332 6th Avenue SW, Suite 900 Calgary, AB, T2P 0B2
Carscallen LLP

Success in Court for Disciplined Rocky View County Councillors

Success in Court for Disciplined Rocky View County Councillors

Carscallen litigators Michael B. Niven, Q.C. and Michael Custer recently won a high profile judicial review action in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta for their clients, Rocky View County (“RVC”) Councillors Crystal Kissel, Samanntha Wright and Kevin Hanson (the “Applicants”) against RVC and Al Hoggan, RVC’s Chief Administrative Officer (“CAO”)1Kissel v Rocky View (County), 2020 ABQB 406 [Kissel]..

The Applicants were disciplined last year in a June 11, 2019 decision by the RVC Council (“Council’) finding the Applicants breached the RVC Code of Conduct and imposing sanctions on the Applicants because of the Applicants’ actions in: writing a letter to the editor in a local media outlet criticizing the actions of their colleagues on Council; Councillor Kissel’s use of insulting language concerning the CAO in a voicemail; and the Applicants releasing a privileged RVC legal opinion to their lawyer in order to obtain legal advice.


In response to the impugned actions of the Applicants, Council appointed a law firm as an official investigator (“Investigator”) to consider the complaints against the Applicants. The law firm provided a legal opinion to Council as to whether the Applicants breached the Code of Conduct.

The law firm appointed as Investigator by Council had previously done work for RVC, and the extent and timing of this work was unclear. The Applicants objected to the law firm’s participation as Investigator in the complaint process because the law firm answered to Council in its investigatory capacity and to the RVC administration as its lawyers, placing the Investigator in an untenable position, seriously compromising its independence as Investigator, and raising a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Applicants argued this reasonable apprehension of bias violated their procedural fairness rights during the complaint process.

In Reasons for Judgment (“Reasons”) released by the Honourable Mr. Justice J.T. Eamon, the Court agreed with the Applicants’ arguments on procedural fairness and the reasonable apprehension of bias, and set aside the sanctions imposed on the Applicants by Council for a failure to adequately address the issue of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

In his Reasons, Justice Eamon held that “the Applicants were entitled to an investigator who was free from actual and reasonable apprehension of bias”.2Kissel at para 159. Although the Court declined to make a finding of reasonable apprehension of bias for the complaint process, it found the Investigator’s process was flawed for failing to adequately address the apprehension of bias allegation.


On the issue of the CAO’s decision to impose communication restrictions on the Applicants, the Court found the CAO’s email to and corresponding communication restrictions on the Applicants were not of a sufficiently public character to be subject to judicial review. The Court further found it was neither necessary nor desirable for the Court to generally assume the direct role of supervising the CAO in the present matter, because Council has a supervisory role.


The Court also found that the evidence as a whole does not support a finding of bad faith on the part of Council in this matter.


In examining each of the sanctions imposed on the Applicants by Council (and notwithstanding the Court’s setting aside of the sanctions based on the reasonable apprehension of bias), the Court also found that certain of the sanctions imposed on the Applicants by Council were grossly disproportionate and should be set aside. In his review, Justice Eamon held that a proportionality requirement is inherent in the RVC Code of Conduct’s requirement that sanctions be reasonable and appropriate, and that the proportionality requirement is an additional constraint on Council’s decision making when imposing sanctions under the Code of Conduct.3Kissel at para 234.

Sanctions reducing Applicants’ compensation and removal from duties

Specifically, the Court found the discretionary terms of the sanctions removing the Applicants from some of their duties, and reducing their compensation, to be “grossly disproportionate to the misconduct and thus overwhelming”.4Kissel at para 256. The Court found the discretionary terms of these sanctions were arbitrary and indefinite,5Kissel at para 253. and that there was no apparent rational basis for this measure.

Sanctions barring Applicants’ communication with RVC staff

The Court further found that there was no rational connection for the sanctions barring Applicants Hanson and Wright against communicating with RVC staff for participating in the letter to the editor, as “[n]o decision-maker acting reasonably could justify imposing this sanction in response to an incident of disrespecting Council colleagues in the news media”.6Kissel at para 246.

On the issue of the sanctions imposed on Applicant Kissel barring her from communicating with other RVC staff due to her use of derogatory language about the CAO in a single voicemail, the Court found such sanction to be “grossly disproportionate to Councillor Kissel’s misconduct in leaving the voicemail, and thus overwhelming. No reasonable body would have imposed such a harsh sanction.”7Kissel at para 260.

Carscallen LLP’s Commercial Litigation Expertise

Carscallen’s team of experienced litigators has successfully represented clients at all levels of court and before tribunals in Alberta and Canada. Our extensive litigation experience allows us to focus on practical, common sense legal solutions to disputes. We represent public corporations, private enterprises and individuals and are adept at tailoring unique solutions to meet your needs and protect your interests. We have achieved regular and consistent success at trial and appellate levels of courts and before various tribunals, and we have a strong track record of effectively resolving disputes outside the formal legal process through mediations and arbitrations.

Please contact any member of our Commercial Litigation team with any questions you may have about any litigation-related issues.

  • 1
    Kissel v Rocky View (County), 2020 ABQB 406 [Kissel].
  • 2
    Kissel at para 159.
  • 3
    Kissel at para 234.
  • 4
    Kissel at para 256.
  • 5
    Kissel at para 253.
  • 6
    Kissel at para 246.
  • 7
    Kissel at para 260.
*This update is intended for general information only on the subject matter and is not to be taken as legal advice.

Posted: June 28, 2020

Related Posts

Comments are closed.