Skakun Mounts Second Appeal in FOI Case
Saturday, October 13, 2012 @ 6:03 AM
Prince George, B.C. – The case of Prince George city councilor Brian Skakun is headed back to the courts.
Skakun was found guilty of breaching the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for releasing a confidential city report to the CBC. Skakun was fined as a result. He appealed the decision of Judge Kenneth Ball on two grounds: that Ball showed an apprehension of bias, and that the judge erred in finding that a municipal councilor is an officer under the Act. That appeal was dismissed by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Selwyn Romilly, with no reasons given for that decision.
Now Skakun says his lawyer, Jon Duncan, has filed an appeal of the decision of Judge Ball declaring elected officials as officers under section 30.4 of the Act. Skakun says that ruling is in direct conflict with the provincial government which, Skakun says, has told him that he is not an “officer” under section 30.4.
Skakun says he is concerned that if the court ruling regarding an “officer” under the FOIPPA stands, the ability of elected officials, such as councilors, school trustees and regional district directors, to represent the people and promote transparency will be seriously undermined.
Skakun says he is not pursuing the bias issue further.
Comments
Get a Life!
How does the saying go….If you cant do the time, don’t do the crime.
This seems to be about ego masquerading as transparency.
I have really had enough of this guy!
FOI?
How about FOAD?
Seriously? This is a bad joke.
The never ending story.
It takes courage to do the right thing, thank you Brian
Good on you Brian and thank you for ensuring transparency in government. Pay no attention to the nay sayers as I doubt that they know of the far reaching effects of transparency in government. Brian for MAYOR!!
Mr Skakun is entitled to defend himself.
Any one of you would do the same. If you’re so tired of reading about this stuff, then JUST STOP READING IT. How hard can that “idea” be..?
I support his efforts.
And we wonder why the justice system is so backed up. They have to deal with bogus cases like this.
Waste of money and time. You are given information that is not for public consumption and you opened your mouth.
“Skakun says he is concerned that if the court ruling regarding an âofficerâ under the FOIPPA stands, the ability of elected officials, such as councilors, school trustees and regional district directors, to represent the people and promote transparency will be seriously undermined.”
Get ready to lose again. Brian, you don’t get to decide when the FOI and Protection of Privacy Act applies and when it does not.
Keep paying the lawyer Brian. Duncan will take your case to court all day long if you keep throwing cash at him. When is the book and movie coming out ?
Go Brian go.
Cheers
I am of the belief Mr. Skakun is fighting this so vehemently is there are several civil suits awaiting the outcome of this. Now the real victims who have had their reputations and careers either ruined or cut short by this loose cannon want financial compensation. Thus when Mr. Skakun approached the city, he asked for his expenses be compensated, not just his legal costs.
Good point, Bald Eagle.
I am not surprised that there are a number of blogers that do not understand that Mr. Skakun is fighting this battle to ensure our rights are not desimated by the few that do not believe the citizens of Prince George need transparency in government if they are to question or argue against what the municipal government is doing.
He broke the law, got caught, appealed once and lost. All he is doing now is wasting the courts time, but he does seem to like to be in the media as much as possible. As for insuring our rights, thanks for the laugh. There are legal avenues he could have pursued rather than ” leak” the documents, but he didn’t and now he is guilty of a crime. Timr to move on Brian. Wasn’t it a fine of around $1,000 or so and last count our legal fees where over $40,000. Hmmmm must be nice to have that kind of money to waste.
MR. Skakun already has the mayoral job if he wants it. This is a legal right that he is fighting for OUR benifit.
If you apply the peter principle Brian Skakun has already over reached as a member of council. To suggest he is mayoral material is laughable.
He is nothing more than a finger in the wind politician.
I laugh every time I hear that as well..
Why would he give up his cushy pulp mill job for mayor.. No one is that foolish.. He would only be in for four years..then what ? Back to the bottom of the union at half wage..
In this day and age we have few politicians that will even try to protect the transparency of our political system and the rights of elected politicians to be whistle blowers.
I support Brian for fighting the good fight.
All those attacking Skakun are the type of people that have things to hide. They don’t want to lose their ability to hide behind laws put in place to protect backroom sneaky deals. If Skakun wins, they lose.
Go Brian!!!
It doesn’t quite work that way P Val.
How clueless can you get?
The FOI and Protection of Privacy act are for the protection of all Canadians, so loose cannons like Brian don’t get to decide what’s private and what’s not.
This is why he’ll lose again.
Well inform us all dragon master
BaldEagle wrote: “I am of the belief Mr. Skakun is fighting this so vehemently is there are several civil suits awaiting the outcome of this.”
If there is a winnable civil suit there, then the City can be in the line of fire as well.
The question becomes, did the City do everything that any reasonable City or other corporation would have done or could have done to ensure that the names were not released inadvertently or willfully by a third party who had access to documents for which the City had a responsibility to protect the names of people involved?
In my opinion, the answer to that is no.
Why? Because they did not take relatively easy active steps to prevent the release of the documents such as:
1.Distributing the documents in camera and collecting them at the end of the meeting; and/or
2.blanking out the names of the individuals involved.
The release of the documents is not important in the case. If the names had been blanked out, this would never have gone to court.
Comments for this article are closed.