Stubbs v. Greenough, (1984) 61 N.S.R.(2d) 300 (TD)

• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: January 23, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1984), 61 N.S.R.(2d) 300 (TD)

Stubbs v. Greenough (1984), 61 N.S.R.(2d) 300 (TD);

    133 A.P.R. 300

MLB headnote and full text

Stubbs v. Greenough

(S.H. 44538)

Indexed As: Stubbs v. Greenough

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Trial Division

Glube, C.J.T.D.

January 23, 1984.

Summary:

An alderman with a personal interest in a proposed policy change disclosed his conflict of interest to municipal council, but, inter alia, failed to completely refrain from participating in the debate. Another alderman applied under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act for a declaration that the alderman's seat be declared vacant.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, dismissed the application and held that although the alderman's conduct violated the conflict of interest provisions of the Act, "the contravention was committed as a result of inadvertence or a bona fide error in judgment", allowing the court to relieve against forfeiture of office under s. 10(1) of the Act.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - Section 1 - Section 6 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, S.N.S. 1982, c. 11, required a council member to disclose any conflict of interest and refrain from participating in any matter before council that conflicted with his personal interests - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that s. 6 infringed a councillor's guaranteed right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression under s. 2 of the Charter, but that it was valid as a reasonable restriction for the protection of society as demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society - See paragraphs 47 to 53.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - Section 1 - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that where a provision in a statute denied a right guaranteed under the Charter the provision was invalid and s. 1 did not apply - The court further held that s. 1 only applied to validate a statutory provision which infringed a guaranteed right - See paragraph 48.

Municipal Law - Topic 912

Council members - Conflict of interest - Prohibited activities of members with a conflict - An alderman with a personal interest in a proposed policy change disclosed his conflict of interest to municipal council - However, prior to the debate the alderman telephoned other alderman concerning his conflict, and participated in the debate and in procedural matters arising out of the debate - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that the alderman's conduct constituted a violation of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, which required him to refrain from any participation in the matter conflicting with his interest - See paragraphs 64 to 68.

Municipal Law - Topic 755

Council members - Disqualification or removal - Relief from removal - An alderman violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by failing to refrain from participation in a council debate concerning a matter in which he had a personal interest - Another alderman applied for a declaration that his seat be declared vacant - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that although the alderman violated the Act, his conduct resulted from "inadvertence or a bona fide error in judgment", allowing the court to relieve against forfeiture of office under s. 10(1) of the Act - See paragraphs 69 to 76.

Words and Phrases

Inadvertence - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, discussed the meaning to the meaning of "inadvertence", as found in s. 10(1) of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, S.N.S. 1982, c. 11 - See paragraph 70.

Words and Phrases

Bona fide error in judgment - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, discussed the meaning referred to the meaning of the phrase "bona fide error in judgment", as found in s. 10(1) of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, S.N.S. 1982, c. 11 - See paragraph 71.

Cases Noticed:

Re Jamieson and The Queen (1982), 70 C.C.C.(2d) 430 (Que.Sup.Ct.), refd to. [para. 48].

Allman et al. and Commissioners of the Northwest Territories (1983), 46 A.R. 61; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 467, consd. [para. 50].

Elliott v. St. Catherines (1909), 18 O.L.R. 57, refd to. [para. 56].

Re Casson and Read (1975), 60 Alta. L.R.(2d) 455 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Graham v. McCallion (1982), 39 O.R.(2d) 740, refd to. [para. 59].

Re L'Abbe and Corp. of Blind River (1904), 7 O.L.R. 230, refd to. [para. 59].

Re Blake and Watts (1973), 41 D.L.R.(2d) 688, consd. [para. 70].

Nichol v. Fearby, [1923] 1 K.B. 480, consd. [para. 70].

Re Holstine and Wentz (1979), 107 D.L.R.(3d) 237, refd to. [para. 71].

Re Verdun and Rupnow (1980), 117 D.L.R.(3d) 128, refd to. [para. 71].

Re Moll and Fisher et al. (1979), 96 D.L.R.(3d) 506, refd to. [para. 71].

Benn v. Lozinski (1982), 37 O.R.(2d) 607, refd to. [para. 71].

Edwards v. Wilson (1980), 11 M.P.L.R. 171; 14 M.P.L.R. 128, refd to. [para. 71].

Graham v. McCallion (1982), 39 O.R.(2d) 740, refd to. [para. 71].

Edwards v. Wilson, 14 M.P.L.R. 287, refd to. [para. 72].

Statutes Noticed:

Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, S.N.S. 1982, c. 11, sect. 2(c), sect. 5(1)(b), sect. 5(1)(j), sect. 6(1), sect. 10 [para. 45]; sect. 9(2) [para. 2]; sect. 9(3) [para. 7].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 2(b), sect. 24, sect. 52 [para. 46].

Civil Procedure Rules (N.S.), rule 9.02 [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Tarnopolsky, Q.C., The Canadian Bill of Rights (2nd Rev. Ed.), p. 478 [para. 50].

Smither, Municipal Conflict of Interest, c. 29-30 [para. 71].

Counsel:

Ronald N. Pugsley, Q.C., and Robert G. Grant, for the plaintiff;

A. William Cox, Q.C., and Peter W. Gurnham, for the defendant.

This application was heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on November 15 and 29, 1983, in Chambers before Glube, C.J.T.D., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on January 23, 1984.