Court of Appeal overturns conflict ruling involving Vancouver councilman

.

The BC Supreme Court has overturned a ruling that dismissed a bid to hold the Vancouver Coun. Michael Wiebe removed from office over allegations of conflict of interest.

.

The petitioners in the case, a group who identified themselves as constituents in the city of Vancouver, sought to have Wiebe disqualified after she voted in favor of measures to expand the use of outdoor patio seating during the early days of the COVID pandemic.

Wiebe, who had been elected to a four-year term as a councilmember in 2018 and had a financial interest in a Vancouver restaurant and bar, participated in a council committee meeting that discussed the issue and later voted in favor of the expansion program. of the yard at a council meeting in May 2020.

The restaurant Wiebe had an interest in, Eight 1/2 Restaurant, was one of the first to receive approval for a patio expansion permit.

The petitioners argued in court that Wiebe, a member of the Vancouver Green Party who is seeking re-election this fall, had a conflict of interest when he voted for the program.

.

But in July 2021, British Columbia Supreme Court Justice John Steeves rejected his request to have Wiebe removed from office.

The judge said that the petitioners had established that Wiebe had a pecuniary interest in the yard program and had not disclosed it at the meetings.

Steeves found that by voting on the issue, Wiebe was in contravention of the Vancouver Charter, but concluded that she qualified for an exception to the charter’s restrictions.

The judge ruled that Wiebe’s pecuniary interest was one she shared with 3,127 other restaurant and liquor licensees in the city of Vancouver. The petition was dismissed.

But in a ruling published Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the BC Court of Appeals concluded that Wiebe’s interest was not shared with the other 3,000 licensees.

.

The court found that, at best, Wiebe’s interest was shared with a subset of them (those who were ready and considered capable of applying for a permit) and that his was an interest different from that of the general population of licensees.

The court concluded that Wiebe further distinguished himself from the already small group in that he actively pursued the private benefits he obviously perceived in the program he was simultaneously crafting as a public official.

But instead of disqualifying Wiebe from office, the high court sent the matter back to the British Columbia Supreme Court to address several other potential defenses she might have.

Those defenses are that the infringement was committed inadvertently, or due to an error of judgment made in good faith, or that Wiebe’s pecuniary interest was so remote or insignificant that it cannot be considered reasonably likely to influence him.

.

Aurora Faulkner-Killam, Wiebe’s attorney, said in a statement that her client is closely reviewing the decision and will consider her options in the coming weeks.

“He remains committed to holding office and serving the citizens of Vancouver. He has always been truthful that he evaluated the votes in question as a business owner, in good faith and with the belief that he was permitted to participate in the vote in accordance with his prior training and practice in the city. ”.

Wesley Mussio, attorney for the petitioners, said in a statement that his clients were “very pleased” with the high court’s decision.

“They are private citizens who chose to hold Mr. Wiebe accountable for what they believed to be a clear conflict of interest in the implementation of the temporary yard program, one that clearly benefited both of Mr. Wiebe’s businesses.”

[email protected]

twitter.com/keithrfraser