One of three defamation suits filed by Kamloops Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson — and one of two against a fellow city councillor — was tossed by the B.C. Supreme Court on Jan. 30.
The decision by Justice J. Hughes was published on Feb. 2, and in short found that Kamloops Coun. Katie Neustaeter’s statements made during council business fell under the Protection of Public Participation Act, and there was no evidence that the statements caused any actual harm.
The lawsuit stemmed from Hamer-Jackson’s interactions with Neustaeter’s father, former MLA Kevin Kreuger, and attempts to involve him in municipal affairs despite Neustaeter’s protests and concerns that the mayor was exploiting her father’s mental health.
One of the alleged defamatory statements was an email made in response to Hamer-Jackson sending every councillor a recording of Kreuger giving the mayor support. One of the other councillors responded by stating they refused to listen to the recording, to which Hamer-Jackson said they were being disrespectful to a pillar of the community.
“Never harass, meet with, attempt to meet with, or otherwise involve a member of my family in your dealings again,” Neustater’s email in response said. “Keep colleagues, children, parents, spouses and other loved ones out of your politicking. This is the fourth time I have clearly communicated to you that you are not to use my family in an attempt to influence me or city business.”
In addition to two emails, Hamer-Jackson also took issue with a public statement that Neustaeter gave on behalf of all of the city’s council in response to the Mayor’s announcement that he wanted to unilaterally strip them of their positions in various city committees over claims that they were “overworked”.
“While we, as councillors, have been subjected to repeated disrespect, violations of personal and professional boundaries, belittling, and constantly disruptive behaviour by the Mayor, we have been willing to absorb the impact in service to our community and in an attempt to have city business compromised as little as possible,” reads the section of the public statement Hamer-Jackson claimed was defamatory.
Hamer-Jackson specifically claimed that the “violations of personal and professional boundaries” were an accusation of sexual impropriety, however, the first time that was ever raised as an issue was in an article published by the mayor’s then-counsel, a month after the statement was made.
“There is no evidence of anyone interpreting the defendant’s statements as accusing the plaintiff of sexual impropriety prior to Mr. McMillan first suggesting that to be the case,” wrote Justice Hughes.
The Justice went further to note that many media and social media statements related to sexual misconduct came after Hamer-Jackson filed his third defamation lawsuit, this time against Joshua Knaak.
Justice Hughes found that, beyond the fact that the statements were made during Neustaeter’s execution of her duties as a public official, Hamer-Jackson failed to prove that they had caused any significant harm to his reputation to the point of outweighing the public interest.
The latter part, regarding harm to Hamer-Jackson’s reputation, was emphasized when Hughes cited the ongoing and widely reported issues with the mayor’s term in office.
“The record also discloses multiple other articles and documents which demonstrate persistent and ongoing public concerns about the plaintiff’s interactions with city staff and other councillors, including specific alleged privacy violations and disruptive conduct on the part of the plaintiff,” wrote Hughes. “Thus, while there is evidence suggesting the plaintiff’s reputation includes those who believe him to be disruptive, violate privacy, violate personal boundaries and engage in sexual misconduct, there is little, if any, evidence to establish that any such harm to the plaintiff’s reputation was causally linked to the defendant’s statements.”
The case will return to court in the future to settle costs and damages. The other two defamation cases, against Knaak and Neustaeter, are still waiting to go before the courts – none of those allegations have been proven.