Conclusion

• The Investigator found that the Mayor's evidence was inconsistent and not credible. 
• The Investigator found that the Mayor was in breach of his obligations under s. 3.11(a) by making public statements he knew or ought to have known were false or misleading. 
• The Investigator found that "There is no evidence to corroborate his statements...are true and not misleading."
• This was investigated at the same time as Complaint #2023-0002, and therefore reported together in the below investigation and addendum reports. 

Investigation Report Addendum Report

Council Resolutions

At the February 6, 2024, closed Council meeting, pursuant to section 4.35 of the Code of Conduct Bylaw, Council directed that the appropriate censures, sanctions, corrective actions, and/or other measures warranted by the Breach are as follows:

1. A request that Mayor Hamer-Jackson issue a letter of apology, in a form and with content acceptable to Council, within 30 days of receiving the draft letter.
2. Mayor Hamer-Jackson must complete mandatory training on his obligations under the Code of Conduct, which training must be completed by June 30, 2024.
3. Mayor Hamer-Jackson must complete mandatory training on respectful workplace communications and other interpersonal skills, which training must be completed by June 30, 2024.

On March 5, 2024, Mayor Hamer-Jackson was provided with the letter of apology in a form and with content that was acceptable to Council. Therefore, the deadline for signing and delivering the letter of apology was April 4, 2024.

Mayor Hamer-Jackson refused or neglected to sign and deliver the letter of apology by April 4, 2024. Reminders were sent to him.

At the June 11, 2024, closed Council meeting, pursuant to section 4.38 of the Code of Conduct Bylaw [additional measures due to non-compliance], Council directed that the appropriate censures, sanctions, corrective actions, and/or other measures warranted by the Breach and by Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s failure to comply with Council’s February 6, 2024, resolution were as follows:

1. Effective immediately, the remuneration to which he would otherwise be entitled will be reduced by ten (10%) percent until the earlier of: (a) six (6) months; or until he has signed and delivered the apology letter.

By December 10, 2024, Mayor Hamer-Jackson had refused or neglected to sign and deliver the apology letter in accordance with Council’s February 6, 2024, and June 11, 2024, resolutions.

At the December 10, 2024, closed Council meeting, pursuant to section 4.38 of the Code of Conduct Bylaw [additional measures due to non-compliance], Council directed that the appropriate censures, sanctions, corrective actions, and/or other measures warranted by the Breach and Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s failure to comply with Council’s February 6, 2024, and June 11, 2024, resolutions are as follows:

1. Effective December 12, 2024, unless the Mayor has signed and delivered the apology letter to Councillor Neustaeter, the remuneration to which he would otherwise be entitled will be reduced by fifteen (15%) percent; and
2. This reduction in remuneration will remain in effect until such time as Mayor Hamer-Jackson has signed and delivered the apology letter to Councillor Neustaeter.

Conclusion

• Majority of Complaint summarily dismissed. 
• One component of Complaint proceeded to investigation. The Investigator concluded there was a trivial breach.
• The Investigator determined that, while there was a breach of the Code of Conduct, it was of a trivial nature and done because of an error in judgment made in good faith, as per subsection 4.32(c) of the Code of Conduct Bylaw. In fact, the Investigator noted that "perhaps some consideration should have been given by the complainant as to the purpose of filing it in the first place". 
• Accordingly the Investigator strongly recommended that no censure, sanctions, corrective actions, or other measures be imposed. Council accepted the Investigator's recommendation.

Investigation Report

Conclusion

• The Investigator found that Mayor Hamer-Jackson breached section 3.15(a) of the Code of Conduct and section 25.1 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act when he forwarded photographs of individuals in downtown Kamloops to the Chamber of Commerce Executive Director.
• The Investigator stated that he could not find that Mayor Hamer-Jackson took reasonable steps to prevent the breach, that the breach was trivial or inadvertent, or that the breach occurred because of an error in judgment made in good faith. The Mayor was given many opportunities to participate in the investigation and refused to do so. As such, the Investigator concluded that Mayor Hamer-Jackson took no steps to avoid this breach.
• The Investigator found that there was a clear act by Mayor Hamer-Jackson that he should have known would constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct. He requested and received photographs from the third party. At that point, he either reviewed the photographs and forwarded them to the Chamber of Commerce Executive Director, or he did not review them and forwarded them despite not knowing their contents. For the purposes of FIPPA, whether the Mayor knew what the photographs depicted or not is irrelevant - he collected and disclosed records that contained personal information. This reflects one of the many principles that FIPPA is intended to reflect. Local governments and their elected officials are required to adhere to certain standards when they collect, use, or disclose personal information. The Investigator stated that "the Mayor has fallen well below those standards in these circumstances."
• The Investigator found that whether or not he was aware that his actions would breach FIPPA, Mayor Hamer-Jackson ought to have known that the photographs contained personal information and that, as such, he should not have collected them from and transmitted them to persons who are external to the City.
• The Investigator noted that: "In the course of our investigation, it came to our attention that the Mayor’s decision to forward the Photographs to the CoC Executive Director may have engaged the Intimate Images Protection Act (the “IIPA”), in addition to FIPPA. However, at that time I determined not to include the IIPA in our investigation. I made this determination largely because the IIPA was not cited in the complaint – or in any of our subsequent correspondence with the Complainant – and is not directly referenced in the relevant Code of Conduct provisions. As a result, our processing of the complaint until that time, which included multiple notifications to the Mayor and his legal counsel, did not include any notice or assessment of whether the IIPA was breached. Given all of these factors, and a procedural fairness concern of late notice, I choose not to include the IIPA in this investigation."

