Court hears Regina councillors' application against city manager

Court hears councillors’ lawsuit against manager WATCH: A court application filed against Regina’s city manager by two councillors went before a judge on Tuesday. Brianne Foley reports.

A court application filed against Regina’s city manager by two councillors was heard by Justice J.P Morall on Tuesday morning.

Councillors Andrew Stevens and Dan Leblanc, along with a concerned citizen, took legal action against Niki Anderson claiming administration did not include action on the issue of homelessness in the proposed budget, after committing to do so.

LeBlanc submitted a mandamus application, which asks the court to order the government to perform a duty owed to the public.

The hearing began at 11 a.m. at the Court of King’s Bench in Regina.

Coun. LeBlanc made opening arguments in two parts. He argued that Anderson neglected the direction of the city council, that her job states she is bound by the direction of that council, and that it is not her discretion to decide what does or does not go into the proposed budget.

“On June 15th this year, Regina’s elected city council unanimously directed administration, headed by the respondent, to include certain funding in the proposed 2023 budget,” LeBlanc read.

He argued that since she is employed by the city, not elected onto council, it is not up to her to choose what should or should not be in the budget.

He continued by saying Anderson “cannot effectively rescind the decision herself” and that “public officials must implement the decision once made, because city councillors are elected.”

“There's basically three points that are all agreed upon,” LeBlanc told reporters after the hearing. “One is, city manager's duties are outlined by law, I say that makes it public, second is, we gave clear direction in June, put this money in the budget, third is she didn’t want to do that, so decided not to— I think that’s enough for mandamus.”

In addition, LeBlanc stated that interm city manager, Jim Nichols, understood that council voted in favour of having the $24.9 million in the proposed budget, and said it would be in it.

Though the interm city manager said it would be there, the judge argued that Anderson only had three weeks to go through the material and make a decision on the budget and that there wasn’t efficient time for her to:

a) get feedback,

b) have all the information needed.

LeBlanc reiterated that Anderson read the minutes from the meeting, along with the counselling of the city managers office, and chose to act against them.

Milad Alishahi, the layer representing Anderson, argued that “judiciary should not be used as a weapon.”

He stated that the dispute was strictly political and not legal, arguing that the city manager is only accountable to the city council, and therefore, it is not a public matter.

“The true issue at the heart of this dispute is whether the applicants can pass the test for mandamus, and obtain an order from this court to tell Mrs. Anderson, to move $24.9 million from the budget book, into the proposed budget,” Alishahi explained on Monday.

He argued that the city manager does not have a public legal duty to act, and cites section 6.c of the city bylaw that states, the city manager shall be directly responsible only to council.

He continued by stating that the duty required in a mandamus application must be to the applicants themselves.

He said the argument is that the city manager didn’t follow councils decision- so Florance Stratton doesn’t really hold out as an applicant.

He added that Stevens is just one man and that on Dec. 7th, council voted in favour of confidence in Anderson.

He argued that the only duty she owed is to council, either as a whole or a majority, and spoke to the fact that the majority of council is against the hearing.

He continued by stating there were alternate remedies that could have been sought, instead of legal action. Councillors could have imposed sanctions or directed Anderson to move the money into the proposed budget or even the final budget. Alishahi said that no other remedy was sought.

“So what they are asking you to do is sort of step in, and help you out with that, when they haven’t pursued other options,” he said.

In closing, Alishahi argued the judge should leave the politics to the politicians.

Judge Morall, noted the time line of city budget deliberations, which begin Dec. 14, and said he will have a decision on the case by Wednesday, so that his rendering isn’t moot.

Anderson said she will speak out on the dispute, once a decision has been made by the court.

With files from CTV News Regina's Stefanie Davis