Council awards mayor small portion of legal costs

By BRENDAN MILLER on August 19, 2025.

bmiller@medicinehatnews.com

Mayor Linnsie Clark will receive only a small portion of legal costs accrued by challenging council sanctions, after members voted Monday on three separate motions.

To the displeasure of a handful of members of the public sitting in the gallery, city councillors voted to reimburse Clark for only $5,841.94 of the total $76,017.62 request over legal fees she owes following a judicial review of a code of conduct violation finding, as well as several sanctions that were mostly voided by a King’s Bench Justice.

Councillors debated Clark’s reimbursement in three separate categories, the first being costs for the mayor to seek legal opinions, which was $10,500. The second motion covered costs accrued to retain legal council, which amounts to $5,841.94.

The third motion covered the cost to file the judicial review of the sanction, which totals $59,675.68.

The first motion for fees of $10,500 was defeated by a vote of 5-1. The second motion for $5,841.94 unanimously passed, while the third for $59,675.68 was defeated by a split 3-3 vote.

Couns. Andy McGrogan, Shila Sharps and Alison Van Dyke voted to support the third motion of reimbursement, while Couns. Robert Dumanowski, Cassi Hider and Allison Knodel voted against. Couns. Ramona Robbins and Darren Hirsch were absent from the meeting.

Sharps was the lone member to vote yes in all three motions.

The issue has been postponed several times over approximately one year since last August before Monday’s decision, but only formally put on the council meeting agenda in April and debated five separate times within council chambers.

While debating Clark’s reimbursement on Monday evening councillors expressed concerns about covering her legal bills because there was no consultation with the rest of council to get a majority support in seeking the approval.

“Doing this without consultation, I think, is very problematic,” said Van Dyke. “I think it sets a precedent that a mayor or councillor can seek legal counsel for anything that they perceive to be an issue without consultation, and then present a bill expecting reimbursement. So I will not support the reimbursement of these funds.”

Dumanowski echoed Van Dyke, stating the city would need to have a “bottomless pit of monies” allocated for individual legal bills.

“To obtain unilaterally a legal opinion without any kind of conversation or preemptive discussion with counsel is on that person,” he said.

Sharps however, spoke about taking personal responsibility for council’s actions that led to the judicial review and sanctions over the past 12 months.

“It actually started with Mayor Clark not being given the truth and being given all the information she asked for. At the end of the day, she is an elected official, and she’s the chief elected official … You might not like the person sitting in the middle of the chair, that doesn’t change your obligation to still follow the truth and do the right thing,” said Sharps.

McGrogan said that in hindsight, the entire incident between the mayor and council could have been resolved during a heated Aug. 21 council meeting.

“In all likelihood, (this) would have gone away. But being that it didn’t, she was forced basically to a judicial review, I think unnecessarily,” said McGrogan. “But I do think that for the sake of this community, we need to move on.”

Hider said the root cause of communication and collaboration between council and the mayor could have been avoided, and she would not support any reimbursement.

“We all reflect back on things differently, and you can’t change what’s happened … I cannot support another 60 grand.”

Looking for an alternative solution, Coun. Dumanowski and Coun. Knodel tabled an impromptu motion that would see Clark receive approximately half of her legal fees, however that motion was quickly defeated.

Knodel compared finding a resolution to the issue as “running into a brick wall” and complimented Clark for sticking to her guns about what she believes to be true, but ultimately voted against the third motion that would reimburse most of her fees.

Members raised questions about the indemnification policy and council’s authority for indemnification. A motion was made by McGrogan to seek to review the indemnification policy and other related policies for clarity.

In March 2024, council voted 7-0 to sanction Clark for contravening council’s code of conflict in a public dispute with city manager Ann Mitchell, including a 50 per cent pay cut, removing her ability to chair meetings and barring her from staff areas of city hall.

24
-23