A BC Supreme Court justice has ruled in favour of qathet Regional District (qRD) and Electoral Area C director Clay Brander in a lawsuit brought to the court by Electoral Area B director Mark Gisborne and a large group of petitioners.
According to a regional district media release, in February of this year, a petition to the BC Supreme Court was filed against qRD and Brander related to a perceived conflict of interest concerning the Douglas Bay Road zoning bylaw, and regarding Brander’s participation in a censure and sanction process against Gisborne. The release stated that the petitioners sought a declaration disqualifying Brander from holding office, asserting that Brander allegedly participated in the discussion, voted on and attempted to influence a decision on a bylaw of which Brander had a pecuniary conflict of interest, and erroneously participated in censure and sanction against Gisborne. The judgment was read on September 2.
The release stated that the ruling determined a reasonably well-informed elector would not conclude that Brander’s attendance at the Douglas Bay Road zoning bylaw public engagement sessions was conduct that constituted an attempt to influence, nor would they expect Brander to absent himself from the censure and sanction process of Gisborne.
“It is with mixed emotions that I respond to [the September 2] ruling,” stated Brander. “While I am thankful that my actions have been proven justified and in line with the expectations of my position, I am dismayed that we had to come to this determination through legal channels, rather than working together collectively as a board to come to a resolution in this dispute.
“I want to thank the qathet Regional District board for its support, the hard work of our legal team, and everyone who has supported my family and me during this challenging time. I am looking forward to putting this experience behind us and getting back to the important work of serving the public.”
Chair makes statement
Board chair and Electoral Area A director Patrick Brabazon stated that the regional district board is authorized by legal precedent and legislation to arbitrate disputes internally.
“Our policies, bylaws and provincial statutes clearly outline expectations that directors must meet as part of our responsibilities to the electorate, and we take these types of accusations very seriously,” stated Brabazon. “In this case, however, the issue was elevated to the courts and the regional board was afforded no opportunity to address the petitioners and the matter at the local level.
“While today’s judgment offers our residents assurance that both board and director Brander acted appropriately, it is unfortunate that the public is now on the hook for unnecessary legal fees. The cost of legal fees may be somewhat mitigated as the qathet Regional District was awarded costs from the petitioners, which will be paid by the plaintiffs.”
The release stated that the BC Supreme Court judge maintained that Brander had observed the requirements of the Community Charter with respect to the Douglas Bay Road zoning bylaw at all stages. The judge outlined that if this judgment was determined incorrect, Brander acted cautiously, in good faith, and determined that any error was inadvertent.
The judgment asserted that Brander correctly declared a conflict of interest, physically removed himself from any board discussion concerning the bylaw, did not participate in board meetings concerning the bylaw, and did not cast a vote at a meeting of the board in which the bylaw was discussed, the release stated. The judge did not agree that the Community Charter prohibited Brander from attending the public engagement sessions and declined to draw inference that his attendance would influence others, according to the release.
The judgment indicated that there was no evidence of improper motive on part of Brander connected to his participation in the censure and sanction process against Gisborne, summarizing that the two matters brought forward by the petitioners were distinct and unrelated.
The judgment reasoned that it was Gisborne’s behaviour, not the substance of any opposition Gisborne may have portrayed regarding the Douglas Bay zoning bylaw, that attracted the attention of the censure and sanction motion. The judge noted that while there were many individuals complaining about Gisborne’s conduct, Brander was not identified as one of them.
