An attempt to have a Kamloops city councillor thrown out of office has seemingly backfired on a group of ten Kamloops citizens.

In a ruling issued by Justice Kenneth Ball, the group — which includes a number of vocal critics of the current council — has been ordered pay the legal fees involved in their attempt to have Councillor Mike O’Reilly thrown off council for his role as the now-former Chair of the Build Kamloops Committee. [Councillor Kelly Hall has since taken over the role]

The group filed a petition in BC Supreme Court, claiming O’Reilly as the then-Chair of the Committe was in conflict when the site for the proposed multi-plex arena in Dufferin was chosen.

The group claimed O’Reilly should have recused himself from the process as his company, Comet Industries, is setting up the Iron Mask Industrial Park some 3.5 kilometers away.

In its petition, the group claimed O’Reilly stood to gain financially from the decision made by council and should be dismissed from office for the remainder of the term.

Further to that, the group also called on the Court to order the City of Kamloops to void the choice of the Dufferin site for the multi-plex and also “Order the City of Kamloops to conduct a new process to determine the location for the Arena Multiplex in broad consultation with the wider community.”

The group also added a caveat to its submission.

“Protect the Petitioners from any and all costs requested by the respondents regardless of the outcome of this proceeding; and such further and other relief as the petitioners may request and this Honourable Court may deem just in the circumstances of this proceeding.”

The group was not represented in court by legal counsel over the course of the two-day hearing in March.

Instead, former Kamloops Councillor Denis Walsh is listed as counsel, though he is not an active member of the Canadian Bar Association.

“Affidavit evidence submitted by the petitioners was inadequate”

In issuing his ruling, Justice Kenneth Ball makes a strong case for the term “lawyer up.”

The ruling takes issue with the “evidence” the individuals in the group filed on their own behalf, with Justice Ball noting that it didn’t meet the standards required to actually be heard as evidence.

“The affidavits which were adduced as evidence by the petitioners were replete with statements on information and belief,” stated Justice Ball as part of his ruling.  “For example, in the first affidavit of Ms. [Katherine] Dunn, she deposes to being informed and believing certain facts without any reference to a source of information. This is repeated several times in the affidavit.”

Justice Ball’s ruling goes on to note that belief and hearsay aren’t allowed as evidence in front of the Courts.

“Ms. Dunn also relies on news or similar reports at various times in her affidavit. None of the exhibits referred to in any of the relevant paragraphs are admissible because of the lack of personal knowledge of the affiant or use of news sourced articles.”

The decision also calls out the rest of the group.

“The affidavits of the other petitioners, including Patrick Snell, Beat Klossner, Lynda Engli, Gerd Dessau, Deborah Kuipers, Patricia Carlson, Howard King, Denis Jerome Walsh and Christine Schieberle suffer from the same inadequacies,” stated Justice Ball in his ruling.  “They are all replete with statements of information and belief without stating the source of the information. These affidavits are not proper evidence before the Court.”

Justice Ball’s ruling also goes on to note the petition, based on sections of the Community Charter, disqualified it as an application the Court could rule on in the first place, as the group had missed a legal deadline.

The petition to have O’Reilly ousted from office was submitted to the BC Supreme Court Registry on October 31st, 2024.

Under the Community Charter rules, a conflict of interest complaint has to be filed within 45 days of the allegation, which means the group would have to have had no knowledge of the allegations they were claiming until September 14th at the earliest.

To that end, Justice Ball also singled out one of the petitioners in his ruling, regular council critic Patrick Snell.

“In his affidavit, Mr. Snell makes no mention that he was present at and participated in the Council held on July 30, 2024,” stated Justice Ball in his ruling, noting that was the date when the location for the proposed multi-plex arena in Dufferin was made public at Kamloops council.

“Without doubt, Mr. Snell was aware of the location proposed for the Arena Multiplex by the date of that meeting. The fact that Mr. Snell did not refer to his attendance and participation in the July 30 Council meeting is a negative reflection on his credibility because it demonstrates a lack of forthrightness and relates to the limitation defences [sic] raised by the respondents.”

Group contends O’Reilly “has no good reason” to be pleased

In response to the ruling, the group has issued a statement saying it is considering an appeal.

“This was not a frivolous claim,” stated the group in a statement to the media on Wednesday, a day after the Court made the ruling available.  “We spent at least 400 hours researching and compiling evidence and claims and about $5000 in filing fees and office supplies to bring the case to court.”

“Councillor Mike O’Reilly has good reason to be relieved by the decision of Justice Ball to dismiss a conflict of interest petition against him but no reason to be proud of the decision,” added the group.

The statement goes on to claim the reason for the Justice’s dismissal of the case was based on the missed deadline.

While factual, the ruling by Justice Ball does go further.

“While the limitation periods are dispositive of this matter [reason the case was thrown out], I would note that even if the limitation periods had not expired, I would not be able to conclude that the petitioners had established a conflict of interest or established the basis on which the Arena Bylaw ought to be set aside,” stated Justice Ball’s ruling.

Costs to be determined

Purported by certain subscribers of the “freeman” philosophy as a way to avoid penalty, the Court has rejected the group’s attempt to absolve itself from costs through its initial filing in BC Supreme Court.

“The petitioners submitted that they should be protected from an adverse award of court costs if the petition was not successful,” stated Justice Ball in his ruling.  “There is no basis in fact nor law to support this submission and no submission of any substance was made by the petitioners.”

“Both Councillor O’Reilly and the City of Kamloops have been successful and are in my view, entitled to their costs payable forthwith by the petitioners,” added Justice Ball.

While its affidavits filed to the Court only site Councillor O’Reilly in its claim, the group also made a demand of the City of Kamloops in calling for the location of the multi-plex to be quashed.

As a result, the City was allowed to be represented at the hearing by two lawyers to represent the interests of the Corporation, while evidence was also filed in O’Reilly’s defense by staff at Kamloops City Hall — the cost of which will all have to be reimbursed by the group.

Those costs are expected to be determined in the coming weeks.

For his part, Councillor O’Reilly has issued a brief statement after the ruling came down.

“I am pleased that the conflict of interest case filed against me has been defeated with the judge confirming that I was indeed not in a conflict and the petition has been dismissed in its entirety,” stated O’Reilly.  “As a Kamloops City Councillor, I swore an oath which I take seriously and have taken seriously when I was first elected in 2018 and when I was re-elected in 2022.”

“I take on this role with great pride and professionalism, and will continue to lead with the best interests of Kamloops citizens at the forefront while ensuring I follow all laws governing this role. Thank you to our community for your continued trust in me,” added O’Reilly.