Investigation Report

Council Resolutions

At the December 10, 2024, closed Council meeting, pursuant to section 4.35 of the Code of Conduct Bylaw, Council directed that the appropriate censures, sanctions, corrective actions, and other measures warranted by the Breach are as follows:

1. Within 30 days of receiving notice of this resolution, Mayor Hamer-Jackson must provide a letter of apology to both the KCBIA Executive Director and the Chamber of Commerce Executive Director in a form and with content acceptable to Council, to be drafted by the Deputy Mayor in consultation with legal counsel;
2. The Mayor will be publicly censured by Council resolution in an open meeting, the contents of which will be drafted by Councillor Hall for Council’s approval;
   Public Censure
3. Within sixty days (60) days of receiving notice of this resolution, Mayor Hamer-Jackson must take personalized mandatory training on his obligations regarding personal information under FIPPA, which said training must be A) in a form and with content acceptable to Council; and B) delivered by a qualified professional acceptable to Council;
4. Should the Mayor refuse or fail to:
   
   1. deliver the letters of apology to both the KCBIA Executive Director and the Chamber of Commerce Executive Director as specified above; or
   2. participate in and complete mandatory training specified above, the remuneration to which the Mayor would otherwise be entitled shall be reduced by ten (10%) percent, for a period of twelve (12) months.

On December 16, 2024, Mayor Hamer-Jackson was provided with notice of Council’s December 10, 2024, resolution together with draft versions of the letters of apology in a form and with content acceptable to Council.

By January 15, 2025, Mayor Hamer-Jackson had refused or neglected to sign and deliver the letters of apology as directed by Council in its December 10, 2024, resolution and as a result, the remuneration to which Mayor Hamer-Jackson would otherwise be entitled was reduced by 10% for a period of twelve (12) months.

By February 14, 2025, Mayor Hamer-Jackson had also refused or neglected to comply with Council’s resolution by undertaking personalized mandatory training on his obligations regarding personal information under FIPPA as directed by Council in its December 10, 2024, resolution.

At the April 8, 2025, closed Council meeting, pursuant to section 4.38 of the Code of Conduct Bylaw [additional measures due to non-compliance], Council directed that the appropriate censures, sanctions, corrective actions, and/or other measures warranted by the Breach and Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s ongoing failure to comply with Council’s December 10, 2024, resolution are as follows:

1. Effective immediately, the remuneration to which Mayor Hamer-Jackson would otherwise be entitled shall be reduced by an additional ten (10%) percent until such time as the Mayor has satisfied Council that he has undertaken personalized mandatory training on his statutory obligations under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act regarding personal information and his governance obligations under the Community Charter, all of which said training must be:
   
   1. in a form and with content acceptable to Council; and
   2. delivered by a qualified professional acceptable to Council.

By January 13, 2026, Mayor Hamer-Jackson had still refused or neglected to sign and deliver the letters of apology as directed by Council in its December 10, 2024 resolution.

At the January 13, 2026, closed Council meeting, pursuant to section 4.38 of the Code of Conduct Bylaw [additional measures due to non-compliance], Council directed that, if by January 15, 2026, Mayor Hamer-Jackson has not signed and delivered the letters of apology as directed by Council in its December 10, 2024, resolution, Council finds that the additional appropriate censures, sanctions, corrective actions, and/or other measures that are warranted are as follows:

1. Effective January 16, 2026, the ten percent (10%) reduction in Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s remuneration which automatically came into effect pursuant to Council’s December 10, 2024 resolution as a result of the Mayor’s failure to deliver the letters of apology to the KCBIA Executive Director and the Chamber of Commerce Executive Director within 30 days of receiving notice of the December 10, 2024 resolution, shall remain in effect until such time as the Mayor has satisfied Council that he has signed and delivered the letters of apology as required by Council’s December 10, 2024 resolution.

