{"id":16675,"date":"2020-10-24T12:52:34","date_gmt":"2020-10-24T16:52:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canada-info.ca\/?p=16675"},"modified":"2020-10-24T12:52:34","modified_gmt":"2020-10-24T16:52:34","slug":"court-filing-the-srds-response-to-petition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canada-info.ca\/en\/court-filing-the-srds-response-to-petition\/","title":{"rendered":"Court Filing: the SRD’s Response to Petition"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Roy L Hales<\/p>\n

On July 13th, Regional Director Noba Anderson\u2019s lawyer filed a\u00a0suit against the Strathcona Regional District<\/a>\u00a0(SRD), in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. She seeks repayment of her legal fees, from a frivolous lawsuit brought against her last year, and the dismissal of a subsequent SRD motion of censure. The case is to be heard sometime during the assize week starting November 23, 2020. James H Goulden just filed the SRD\u2019s\u00a0Response to Petition<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Legal argument for not paying court costs<\/h2>\n

This document argues that the SRD\u2019s Indemnification Bylaw only provides protection for officials \u201cin connection with the exercise of the official\u2019s powers or the performance, or intended performance of the official\u2019s duties or functions.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Disqualification Petition is not a \u2018claim, action or prosecution\u2019 and was brought against Director Anderson in respect of the alleged receipt of gifts that were not in connection with the exercise of her powers or the intended exercise of her powers or, the performance, or intended performance of her duties or functions. The SRD is therefore not required to indemnify Director Anderson for the legal costs incurred.\u201d<\/p>\n

Legal argument for censorship<\/h2>\n

The\u00a0Response to Petition<\/em>\u00a0also confirms Anderson\u2019s contention that she was censored for showing her lawyer confidential SRD documents, while seeking his legal advice.<\/p>\n

According to the SRD\u2019s Code of Conduct Bylaw, \u201cinformation discussed or disclosed at closed meeting or the board\u201d or marked as confidential \u201cmust not be disclosed or released to anyone.\u201d<\/p>\n

Chronology of events<\/h2>\n

Thus when Director Anderson\u2019s lawyer, Matthew Voeil, cited two of these documents, in a March 7, 2019 letter to the SRD, the Board perceived it as a violation of their Code of conduct.<\/p>\n

In response, the SRD stopped providing Director Anderson \u201cwith closed reports to the Board respecting matters that relate to Director Anderson and to which Director Anderson may be in a conflict of interest with the Board.\u201d<\/p>\n

On April 15th, the SRD\u2019s legal counsel wrote Mr Voeill that these documents were confidential and \u201cshould be returned to the SRD or deleted.\u201d<\/p>\n

On May 1st, Mr Voeill responded that \u201cDirector Anderson was entitled to disclose those documents to him.\u201d<\/p>\n

At their closed meeting a week later, on May 8, the Board resolved to not pay Director Anderson\u2019s legal fees.<\/p>\n

The Disqualification petition<\/h2>\n

The\u00a0Disqualification petition<\/a>\u00a0which triggered these matters went before the Supreme Court of British Columbia a month later, on June 10th, 2019. The lawyers from both sides filed a joint letter, in which \u00a0 they stated \u201cThere is no basis for the declarations sought by the petitioners.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reporters from the Campbell River Mirror and Cortes Currents were in the courtroom, when Mr Voeill showed that all twelve of the illustrations set forth in the Disqualification petition were factually erroneous.<\/p>\n

The petitioner\u2019s lawyer, Harry Wenngatz, had little to say in response aside from, \u201cMy clients were put up to this.\u201d<\/p>\n

You can read first hand reports of these proceedings on both\u00a0the\u00a0Campbell River Mirror<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Cortes Currents.<\/a><\/p>\n

After the Court case<\/h2>\n

On June 19th, Mr Voeill once again requested that the SRD pay Director Anderson\u2019s legal fees.<\/p>\n

A week later, on June 25th, Director Anderson was informed that the Board would be considering whether to proceed with a censure motion regarding \u201cDirector Anderson\u2019s disclosure of confidential and privileged information.\u201d<\/p>\n

