Skakun Appeal Set for Today
Prince George, B.C.- The BC Court of Appeal convenes in Prince George today to hear the arguments in the Brian Skakun matter.
Skakun was found guilty of breaching the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA) in releasing a confidential report to the media. He was found guilty in Provincial Court and ordered to pay a fine. He appealed that conviction saying the Judge erred in determining he was an “officer” of the City and FOIPPA does not apply to a City Councilor.
The conviction was upheld by Justice Romily in the B.C. Supreme Court.
In announcing the BC Court of Appeal would hear the case, the Honourable Madam Justice Nielson noted the precedent setting nature of the case “I am persuaded the determination of the issue may have some broader importance as well, as it will be the first time this Court will address the role of a municipal councilor in the context of the FOIPPA, and the result of an appeal may assist in defining the scope of that legislation as it pertains to municipal officers.”
Today’s hearing is just the third time in the past 4 years that the BC Court of Appeal has convened in Prince George. Three Justices were here in 2010 as part of the Court of Appeal’s Centennial celebrations, that sitting was ceremonial. In 2011, it convened in Prince George to hear the “City vs Columbus Hotel” case which had to deal with who was responsible for the costs of demolition of a property that was in tax arrears. It was the first time the Court of Appeal had convened in Prince George in at least 12 years. Today’s sitting will make it just the second time in 15 years that the Court of Appeal has convened in this City.
The Justices who will hear the case today are:
- The Honourable Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie
- The Honourable Madam Justice Daphne Smith
- The Honourable Mister Justice David Harris.
While the appeal is to be heard today, a decision is not likely to be delivered for several months.
Comments
This is a waste of time. FOIPPA should apply to City Councillors. If it doesn’t the act will be updated to include them.
If Skakun is guilty, he gets a slap on the wrist and a couple hundred dollar fine. What else happens to him? He can still run for office and he’ll still be elected.
I don’t understand why so much taxpayer money has gone into this. This is the real injustice…
He is appealing his sentence. This is not a sentencing. He applied for leave of appeal and it was granted for the reasons given above, which means it had enough merits to warrant an appeal. He is entitled like any other citizen to avail himself of the provisions of our legal system.
Money considerations should not trump justice.
I have forgotten much of what this case was all about by now. I really do not care what happened to after the water has flowed under the bridge many moons ago.
I always wondered why the City could not provide a document with blanked out names to the Councillors and senior staff in the first place, then this would not have even hit the courts.
I think there is more than just one person who should share the blame.
Besides, the real tragedy is that harassment was protected and condoned in the first place. That is the injustice here.
What is this, the third or fourth appeal? I’ve lost count.
This is about the function of our democracy and is a very serious issue.
Will the court grant itself the power to regulate an elected councilor to nothing more than a mere manager of the city?
The court has to rule on the law as its written and FOIPPA does not apply to elected officials. Elected officials need to have discretion when operating an open and transparent government and if they fail to do so our courts have remedies for that that don’t include FOIPPA. If someone felt that their reputation was impinged by the actions of Skakun they have libel laws they could seek redress with… not hiding behind FOIPPA with public city tax dollars providing their defense and skirt to hide under.
The bottom line is the provincial government has no qualms about paying out big dollars in legal bills and hush money to cover up people involved in actions harmful to the honest functioning of our government… eg the BC Rail payoff. And that is a precedent gone to far. The BC Court of Appeals needs to throw this case out and let the litigant fund his own case of libel if he feels he has a case to stand on.
This to me is about a city using city dollars for a political vendetta against an elected official and it needs to be stopped in its tracks.
In my mind, an individual’s privacy rights do not change if you work for a public employer vs. a private one. It’s got nothing to do with ‘hiding’. Skakun doesn’t get to decide whose rights he can supercede. He knew he made a mistake, which is why he initally denied passing information to the CBC.
Courts have ruled against Skakun multiple times, I don’t expect this will be any different.
So if he made a mistake have the effected parties sue him for libel and see if they have a case in the court of law.
Don’t try and hush public accountability from elected officials with the misuse of the FOIPPA laws. It will just embolden the next politician (a potentially corrupt politician) to refuse to disclose public business citing the Skakun case.
Democracy and public accountability losses if this is allowed to stand as is.
Everyone is entitled to the same rights, Eagle. You may not like it, but that’s the way it is.
Eagle: “So if he made a mistake have the effected parties sue him for libel and see if they have a case in the court of law. “
They just might do that once Brian’s appeals run out.
Posted by: Eagleone on April 24 2014 1:45 PM
So if he made a mistake have the effected parties sue him for libel and see if they have a case in the court of law.
————-
That’s probably why he keeps appealing; he stands to lose a lot of this appeal goes against him.
This Councilor breached his oath of office, but nobody talks about that. Perhaps the rules were different when they were sworn in?
The Community Charter states as follows:
“Duty to respect confidentiality
117 (1) A council member or former council member must, unless specifically authorized otherwise by council,
(a) keep in confidence any record held in confidence by the municipality, until the record is released to the public as lawfully authorized or required, and
(b) keep in confidence information considered in any part of a council meeting or council committee meeting that was lawfully closed to the public, until the council or committee discusses the information at a meeting that is open to the public or releases the information to the public.
(2) If the municipality suffers loss or damage because a person contravenes subsection (1) and the contravention was not inadvertent, the municipality may recover damages from the person for the loss or damage.”
Now I don’t know what any of that means, but it sounds bad. I remember distinctly reading one of the Judges’ statements whereby in his reasons for judgment stated, and I’m paraphrasing here, “that the accused had not availed himself of the means available to bring this to light publicly, before acting to do so independently.”
Perhaps this shouldn’t have been brought to the courts attention at all, but something tells me that somebody somewhere had an axe to grind. Maybe, what should have happened instead is that this particular Councilor should have been dealt with by Mayor & Council in holding him to account for his breach. What would that have resulted in? Perhaps a censure?
I can’t for the life of me think of a valid reason why Councilor’s should be excluded from FOIPPA. It’s my personal opinion that this matter could have been handled much differently and that Council has the tools at its disposal to deal with these matters appropriately and without creating a circus.
If it were up to me, I would have censured him and went after him for the damages to our City, which I’m betting were considerable. This is a case of heart in the right place, but such horrible execution of duties as to deserve severe discipline. IMHO.
Shouldn’t this appeal have started April 1st .
When one puts it that way… I think it started out by an outrage at the abuse of power within the city administration for favoritism in a pretty serious charge… an expectation that the law applies to everyone gone horribly backwards due to a failure of legal clarity.
The people like him, and Skakun got the most votes last election, so that says something about where people think guilt lies. Each situation is unique with extenuating circumstances. I continuation to where some prefer to take this would create some odd situations if Skakun did run for mayor, if at the same time he was in the process of being sued through city lawyers by a city administration with a vendetta for their prime political rival….
I think Skakun has since admitted to what he did, so thats not the question here. Its more about due process clarification and run afoul conduct that is improperly classified. It has huge implication for future precedent, more so than past improprieties such as this case presents?
a contamination…. should have said.:)
Comments for this article are closed.