Earlier this week, I wrote a blog post criticizing city council’s decision to spend $145,000 in support of the O’Neill Cold Water Classic surf competition. Since then, I’ve learned more about the event, and more reasons why citizens should be even more concerned by the expenditure.

Canadian Surfing Association has no legal standing
First is the fact the Canadian Surfing Association, the non-profit corporation that the city granted the money to, does not legally exist.

The Registry of Joint Stocks has the following information for the CSA:

As shown, the Canadian Surfing Association was formed in 1989, but defaulted on registration fees in 1995. Joint Stocks sent CSA two notices of strike-off in 2006, which were not responded to, and so in 2007 the CSA was stricken off the registry.

Is this a problem? Should the city be giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to an entity that has no legal existence? Does it violate city policy and procedures? Who the hell knows?

Well, city staffer Andrew Whittemore knows, but city staffer Andrew Whittemore is out of the office all day, and rarely returns my phone calls in any event, so I guess it’ll remain a mystery (just like my other question to city staffer Andrew Whittemore, about who knew about the abysmally low concert attendance figures).

I don’t know if the city can give money to a non-profit organization that legally doesn’t exist or not. But I would suggest it might not be the most prudent thing to do. I mean, if the city was concerned about things like financial controls and so forth.

Just a thought.

Public intoxication and indecency charges
The second area of concern involves the behaviour of the international surfing stars who will be coming to town. I’m told they’re a privileged, self-centered lot, and at best “rowdy.” It’s hard to give credence to these sorts of opinions, but the city of Tofino’s experience might give us some pause. Recall that Tofino, British Columbia, the previous host city for the O’Neill Cold Water Classic, passed on continuing to sponsor the event after last year’s event.

Tofino’s decision might be related to an incident last fall, when Australian surfer Mitch Coleborn was arrested. As ESPN reported:

Australian surfer Mitch Coleborn was arrested Friday in Tofino, on Canada’s Vancouver Island, where he was competing in O’Neill’s Coldwater Classic series.

According to reports on news.com.au, the 23-year-old exposed himself in front of a group of kids and adults near an elementary school around 8:40 a.m. last Friday. Reports suggest alcohol was involved in the lead up to the offense. Royal Canadian Mounted Police sergeant Jeff Preston told ESPN that Coleborn was charged with indecent exposure.

If convicted, Coleborn could face severe visa penalties, which would limit where in the world he could travel to compete in surf contests. The U.S. could be among his restricted countries.

Coleborn also faces the prospect of his name being placed on Canada’s national sex offender’s registry.

“He is alleged to have exposed his genitals in a public place to people, including several children,” sergeant Preston told news.com.au. “Alcohol was definitely a factor.”

Those are pretty alarming allegations, but of course people are innocent until proven guilty. And, it turns out that the charges against Coleborn were dropped this past March. As the CP reported:

TOFINO, B.C. — An indecency charge has been dropped against a world-class Australian surfer who was accused of exposing himself following a competition in Tofino, B.C.

Mitch Coleborn was in the Vancouver Island town last October for the O’Neill Cold Water Classic when police picked him up after receiving several complaints.

Coleborn was to have appeared in court this week, but Tofino RCMP Sgt. Jeff Preston said the case won’t proceed against the 24-year-old.

Preston, who was involved in the man’s arrest at the time, said “alcohol was certainly a factor” in the incident.

“I received several complaints of a male who was exposing himself to people as they walked by,” he said.

Neil MacKenzie, with the B.C. Crown prosecutor’s office, confirmed the Crown directed a stay of proceedings against the man.

“Due to the level of intoxication, we wouldn’t be able to prove that the act that was alleged was a wilful act,” he said.

Is “Buddy was too drunk to be held responsible for exposing himself to kids” really a reason to drop charges? This is interesting: I wonder if the argument would hold for, say, beating your wife. “Sorry, judge, I was too drunk for that bit of ugliness to be a willful act.” Getting shit-faced drunk is, ironically, the ultimate Get Out of Jail card. [Note: I am not lawyer.]

MacKenzie is on vacation, but today I talked with Robin Baird, also a lawyer with the BC Attorney General’s office.

