Kamloops mayor loses defamation case against councillor

A BC judge has dismissed Kamloops mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson’s defamation suit against a fellow member of city council.

In a Jan. 30 BC Supreme Court decision, Justice Jacqueline Hughes rejected mayor Hamer-Jackson’s claims that councillor Katie Neustaeter had defamed him in emails and a public statement read out at a press conference.

However, Justice Hughes rejected Hamer-Jackson’s claim saying he had used the defamation suit to target the councillor.

“I agree with (Neustaeter) that this case is fundamentally one about political speech. Her assertion that (Hamer-Jackson) is using this litigation to target her as a political adversary for speech that she made, which was critical of his conduct and governance in his role as Mayor, is supported on the record before me,” the Justice said.

The suit dates back to the early days of Hamer-Jackson’s leadership in the months following his October 2022 election win.

The mayor and Neustaeter clashed over Hamer-Jackson’s communications with the councillor’s father, former BC MLA Kevin Krueger.

At the time, Neustaeter was concerned that her father was displaying early signs of dementia and was worried that he was vulnerable to being taken advantage of.

Neustaeter asked Hamer-Jackson not to contact her father, but over time the matter escalated.

The mayor forwarded a voicemail Krueger had left him to council and insisted council members listen to it. The issue was also brought up during a council meeting. 

Neustaeter responded with an email to Hamer-Jackson.

“As you were unwilling to hear my concerns on Saturday and left the room, perhaps this thread would be an appropriate time to share in writing instead,” the email said in part. “Never harass, meet with, attempt to meet with, or otherwise involve a member of my family in your dealings again. That includes disclosing confidential information, slandering staff, and violating personal boundaries in the attempt to justify doing so. Keep colleagues children, parents, spouses and other loved ones out of your politicking. This is the fourth time I have clearly communicated to you that you are not to use my family in an attempt to influence me or city business.”

More emails followed, some of which the mayor argued were defamatory.

However, the Justice ruled that the council had a legitimate interest as to whether the mayor was attempting to use Neustaeter’s father and his support for Hamer-Jackson to “exert pressure” on her as a councillor.

“It was the (mayor) who made Council privy to the issues regarding Mr. Krueger when he injected those issues into a Council meeting and email correspondence between Council members,” the Justice said. “The (mayor’s) conduct in that respect is consistent with him attempting to leverage Mr. Krueger’s support to influence (Neustaeter) and other Councillors to likewise support him.

“I find that the (Krueger) had a legitimate interest and duty in her capacity as City Councillor in expressing her dissatisfaction with the manner in which the (Hamer-Jackson)—in his capacity as Mayor—engaged with her father and was attempting to leverage his support.”

Hamer-Jackson also took aim at Neustaeter when she made a public statement condemning the mayor’s suggestion that he would replace city councillors with unelected allies and supporters to various committees.

Again, the Justice dismissed the argument.

“(Neustaeter) and other Councillors’ constituents had an interest in the issue of (Hamer-Jackson’s) conduct as Mayor, and in hearing their elected Councillors’ response to the Mayor’s statement that they were being replaced on committees because they were… incapable, lacked focus, or had conflicts of interest,” the decision reads.

The mayor also claimed the statements had caused him harm including mental stress, psychological stress, humiliation, injury to dignity and economic loss and “damage” to his public image.

However, the Justice said these were “bare assertions,” and he hadn’t backed it up with evidence.

While Hamer-Jackson claimed some of Neustaeter’s statements could be viewed as having a “sexualized connotation,” the Justice dismissed his argument.

The Justice said there was a “significant public interest” in protecting the political expression in the statements and threw out the mayor’s case.