If this legal petition succeeds, Kirk LaPointe will replace Gregor Robertson as Vancouver mayor

Former mayoral candidate Randal Helten behind court petition contesting municipal election results.

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      A petition to unseat Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson and councillor Geoff Meggs was filed today (December 12) in B.C. Supreme Court.

      The legal action is in connection with a donation made by a union of city workers to the election campaign of the Vision Vancouver party following a promise made by Meggs that Robertson had committed to not expand the contracting out of city services.

      According to the petition filed by five Vancouver residents, Robertson and Meggs were in a conflict of interest, and were therefore not qualified to run in the recent municipal election.

      None of the allegations made by petitioners Randal Helten (Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver’s mayoral candidate in 2011), Albert Chin, Terry Glenn Morden, Richard Nantel, and Virginia Richards have been proven in court.

      They seek court orders that the candidates who received the next highest votes after Robertson and Meggs, namely defeated mayoral candidate Kirk LaPointe and unsuccessful council candidate Ian Robertson, both of the Non-Partisan Association, be declared elected in their places.

      If Vision’s Robertson and Meggs are not deemed to be unqualified to hold office, the petitioners ask the court for a declaration that neither of the two can participate in contract negotiations with Local 1004 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which represents outside city workers.

      The petition recalls that Meggs made a speech at a meeting of CUPE 1004 during the election, in which he said: “Gregor Robertson, our mayor has again recommitted to not expand contracting out, to make sure that wherever we can bring in new processes that members of 1004 will be there delivering those services in your areas of jurisdiction...”

      In the same meeting, according to the document, CUPE 1004 committed to donate to Vision $34,000 with matching funds from CUPE B.C. and its national office.

      According to the petitioners, according to the Vancouver Charter, which is the law that governs the city, a person is disqualified to hold elected office if they “act in a conflict of interest”.

      “CUPE 1004’s contribution of $34,000 plus matching funds to a total of $102,000, was made with the express understanding that it was to secure that Vision candidates including the [sic] Mr. Robertson and Mr. Meggs, if elected, would deliver their votes on council in favour of CUPE 1004 and its members and in particular to not expand contracting out, and that where new processes were instituted by the City of Vancouver they would be delivered [by] CUPE 1004 members,” the petition allege.

      According to the petitioners, the “commitments made by Mr. Robertson and Mr. Meggs in return for the $102,000 campaign contribution from CUPE 1004” was “contrary to the best interest of the City of Vancouver, its residents, tax payers, and electors and others”.

      They also allege that the commitments were prejudicial to the bargaining position of the city in upcoming labour negotiations. They note that the collective bargaining agreement between the city and the union expires on December 31, 2015.

      “The basis upon which CUPE Local 1004 provided substantial campaign funds to Vision candidates went beyond any question of general policy and was a campaign contribution that was conditional upon a commitment by the Respondents that if elected they would cause the City to negotiate on the basis that expanding contracting out would not be a subject-matter of collective bargaining,” the petitioners allege.

      Comments

      46 Comments

      MD

      Dec 12, 2014 at 3:24pm

      ...and this group of mixed nuts wonders why they don't have any influence in Vancouver politics and no success to speak of

      ursa minor

      Dec 12, 2014 at 3:35pm

      Enough already. If candidates have a problem with parties receiving donations from unions or corporations, lobby for the campaign finance reform that Vancouver elections badly need. Otherwise, stop trying to criminalize what's legitimate political action under the current rules.

      CUPE 1004 has the right to act in enlightened self interest to support the party most likely to keep the NPA out of power, especially after Sam Sullivan and the NPA tried to break that union during the 2007 civic workers strike.

      Collective agreements are struck between City Hall and the Union. If the public doesn't like the relationship between City Hall and the Union, the redress is to elect a new City Council, not petitioning the courts.

      Alex T

      Dec 12, 2014 at 3:49pm

      Either we allow corporations & unions to donate funds or we don't. As long as we do, then we tacitly acknowledge that these situations will occur. LaPointe will be no different.

      Beatriz

      Dec 12, 2014 at 3:54pm

      I'm sure he will, and Lapoint will be appointed. Please....nowadays just post a whinny petition online , within the comfort of your home, and expect results? laughable. Can you imagine Tommy Douglas posting petitions, or Chavez asking sign this petition if you want revolucion? or the black movement asking to sign petitions to end segregation. I Think they preferred to take their message to the streets
      ,, schools, buses, wherever but and United and together like communities or social movements do. Enough with this non risk lazy petitions, do something real,instead.

      Just sayin'

      Dec 12, 2014 at 4:04pm

      Maybe it wasn't the best idea for Vision to start the lawsuit game just so they could score a few cheap political points. This is just the beginning.

      the doctor

      Dec 12, 2014 at 4:30pm

      Thank god, i live in delta. Nonsense.

      Disgusted

      Dec 12, 2014 at 4:59pm

      Here's what the Mayor and Meggs should be thrown out for: their incredible lack of fiduciary skills and responsibility.

      A $30 million hole in the budget means a nearly 7% rise in taxe--how dat happen?! Why, goofballs, it was alqays quiety tucked into those little 'Capital Plan' boxes that ignorant taxpayers marked on the back of their voting ballots. No breakdown there of the deficits they were facing.

      And whay put them in that $30 million hole? Oh, let's see some line item stuff, please.

      And who will pay for that? Why renters, who'll be dinged by landlords (and who are also likey to get walloped by new rental rates---double whammy!), and small businesses.

      Gee. wonder if Rich and Gregor had a little tete-a-tete about all this prior to the elxn? Is that why the 'gloves were off' during the civic election.?
      And our local clowns think this will make their selling of the transit refereendum go any easier?! What a joke.

      Disgusted

      Dec 12, 2014 at 5:20pm

      Sorry, that should rea: 'gloves were left on' during civic elxxn.

      As for the multiple spelling errors, let's just say my head is exploding from the bs that politicians feed us. Especially from this crew who loved to tell us how they are on top of financial/affordability/housing files during the rlrction.

      It is to weep.

      Criminal Code of Canada Section 123

      Dec 12, 2014 at 6:00pm

      Municipal corruption

      123. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years who directly or indirectly gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to a municipal official or to anyone for the benefit of a municipal official — or, being a municipal official, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person for themselves or another person — a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for the official

      (a) to abstain from voting at a meeting of the municipal council or a committee of the council;

      (b) to vote in favour of or against a measure, motion or resolution;

      (c) to aid in procuring or preventing the adoption of a measure, motion or resolution; or

      (d) to perform or fail to perform an official act.
      Marginal note:Influencing municipal official

      (2) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years who influences or attempts to influence a municipal official to do anything mentioned in paragraphs (1)(a) to (d) by

      (a) suppression of the truth, in the case of a person who is under a duty to disclose the truth;

      (b) threats or deceit; or

      (c) any unlawful means.

      Definition of “municipal official”

      (3) In this section, “municipal official” means a member of a municipal council or a person who holds an office under a municipal government.

      R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 123;
      R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 16;
      2007, c. 13, s. 6.

      don

      Dec 12, 2014 at 7:04pm

      Kirk, it wasn't money that got Gregor Robertson elected. It was his proven leadership and awareness of environmental concerns. He represents more people than your ideals do.