“Drunkenness as a defence comes up when somebody’s so drunk that the court finds he’s incapable of forming the specific intent to do something,” says Baird.

Would that argument work for a drunk driving charge?

“No, self-induced intoxication on a drunk driving charge is not a defence in any circumstance. It depends on the nature of the crime; there are things in law called general intent offences and specific intent offences, and drunkenness comes into play on specific intent. It has to do with the provable mental element in respect to a given charge.”

Well, like I said, I’m no lawyer, but it sounds to me that our surfing visitors are welcome to come here and drink themselves silly, expose themselves to kiddies willy-nilly, so to speak, and the surfers are fine so far as the law goes, so long as they don’t then drive back to their hotels.

Money, money
Third, the official reason Tofino gave up the O’Neill event is that O’Neill simply wanted too much money. Tourism Tofino reps have not yet returned my calls today, but an April article by reporter Julia Prinselaar in the Westerly News spells it out on April 26, 2011:

The O’Neill Coldwater Classic surf competition approached Tourism Tofino about three weeks ago asking for financial assistance beyond the $55,000 that was budgeted for promoting this year’s event, according to Lynda Kaye, public relations for Tourism Tofino.

“Tourism Tofino is not in a position to fund or assist the competition financially over and above what’s already been budgeted,” said Kaye. O’Neill is looking for additional funding of around $175,000 to $200,000 USD to hold the event in Tofino, its only Canadian destination.

[…]

“We’ll act quite quickly on building on a fall campaign that has that as part of its plan.” The O’Neill Coldwater Classic came to Tofino last September, and while it did generate awareness about Tofino, Kaye forecasts that the absence of the competition this year won’t deal a heavy economic blow to the district.

“Frankly I think it was a fabulous awareness generator…but I’m not sure that we can point any specific positive economic impact that the competition made toward the community. It’s not really a spectator sport in any of the locations,” said Kaye.

O’Neill’s initial request to HRM was for $200,000, the amount that had been asked of Tofino. HRM’s Special Events Advisory Committee was approached about financing the event at its March 11, 2011 meeting—-a month before Tofino rejected O’Neill—so it’s pretty obvious the company was playing the two cities against each other.

I know I’m going on forever here, but the O’Neill Cold Water Classic represents exactly what’s wrong with how the city doles out money. As the auditor general’s report showed, nobody much is interested in tracking how or where the money is going, and it appears that no one did basic internet research to see if the organization being given money even exists, or if there were problems with the event in other places. The city just throws hundreds of thousands of dollars this way and that, so it’s no wonder we end up with things like the concert loan scandal.

Join the Conversation

13 Comments

  1. Who is on the hook, liability/insurance-wise should someone be injured/die at this event? I know how it works for other sports but all of the ones that I know about have Provincial/National Sporting Association affiliated internationally, which covers everything from grassroots ballgames to the pros.

  2. And Tim Bousquet strikes again. The real issue here is that unless a hurricane wanders past, there’s fuck all surf in N.S. in September. This “classic”, which Jackie Barkhouse laughably described as one of the major stops on the tour (bwahahahahaha – can’t stop giggling at that one, Jackie), promises to leave egg on the province’s face because the surfers will likely come and go not having seen waves bigger than three or four feet (if they’re lucky).
    Instead of examining that issue, Bousquet focuses on the non-legal standing of the CSA (who fucken cares? What difference does it make? Bousquet doesn’t answer that question – in fact, he asks it in this piece and doesn’t have an answer – quality writing, Tim!).
    Then he goes for the Watergate-esque “public intoxication and indecency charges” angle and comes up with…what? One drunken Australian acting like an idiot, once? Tell me, Tim, is that all you could get? How is that likely any worse than any sporting event/concert that comes to town? Simple – it isn’t.
    Running out of steam, Bousquet stumbles over the line with the “money, money” stuff – possibly the only semi-legitimate aspect of this laughable story. But by then he’s realized this story’s a stinker, and it’s Friday, and it’s time to rush off to the pub, so he gives up.
    Tim, you have uncovered some good stuff in the last few years. But you’re also incrediblyfast and loose with the facts and sometimes hunt for a scandal that isn’t there – and then report one anyway.
    The funding angle? Sure – write till your fingers bleed; rage into the night. But these other so-called “areas of concern” are b.s. – and you know it.
    Oh, and by the way, I have to make one other point: this line – “I’m told they’re a privileged, self-centered lot, and at best rowdy” – stinks to high heaven. Your writing shows you know fuck all about surfing or the surf community. Don’t try and shroud your lack of knowledge by crudely and falsely insinuating you have some sort of inside “scoop”. Leave that to Andrew Krystal et al.