On January 16, 2026, Mayor Hamer-Jackson had still refused or neglected to sign and deliver the letters of apology as directed by Council in its December 10, 2024 resolution and, as a result, the remuneration to which Mayor Hamer-Jackson would otherwise be entitled continued to be reduced by 10%.

Conclusion

• The Investigator found that Mayor Hamer-Jackson breached sections 3.15(a) of the Code of Conduct and 117(1)(a) of the Community Charter when he released a privileged and confidential report to the media in early April 2024. 
• The Investigator also found that Mayor Hamer-Jackson breached sections 3.15(a) of the Code of Conduct and 117(1)(a) of the Community Charter when he released a resolution from a closed council meeting.
• The Investigator stated that Mayor Hamer-Jackson's behaviour in releasing the report and the resolution was "a substantial departure from the standard to be expected of a mayor" and that "Mayor Hamer-Jackson has shown no willingness to take any responsibility for his actions, and Council must proceed on the assumption that he is likely to continue to disclose confidential documents either through lack of care or simply when it suits him".

Investigation Report

Council Resolutions

At the September 24, 2024, closed meeting, pursuant to section 4.35 of the Code of Conduct Bylaw, Council directed that the appropriate censures, sanctions, corrective actions, and/or other measures warranted by the Breaches are as follows:

1. a letter of reprimand from Council addressed to Mayor Hamer-Jackson;
2. a request from Council that Mayor Hamer-Jackson issue a letter of apology, in a form and with content acceptable to Council;
3. a public censure of Mayor Hamer-Jackson by Council;
   Public Censure
4. a direction that Administration, in consultation with legal counsel and the Deputy Mayor of the day, place limits on Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s access to confidential information necessary to protect the corporation on a case-by-case basis; and
5. a direction that the remuneration to which Mayor Hamer-Jackson would otherwise be entitled be reduced by 15% for a period of 12 months.

On November 1, 2024, a physical copy of the draft apology letter as well as an electronic copy of the draft apology letter was delivered to Mayor Hamer-Jackson for his signature and return to Council, pursuant to Council’s September 24, 2024, resolution;

By February 25, 2025, Mayor Hamer-Jackson had refused or neglected to sign and deliver a copy of the apology letter as directed by Council’s September 24, 2024, resolution.

At the February 25, 2025, closed Council meeting, pursuant to section 4.38 of the Code of Conduct Bylaw [additional measures due to non-compliance], Council directed that the appropriate censures, sanctions, corrective actions, and/or other measures warranted by the Breaches and Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s ongoing failure to comply with Council’s September 24, 2024, resolution are as follows:

1. By 2:00 PM on Wednesday, March 5, 2025, Mayor Hamer-Jackson must sign and deliver to Deputy Mayor Bepple the letter of apology in the form previously provided on November 1, 2024, failing which, the vehicle allowance to which Mayor Hamer-Jackson would otherwise be entitled will be revoked, effective March 6, 2025, until such time as Mayor Hamer-Jackson has complied with Council’s September 24, 2024 direction; and
2. Council directs Administration, in consultation with legal counsel and the Deputy Mayor of the day, to place additional limits on Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s access to confidential information necessary to protect the corporation on a case-by-case basis.

Conclusion

• The Investigator found that Councillor Sarai’s conduct constituted a breach of sections 3.2 and 3.3(a) of the Code of Conduct.
• In reaching this finding, the Investigator found the following facts to be of particular significance:
  • Councillor Sarai anticipated that his conversation with the Mayor on January 20, 2023 would be contentious, and recorded their conversation without informing the Mayor;
  • Councillor Sarai decided to create the recording rather than speak with the Mayor with another Council member present;
  • Councillor Sarai kept the recording, even after the adoption of a Council Policy prohibiting such recordings on November 21, 2023;
  • Councillor Sarai sent the recording to the Mayor so that he would “think twice about lying”;
  • When Councillor Sarai sent the recording to the Mayor, he implied that it was sent to him by someone else;
  • On October 16, 2024, in response to reports that the Mayor was concerned his office was bugged as a result of Councillor Sarai sharing the recording, Councillor Sarai publicly denied having any knowledge of the source of the recording and described the Mayor as “paranoid and delusional”.
• The Investigator found that these facts illustrated a pattern of misdirection that falls short of Councillor Sarai’s obligation to carry out his duties with integrity, to respect others, and to demonstrate leadership and collaboration.
• The Investigator noted that Councillor Sarai may have had legitimate concerns and grievances when he created the recording and decided to use it to try to persuade the Mayor to “tell the truth” about the conversation they had on January 20, 2023. However, the manner in which Councillor Sarai conducted himself falls short of the standards that are set out in the Code of Conduct and breaches the oath of office that he swore when he was elected.

