Former councillor of RM of Sherwood found not guilty for second time

A former councillor of the Rural Municipality of Sherwood has been found not guilty of breach of trust.

It’s the second time Tim Probe has heard that verdict. He also was found not guilty of that charge in 2018.

In a written decision released Monday, Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Brian Scherman said the Crown hadn’t proved beyond a reasonable doubt “that the actions of Mr. Probe constituted a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of an individual in his position of public trust.”

On Feb. 1, 2016, Probe met with the RM’s then-reeve, Jeffrey Poissant, at a coffee shop in Regina and Poissant secretly recorded the conversation. That recording subsequently was played in court during Probe’s initial trial on charges of breach of trust and municipal corruption.

The trial judge found that in that meeting, Probe tried to trade his vote on a gas station development — which would have benefitted Poissant’s parents — for Poissant’s lobbying of other councillors on a motion to have councillors pay back legal fees. That motion could have resulted in Probe being asked to pay back $50,000 in fees.

During the initial trial, Probe’s lawyer argued Probe was just trying to find a way to resolve two divisive issues on council.

In 2018, Probe was found not guilty on the charges. The Crown appealed the breach of trust decision and the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

Probe tried to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, but the country’s top court decided not to hear the case. Probe’s new trial was held in November in Regina and adjourned for decision until this week.

In his decision, Scherman said he was unable to hear on the tape — or read in a transcript of it — any indication there was a quid pro quo arrangement between Probe and Poissant on the two issues before council.

“What occurred was lobbying with a view to influence the discussion or voting on a matter that would be coming back before Council,” wrote Scherman, who noted that didn’t constitute a crime.

The justice also said he couldn’t find proof that Probe didn’t have a “public good purpose” at the root of his actions.

“I am not satisfied that Mr. Probe’s intention rose to the level of culpability required by the common law for the offence of breach of trust,” Scherman wrote. “I am not satisfied that he had a dishonest, partial, corrupt or oppressive purpose when he acted as he did.”