BUILD KAMLOOPS CASE – Residents raising money to pay for court costs
(Image: B.C. Supreme Court)
A group of Kamloops residents who lost a legal battle with Coun. Mike O’Reilly is trying to raise public donations to pay for court costs incurred by O’Reilly and the City.
The 10 residents alleged that O’Reilly was in a conflict of interest in connection with the Build Kamloops ice rink because of his involvement with the nearby Comet Industries industrial park development.
The Supreme Court judge ruled against them, and ordered them to pay all costs of the legal action.
Bronwen Scott, spokesperson for the group, says an anonymous benefactor has offered to double any donation to an $18,000+ GoFundMe campaign to help pay the debt.
“The petitioners have lived in Kamloops all or most of their lives,” she said. “There are eight retirees plus a couple of young business people who stood up for what they believed was the public interest.”
She noted that a judge in another action — a challenge to use of the alternative approval process (AAP) for the Build Kamloops borrowing bylaws — assessed no additional costs to the complainants even though he ruled against them.
Scott didn’t reveal the identity of the donor, saying only that he or she is a Kamloops resident. The actual total of legal costs is unclear.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
Judges can be wrong. Look at Steven Truscott and the conviction he faced.
Our family home was some 12 miles away from the crime scene. My mom said there was no bloody was he raped and murdered the girl as he was only 14 years old.
In this case, let’s let those who want to donate do so. Hopefully, those who do will use their judgement to do so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My friend, also a senior citizen, is not able to donate until June 26th when OAS and CPP are granted to us. Let’s see if that is a trend for seniors who want to help out Bronwen and the group.
BTW, I meant to type, “no bloody WAY he raped and…..”
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s unusual for petitioners to be slapped with costs when they lose, as seen most recently in the Alternative Approval Process Supreme Court decision this past February.
It’s generally understood by the courts that the public must not be intimidated about seeing due diligence done. Punitive financial penalties deter citizens from exercising their democratic right to pursue transparency in the conduct of their political representatives.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s not true. It’s actually the norm for unsuccessful parties to be required to pay costs. See: https://supremecourtbc.ca/civil-law/after-trial/costs-basics
“Costs are usually awarded to the party who is successful at a hearing. They cover out-of-pocket expenses and provide some compensation for the time and expense of going to Court. However, they rarely cover the full actual expense of the hearing.”
LikeLike
Yes, in civil cases but not in the case of petitions. Please go to CanLii and check out petition judgments.
LikeLike
Regarding your assertion that costs are unusual in a civil proceeding originating by way of petition, this is simply not an accurate statement. They are generally awarded to the successful party, but are discretionary. Discretion is based on a number of factors.
The judge, who presumably knows the law, concluded:
“The petitioners submitted that they should be protected from an adverse award of court costs if the petition was not successful. There is no basis in fact nor law to support this submission and no submission of any substance was made by the petitioners.”
Perhaps you meant that you found a lot of cases on CanLII in which costs were not awarded after a petition? If so, the reasons and specific factors for exercising that discretion would need to be examined in each case to determine why.
It seems that this particular petition was different than the AAP petition regarding the rationale for awarding (or not awarding) costs.
LikeLike
Thanks to Mel Rothenburger for “advertising” the GoFundMe. Thanks to Bronwen Scott for setting up the GoFundMe. Thanks to the anonymous donor who will match donations. Thanks to the group of 10 citizens who have tried to hold Kamloops City Council accountable for some of their many dubious actions. Most of us have simply been sitting back grumbling about the BS. But you’ve taken action. Hats off to you!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Since the Petitioners didn’t provide context in their request for donations, one must read the Reasons for Judgment to understand why the petition was dismissed with costs. Here are some relevant quotes from the ruling by The Honourable Justice Ball:
“The affidavit evidence submitted by the petitioners was inadequate such that it did not meet the requisite burden of establishing a conflict of interest but also was also in contravention of the Supreme Court Civil Rules addressing the form and content of affidavits.”
“It is impermissible to infer or assume that a pecuniary interest exists without evidence to support it, and I find there is no such evidence in the case at bar. The evidence that was submitted suffers from substantive as well as formal deficiencies. They were in contravention of Rule 22-2(12), but also were unsubstantiated allegations based on belief and conjecture that that was an alleged direct pecuniary interest.”
“The petitioners submitted that they should be protected from an adverse award of court costs if the petition was not successful. . There is no basis in fact nor law to support this submission and no submission of any substance was made by the petitioners.”
The Petitioners now want others to pay for the outcome of their unsubstantiated allegations based on belief and conjecture?
LikeLike
Perhaps if you had read the gofundme write-up you would understand why the petitioners brought their court action.
LikeLike
Perhaps if you understood the law, the rules of court, and the consequences for proceeding with serious allegations without proper evidence, you would not be dealing with the costs issue.
LikeLike