Investigation Report

Council Resolutions

On May 27, 2025, pursuant to section 4.35 of the Code of Conduct Bylaw, Council directed that the appropriate censures, sanctions, corrective actions, and/or other measures warranted by the Breach are as follows:

1. A letter of reprimand from Council;
2. Councillor Sarai will sign and deliver a letter of apology to Mayor Hamer-Jackson and a letter of apology to Council, staff, and the public within thirty (30) days of receiving the approved forms from the Deputy Mayor;
3. Councillor Sarai will take mandatory training on respectful workplace communications and other interpersonal skills within sixty (60) days of receiving notice of the resolution.
4. In the event Councillor Sarai fails to comply with either of the requirements in (b) and (c) above within the stipulated timelines, the remuneration to which he would otherwise be entitled will be reduced by five percent (5%) for a period of six (6) months or until he fully complies with both requirements, whichever is earlier.

Compliance

At its July 29, 2025, closed meeting, Council received an update from Councillor Sarai, wherein Councillor Sarai confirmed he has now fully complied with the sanctions imposed by Council on May 27, 2025. In particular, Councillor Sarai confirmed he has:

• signed and delivered the letter of apology to Mayor Hamer-Jackson;
• signed and delivered the letter of apology Council, staff, and the public; and
• taken mandatory training on respectful workplace communications and other interpersonal skills. 

Councillor Sarai completed the above requirements prior to the expiry of their respective deadlines. As a result, there will be no suspension of his remuneration. 

Letter of Reprimand
 

• The Investigator found that Mayor Hamer-Jackson breached sections 3.18 and 3.19 of the Code of Conduct when he voted on a temporary use permit application that was before Council while under a conflict of interest (the “Breach”). The breach arose from the fact that Mayor Hamer-Jackson was, at the time he cast his vote, maintaining a defamation lawsuit against the principal of the applicant corporation and in a conflict of interest as a result.
• The Investigator concluded:
  • “In my view, it is clear that Mayor Hamer-Jackson had a personal interest in Council’s consideration of the TUP application, due to his ongoing lawsuit against the applicant’s principal, Joshua Knaak. That litigation created a link between a personal consideration – the lawsuit – and the Mayor’s public law duty to vote on land use applications in a manner that reflects the public interest. I consider the Mayor’s interest a highly personal one, which is clearly distinct from the rest of the Council and certainly distinct from the electorate as a whole.”
  • “I have already noted the nature of the lawsuit, which is of a serious character. Whether or not the Mayor believed that it was filed for a defensive purpose is irrelevant. The accusations the Mayor makes in the lawsuit regarding Mr. Knaak’s statements are sufficient to create a public perception of a lack of impartiality as regards the Mayor’s exercise of public powers in relation to the principal of the applicant, Mr. Knaak.”
  • “I find, therefore, that the Mayor breached sections 3.18 and 3.19 of the Code by casting his vote on the TUP application at issue on November 26, 2024. The Mayor, in my view, had a non-pecuniary conflict of interest as defined by both the Code and the Community Charter.”

Investigation Report

Council Resolutions

At the July 29, 2025, closed meeting, pursuant to section 4.35 of the Code of Conduct bylaw, Council directed that the appropriate censures, sanctions, corrective actions, and/or other measures warranted by the Breach are as follows:

1. Within 7 business days from the date on which the City delivers notice of Council’s July 29, 2025 resolution to him, Mayor Hamer-Jackson must provide to Council a general description of the legal advice he claims to have had on November 26, 2024, together with some objective form of proof, such as confirmation from a lawyer duly qualified to practice law in British Columbia.
   
   1. If Mayor Hamer-Jackson fails to provide the objective proof required in paragraph (a) within the stipulated timeline, the remuneration to which he would otherwise be entitled will be automatically reduced by ten percent (10%) until such time as he complies with the requirement.
2. Mayor Hamer-Jackson must sign and deliver a letter of apology to Joshua Knaak, in a form and with content approved by Council, within thirty (30) calendar days from the date on which the draft letter of apology is delivered to Mayor Hamer-Jackson. 
   
