Referendum ran afoul of Municipalities Act: court

A debate over what to do REGINA with Ituna’s former liquor store has landed in front of the courts.

According to a February decision from Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Richard Elson, applicant Sandra Barbour took the town to court on claims the town breached the Municipalities Act regarding a referendum on what to do with the former Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority location.

Elson found in favour of Barbour, determining the town contravened a section of the act pertaining to a “failure to submit a resolution to the electors that accorded with the petitioners’ request.” Elson quashed the resolution in question and directed Barbour’s costs be paid in the amount of $3,500.

As outlined in the decision, the issue began with the closure of the store in 2014 and the 2015 purchase of the property by the town.

The issue became what to do with the property, with two initial resolutions put forward at town council in July 2015: put the property up for sale by tender (defeated four to two), or approach the Parkland Regional Library’s (PRL) Ituna branch about the possibility of moving into the vacated building (which passed).

In August 2015, a resolution passed in which council decided to contact the PRL and advise the town required the library to move to the new location as soon as possible. The resolution sparked a group of electors to put together a petition, calling for a referendum.

“Should the Ituna Town Council rescind its motion to relocate the Ituna Local Library and tender the former Ituna Liquor Store for sale?” it read. The petition was formally addressed at the November 2015 council meeting. Council passed three resolutions providing for a referendum to be held the following February, putting forward the question: “Do you want the Town of Ituna to retain ownership of the former Liquor store and move the Parkland Regional Library Ituna Branch to that location?”

The referendum resulted in a split of 114 votes for no and 101 for yes, leading council to pass a resolution at its March 2016 meeting to tender the property.

The town subsequently received several bids between $30,000 and $35,000, but those were ultimately rejected via a resolution (the one now quashed by Elson). According to Barbour, debate by council centred on bids being too low and a continued interest in moving the library to that location.

“She further deposed that one councillor stated that whichever bidder won the tender should be prepared to sign a long-term lease with the Ituna Library,” Elson wrote. “Finally, the applicant deposed that there was no discussion about re-tendering the sale of the property.”

At council’s July 2016 meeting, a resolution was carried instructing the library to move into the former liquor store. As of today, the library remains in that location.

Through her lawyer, C. Mervin Ozirny, Barbour alleged a lack of good faith in the rewording by the town of the petitioners’ referendum question. Meanwhile, the town’s lawyer, David Kreklewich, argued the change in wording was within the town’s discretion and that the resolution put to electors was not inconsistent with the petition’s request.

But Elson found the differences were “significant,” reversing the order of the two proposals and rephrasing the request “in such a way that those who supported the request would be obliged to vote against the submitted resolution.”

“Thirdly, the submitted resolution did not expressly ask the voters to rescind, or not, the Town’s decision to relocate the Ituna Library,” Elson wrote.

While Elson found “no conclusive evidence of bad faith,” he determined the town committed more than a technical breach. “Rather, it deprived the petitioners and the electors of the full opportunity, afforded by the Act, to test the proposal that was implicit in the petition’s request,” Elson wrote. “Instead of encouraging and enabling public participation in the governance process, the Town’s actions served the exact opposite purpose.”