Democracy, while often messy, can also create bizarre situations that leave people wondering what on earth is going on.
For example, there’s Toronto Mayor Rob Ford who has admitted to smoking crack cocaine, buying illegal drugs, drinking and driving and making an obscene comment about a female aide on national television. While his council has stripped him of most of his mayoral powers, he still holds office.
Closer to home, five City of Powell River elected officials—Mayor Dave Formosa and councillors Debbie Dee, Maggie Hathaway, Chris McNaughton and Jim Palm—as well as the city itself, are being taken to court by 14 electors for allegedly breaching a section of the Community Charter. The mistake happened in 2011 when they were all councillors and voted on two resolutions to approve loans to Powell River Waterfront Development Corporation (PRWDC), which was incorporated in 2003, with the city as the sole shareholder.
The council-of-the-day that authorized the initial $51,000 shareholders loan to PRWDC in 2006 and a $12,000 loan in 2008 was headed up by former mayor Stewart Alsgard and included Myrna Leishman, who is currently a councillor. She is not included in the court petition because disqualification can occur only during a three-year period from the date of the vote to which the disqualification relates.
The five elected officials have done nothing wrong and there is no serious breach. The city has admitted a mistake was made, back in 2006 when the first loan was approved, because it did not have a partnering agreement with PRWDC, as stipulated by the Community Charter. At the time the motion was passed, the city had a legal opinion from its law firm that it did not need a partnering agreement.
The city has taken steps to rectify the mistake. PRWDC has repaid the loans. The city applied to the province for a Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (MEVA) amendment, but the government’s assistant deputy minister for local government has determined that step is not necessary since he believes all efforts have been successfully made to correct the error.
Obviously, the 14 petitioners have a different point of view, so their case will be reviewed and decided by a judge. If they win, the city will have to pay costs, but if they lose, the petitioners will have to pay the costs.
While we can’t predict how a judge will view the case, the fact the province is satisfied that actions have been taken to correct the error appears to weaken the petitioners’ claim. In light of this, the petitioners may want to have another look at their claim and decide if it has merit.