   1. If Mayor Hamer-Jackson fails to sign and deliver the letter of apology required in paragraph (b) within the stipulated timeline, the remuneration to which he would otherwise be entitled will be automatically reduced by a further ten percent (10%) until such time as he complies with the requirement.
3. Within sixty (60) calendar days from the date on which the City delivers notice of Council’s July 29, 2025 resolution to him, Mayor Hamer-Jackson must take mandatory training on his obligations under the Community Charter and the Local Government Act, including with respect to conflicts of interest and his oath of office.
   
   1. If Mayor Hamer-Jackson fails to take the mandatory training required in paragraph (c) within the stipulated timeline, the remuneration to which he would otherwise be entitled will be automatically reduced by a further ten percent (10%) until such time as he complies with the requirement.

4. A public censure of Mayor Hamer-Jackson by Council will be published on the Council Leadership and Accountability page of the City’s website, along with all other outstanding censures of Mayor Hamer-Jackson by Council that have not yet been published.

   Public Censure

Mayor Hamer-Jackson was provided with Notice of Council's July 29, 2025, decision on August 1, 2025.

By August 13, 2025, Mayor Hamer-Jackson had failed to provide Council with a general description or objective proof of the legal advice he claims to have had on November 26, 2024. As a result, the remuneration to which Mayor Hamer-Jackson would otherwise be entitled was automatically reduced by ten percent (10%) until such time as he complies with Council’s July 29, 2025, resolution by providing such description and objective proof.

Mayor Hamer-Jackson failed to take mandatory training on his obligations under the Community Charter and the Local Government Act, including with respect to conflicts of interest and his oath of office within sixty (60) calendar days of receiving notice of Council’s July 29, 2025, resolution. As a result, the remuneration to which Mayor Hamer-Jackson would otherwise be entitled was automatically reduced by a further ten percent (10%) until such time as he complies with Council’s July 29, 2025, resolution by completing mandatory training.

On September 11, 2025, Mayor Hamer-Jackson received the letter of apology to Joshua Knaak in a form and with content approved by Council. Mayor Hamer-Jackson failed to advise Council that he signed and delivered the letter of apology to Joshua Knaak within 30 calendar days of receiving the letter of apology. As a result, the remuneration to which Mayor Hamer-Jackson would otherwise be entitled was automatically reduced by a further ten percent (10%) until such time as he complies with Council’s July 29, 2025, resolution by signing and delivering the letter of apology to Joshua Knaak.

• The Investigator found that Mayor Hamer-Jackson breached the Code of Conduct by sending a series of emails and text messages in April and May 2025 to City staff and Council that contained personal information contrary to privacy principles, and that were sent to bully, intimidate, and harass staff members in an improper exercise of his official duties.
• First, the Investigator found that Mayor Hamer-Jackson disseminated sensitive personal information about a City staff member on three separate occasions, contrary to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and sections 3.8 and 3.15(a) of the Code of Conduct.
   
  • On this point, the Investigator concluded:
    
    “Section 33(2)(h) of FIPPA which, again, is incorporated in the Code through sections 3.8 and 3.15, creates a “need to know” principle. That is, personal information must only be disclosed to those whose duties require knowledge of that information. Council has enshrined this principle, generally, in a policy entitled Council Policy No. CGL-30 “Confidential Personnel Records”. That policy requires Councillors to:
    
         not use or disclose confidential personnel information except for: 
    
                   - the purpose for which that information was originally obtained or compiled
                   - a use which the individual has consented in the prescribed manner
    
    I find that, by disseminating sensitive material regarding [the City staff member] in the three instances set out above, Mayor Hamer-Jackson violated this principle. In doing so, he also violated sections 3.8 and 3.15(a) of the Code.”
     
• Second, the Investigator found that Mayor Hamer-Jackson bullied another City staff member by sending several “unwelcome and objectionable” emails toward them, contrary to sections 3.1(d) and 3.11(c) of the Code of Conduct.
   
  • On this point, the Investigator concluded:
    
    “I therefore find that Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s emails were “unwelcome and objectionable conduct” by a member “toward” [the City staff member]. They were communications that constituted bullying pursuant to section 3.1(d) and 3.11(c) of the Code.”
     
• Third, the Investigator found that Mayor Hamer-Jackson bullied another City staff member by sending several emails which contained unwelcome and objectionable comments towards the staff member, including verbal aggression and insults, derogatory comments, and questioning their professional competence, contrary to sections 3.1(d) and 3.11(c) of the Code of Conduct. In addition, the Investigator found that Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s conduct in this regard was an attempt to intimidate this staff member, contrary to section 3.22 of the Code of Conduct.
   
