Mayor Linnsie Clark took the City of Medicine Hat to court on Tuesday. Eli J. Ridder/CHAT News

By Eli J. Ridder

Decision in Medicine Hat mayor’s judicial review case coming by end of September

Aug 13, 2024 | 10:00 PM

The judge reviewing the validity of sanctions placed by Medicine Hat’s city council on Mayor Linnsie Clark will release a written decision by the end of September after hearing arguments Tuesday from both sides.

Justice Rosemary Nation was active in asking questions and pushing for answers as those representing the City of Medicine Hat and Clark spent about five hours arguing over whether sanctions placed on Clark should remain in place.

Seven councillors voted to strip Clark of her mayoral powers in March after finding she broke council’s code of conduct by failing to treat City Manager Ann Mitchell with courtesy, dignity and respect during a tense exchange at a public council meeting in August 2023.

Council based its decision on a third-party report from a Kingsgate Legal investigator that found “sufficient evidence” the mayor broke the conduct bylaw.

Clark has maintained she fundamentally disagrees with the restrictions — she called them “shocking and absolutely disproportionate” — and filed for the judicial review in an attempt to reverse the sanctions and fully restore her salary.

LIVE UPDATES

Road construction, detours and traffic in Medicine Hat

21h ago

SMILE SUNDAYS

'We're all one': Hatters bond over classic muscle car

Sep 15, 2024

RECAP

Week in review: Trap-neuter-release, Highway 3 twinning

Sep 14, 2024

Lawyers argued over whether the council’s measures against Clark were appropriate, with the city’s representatives insisting code of conduct matters are within its purview, including any disciplinary action that may take place.

Nation heard the arguments from the Court of King’s Bench in Calgary. Two lawyers for the city and one representing the mayor called into the courtroom via video conferencing.

Clark could be seen sitting beside her lawyer at a table for the call. Couns. Shila Sharps and Alison Van Dyke also tuned in to watch the proceedings.

Lawyers representing the city said council was within its purview under provincial law to remove Clark’s ability to chair meetings and act as the formal spokesperson, among other sanctions.

It is ultimately up to city council to decide if there was an infraction of the code of conduct — a bylaw required by Alberta legislation — and what the consequences should be, argued Michael Swanberg, one of the city’s lawyers.

There is no public record of council’s deliberations that led to the restrictions on Clark because the discussions were had in the closed meeting format, leading the judge to question what is known and what is not.

So, the city’s lawyers pointed to the Kingsgate Legal report that found there was “sufficient evidence” she broke the conduct rules and was the premise for council to enact its sanctions on March 21.

Swanberg and his colleague Daina Young argued the city manager was not up for a public performance review on during the Aug. 21, 2023 meeting so Clark’s criticism of her reorganization of city hall was not appropriate.

Swanberg added that city managers are only accountable to council and the Municipal Government Act, not the public.

Clark’s lawyer, Grant Stapon of Bennett Jones LLC, wrapped up his arguments earlier Tuesday as to why sanctions placed on her by council should be lifted.

READ: Here’s what to know about today’s judicial review

Stapon said the mayor was “functionally and wrongfully tied to a whipping post” by council’s choice to limit her powers and cut her salary in half.

Clark was operating under the belief that Mitchell, the city manager, had received a legal opinion from city solicitor Ben Bullock that said her 2023 reorganization of city hall was legal, he said.

Instead, the solicitor denied he ever gave such an opinion in an email that was part of Clark’s submission in the Kingsgate Legal report.

“Some would say that she misrepresented, some would say lied about having that report and council did nothing about it,” Stapon said.

He also blasted the report councillors used as a premise to place sanctions on her in March.

“Council relied on this report in making its decision and I submit that it is fundamentally flawed,” he told the judge.

Nation asked Stapon whether Clark should have stopped pushing Mitchell when the city manager acknowledged she made a mistake during the Aug. 21, 2023, meeting.

Stapon responded by saying it’s an on-the-spot judgment call by the mayor in the moment and that should not be subject to discipline.

If the sanctions are kept in place it would “chill councils across this province from making public inquiries of city administration,” Stapon said.

Stapon also argued Clark’s line of questioning at the August 2023 council meeting were protected as part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Young, representing the city, responded in a later rebuttal that the sanctions are “minimal impairment” to the Charter.

Beyond the sanctions, the city’s lawyers said the salary cut was reasonable because Clark is not performing many of her duties due to the limitations imposed by her council colleagues.

Councillors and the mayor previously said they would stand by whatever the court ruled.