Judge tosses out councillors’ application against Regina city manager

As budget deliberations continued at City Hall, a Regina Court of King’s Bench justice denied an application filed against the city manager to include funding for a homelessness plan in the proposed budget.

Justice John Morrall issued his ruling Wednesday afternoon, tossing out an application filed by Coun. Andrew Stevens and resident Florence Stratton. The application was filed by Dan LeBlanc, another city councillor and a lawyer.

“I find there is only strategic value in tinkering with the proposed budget for the applicants,” Morrall wrote. “The aggrieved Councillors will have the full use of the democratic process to put the line item in the final budget, if that is the will of the majority of council. It is my view that this would be an adequate and effective remedy in these circumstances.”

At a meeting in June, council unanimously agreed to have the city’s administration include full operational funding in the proposed budget to solve homelessness through a housing-first, supportive-housing model.

But during an executive committee meeting in September, Deputy Mayor Lori Bresciani told administration that council understood the funding would be discussed during budget deliberations but would not be included in the budget book as a line item.

On Nov. 21, the proposed budget was presented to city council, but it didn’t include the nearly $25 million in funding for the homelessness plan. The next day, LeBlanc — on behalf of Stevens and Stratton — applied for mandamus to force city manager Niki Anderson to include the funding for the plan in the budget.

Morrall heard 2 1/2 hours of arguments Tuesday, when the applicants laid out reasons why Anderson should be compelled to include the funding in the budget.

In his written ruling, the justice said Anderson didn’t have a legal duty to the public to put the funding in the proposed budget, nor did she have a duty to the applicants.

Morrall wrote that Stratton “has no interest in the matter aside from being a concerned ratepayer,” and that Stevens is just one member of council — and the majority of council already voiced their support for Anderson.

“The city manager is the employee of one body, not 11 individuals,” Morrall wrote. “She needs to respond to the will of council as she interprets it according to The City Manager’s Bylaw. It would lead to chaos for her to be accountable to 11 individuals with disparate views.”

The applicants suggested they had a “clear right to performance of that duty,” but the justice said that wasn’t the case either.

He noted that “a polite inquiry would be of greater assistance and likely more effective than immediately using the blunt force of an originating application alleging a breach of duty against an employee who has not finished her first month of employment.”

Morrall added that Anderson’s duty to include the funding as a line item in the budget is discretionary, and he noted she didn’t act in bad faith. He said she acted “based on relevant considerations which would include being concerned about the financial health of the City in proceeding as she did.”

The justice concluded that council as a whole must address Anderson’s “interpretation or misinterpretation” of council’s will as opposed to seeking mandamus.

“I find that the court should be quite leery of being involved in the political machinations and debates between members of municipal, provincial or federal decision-making bodies,” Morrall wrote.

“While establishing the goalposts can be part of the court’s gatekeeping function, the remedy of mandamus is a blunt tool and must be used equitably and appropriately.”

During a break of the budget debate, LeBlanc said he was disappointed in the court decision but he doesn’t expect to appeal it.

“Legally, the decision is correct,” he said. “I think there’s some tough political implications (arising from the decision).

“Notably, on my first review of the decision, it turns out the city manager does not have a public legal duty to follow council’s directions and that makes one question, I think, why do we provide directions? Politically, why do residents come out (and) talk to us about things like homelessness? Why do they give up their day to do it?

“There’s going to be implications about people coming to speak to city council in the future if decisions like this can be not followed.”

LeBlanc said he expected to put forward a motion Thursday to include the funding in the budget, a move he hoped would lead to “an adult conversation” about addressing homelessness and the fentanyl crisis in the city.

“Now we have to fight harder than we should have had to to get this money in,” LeBlanc said. “But I think the fight’s still worth having because today, there are people in tents (and) there are people dying of fentanyl overdoses.

“(The dismissal of the application) is too bad, it’s a setback, but we have work to do and we’re going to do that.”

The budget is calling for a 4.67 per cent mill rate increase in 2023 and a 4.66 hike in 2024.