  3. I would have been far more impressed if Bousquet had told us the name of the municipal politician who pushed this through. But for some strange reason he was reluctant to do so. Funny, he usually isn’t so reticent about those sort of things.

    Thanks to Frank Magazine, we now know it was Jackie Barkhouse, the NDP/union councillor that Tim loves almost as much as Jennifer Watts. That explains the lack of mention in the story. Interestingly, Frank quotes her as bragging about her scoring the sponsorship money in political terms, boasting that the provincial MLA for the area hadn’t a clue as to the coup that Barkhouse was going to score by bringing this here. I somehow doubt that Barkhouse is a surfer gal, but who knows.

    Nice to see that the NDP are no different when it comes to misusing our tax dollars for their own personal political gain.

    As for why he sounds so shocked that a bunch of surfer dudes might get liquored up and do nasty things, well, c’mon Tim. That can hardly be a shock.

  4. Tim Busquet is a douche, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I think this event will be fantastic for Halifax. Maybe he should just keep his idiotic opinions to himself! Left wing? More like you just hate everything just to hate it, it’s getting old Busquet…

  5. Tim Busquet is a hypocrite! The Coast magazine represents alternative views, change and progression. This is a very progressive event which the Coast should be supporting. Once again not supporting outsiders because they are scared of introducing themselves to new entertainment and new artistic values to boost the cultural atmosphere within our region.

    Danny

  6. Tim,

    Again good work. So we are to throw $145,000 at an organization that had a PO box and legally doesnt exist. This is called Due Diligence and City hall is famous for not doing it. Amazing the same TB critics show up after every one of his articles and trash him. Tim is a rare breed not afraid to rattle chains in our city. All the rest of the so called journalists especially at the chronically horrid has so many off limit people and arear of research its a complete joke.

  7. What the hell is wrong with these brain dead commentators? Does no one care that tax money is getting thrown at a bogus event with less than stellar credibility?

    That $145,000 could easily go to fun something else! Something actually supporting local athletes. Sure, you want to be supportive of new events, new activities and such, but is no one really reading the inherent problems with this surfing thing? Um…

    Anyway, thanks Tim. Does no one at Town Hall really understand what they’re doing? And will they be implementing a better way of distributing (basically enough $ for a small house in Cow Bay) the funds?

  8. HRM spends how many thousands in consultants fees every year and when a clothing company comes along looking for dough they just rubber stamp it and move on? Can’t wait for the day I retire (yeah right) and move to the country (beyond HRM).

  9. Surfing Association of Nova Scotia http://www.surfns.com/

    Anyone can view this on “registry of joint stocks Nova Scotia”

    PROFILE – SURFING ASSOCIATION OF NOVA SCOTIA – as of: 2011-05-31 03:16 PM

    Business/Organization Name: SURFING ASSOCIATION OF NOVA SCOTIA
    Registry ID: 1797772
    Type: Society
    Nature of Business:
    Status: Active
    Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
    Registered Office: 49 HAWTHORNE STREET
    DARTMOUTH NS Canada B2Y 2Y7
    Mailing Address: 49 HAWTHORNE STREET
    DARTMOUTH NS Canada B2Y 2Y7
    Previous Name: SURF & SAIL ASSOCIATION OF NOVA SCOTIA
    Previous Name: SURFRIDERS ASSOCIATION OF NOVA SCOTIA

