Roy L Hales/CKTZ News - The following report comes from someone who is not a lawyer, not familiar with legal terminology and will most likely change after written court documents with the correct terminology becomes available.
In a phone- in- session on the une 24, Justice Geoffrey Gaul dismissed BC Supreme Court case S15097, Anderson vs SRD (Strathcona Regional District).
There was not question about Regional Director Noba Anderson’s innocence in the suit that 14 Cortes residents brought against her in January 2019. A previous court found there was no basis for these allegations and it was dismissed
This suit revolved around:
the SRD’s decision to not pay Ms Andersons legal costs
the SRD’s decision to censure Ms Anderson for showing her lawyer confidential SRD documents, while seeking his legal advice
the question of court costs
From the beginning, Justice Gaul made it clear that his role was not to question the SRD’s decisions, but rather to determine whether the process by which they came to their conclusions was reasonable.
The burden of proof that the SRD’s decisions were not reasonable rested with Ms Anderson.
According to the legal petition brought against her, “Anderson took money from her constituents for personal gain and a number of these constituents received gifts and grants in return.” By the time this case reached court, the lawyers from both sides agreed this allegation was without basis. (All 12 examples were shown to be erroneous!)
Justice Gall ruled that this was a personal matter and had nothing to do with Ms Anderson’s conduct as a Regional Director.
He ruled that the process by which the SRD came to this conclusion was reasonable: they looked at the associated documents and discussed them etc.
While he agreed that Director Anderson had a right to consult with her lawyer, Justice Gaul said the documents she showed him belonged to the SRD Board. Had she asked their permission, she could have appealed to the court. As she did not ask the SRD’s permission, Justice Gaul ruled they were entirely within their rights to censure her.
Court costs were awarded to the SRD, which has until July 9th to submit a list.
Director Anderson’s lawyers have another week to reply.
It has not yet been determined whether Director Anderson will mount an appeal.