  • The Investigator concluded:
    
    “I find that…Mayor Hamer-Jackson bullied and intimidated [the City staff member] when he: (1) questioned whether [they] had taken the most recent “FOIPPA foundations course” as he had; (2) made vague remarks about the day they met; (3) implied that he would not comply with [their] directions due to the need to use documents in a BC Supreme Court proceeding; (4) asked [them] who was in charge of the Whistleblower Policy; and (5) asked many odd and sometimes disjointed questions.
    
    These communications were intimidating and abusive in a manner that breached the Code. The fact that these communications came in relatively quick succession and were in response to a single email from [the City staff member] also supports my conclusion. I agree with [the City staff member] that it would be intimidating for a staff member to receive several successive communications from a person, like the Mayor, in a position of power at the City.
    
    Finally, [the City staff member] told me that [they] felt that Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s comments regarding BC Supreme Court could be taken as a threat of litigation against [them]. I agree that this is a reasonable characterization. This further informs my conclusions regarding bullying and intimidation…
    
    In sum, I find that the communications by Mayor Hamer-Jackson regarding the privacy breach files discussed above constituted bullying as defined in the Code because they contained unwelcome and objectionable comments towards [the City staff member] that caused [them] to feel humiliated or intimidated, including verbal aggression or insults, derogatory comments, and questioning their professional competence.
    
    I find that this conduct also constituted intimidation of [the City staff member] under section 3.22 of the Code, as it was directly related to two staff members directing Mayor Hamer-Jackson to double-delete emails. When one reads the Mayor’s communication in context, I find that they show him attempting to influence staff in relation to the decision to characterize his prior emails as privacy breaches. The emails go beyond simply asking clarifying questions, and stray into territory that the staff involved reasonably characterized as threatening or intimidating.”
     
• In conclusion, the Investigator stated that “no Mayor should treat staff in this manner and the Mayor owes these staff an unqualified apology.”

• The Investigator further commented that Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s “failure to participate in this investigation led to significant delays in the production of this investigation report and has increased the cost of this investigation”.

  Investigation Report

  Council Resolutions

  At the March 24, 2026, closed meeting, pursuant to section 4.35 of the Code of Conduct Bylaw, Council directed that the appropriate censures, sanctions, corrective actions, and/or other measures warranted by the Mayor’s breaches are as follows:

1. A letter of reprimand from Council addressed to Mayor Hamer-Jackson;
2. Mayor Hamer-Jackson must sign and deliver a letter of apology, in a form and with content acceptable to Council, to each of the three City staff members impacted by his conduct within 30 calendar days of receiving the draft letters of apology, failing which, the remuneration to which Mayor Hamer-Jackson would otherwise be entitled will be reduced by a further five percent (5%) per apology letter until such time as he has complied with this requirement;
3. Within sixty (60) days of receiving notice of Council’s March 24, 2026 resolution, Mayor Hamer-Jackson must take personalized mandatory training on his obligations regarding personal information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which said training must be: A) in a form and with content acceptable to Council and B) delivered by a qualified professional acceptable to Council and, failing which, the remuneration to which Mayor Hamer-Jackson would otherwise be entitled will be reduced by a further five percent (5%) until such time as he has complied with this requirement; and 
4. A public censure of Mayor Hamer-Jackson by Council will be published on the Leadership and Accountability page of the City’s website.
    

Public Censure

Mayor Hamer-Jackson was provided with Notice of Council’s March 24, 2026, resolution and the draft apology letters on March 31, 2026.

By April 30, 2026, Mayor Hamer-Jackson had failed to sign and deliver apology letters to the three City staff members impacted by his conduct. As a result, the remuneration to which Mayor Hamer-Jackson would otherwise be entitled was automatically reduced by 5% per apology letter (15% total) until such time as he complies with Council’s March 24, 2026, resolution by delivering the apology letters to the impacted staff members.   

By May 30, 2026, Mayor Hamer-Jackson had failed to take the personalized FIPPA training mandated by Council. As a result, the remuneration to which Mayor Hamer-Jackson would otherwise be entitled was automatically reduced by a further 5% until such time as he complies with Council’s March 24, 2026, resolution by completing the personalized FIPPA training.

