By De Clarke<\/p>\n
On January 12th and 13th 2021, the first hearing of BC Supreme Court case S15097,\u00a0Anderson vs Strathcona Regional District<\/em>,<\/a> was held in Campbell River before Justice Geoffrey Gaul.<\/p>\n Counsel for the Respondent (SRD) was James Goulden assisted by Sarah McCalla. Counsel for the Petitioner (Anderson) was Paul Hildebrand assisted by Matt Voell. Both senior counsels are distinguished professionals.<\/p>\n The Judge apparently found the case of sufficient importance to hear it in person rather than by phone (as most cases are now heard, due to the pandemic). After two days of argument, the hearing was adjourned for continuation as soon as another court date is available.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Case S15097 is a petition for judicial review of certain decisions and actions taken by the\u00a0Strathcona Regional District Board of Directors<\/a>\u00a0during 2019 and 2020. The fundamental question Justice Gaul is to decide is whether elected officials are entitled to independent legal counsel in matters touching on\u00a0in camera<\/em>\u00a0business.<\/p>\n The right to independent legal counsel (which was not guaranteed to indigenous Canadians until 1977!) is considered \u201cquasi-Constitutional,\u201d which means that limiting it or setting it aside is a fairly serious matter. Whether\u00a0in camera<\/em>\u00a0privilege as exercised by\u00a0e.g.<\/em>\u00a0municipal bodies and regional districts can supersede such a quasi-Constitutional right is the question on which opposing arguments are being presented to Justice Gaul.<\/p>\n In the specific case of\u00a0Anderson vs SRD<\/em>, certain actions of SRD \u2014 a motion of censure passed against Anderson, and possibly a never-explained refusal to indemnify Anderson for legal expenses incurred in 2018-19 \u2014 appear to hinge on their contention that Anderson\u2019s consultations with independent legal counsel constituted an illegitimate revelation of\u00a0in camera<\/em>\u00a0information. Anderson\u2019s counsel disagrees.<\/p>\n Petitioner\u2019s (Anderson\u2019s) counsel have presented their initial argument in full, but Respondent\u2019s (SRD\u2019s) counsel did not complete their presentation by the end of Day 2. When the hearing reconvenes, Respondent\u2019s argument will be completed and the Judge may then hear rebuttals, or further argument or explanation. Petitioner\u2019s argument is a public document as of the adjournment on January 13th, but Respondent\u2019s argument is not yet available.\u00a0Cortes Currents<\/em>\u00a0will refrain from discussing Petitioner\u2019s argument until both arguments can be covered in the same article.<\/p>\n Judgment in the case (which could potentially set a precedent affecting all BC local governments) will almost certainly not be pronounced until some time after the hearing is complete. We expect to publish a second installment of this story after the second session of the hearing, and a third installment after judgment is rendered. Stay tuned\u2026<\/p>\n Note:<\/strong>\u00a0Some Cortes Islanders mistakenly interpret this case as a\u00a0continuation\u00a0<\/em>of\u00a0litigation launched in January 2019 against Director Anderson by 13 residents of Cortes Island<\/a>,\u00a0i.e.<\/em>\u00a0think that she is still defending herself against those charges. That litigation, however, is resolved. The original petition was\u00a0dismissed in court in June 2020, after Petitioner\u2019s and Respondent\u2019s counsels agreed that it was without merit<\/a>. However, some actions taken by SRD in 2019 and 2020 (and presently being challenged by the current litigation) were consequences of the 2019 petition; so the two are historically connected.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By De Clarke On January 12th and 13th 2021, the first hearing of BC Supreme Court case S15097,\u00a0Anderson vs Strathcona Regional District, was held in Campbell River before Justice Geoffrey Gaul. Counsel for the Respondent (SRD) was James Goulden assisted by Sarah McCalla. Counsel for the Petitioner (Anderson) was Paul Hildebrand assisted by Matt Voell.…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":34,"featured_media":34282,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3265],"tags":[1632],"radio":[252],"origine":[280,266,231],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canada-info.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34278"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canada-info.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canada-info.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canada-info.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/34"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canada-info.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34278"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canada-info.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34278\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canada-info.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/34282"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canada-info.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34278"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canada-info.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34278"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canada-info.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34278"},{"taxonomy":"radio","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canada-info.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/radio?post=34278"},{"taxonomy":"origine","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canada-info.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/origine?post=34278"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Are elected officials allowed to consult lawyers regarding\u00a0in camera<\/em>\u00a0matters?<\/h2>\n
The hearing continues<\/h2>\n
\n