Wunderlich v. City of Kamloops, 2025 BCSC 555

On October 22, 2024, Kathrine Wunderlich filed a Petition in the BC Supreme Court seeking to set aside the City’s adoption of two loan authorization bylaws: 

1. the Kamloops Centre for the Arts Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 57-1, 2024, which authorized the City to borrow money to construct a new Performing Arts Centre; and
2. the Arena Multiplex and Future Development Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 57-2, 2024, which permitted the City to borrow money to construct a new Arena Multiplex.

In the Petition, Ms. Wunderlich alleged that the Loan Authorization Bylaws were invalid because the City had not complied with Provincial legislation governing how municipalities conduct an Alternative Approval Process (“AAP”) to obtain elector approval on borrowing bylaws. In particular, Ms. Wunderlich argued that the City had not provided sufficient notice of the AAPs for the Loan Authorization Bylaws.

The Honourable Justice Groves heard the Petition on January 15, 2025.

On February 21, 2025, Justice Groves released his Reasons for Judgment in this case, dismissing the Petition in its entirety. Justice Groves found that the City’s procedure in giving notice with respect to the AAPs was reasonable and therefore complied with the Provincial requirements. As a result, Justice Groves found no basis to overturn the two Loan Authorization Bylaws.

Dunn et al. v. O’Reilly, 2025 BCSC 966

On October 31, 2024, Thea Dunn, Beat Klossner, Patrick Snell, Lynda Engli, Gerd Dessau, Deborah Kuipers, Patricia Carlson, Howard King, Denis Walsh, and Christine Schieberle (collectively, the “Petitioners”) filed a Petition in the BC Supreme Court seeking to disqualify Councillor Mike O’Reilly under section 111 of the Community Charter. 

In the Petition, the Petitioners alleged that Councillor O’Reilly had voted on a matter before Council with respect to which he held a conflict of interest. The Petitioners also sought an order that the City void its adoption of the Arena Multiplex and Future Development Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 57-2, 2024 (the “Arena Bylaw”).

The Honourable Justice Ball heard the Petition on March 10 and 11, 2025. 

On May 27, 2025, Justice Ball released his Reasons for Judgment in this case, dismissing the Petition in its entirety.

• In respect of the disqualification sought by the Petitioners, Justice Ball found that the Petitioners’ claim was precluded by the limitation period set out in section 111(4) of the Community Charter, which required the Petitioners to bring their application to disqualify Councillor O’Reilly within 45 days of any of the Petitioners becoming aware of the alleged basis for disqualification. Justice Ball found that one of the Petitioners knew about the alleged basis for disqualification more than 45 days prior to the filing of the Petition. As a result, the limitation period in which the Petitioners could seek the disqualification of Councillor O’Reilly had expired.
• In respect of the Arena Bylaw, Justice Ball found that the relief sought by the Petitioners was in fact an application to set aside the Arena Bylaw under section 623 of the Local Government Act. Justice Ball noted that pursuant to section 623(4)(b) of the Local Government Act, such an application could not be brought more than one month after adoption of the subject bylaw. Justice Ball held that the Petitioners had not brought their Petition within the one-month limitation period stipulated in the Act. As a result, the Court had no jurisdiction to consider the Petitioners’ request to void the Arena Bylaw.
• Justice Ball went on to say that even if the Petitioners had brought their Petition before the expiry of the respective limitation periods, he would not be able to conclude that the Petitioners had established that Councillor O’Reilly held a conflict of interest, or a basis on which the Arena Bylaw should be set aside. Justice Ball noted that the affidavit evidence submitted by the Petitioners was “inadequate” and “replete with speculation, inference and assumptions”.
• Justice Ball went on to caution the Petitioners against making spurious allegations of conflict of interest, noting that “allegations of a conflict of interest made against an elected official are serious” and a conflict of interest cannot be “inferred out of thin air and in the absence of any evidence”.
• Justice Ball awarded Councillor O’Reilly and the City their costs. 

On June 12, 2023, Mayor Hamer-Jackson filed a Notice of Civil Claim in the BC Supreme Court alleging that Councillor Neustaeter defamed him when she made a statement on behalf of Council on March 17, 2023 (the “First Defamation Action”).

On June 20, 2023, pursuant to section 740 of the Local Government Act, Council resolved to indemnify Councillor Neustaeter in respect of the First Defamation Action. 

On July 31, 2025, Mayor Hamer-Jackson filed a second Notice of Civil Claim in the BC Supreme Court alleging that Councillor Neustaeter defamed him in an email to City staff and Council (the “Second Defamation Action”).

On August 12, 2025, pursuant to section 740 of the Local Government Act, Council resolved to indemnify Councillor Neustaeter in respect of the Second Defamation Action.

These proceedings remain before the Court.

On October 31, 2024, Thea Dunn, Beat Klossner, Patrick Snell, Lynda Engli, Gerd Dessau, Deborah Kuipers, Patricia Carlson, Howard King, Denis Walsh, and Christine Schieberle (collectively, the “Petitioners”) filed a Petition in the BC Supreme Court seeking to disqualify Councillor O’Reilly under section 111 of the Community Charter (the “Petition”). In the Petition, the Petitioners alleged that Councillor O’Reilly had voted on a matter before Council with respect to which he held a conflict of interest. The Petitioners also sought an order that the City void its adoption of the Arena Multiplex and Future Development Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 57-2, 2024.

On December 10, 2024, Council resolved to indemnify Councillor O’Reilly in respect of the Petition pursuant to section 740 of the Local Government Act.

On May 27, 2025, Justice Ball released his Reasons for Judgement in this case, dismissing the Petition in its entirety. 

• In respect of the disqualification sought by the Petitioners, Justice Ball found that the Petitioners’ claim was precluded by the limitation period set out in section 111(4) of the Community Charter, which required the Petitioners to bring their application to disqualify Councillor O’Reilly within 45 days of any of the Petitioners becoming aware of the alleged basis for disqualification. Justice Ball found that one of the Petitioners knew about the alleged basis for disqualification more than 45 days prior to the filing of the Petition. As a result, the limitation period in which the Petitioners could seek the disqualification of Councillor O’Reilly had expired.
• In respect of the Arena Bylaw, Justice Ball found that the relief sought by the Petitioners was in fact an application to set aside the Arena Bylaw under section 623 of the Local Government Act. Justice Ball noted that pursuant to section 623(4)(b) of the Local Government Act, such an application could not be brought more than one month after adoption of the subject bylaw. Justice Ball held that the Petitioners had not brought their Petition within the one-month limitation period stipulated in the Act. As a result, the Court had no jurisdiction to consider the Petitioners’ request to void the Arena Bylaw.
• Justice Ball went on to say that even if the Petitioners had brought their Petition before the expiry of the respective limitation periods, he would not be able to conclude that the Petitioners had established that Councillor O’Reilly held a conflict of interest, or a basis on which the Arena Bylaw should be set aside. Justice Ball noted that the affidavit evidence submitted by the Petitioners was “inadequate” and “replete with speculation, inference and assumptions”.
• Justice Ball went on to caution the Petitioners against making spurious allegations of conflict of interest, noting that “allegations of a conflict of interest made against an elected official are serious” and a conflict of interest cannot be “inferred out of thin air and in the absence of any evidence”.
• Justice Ball awarded Councillor O’Reilly and the City their costs.