REID ALL ABOUT IT – Mayor’s lawsuit against Neustaeter dismissed
(Images: City of Kamloops)
An occasional glimpse into the mayoral life of Reid Hamer-Jackson, including what the media have to say.
The Big Media are reporting today (Jan. 30, 2026) that Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson’s lawsuit, filed in June 2023, against Coun. Katie Neustaeter alleging defamation has been dismissed in B.C. Supreme Court.
The decision by Justice Jacqueline Hughes was released today and found in favour of dismissing the mayor’s action under the Protection of Participation Act. The mayor’s action was filed after Neustaeter read out comments on behalf of councillors on March 17, 2023 in which she claimed Hamer-Jackson had “crossed personal boundaries.” The claim also cited statements made in three emails sent by Neustaeter.
Hughes ruled that the comments came within the bounds of qualified privilege. “I therefore find that there are grounds to believe that the Public Statement was made on an occasion of qualified privilege and did not stray beyond the scope of that privilege. Consequently, I find that the application of the defence of qualified privilege to the Public Statement tends to weigh more in the defendant’s favour,” she wrote.
Hughes said Neustaeter’s comments were not motivated by malice.
“I agree with the defendant that this case is fundamentally one about political speech. Her assertion that the plaintiff [Hamer-Jackson] is using this litigation to target her as a political adversary for speech that she made, which was critical of his conduct and governance in his role as mayor, is supported on the record before me,” the judge said of Neustaeter’s defence.
“Aside from the plaintiff’s bare assertions, there is no evidence of any causal link between the harms alleged and the defendant’s statements.”
Neustaeter’s legal fees are being paid for by the City, while Hamer-Jackson has borne his own costs himself. A hearing, within 30 days, will determine whether the mayor must pay Neusteater’s/ City’s costs as well.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
But the statement wasn’t made in a situation of “qualified privilege.” Then-CAO Trawin stated at a public council meeting that the March 17/23 statement was “not official council business” which is why there is no written record of the event at city hall.
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
April 11, 2023
Page 3
7.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE AGENDA
Bronwen Scott, regarding section 4 of the Agenda:
• Asked for clarification on items included in the minutes of the March 21, 2023, Special Council Meeting.
• Expressed concerns that the March 21, 2023 Special Council Meeting minutes lacked reference to the public statement made by Councillors on March 17, 2023.
Corporate Officer Mazzotta advised that the mentioned statement was not a subject of the March 21, 2023, Special Council Meeting and so was not a part of that meeting’s agenda or minutes. It was noted that Councillor’s statement was not made at a formal Council meeting and so there are no minutes recording the statement.
Bronwen Scott (continued):
• Expressed further concerns regarding the Councillor’s March 17, 2023 public statement and asked whether that statement was made on behalf of the City of Kamloops as a corporation.
Chief Administrative Officer Trawin further clarified that the statement was made by Councillors, rather than the corporation, and that, although the statement was made in Council Chambers, it was not part of a Council meeting and so is not part of the official records of Council meetings.
LikeLike
I was asked by someone if I had heard Katie on NL radio and I said that I had not. I listened today.
I hope that some day or evening, a still small voice will speak to Katie and let her know that when the universe was created, the earth was not made to revolve around her.
If citizens thought that there was any conceit at City Hall, citizens would understand that most of it has been hogged by one person.
The dictionary meaning for “conceit” could be abbreviated into one name. In all of my 70+ years, I cannot think of any other person who is so self-serving, so self-centred and so conceited.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What about ”Protection of participation” for the involved and attuned taxpayers…something she was/is adamantly not keen about, tougher with her colleagues.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Isn’t it sad that some people think that suing the city might be the response to them not being prepared for potential injury when they set foot on ice, with sharp blades. I for one think that the skating rink was a good idea and provides another place for families to gather and have fun. I don’t see the hazards much different from when I was young(er) and we travelled to frozen ponds to get in some skating. I didn’t skate very well, but I also never broke wrists or arms. Some may have, but I don’t recall that being the city’s fault or responsibility. Get over it, people, and be responsible for yourself.
LikeLike
I would be fine with no incumbents, and most especially the Mayor. If he had any character at all, he would recognize what a detriment he is to the city. If you had a whole new slate of counselors, you would have exactly the same thing going on with him as mayor.
LikeLike
I think the electorate can get behind a “No Incumbents” grassroots campaign. The abysmal representation, egotistic games and contemptuous treatment of the taxpayers has not gone unoticed. “No Incumbents” is a clear and easy message to deliver and digest.
In fact, I have heard rumblings of such a campaign. If this goes through, incumbent councillors won’t stand a chance. Donors feel free to waste your money on incumbent campaigns. You won’t be successful.
LikeLike
Future councillors and mayors take note: it’s ok to mock, demean and defame your fellow council members.
Coun. Neustaeter gets away with making unsupported claims against the mayor. Coun. O’Reilly gets away with calling the mayor “delusional” and other demeaning descriptions. Coun. Karpuk gets away with yelling at the mayor in public for not signing some documents, only to discover that the documents had been on Karpuk’s desk all along. Coun. Bass makes so many faces when the mayor speaks it’s a wonder her face doesn’t stay that way. Coun. Hall giggles when the mayor reports a threat to himself. Coun. Middleton continually interrupts the mayor with “points of order.” Coun. Sarai lies to make trouble for the mayor.
Children in charge of spending (over-spending) tax dollars.
Next election: No incumbents, please.
LikeLike
Unfortunately you know most will indeed be voted back in…that’s a tradition around here.
LikeLike
That’s a cup half empty point of view my friend.
LikeLike
Thank you to the taxpayers for their generous contributions in funding the defence of these claims. In other news, people are breaking their arms and wrists at a frantic pace down at the skating rink. Perhaps this is another opportunity for the taxpayer to fund legal claims.
LikeLike
That the skate ring was going to be a potential issue with injuries and litigation was totally overlooked by the same folks that brought us parking meters that never really worked, amongst other things…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, the same city that uses great quantities of glyphosate in public areas because it “might get sued if someone trips over a dandelion.”
LikeLike