The BCSC Throws out City Council’s Unanimous Censuring of its Mayor

The petitioner sought a judicial review of the decision made by the city’s council to pass resolutions censuring and sanctioning him. He argued that the decisions were made without proper observance of procedural fairness and were unreasonable. The British Columbia Supreme Court quashed the resolutions on procedural fairness grounds, noting that the staff report underlying the resolutions was ambiguous and confusing and the decision to censure and sanction the petitioner was based on alleged misconduct different from that set out in the staff report.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Municipal councils – By-laws – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness

Paull v. Quesnel (City), [2025] B.C.J. No. 332, British Columbia Supreme Court, March 3, 2025, H.W. Veenstra J.

The petitioner, mayor of the City of Quesnel, sought a judicial review of decisions made by the council of the City of Quesnel (the “City”) leading up to and including three resolutions censuring and sanctioning him. These reprimands flowed from allegations relating to a book that disputed findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Particularly, the mayor’s wife distributed the book, the mayor condoned the distribution and attempted to distribute the book at a regional district board meeting.

Prior to passing the resolutions, the City Council was provided with a staff report that contained information on the potential censure and sanction of the mayor. The mayor argued the resolutions were procedurally unfair because the staff report was ambiguous and did not clearly indicate that censure and sanctions would be decided, and that the staff report failed to provide specific details and evidence about the alleged misconduct.

In response, the City argued the staff report provided sufficient information for the mayor to understand the issues, and that the decision to censure and sanction was based on the mayor’s leadership and accountability, not on the factual issues with respect to whether the mayor was actually promoting the book in issue.

The court found that the staff report was not a clear and unambiguous document setting out the allegations that would underlie a motion of censure and sanction. In summary, the Court found that the City failed to observe procedural fairness by purporting to censure and sanction the mayor based on a staff report that was “at best ambiguous and confusing” and deciding to censure and sanction the mayor based on alleged misconduct different from what was set out in the staff report.

Lastly, the Court commented generally that the ability of a municipal council to censure and sanction a member of that council for misconduct is well established in the authorities. The power to censure and sanction is rooted in s. 114(4) of the Community Charter which provides power to do necessary things that are “incidental or conducive to the exercise or performance of” a council’s power. This power must be exercised with great care and discretion.

This case was digested by Eric Mo of Harper Grey LLP and first published in the LexisNexis® Harper Grey Administrative Law Netletter and the Harper Grey Administrative Law Newsletter. If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact him directly at [email protected].