Her lawyer was permitted to send a written argument, to the closed session in which the Board voted to proceed with a hearing.<\/p>\n

The Board passed a censure motion against Director Anderson during their closed meeting of October 24th, 2019. (Her lawyer was present and permitted to make both written and verbal arguments.)<\/p>\n

Origins of the Disqualification Petition<\/h2>\n

The SRD\u2019s Response to Petition also provides some additional insight into the origins of the Disqualification petition.<\/p>\n

These events appear to have been set in motion by Director Anderson\u2019s re-election on October 22nd, 2018.<\/p>\n

According to the Response, \u201cIn or about October 2018, the SRD received information from several Cortes Island constituents respecting the alleged receipt of gifts and an alleged conflict of interest by Director Anderson.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cAt its November 7, 2018 closed meeting, the Board resolved to hire an experienced neutral third-party investigator to undertake an investigation into the allegations \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

The SRD hired Craig Peterson of Creative Risk Management Solutions.<\/p>\n

(The November 28, 2019, Campbell River Mirror<\/a>\u00a0states Regional Director Brenda Leigh was receiving emails from Cortes residents opposed to the island\u2019s proposed hall tax. Leigh would subsequently refuse to disclose the contents of these emails.)<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201c \u2026 In or about January 2019, the SRD became aware that residents of Cortes Island had filed a petition with respect to their allegations, seeking, among other things, the disqualification of Director Anderson (the \u2018Disqualifiaction Petition).\u201d<\/p>\n

Corresponding chronology from Cortes sources<\/h2>\n

Fourteen Cortes residents signed the\u00a0Disqualification petition that was filed on January 2, 2019<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0Campbell River Mirror carried a story about the suit on January 7th<\/a>, but,\u00a0De Clarke wrote<\/a>, the first that many islanders heard of these events was from Craig Peterson.<\/p>\n

He arrived on Cortes January 8th, \u201cwas quite open and frank about his mission here. He said he was here \u2018to investigate the charges against Director Anderson \u2026 So most people naturally interpreted Peterson\u2019s extensive visit to our island (several days and at least 20 interviews) as a response (though a bizarre one) to the ludicrous charges made in that petition.\u201d<\/p>\n

Clarke was one of several signatories to the\u00a0Open Letter to Cortes Islanders<\/a>, dated January 21st, protesting the Disqualification Petitions \u201cunfounded and mean spirited\u201d allegations.<\/p>\n

That document alludes to Peterson\u2019s visit in this paragraph:<\/p>\n

\u201cMost of the 14 signatories to this lawsuit are political opponents of Director Anderson. SRD has also been apprised of these allegations against her. Their CAO, David Leitch, with the agreement of the SRD board, has hired a private investigator to look into the matter. This investigator has been interviewing Cortes residents during the first half of January. Was this costly response appropriate, given such flimsy and partisan allegations?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

There were\u00a0already 196 signatures on that document when a tiny group of Cortes Islanders attempted to give it to the SRD Board on January 24th<\/a>.<\/p>\n

By the time the\u00a0SRD finally listened to a delegation, on February 28th<\/a>, close to half of Cortes\u2019 adult population had signed.<\/p>\n

SRD narrative<\/h2>\n

The\u00a0Response to Petition<\/em>\u00a0refers to the Open Letter in the following passage:<\/p>\n

\u201cBetween on and about January 21, 2019, and on and about February 28, 2019, the SRD received correspondence and presentations from various Cortes Island residents requesting that the SRD cover Director Anderson\u2019s legal costs. At that time, the Board had not yet made public that it had received and considered an indemnification request from Director Anderson<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cOn or about January 30, 2019, an article authored by Director Anderson, including the the name of the investigator hired by the SRD, was published on the Cortes Tideline online newspaper.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

Of course, by that time many Cortes residents were already talking about Mr Peterson and his investigation.<\/p>\n

Links of interest<\/h2>\n