Council was right, the sanctions were not; justice issues ruling early

By Collin Gallant on August 27, 2024.

@@CollinGallant

The Court of King’s Bench justice reviewing how council dealt with a complaint against Mayor Linnsie Clark has quashed most of the sanctions placed on her and restored her pay, but has maintained council’s finding, their letter reprimanding Clark and their request for an apology.

That is according to a copy of the decision obtained by the News on Monday and dated the same day.

It had been expected Sept. 30 following a one-day hearing at the Calgary Court centre two weeks ago.

Proceedings delved into an August 2023 confrontation between Clark and city manager Ann Mitchell, and a March 2024 council decision to invoke the penalties.

Days later, Clark requested the judicial review, calling council’s decision unreasonable and an investigation into the code of conduct complaint flawed.

In her decision Justice Rosemary Nation writes that Clark’s case failed to prove the city or council acted with bias against her or that her Charter Rights were abridged, as argued by her lawyer.

However, penalties were “overly severe.”

“I find (the sanctions) are overwhelmingly disproportionate to the breach of the (Medicine Hat council code of conduct) and no reasonable council would have taken that decision,” Nation concludes in the 11-page decision.

“Thus, a letter of reprimand, the request for an apology and a limit on how (future) communication is done with Mitchell … are reasonable and appear connected with the concern.”

She partially granted a request from Clark’s lawyer that court quash several points of sanctions – in order to prevent further legal wrangling over changes, according to Nation – but council will be able to revisit a prohibition on Clark dealing directly with Mitchell and other staff.

That clearly interferes with the duties of the mayor to operate in the organization, Nation wrote, and should be amended by council.

By order of remedy in the decision Clark will:

– Regain her position of chairing council meetings;

– Be able to act as the “official spokesperson” of council;

– Be able to attend administrative committee meetings;

– Have her pay restored after a 50 per cent reduction, equal to about $68,000 per year.

Clark issued a statement late Monday stating the decision vindicated her position.

“I am very pleased that our Superior Court (Court of King’s Bench) restored my powers, duties and salary –
finding that these sanctions were overwhelmingly disproportionate,” she wrote. “I believe that all parties involved, including myself, have learned valuable lessons from this experience.

City administration deferred comment to council.

None of the parties were available for comment Monday night after the judgment was forwarded to several media agencies late in the day.

The ruling is available in its entirety here.

It could empower both sides of the controversy and further divide public opinion which has been split since March when seven members of council voted that Clark mistreated Mitchell during discussion about a corporate restructuring one year ago.

Clark argued she was providing rightful oversight of administrative decisions when she alleged actual layoffs and transfers occurred before council approval of corresponding bylaws.

Councillors have said the move was an effort to embarrass Mitchell and Clark was out of order.

Nation writes that facts are not in dispute, and the content of the reorganization was well known by Clark and other council members, who were willing to approve it.

“It is a reasonable conclusion that Clark went beyond the topic on the agenda and wished to deal with a personal difference the two women had over a legal point that had been earlier discussed,” Nation wrote.

Clark provided several examples of what her lawyer described as bias or intimidation, including a presentation by a municipal governance consultant last spring.

In determining whether Clark’s argument that her Charter Rights were at issue, Nation found the legal report into the breach considered the potential “chilling” effect on debate, as argued by Clark, but Nation ruled Clark’s Charter argument was not applicable.

Since the hearing, council members have painted a picture of an increasingly frustrated working relationship between the mayor and eight other members of council and staff.

Clark hasn’t commented, stating she would await the judgment, but reiterated her belief the review would guide council regarding the dispute.

Clark was represented at the hearing by Grant Stapon of the firm Bennett Jones.

The city was represented by Daina Young, of the firm Reynolds Mirth Richards & Farmer.

There was no immediate judgement on costs.

35
-34

Comments are closed.