Court refuses to unseat Mayor Gregor Robertson in conflict of interest case

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      Kirk LaPointe still isn’t going to be mayor of Vancouver.

      A judge has dismissed a petition to disqualify LaPointe’s victor, Mayor Gregor Robertson, and Robertson’s Vision Vancouver ally, councillor Geoff Meggs, from holding public office.

      In reasons for judgment issued today (April 17), justice Elliott Myers of the B.C. Supreme Court found no merit in a claim that Robertson and Meggs were in conflict of interest in connection with a campaign donation from a union representing outside city workers.

      According to Myers, “there is no evidence” indicating that the $34,000 received by Vision Vancouver was “anything other than a lawful political contribution” from Local 1004 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

      Local 1004 made the donation in the run-up to the 2014 municipal election after Meggs told union representatives in a meeting that Robertson has “recommitted to not expand contracting out”.

      Details of the meeting were made known following the leakage of audio that was secretly recorded by one of the attendees.

      Myers wrote: “There is no evidence of an agreement between the respondents and Local 1004 to the effect that if a contribution was made, the respondents would take a particular position or that if a contribution was not made they would not take that position.”

      “Rather,” the judge continued, “the respondents’ long-standing view, one made public well before the current election, was against contracting out of union positions.”

      The petition was filed by Randal Helten, Albert Chin, Terry Glenn Morden (also known as Terry Glenn Martin), Richard J.G. Nantel, and Virginia A. Richards.

      They had asked the court to declare that the candidate with the next highest number of votes in the November 15, 2014, election is elected in the places of Robertson and Meggs.

      With respect to Robertson, that candidate would be LaPointe of the Non-Partisan Association.

      In his reasons for judgement, Myers noted that the petitioners argued that he should “infer an agreement” between Local 1004 and the two public officials “because the respondents did not deny the existence of an agreement until Mr. Meggs filed his affidavit, and Mr. Robertson did not file an affidavit”.

      Myers didn’t buy that.

      “While a court may draw inferences from facts in evidence, I cannot draw an inference of the agreement alleged by the petitioners,” the judge wrote.

      Besides, according to Myers, the petitioners’ counsel “acknowledged during argument, and the cases establish, there is nothing wrong with a politician stating his policy in the hopes of obtaining votes or campaign contributions”.

      “There is also nothing untoward with contributions being made by supporters of that position,” Myers pointed out. “There can also not be anything wrong with a politician carrying out a campaign promise if elected. The petitioners have not demonstrated anything beyond this.”

      Robertson issued a statement in response to the dismissal of the petition.

      “I’m very pleased that the Court has thoroughly dismissed the legal action against myself and Councillor Meggs, and affirmed that Councillor Meggs acted with integrity. The Judge’s decision reaffirms what we have stated for months: that the accusations being brought forward were baseless," Robertson stated.
       
      “It is a disturbing trend to see people bring forward court action to try and subvert the results of a democratic election. I’m pleased that the judge has thrown out what was clearly a politically-driven lawsuit.”

      Comments

      15 Comments

      Skip ad

      Apr 17, 2015 at 1:23pm

      @The Big Martini,
      Have a big martini!
      These frivolous and vexatious lawsuits are an abuse of the system. The courts are overloaded. It's mischief, pure and simple. I hope you get slapped with costs.

      0 0Rating: 0

      out at night

      Apr 17, 2015 at 1:25pm

      Okay, let's get back to work.
      I hope Randal Helten, Albert Chin, Terry Glenn Morden (also known as Terry Glenn Martin), Richard J.G. Nantel, and Virginia A. Richards are done wasting the time and money of elected leaders, the courts and the good people of Vancouver.

      0 0Rating: 0

      Nice Try

      Apr 17, 2015 at 1:47pm

      Lol. Okay so Plan D didn't work. On to Plan E!!!

      ursa minor

      Apr 17, 2015 at 3:16pm

      It looks like this time Gregor is right about the "f**king NPA hacks"...

      0 0Rating: 0

      Emily

      Apr 17, 2015 at 4:14pm

      Nice try Helten. Say hi to the Chernens!

      cosmicsync

      Apr 17, 2015 at 4:14pm

      Did the judgement have anything to say about costs, Charlie? I would hope taxpayers are not stuck picking up the tab for this nonsense.

      0 0Rating: 0

      jenables

      Apr 17, 2015 at 5:30pm

      We really need to go back to a ward system.

      0 0Rating: 0

      Petitioner Helten

      Apr 17, 2015 at 5:57pm

      This story is definitely NOT over, folks. With all due respect, the ruling misses and skirts around crucial issues presented in the case. There was a specific promise by a specific candidate who was seeking donations for his party, to deliver a specific outcome/benefit to a specific organization during upcoming contract negotiations that would affect the use of public funds. This is a matter of public interest.

      Petitioners are disappointed that the Court found "no grounds on which to declare the respondents disqualified and removed from their office." The ruling's message to society perhaps says something about the system British Columbians are being forced to accept -- moreso than about this case.

      We had asked the Court to explore and define the line of acceptable behaviour by elected officials when they are accepting campaign funds and support. We are saddened by the message this ruling gives to society. This case brings up issues that strike at the core of our democratic and election systems. The case is important for public trust in the integrity of both.

      This decision is certainly not the end of this story and the public dialogue.

      This speaks volumes: The lawyer for the defendants referred to the Petitioners in Court as "A bunch of do-good citizens who think their views are more important than the electorate." He also said, "Elected politicians should not be put in a position of having to waste their time and money responding to this type of action..." That represents the Robertson/Meggs' attitude.

      The Petioners' lawyer rightly responded, "It is not fair ... to be characterizing these people in such a negative and derogatory way, when what they are asking is to have issues of concern to the fairness of the electoral process be considered by the Court." The effect of the Robertson/Meggs submission is to say "This case should not have been brought forward and politicians should be immunized from having their conduct reviewed ... they (i.e.., the public) should not be allowed to have concerns reviewed by the Court."

      SYNCHRONICITY: Today is the LAST day for public input on election finance rules for the 2018 civic election. Submit your comments here - https://www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/leel/submission.asp.

      Not sure what to say? Here are some good ideas:
      https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/april-17th-last-day-finan...

      out at night

      Apr 17, 2015 at 10:07pm

      Helten, no more contracting out is a specific promise indeed. Also a good one, a smart one, a true one and one backed up by precedent by the party in question. So yeah, your case was silly. Get over it.

      James Blatchford

      Apr 18, 2015 at 9:35am

      Memo to Helton: and in another case of the courts having to state the obvious, the Easter Bunny is fake.