Conclusion

• Having conducted a thorough bias review in accordance with the legal process laid out by Canadian courts, the Investigator concluded there was no actual or perceived bias requiring disqualification.
• The Investigator noted that the Mayor’s allegation of bias was based on his dissatisfaction with outcomes in two prior investigations (#2024-0019 and #2024-0020), where he was found to have breached the Code of Conduct, the Community Charter, and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
   
  • “To summarize, you submit that I am biased largely because you feel I have conducted previous Code investigations in a manner that is not impartial. In three emails dated May 2nd, you stated that: (1) you feel that my urging you to retain legal counsel is an indication of bias; and (2) I relied on many “assumptions” in investigating complaint 0019. In particular, you are concerned with the conclusions to which I came in 0019 and with my choice of witnesses”.

  • “In another email, dated April 30th, in response to information requests relating to three complaints you filed, you stated: 

    Lol now you want me to do the investigation lol. Just listen to radio Nl Kamloops. Or with Bass just google the dates. Seriously you’re not bias are you ? Who hired you? Specific person. Respectfully Mayor Hamer-Jackson

    While this email is not as detailed as it could be, I take it to mean that you disagree with my information requests, and that you believe those information requests indicate bias.”

• The Investigator invited the Mayor to provide evidence or submissions on the issue of bias, but the Mayor declined to do so.  
• Applying the test for reasonable apprehension of bias, Investigator Harding concluded that an informed and objective observer would not perceive bias. 
   

  • “While I was critical of your conduct in these complaints, I did not make comments that were gratuitous or unfounded. […] [W]here a breach is found, there will inherently be some criticism of the person whose conduct is at issue.

    […] I do not believe that a reasonable person, viewing the matter objectively, would find that my criticisms rise to the level of disqualifying bias.”

• The Investigator also noted he had ruled in Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s favour in other matters.
• Having found no actual or perceived bias requiring disqualification, the Investigator reactivated the complaints previously held in abeyance.

Investigator's Decision
 

Conclusion

• Council provided advance written notice to Mayor Hamer-Jackson that it would formally consider his request at its July 15, 2025 closed Council meeting. He was informed of his right to have legal counsel present and was given an opportunity to provide evidence supporting his allegations, either in person or in writing, at his discretion.
• Despite receiving advance notice and an invitation to provide evidence, Mayor Hamer-Jackson absented himself from the meeting without explanation. He chose not to submit any verbal or written statements in support of his allegations or his request.
• Council considered Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s application at its July 15, 2025 closed meeting and concluded that it has no authority under the Council Code of Conduct Bylaw to intervene in an active Code of Conduct investigation. As a result, Council cannot interfere with the assignment of an independent investigator, as requested by the Mayor.
• Council went on to conclude that, even if it had the authority to interfere with an ongoing complaint under the Code of Conduct it would conclude as follows:
  • Council would note Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s failure to provide any evidence whatsoever of bias on the part of the Investigator;
  • Council would adopt the findings of the Investigator as set out in his May 26, 2025 letter to Mayor Hamer-Jackson; and
  • Council would conclude that Investigator Harding does not hold a disqualifying bias, either real or apprehended, against Mayor Hamer-Jackson.
     

Conclusion

• Complaint dismissed. 
• The Investigator found that the Mayor cannot be held responsible for the conduct of his lawyer that was not based on his instructions, and that his lawyer's comments do not constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct by the Mayor.
• This was investigated at the same time as Complaint #2023-0001, and therefore reported together in the below investigation and addendum reports. 

Investigation Report Addendum Report

Conclusion

• Complaint summarily dismissed. 
• The Investigator summarily dismissed the Complaint. No Investigation Report issued.

Conclusion

• Complaint dismissed. 
• The Investigator found that Councillor Neustaeter did not breach the Code of Conduct Bylaw. 
• The Investigator found that Councillor Neustaeter answered the question honestly and to the best of her ability.

Investigation Report

Conclusion

• Complaint summarily dismissed. 
• The Investigator summarily dismissed the Complaint. No Investigation Report issued.

Conclusion

• Complaint dismissed. 
• Investigation Report issued. However, because Mayor Hamer-Jackson is the Complainant and all councillors are the Respondents, conflict of interest rules prevent Council from considering the Report under s. 4.31(d) of the Code of Conduct as a quorum cannot be formed.

Investigation Report

Conclusion

• Complaint summarily dismissed. No Investigation Report issued.

Conclusion

• See 2023-0015
• Complaint summarily dismissed. 

Conclusion

• Summarily dismissed. 

• Complaint dismissed.

• Investigation Report issued.

  Investigation Report

• The Investigator concluded that Councillor Bass’s statement in an October 30, 2024 media article that Mayor Hamer-Jackson “bullies and harasses, and staff [do] not feel safe” was in fact true and therefore did not constitute a breach of the Council Code of Conduct Bylaw.