    PEOPLE

    Name Position Civic Address Mailing Address
    JEFF NORMAN Director 604 ST. CATHERINES RIVER ROAD
    PORT JOLIE NS B0T 1S0
    Justin Huston Director 49 Hawthorne St
    Dartmouth Nova Scotia B2Y 2Y7
    Duncan Allen Director 2390 Westmount Street
    Halifax Nova Scotia B3L 3G6
    GWENETH PARKER Director 22 CASAVECHIA COURT
    DARTMOUTH NS B2X 3G7
    IAIAN ARCHIBALD Director 5781 SARAH – APT. A
    HALIFAX NS B3K 1M1
    KEITH MADDISON Director 1359 Brenton St, Apt 2
    HALIFAX NS B3K 2K5
    REED HOLMS Director 350 OCEANVIEW DRIVE
    BEDFORD NS B4A 4H5
    AMY SCHWARTZ Director 2579 CREIGHTON STREET
    HALIFAX NS B3K 3S3
    MICHAEL CUMMINGS Director 2560 WESTMOUNT STREET
    HALIFAX NS B3L 3G6
    KEITH MADDISON EVENTS/MARKETING CO-ORDINATOR 6527 BERLIN ST.
    HALIFAX NS B3L 1T8
    MICHAEL CUMMINGS SECRETARY 2560 WESTMOUNT STREET
    HALIFAX NS B3L 3G6
    GWENETH PARKER Member at Large 22 CASAVECHIA COURT
    DARTMOUTH NS B2X 3G7
    AMY SCHWARTZ Vice President 2579 CREIGHTON STREET
    HALIFAX NS B3K 3S3
    REED HOLMS Web Master/ Jr Development 350 OCEANVIEW DRIVE
    BEDFORD NS B4A 4H3
    Justin Huston Co-President 49 Hawthorne Street
    Dartmouth NS B2Y 2Y7
    Justin Huston Recognized Agent 49 Hawthorne St
    Dartmouth NS B2Y 2Y7 49 Hawthorne St
    Dartmouth NS B2Y 2Y7

    ACTIVITIES

    Activity Date
    Annual Renewal 2010-06-30
    Filed Name Change 2010-06-29
    Effective Date of Name Change 2010-06-29
    Annual Statement Filed 2010-06-29
    Annual Statement Filed 2009-06-12
    Annual Renewal 2009-06-12
    Change of Directors 2009-02-06
    Address Change 2009-02-06
    Annual Renewal 2008-06-29
    Annual Statement Filed 2007-06-18
    Annual Renewal 2007-06-18
    Annual Renewal 2006-07-07
    Annual Renewal 2005-06-03
    Reactivated 2005-04-12
    Address Change 2005-04-12
    Appoint an Agent 2005-04-12
    Change of Directors 2005-04-12
    Filed Financial Statement 2005-04-12
    Defaulted 1995-06-30
    Annual Report Filed 1993-05-31
    Change of Directors 1993-05-31
    Agent Filed 1987-09-14
    Special Resolution 1987-09-14
    Name Change 1987-09-14
    Registered Office Change 1987-06-19
    Incorporated 1987-06-19
    Show All Collapse

    RELATED REGISTRATIONS

    There are no related registrations on file for this company.

    Second there was a winter comp at Cow Bay in 2004

    http://www.surfingvancouverisland.com/surf…

    I was a spectator but there wasn’t 19 999 other spectators.

    $145 000 to this comp won’t make Surfing in Nova Scotia better

  10. Thank you for exposing this waste of my tax payers money Tim. Keep up the good work. We need to hold those who have our tax dollars accountable.

    Speak up!

  11. Hey That Guy

    Wrong association. That is SANS. They are not the ones involved with this contest. Get your facts straight before you go posting “information”

  12. A little clarification – SANS is in good standing with the Registry of Joint Stocks and wasn’t consulted, and they have some concerns. The CSA is struck off the Registry, but will receive a grant. Obviously, not the way to go about things.

    However, I must take exception to your point regarding the indecency charges in Tofino – many professional sports stars have been accused of reprehensible actions. But the events still go on. Don’t vilify a sport because of one person’s (purported) actions.

    And one more thing – why are you surprised that a company would try to get the best deal it could? So what if they played Tofino off Halifax? It’s called business, and if Halifax was stupid enough to make a stupid deal, don’t blame O’Neills.

    An aside to “myboyblue” – if you are going to insult my friend, at least do yourself the courtesy of learning to spell in public.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *