Representatives from the District of Sechelt will be in court on Sept. 28 to face allegations of abuse of public office.
The claim was filed by businessman Brock Rodgers in 2008 but it has taken until this month to have the issue heard in court.
Rodgers alleges then District councillors Keith Thirkell and Ed Steeves acted unlawfully in 2007 when they voted against rezoning a proposed pub site that would have facilitated Wakefield Inn Ltd.'s operation of a pub.
The pub was tied to a liquor licence that would have also allowed for a liquor store proposed for the Tsain-Ko Mall.
Rodgers claims the dominant reason for the councillors' decision was to limit competition between liquor stores, which was "deliberate and unlawful."
Rodgers' statement of claim also said the councillors in question voted against the rezoning to "prevent creating a liquor store on the Indian reserve," which he alleges was "deliberately discriminatory."
"The fact that [the Wakefield pub plan] was all basically thrown in the garbage in order to prevent the Band and Tsain-Ko Village from having a liquor store to help facilitate the synergy of that shopping centre is atrocious," Rodgers said in an interview Sept. 14.
"And the fact that from the get-go the village had been completely on board that this was a great idea for Wakefield to have a pub there, and then the minute it became apparent that in any way, shape or form this was tied to our desire to put the liquor store at Tsain-Ko, some of them did a fairly aggressive about-face."
Rodgers' lawyer Gord Kehler from MacKenzie Fujisawa said that although it took four councillors' votes to deny Rodgers' application in 2007, he feels the two councillors named in the lawsuit were the most likely to have committed wrongdoing.
"From the materials we have and the investigations we've carried out, it's our belief that it was most clear that those two were making the decision based on facts that they were not to take into account. The others who voted against it, it was not as obvious that this was the motivating factor," Kehler said.
Because Thirkell and Steeves were councillors for the District of Sechelt when the alleged offence took place, the District will represent them in court.
Sechelt's director of corporate services Jo-Anne Frank said the District feels the "zoning was done appropriately."
"We don't agree with the claim and we will have our day in court," she said.
In legal documents filed by the District, their stance is made clear.
"Councillors Steeves and Thirkell voted against the motion to adopt the rezoning bylaw because they did not believe that it was in the District's best interests to have a bistro operating under a liquor-primary licence in the residential development that had been proposed for the lands," the statement says.
"The councillors had no malicious intent against the plaintiff and did not vote against the motion in order to deliberately cause harm to the plaintiff - their sole motivation was to provide for the District's best interests, and their vote was not made based on irrelevant or improper considerations."
Steeves and Thirkell did not want to comment on the details of the case this week, as the issue is before the courts.
On Sept. 28, the District plans to bring up the statute of limitations that says Rodgers' claim cannot go any further as it was not filed within six months of the defeated motion.
"Our first position is going to be that this is well past the statute of limitations for commencing legal action. It will be up to the judge to consider," Frank said.
Keller thinks the judge will try the case despite the time limitation.
"There have been a number of technical arguments that have been advanced by the District and the individual councillors. Our expectation is that those will be dismissed and that it will be reduced to the main issue to go forward to a trial," Kehler said.
