Supreme Court of BC has awarded City of Powell River costs for a lawsuit brought by several citizens who were seeking to dismiss five council members for loans made in contravention of the Community Charter.
The lawsuit was initially heard on June 16, 2014, before Mr. Justice Ronald Skolrood. The case came before him again on November 4, when those having filed the suit sought relief from paying the city’s costs for the court action. Skolrood ruled, in his November 4 judgment, that the city was entitled to costs related to the trial as well as costs for the application to waive costs, heard that day in court.
The petitioners bringing the suit included: Ian Orchiston, David Harris, Gordon Crawford, Bradley Wilson, Kelly Hamilton, Rick Perin, John Goes, Al Drummond, Vincent Hoet, Margaret Wilson, Clark Banks, Wilf Rennecke and Jack Dice.
George Orchiston, spokesperson for the petitioners, provided the Peak with the following written statement: “The petitioners are of course disappointed that the court decided earlier this year not to disqualify from holding public office Mayor Dave Formosa, and Councillors Debbie Dee, Maggie Hathaway, Jim Palm and Chris McNaughton, the respondents, for voting to authorize the use of public money in contravention of the Community Charter.
“In doing so, the judge found that while the loans in question were in fact made in breach of the Community Charter, the evidence also showed that the respondents acted in good faith because they relied on mistaken advice from the city solicitor and also secured the repayment of the unlawful loans. As a result, the judge declined to disqualify the respondents and dismissed the petition.
“Now, to add insult to injury, on application by the respondents, the court decided that the taxpaying petitioners, whose goal was to hold these members of city council accountable to the public for their conduct, must pay costs to them.”
Formosa declined to comment about the case.
The amount of costs specified by the court was not stated in Skolrood’s Reason for Judgment on Costs. Marie Claxton, city clerk, said the amount has not been finalized yet.
The case hinged around loans approved by council for Powell River Waterfront Development Corporation (PRWDC). A November 1, 2013 news release from the city stated that council had taken action to correct past procedural errors regarding four loans approved by various councils for PRWDC. It further stated the loans were made without a legislatively required partnership agreement between the city and PRWDC. When the error was discovered the loans were revoked by the city.
“I have found that the respondents acted in good faith and in reliance on advice from city staff and from the municipal solicitor,” Skolrood said in his June 16 judgment. “Further, the unauthorized loans have been rescinded and the monies repaid. In short, there is no valid purpose to be served by granting the relief.”
By “relief” he meant relieving the five named city council members from office. Such an initiative would be prejudicial to the interest of the citizens of Powell River, the justice added.
“If the respondents are disqualified, the city would be left without its mayor and all but two of its elected councillors, with the result that a costly by-election would be required or a request made to the minister to fill the vacancies.”
The justice, in reviewing the court costs, said there is no doubt that holding municipal councils accountable for the proper expenditure of public funds is a matter of public importance.
“However, in the specific circumstances of this case, it is difficult to see how the petition advanced that objective given that the unauthorized loans were rescinded and the funds repaid,” he said. “While the petitioners had no personal stake in the petition, I find that the issues raised are not of broad public importance.”
Legal costs for the five named council members had been paid by the city.
