Conflicting accounts are re-emerging at the Niagara Regional Native Centre, where current leadership is pushing back against allegations of intimidation and mismanagement from past leaders and staff.
This comes amid disputes over a Sept. 11 protest outside the centre in Niagara-on-the-Lake, as well as over staff levels, membership approvals and legal cost reimbursements.
Former board president Sean Vanderklis, who resigned Feb. 26 last year, said he received a lawyer’s letter on Oct. 17 alleging defamation related to the dispute.
A copy of the letter reviewed by The Lake Report shows counsel for former board member Lacey Lewis demanding the removal of social media posts and a public retraction, and reserving the right to pursue legal action.
As of right now, Lewis’ counsel has not pursued legal action.
At the time of the interviews for this story, Lewis was an active board member. She has since confirmed she resigned on Jan. 13, but wouldn’t provide her reasons for resigning on the record.
Any references to governance requirements are drawn from the centre’s posted bylaws, approved and affirmed in 2012, which remain the only publicly available bylaws on the centre’s website.
Board president Tammi Givans did not respond to a request to confirm that this is the up-to-date bylaw by press time.
Board denies intimidation, rejects staffing and membership concerns
On Oct. 16, 2025, The Lake Report published accounts from Vanderklis, a former staff member and board member, who said they and others at the centre have faced intimidation, mistreatment and mismanagement from the board of directors.
Givans said that she doesn’t know anyone who has dealt with these issues since she joined the board, which was April last year.
“I have heard their stories of what happened previously,” she said. “They’re valid, is the thing.”
“They just were not happening with the people who are currently sitting on your board.”
It is not clear which iteration of the board Givans was referring to in that remark and she did not respond to a request to clarify by press time.
She said there may be “residual feelings” from past issues at the centre, but “no massive conflicts” involving bullying, leaves of absence or anything similar taking place now.
“We all work together here. The board comes in and helps.”
Lewis also rejected claims that current board members have intimidated staff.
“We never received one complaint,” she said.
Givans also disputed what Vanderklis previously described as an understaffed centre, saying it has 41 funded positions with two staff on educational leave, three on medical leave and six positions vacant — leaving 11 of the centre’s 41 jobs not staffed.
Former board members also raised concerns about membership application handling.
Givans said the board does not arbitrarily delay or waive applications, noting the centre currently has about 100 members, with four applications denied and one membership revoked. Additional unratified applications expected to bring the total to “well over 100 active members,” she added.
Court ruling sparks cheque dispute
Questions have also been raised about cheques issued to former board members following a September 2024 court case.
In 2023, board members Lacey Lewis, Wanda Griffin, Wendy Wilson and Bobbi Jones Japp were removed amid conflict and allegations of mistreatment of staff and a new board was elected at a special members meeting.
This change was ruled invalid in September 2024 after a judge found it violated the centre’s bylaws and Ontario law, ordering their reinstatement later that year.
In previous coverage, Vanderklis said the cheques should not have been issued, arguing “the court ruled that they were only able to receive $80,000” — not additional compensation.
“That’s all they’re entitled to,” he said.
Lewis disputed that characterization, saying total legal costs exceeded $170,000 and her and the others’ cheques were reimbursements “through the proper governance, the proper channels” for out-of-pocket expenses not fully covered by the court’s $80,000 award.
Under the bylaws, directors receive no remuneration for serving on the board but may be reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in performing their duties. The bylaws do not outline an approval process for such reimbursements.
According to Ontario civil procedure, courts have discretion to award a portion of legal costs to a successful party, but such awards typically cover only part of the fees incurred and are not automatic.
“Sometimes, as a volunteer, you don’t ask for that stuff back. Sometimes, as a volunteer, you might,” Lewis said, adding she was not involved in the approval or signing of the cheques, citing a conflict of interest.
Givans did not respond to a request for board records or minutes of the decision by press time.
Vanderklis said the ruling restored the board’s authority until the next annual general meeting, which he said was not held in time, but Givans said provincial rules allow the next meeting to be held in early 2026 or a maximum of 15 months after the previous one.
The annual general meeting is scheduled for March 6.
Conflicting narratives surround Sept. 11 protest
A small protest held Sept. 11 outside the centre has become a point of dispute.
Vanderklis previously said community members organized the protest at staff’s request, though no employees participated, and alleged the board was holding a meeting without notice, which he said is not permitted.
He said staff reached out to him beforehand and alleged they were threatened with dismissal if they participated and were sent home from the centre.
Givans and Lewis disputed that account, saying it was not a board meeting but that Lewis and two other directors were at the centre preparing orientation materials for newly appointed board members.
They denied threatening staff, saying one director briefly left to relay information about the protest and no employees were confronted. They added that no notice was required because it was not an official meeting.
Givans said the centre contacted police after receiving “several frantic calls and messages” about online discourse surrounding the matter and sent staff home as a safety precaution on authorities’ advice. Lewis added that the board first attempted to address the situation through Indigenous liaison channels but called police when those supports were unavailable.
Vanderklis said his concerns stem from conversations he had directly with staff.
“Maybe what they’re saying is true. I don’t know,” he said. “But what I can speak with absolute certainty on is that I had direct conversations with staff.”
“They’re fearing for their jobs.”
The bylaws set notice requirements for members’ and board meetings, but do not address directors attending the centre outside of formally called meetings.
