Digest: R v Probe, 2018 SKQB 176

• Date: June 18, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 176

Docket Number: QB17558 , CRM 215/17 JCR

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-06-18

Judges:

• Elson

Subjects:

• Criminal Law � Corruption and Disobedience � Breach of Trust by Public Officer

Digest: The accused, a former councillor of the Rural Municipality of Sherwood (RM), was charged with committing a breach of trust in connection with the duties of his office contrary to s. 122 of the Criminal Code and with accepting an advantage or benefit as consideration for his voting in favour of a measure contrary to s. 123(1)(c) of the Code. The charges arose as a result of a meeting in February 2016 between the accused, then still a councillor for the RM, and its recently elected reeve. The Crown contended that during the meeting the accused offered to trade votes on two unrelated matters that had been previously addressed by the RM�s council. The accused submitted that he discussed the matters with the reeve in order to resolve animosities between the RM�s councillors. The discussion included references to a controversial decision of the councillors to pass a bylaw in 2014 allowing indemnification by the RM for legal expense incurred by the accused and two other councillors as a result of an inspection order and the subsequent Barclay Inquiry relating to the councillors having pecuniary interests in a development proposal for lands in the RM. The accused was disqualified from council in 2018 (see: 2018 SKQB 24). The other matter discussed by the accused and the reeve concerned another development project proposed by Suncor on property owned by the reeve�s parents. The accused did not support the proposal. He testified that because he lived nearby, he knew that the proposed facility would create a hazardous traffic crossing. In January 2016, the accused and two other councillors voted against a required bylaw amendment while three councillors voted in favour. The proposed project could not proceed unless one of the councillors who voted against the project proposed a motion to reconsider. The evidence submitted by the Crown was an audio recording of the meeting, taped by the reeve. Much of the recording was inaudible and both the Crown and the defence had prepared transcripts that were entered as exhibits that confirmed large portions of the conversation were inaudible. The transcript showed that the conversation included the men agreeing that the Suncor project was important to the RM...