As one Town of Athabasca councillor faces concerns from other councillors about his firm taking on a case suing the town, another faces questions about bringing the suit to light.
A public statement of claim reads that the Town of Athabasca is being sued for negligence in maintaining its Skateboard Park, which led to a child injuring themself and losing part of their finger on Aug. 1, 2015. The claim states the plaintiff is seeking $120,000 in damages.
The case is being represented by Brent Boisvert, one of town Coun. Tim Verhaeghe’s partners at the Verhaeghe & Boisvert Law Office.
Boisvert said he would not answer questions about the case at this time. Verhaeghe said he can offer no comment about his firm representing the case.
Coun. Nichole Adams brought the case and who was representing it to the media’s attention at the May 17 town council meeting.
When asked why, Adams said she believed it was information that should shared with the public.
“I certainly think that would be a matter of public interest, and I do think the public has a right to know such things,” Adams said in an email to the Advocate.
“I do believe Tim Verhaeghe has a business interest in his own law firm and how it does,” she said in another email.
Coun. Tanu Evans also said that he found the circumstances “interesting.”
“Personally, I find it very interesting that you would allow your name to be attached to a lawsuit against the municipality you serve,” he said. “Legal matters are before the courts and the lawyers, so I don’t think Tim is directly involved or anything, and I definitely don’t think there’s anything wrong going on here. But, to me, it’s an interesting fact.”
Town chief administrative officer Josh Pyrcz said the town does not have an official position on the matter.
“From the town’s perspective, we don’t have a position on that,” he said. “The Verhaeghe law firm is allowed to take on cases as they see fit and the town can continue to do its due diligence.”
Mayor Roger Morrill said in an email that “from a Council point of view and with my understanding, as long as everyone follows the MGA, this should not be an issue.”
Coun. Joanne Peckham she was surprised by the lawsuit, and that the Verhaeghe & Boisvert Law Office had taken the case. She said she was concerned over the impact it might have on an already tense council.
“Council again, it’s fractured because there’s no trust,” Coun. Joanne Peckham said. “There’s absolutely no trust amongst any of us now, and when stuff like this happens, it further embeds that in our heads.”
Verhaeghe brought up the motions to disqualify him and Morrill when asked about the impact on council.
He said if those motions were rescinded, he was reinstated to all committees and issued a formal apology, “we could put all this behind us and I would not lay any blame or give it a second thought,” adding that he would be willing to attend government mediation sessions.
“That is all it would take to diffuse the situation and appease the tenseness that one councillor may be feeling,” he said.
Municipal Government Act
Alberta Municipal Affairs public relations officer Fiona Wiseman said in an email that the Municipal Government Act addresses pecuniary interest of councillors.
She said the Act states that a councillor has a pecuniary interest in a matter if the matter could monetarily affect the councillor or an employer of the councillor.
“When a councillor has a pecuniary interest in a matter that comes before council or a council committee, the councillor must, if present, disclose the nature of the pecuniary interest prior to any discussions, abstain from any discussions on the matter and abstain from voting on the matter,” she said, adding that if a councillor fails to disclose a pecuniary interest they could be disqualified.
Public’s knowledge of lawsuit
Several councillors said the incident outlined in the lawsuit has been discussed by council members in camera.
Adams, Evans and Peckham said the incident was first brought up in camera; none remembered the date.
“Obviously, it was after the incident occurred,” Adams said. “It’s hard to remember, and I don’t know because there was no motion coming out of it.”
Adams and Evans said they first learned about the lawsuit through an email sent out by CAO Pyrcz several days after the suit was filed on April 18.
Adams said the lawsuit has not been discussed by council in a “formal situation.”
Verhaeghe said if it had been discussed in camera, he would not be able to confirm that it was discussed.
“But I do not recall this matter ever being discussed in camera or at the public portion of any meeting that I was at,” he said in an email.
Verhaeghe also said he finds it “very interesting that Coun. Adams is willing to talk about in-camera discussions with the press.”
“The whole thing has blown up on social media,” he said. “I feel bad for the family ... If an in-camera discussion had not been disclosed, none of that would have happened.”
Pyrcz said the statement of claim is a public document.
“I don’t want to discuss anything that happened during an in-camera session, so if she has not said anything that happened at an in-camera session in terms of details, I have no problem with that,” he said. “Again, as with any member of council, the details that are discussed in camera are to be kept confidential. It’s my hope that they will all continue to abide by that.”
Morrill said in an email that to the best of his knowledge, the issue of the lawsuit has not been discussed in public at a council meeting.
“As to whether it has been discussed In-Camera, that information is protected under FOIP legislation and the MGA, and part of my duties as an elected official require me to keep in confidence what is said In-Camera, something I take seriously,” he said. “Having said all this, to the best of my recollection, this matter has never been discussed by our Council in my presence.”
– With files from Allendria Brunjes
