result of these two factors, the American revulsion at what happened and at its terrible legacy of slavery and racism came to Canada with all the power of the US media.

Canada was overwhelmed, as if this event had happened in Canada.

However, Canada is a different country, with its own history of achievement and injustices. To assess the Canadian experience, one would have to examine it thoroughly and fairly. The American revulsion at their own history spurred passionate discussion of these issues in Canada. This is good, as no decent person wants anyone to suffer racism and prejudice in their society. On the negative side, in Canada, we often made conclusions about racism without evidence and reasoned argument, and without considering human rights.

At a deeper level, we often produced one-sided histories that only saw what was negative in Canadian history and ignored the many good aspects of our history. We reduced complex events to simple moralistic terms, losing a sense of the complex causes, and generating overly simple conclusions, while demonizing some people, and romanticizing others. This was promoted at every turn by the full force, money, and power of the Trudeau Liberal Government, as much for their own electoral benefit as any true passion for justice.

On a more practical note, little theatre companies, corporations, and many institutions began forced "anti-racism" training without any assessment of the conduct of those forced to take it. They were presumed guilty of needing the training, a fundamentally unfair process. Furthermore, at times, these “training” sessions were run by “experts” who were more concerned with promoting questionable theories than with knowledge, fair training, and free evidence-based inquiry.

We in Canada went too far and forgot the obvious: No one is worse because of their background, but no one is better either. History does not have permanently good or bad people, but various values, power relationships, and historical situations. No one is guilty of what happened before they were born. Each person today must be judged individually. In many cases, we reached the conclusions we wanted to reach and didn't worry much about the means. Unfortunately, this kind of doctrinaire thinking still poisons many cultural institutions, universities, and artistic works today in Canada. One hopes our cultural institutions would focus more on whether a work of art is good, rather than on who made it.

It is entirely appropriate to be concerned about past and present injustices, but we must engage these issues with subtlety, sound method, and without imposing new biases in place of the old.

This was the superheated historical moment in which Guy Sprung was investigated and found guilty by the Equity Disciplinary Panel. It's hard to imagine how the Disciplinary Panel could possibly have exonerated Guy Sprung in such an atmosphere, whatever the evidence. And in this, his plight at its heart is identical with all those who have been scapegoated and found summarily guilty based on their identity, their gender, sexuality, race, creed, or nationality. This is the shocking part: the common humanity of all those who suffer. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," as Martin Luther King Jr. said so eloquently.

In an article for the Guardian about human rights by former Le Monde Executive and Managing Editor Natalie Nougayrède, she quotes the former UN commissioner for human rights, Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein: "In my experience," he recently said, "the victims of human rights violations know full well that human rights are universal. Only those who violate human rights look for excuses in traditions, cultures, and circumstances. Human rights defenders, on the other hand, defend the rights of each individual. Others defend the rights of a specific community. That's the difference. Defending the rights of one community against other communities amounts to creating the conflicts of tomorrow."

Reconciliation? Justice?

The Canadian Actors’ Equity Association is a large association of performers, and has an executive. One cannot attribute a monolithic judgment about conduct of the Executive (past or present) or members of this association for what happened to Guy Sprung. While the full history of these events is beyond the scope of an essay meant to be focused on the legal aspects and underlying causes (and which is now disconcertingly long), I should add that that many Equity members came to Guy Sprung’s defence and mounted a campaign to support him, and this was helped by Theatre critic Lynn Slotkin. It was this support that pushed the Executive to begin negotiating again with Sprung to find a solution, and resulted in other benefits to Sprung including the reinstatement of his membership and the later deal which I discuss below.

In the spring of 2024, at a general meeting, based on a motion by an Equity member, and with the support of many in Equity, the actors of Canadian Equity voted by a 2 to 1 majority to give compensation and a public apology to Guy Sprung based on these events. This is to their great credit, and one hopes it is some solace to Sprung. Such votes do not formally bind their executive, but should be honoured, unless some harm would come to the union. Guy Sprung had launched a lawsuit in the Ontario Courts claiming compensation due to these matters and seeking an apology. The Executive of Canadian Equity stated that they could not honour the wishes of the members due to the ongoing litigation. Instead, they would focus on that matter.

At the end of 2024 or in early 2025, Guy Sprung and Canadian Equity reached a settlement of all matters between them. Usually, in such cases, there is a blanket confidentiality agreement. One thing is clear: there has as of yet been no public apology from Canadian Equity to Guy Sprung. If no public apology ever arrives, it will make one wonder if a majority of the current leadership of Canadian Equity has learned anything from the grave mistakes in this matter.

Whatever Guy Sprung may have agreed to in relation to himself does not stop or bind the actors of Canadian Equity from seeking an apology for Guy Sprung on their own, should they wish to do so. Nor does it stop Canadians and others who care about free speech and human rights for all citizens, whatever their background, from also expressing the hope that, one day, in better times, Guy Sprung will receive his much-deserved apology. My only fear is that he is in his late seventies now, spry though he is. I hope he lives to see and hear it.

Slowly…The Law Speaks

The law in Canada is now speaking on some of the excesses of the late-Trudeau era Canada. Fundamental principles of justice are being reaffirmed. Here in Guy Sprung’s case, we observe that organizations that investigate individuals are required to use fair processes and give sound reasons. For an organization today, it is a reminder that bad or unfair investigations or decisions will invite lawsuits and cost money.

Secondly, we observe clearly that Justice Phillips characterized the conduct of the actors who quit the production because they did not like their characters or lines to have “effectively repudiated their contract.” This is also a reminder that if you accept a role as an actor and later quit a production because you don’t like your character or some of the lines you lack the right to change, you may be facing a lawsuit after and may have to pay a lot of money. Actors had best carefully review their scripts before the sign their contracts.

Canada has its own set of grave challenges now. I hope that this article can, in a small way, by a rigorous critique, help in the process of creating a more united, better, stronger country, with a focus on the equal rights and duties of citizenship for all people whatever their background, and a commitment to a bold rigour and excellence in the arts, sciences, scholarship, and in government.

Robert Girvan, former Crown Attorney and Defense Counsel

Author of the history, Who Speaks for the River?