• The Investigator was satisfied that Mayor Hamer-Jackson:

  (a)    has been found to have bullied and harassed City employees by multiple investigators and agencies;
  (b)    Council has had to take numerous steps to protect City employees from Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s conduct; and
  (c)    at least two City employees have taken medical leaves of absence that are directly related to Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s conduct.

• The Investigator found the following evidence to be determinative: 

  “a)     Four WorkSafeBC complaints were submitted against Mayor Hamer-Jackson due to bullying and harassing behaviour. Of those four complaints, three were accepted by WorkSafeBC (see Attachment H, response no. 5; Attachment J, Appendices A–D). 

  b)    The City conducted an internal safety investigation regarding the incident that culminated in the one WorkSafeBC complaint that was not accepted. The internal safety investigation concluded that Mayor-Hamer Jackson did bully and harass a City employee in that instance (see Attachment H, response no. 5; Attachment J, response no. 3 and Appendix I). 

  c)    An independent, external, third-party investigator concluded that 12 of 13 bullying and harassment allegations raised by one City employee against Mayor Hamer-Jackson were substantiated (see Attachment H, response no. 5; Attachment J, response no. 2 and Appendix E).

  d)     Council… was referred to 10 distinct instances of Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s conduct towards City employees, which were used as examples of bullying and harassing behaviour (see Attachment H, response no. 5).

  e )    City employees have been…to physically distance them from Mayor Hamer-Jackson and to mitigate the risk of future incidents involving Mayor Hamer-Jackson and City employees (see Attachment H, response no. 5; Attachment J, response no. 3(b)).

  f)    Mayor Hamer-Jackson has repeatedly threatened to fire at least one City employee, and suspended another City employee without justification or notice (see Attachment H, response no. 5; Attachment J, response no. 5(a)). 

  g)     Council has imposed a number of protective measures upon Mayor Hamer-Jackson and reaffirmed or expanded those measures on several occasions, which were intended to insulate City employees from interacting with Mayor Hamer-Jackson. Some of these measures expressly prohibited Mayor Hamer-Jackson from…(see Attachment J, response no. 5(b)).

  h)     Two City employees took medical leave as a result of Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s conduct towards them (see Attachment H, response no. 4 and 5; Attachment J, response no. 1)."

• The Investigator noted that although he was the Complainant in this matter, Mayor Hamer-Jackson was “largely uncooperative” and “resistant to [the Investigator’s] efforts to engage him” in the investigation.

• The Investigator noted:

  “…while I understand that Mayor Hamer-Jackson was displeased with Councillor Bass’ Statement, in my view he should have been more careful in filing this complaint. He did not cooperate with the investigation in a manner that showed he was willing to stand behind the allegations he made but instead continued to take ‘pot shots’, mostly at me and at certain City employees who he believes are hiring me to obtain a desired outcome in relation to these complaints. All in all, his conduct as a complainant was not indicative of an elected official who seriously intended to pursue a complaint.”

• The Investigator reiterated that the Code of Conduct should be taken seriously as a set of ethical guidelines to which Council has agreed to hold itself and cautioned Mayor Hamer-Jackson to consider such allegations more carefully if he intends to trigger the Code’s processes again in the future.

• Complaint summarily dismissed on the basis that the Complaint contained insufficient detail to conclude that a violation of the Code of Conduct had occurred.
• The Investigator summarily dismissed the Complaint. No Investigation Report Issued.

• Complaint summarily dismissed on the basis that the Complaint contained insufficient detail to conclude that a violation of the Code of Conduct had occurred.
• The Investigator summarily dismissed the Complaint. No Investigation Report Issued.

Conclusion

• Complaint withdrawn. 
• Respondent would not agree to informal resolution and Complainant was concerned about costs of investigation.

Conclusion

• Clerical error - duplicative.
• Complaint now addressed in 2024-0020.

Conclusion

• Complaint withdrawn.

Conclusion

• Complaint withdrawn.

Conclusion

• Complaint withdrawn due to fear of indirect or direct retaliation by Respondent against City staff if investigation continued.

Conclusion

• Complaint withdrawn due to fear of indirect or direct retaliation by Respondent against City staff if investigation continued.

Conclusion

• Complaint withdrawn due to fear of retaliation by Respondent.

Conclusion

• Complaint withdrawn due to fear of indirect or direct retaliation by Respondent against City staff if investigation continued.

Conclusion

• Complaint withdrawn due to mounting costs associated with investigating numerous alleged privacy breaches.