Lawyer Sebastian Anderson is not backing down from his case in support of Port Coquitlam Coun. Laura Dupont who was denied a stint as acting mayor this month as part of a package of sanctions against her.
“People have a right to take stances they take to push public policy in ways that aren’t always supported by the ruling majority,” Anderson told the Tri-City News.
His comments come as the Supreme Court has released the basis for its July 22 decision to not quash Port Coquitlam council’s sanctions against Dupont who it censured for releasing confidential information regarding a major development at the core of its revitalization efforts on McAllister Avenue.
The court ruling not only refused to lift sanctions against Dupont but also raised questions as to whether her petition would be successful in court.
However, her lawyer maintains the councillor has a strong case and will proceed with the petition in September.
“[The judge] was looking at it from a different point of view. The question remains [that] the city in every other occasion sought an order under Section 92 to consider this matter in a closed council meeting, which they didn’t do here,” Sebastian told the Tri-City News.
In the ruling, the court states Dupont’s argument that communication needs to be labelled in order to be confidential “is weak” and her petition to lift the sanctions didn’t meet the “heightened standards” required for a mandatory injunction.
“I am unable to conclude that she is ‘very likely to succeed’ at the hearing of the petition,” the judge wrote in his decision.
Despite the setback, Anderson maintains there is much more to the argument — which will be heard Sept. 8 — including questions as to why the city did not seek a Section 92 order to consider matters in a closed council meeting.
“That’s a question, and, in our view, that’s a showstopper,” said the lawyer.
As to the harm caused by the sanctions, the judge stated in the ruling they were “largely speculative” because Dupont could still attend meetings as a member of the public, and not lose access to information. She could also be included in the acting-mayor’s rotation later if she wins her case, added the judge.
The ruling also questioned whether being acting mayor would provide the councillor with any quantifiable political gains.
“Handling the levers of power can result in as many alienated voters as inspired ones. Even the more ceremonial aspects of a position have the potential for gaffes,” noted the ruling.
As to whether her reputation could be damaged, the judge wrote that criticism of public officials is “to be expected” and whatever damage has occurred as a result of council’s resolution to impose sanctions “has likely largely passed, given the short attention span of today’s media and voters, and the fact that putting a negative media story back in the bottle can be difficult.”
On the other hand, walking back council’s resolution could harm the democratic process, the judgement suggests.
“The city’s harm is abstract, but important, being the damage to public confidence in the democratic process that will occur if there is a judicial direction to unwind a considered decision made by duly elected public officials,” wrote the judge, citing two cases in which courts were told to “be sensitive to and cautious of making rulings which deprive legislation enacted by elected officials of its effect.”
