“Move” with Caution – A Reminder to Local Elected Councils and Boards of the Complexities of Censure and Sanction Motions
March 6, 2025
Article by:
Andrew Carricato
The decision of the BC Supreme Court in Paull v. Quesnel (City), 2025 BCSC 347 adds to the growing line of cases regarding censure and sanction of local government councils and boards. It provides a cautionary reminder to elected council and board members of the complexities of a motion of censure and the process to be followed. It also highlights the importance of giving respondents due process and the required procedural fairness.
The ability of a local government elected body to censure and sanction one of its members for misconduct is well established in law. BC’s courts have rooted the power to censure a fellow member in section 114 (4) of the Community Charter and have implied the right from case law.
Censure and sanction are available to elected bodies to address and regulate conduct of a member which is considered to fall below the expected standards of conduct of the body on which they sit. Those standards are typically held within policies or a bylaw approved, established or maintained by the body itself. A public censure is largely symbolic and is meant to serve as a public reprimand. There is no corresponding fine or disqualification from office, but it may be accompanied by a removal of certain rights.
Summary of Facts and the Decision
In Paull v Quesnel, the petitioner, who is currently the Mayor of the City of Quesnel, sought judicial review of resolutions made by the City’s Council in April 2024 which led to him being censured and sanctioned. Council’s resolutions resulted in the Mayor having lost access to certain budgets for travel and lobbying, was removed from participating in organizations that required Council approval, was removed from membership on City committees, and was removed from working with Indigenous partners. The Mayor was also required to make a ‘sincere’ apology.
The Mayor argued that the motions were unclear, failed to include sufficient and important details of why he was being censured, and claimed that the decisions failed to give him the procedural fairness to which he was entitled. The Mayor was successful in his challenge.
The Court agreed that the Mayor was improperly censured and sanctioned and concluded that the City failed to observe procedural fairness by:
a) Failing to provide the required two weeks’ notice of proceedings pursuant to the Code of Conduct and Ethics;
b) Purporting to censure and sanction the Mayor based on a report that was at best “ambiguous and confusing”, and could be properly read as merely inviting input as to a process to be followed; and
c) Deciding to censure and sanction the Mayor based on alleged misconduct (or shortcomings other than misconduct) that were not set out in advance [para 175].
As a result, the Court concluded the Mayor was not afforded the procedural fairness required and quashed the disputed Council resolutions [para 184].
The key points for local governments to consider are the following:
1) Elected Council and Board members are owed a high degree of procedural fairness in respect of any meeting, motion or resolution which concerns potential future findings of conduct or possible sanctions that may have a personal impact on their office, reputation or career.
2) There are two stages to proper procedural fairness: advanced fair notice and the right to be heard.
3) Any document which gives notice of censure and sanction must clearly and unambiguously set out the allegations that will underlie the motion.
4) Any allegations of wrongdoing ought to be grounded in a conclusion, properly investigated, that a breach of a rule, policy, bylaw or law has actually occurred.
5) A staff report that is informational in nature, that does not clearly set out the allegations that would underlie a motion of censure, does not constitute sufficient notice.
6) If the Code of Conduct requires a certain process or amount of notice, the requirement must be strictly complied with unless the respondent gives clear and unequivocal waiver [paras 154-155].
7) Waiver of a procedural right requires both full knowledge of the right and an unequivocal and conscious intention to abandon it [para 150].
8) It is implicit in the principles of procedural fairness that the decision-making body cannot proceed on a different basis than the one it gave notice of and to which the respondent party responded to [para 165].
9) A party who knows of a procedural problem cannot lay in the weeds and then, once the matter is under appeal or review, bring forward the complaint [para 99].
Additional Comments from the Court (in obiter)
In commentary, it was not clear to the Court whether claims of an elected member’s failure to show leadership or failure to be accountable, without more, could reasonably give rise to censure.
The Court observed that there will be times that elected officials do not get along and that the power of censure, when used responsibly, is a political tool to hold individual members accountable to their electorate and to other elected council members. However, as cautioned in previous cases, such power is to be exercised with great care and great discretion and should not but used for “cheap political gain”.
The Court also left open the possibility that, in a future case, resolutions of censure and sanction that do not rely on any actual finding of misconduct might be subject to judicial review on a standard of reasonableness.
While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy in this article, you are urged to seek specific advice on matters of concern and not to rely solely on what is contained herein. The article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
March 6, 2025
The decision of the BC Supreme Court in Paull v. Quesnel (City), 2025 BCSC 347 adds to the growing line of cases regarding censure and sanction of local government councils and boards. It provides a cautionary reminder to elected council and board members of the complexities of a motion of censure and the process to be followed. It also highlights the importance of giving respondents due process and the required procedural fairness.
The ability of a local government elected body to censure and sanction one of its members for misconduct is well established in law. BC’s courts have rooted the power to censure a fellow member in section 114 (4) of the Community Charter and have implied the right from case law.
Censure and sanction are available to elected bodies to address and regulate conduct of a member which is considered to fall below the expected standards of conduct of the body on which they sit. Those standards are typically held within policies or a bylaw approved, established or maintained by the body itself. A public censure is largely symbolic and is meant to serve as a public reprimand. There is no corresponding fine or disqualification from office, but it may be accompanied by a removal of certain rights.
Summary of Facts and the Decision
In Paull v Quesnel, the petitioner, who is currently the Mayor of the City of Quesnel, sought judicial review of resolutions made by the City’s Council in April 2024 which led to him being censured and sanctioned. Council’s resolutions resulted in the Mayor having lost access to certain budgets for travel and lobbying, was removed from participating in organizations that required Council approval, was removed from membership on City committees, and was removed from working with Indigenous partners. The Mayor was also required to make a ‘sincere’ apology.
The Mayor argued that the motions were unclear, failed to include sufficient and important details of why he was being censured, and claimed that the decisions failed to give him the procedural fairness to which he was entitled. The Mayor was successful in his challenge.
The Court agreed that the Mayor was improperly censured and sanctioned and concluded that the City failed to observe procedural fairness by:
a) Failing to provide the required two weeks’ notice of proceedings pursuant to the Code of Conduct and Ethics;
b) Purporting to censure and sanction the Mayor based on a report that was at best “ambiguous and confusing”, and could be properly read as merely inviting input as to a process to be followed; and
c) Deciding to censure and sanction the Mayor based on alleged misconduct (or shortcomings other than misconduct) that were not set out in advance [para 175].
As a result, the Court concluded the Mayor was not afforded the procedural fairness required and quashed the disputed Council resolutions [para 184].
The key points for local governments to consider are the following:
1) Elected Council and Board members are owed a high degree of procedural fairness in respect of any meeting, motion or resolution which concerns potential future findings of conduct or possible sanctions that may have a personal impact on their office, reputation or career.
2) There are two stages to proper procedural fairness: advanced fair notice and the right to be heard.
3) Any document which gives notice of censure and sanction must clearly and unambiguously set out the allegations that will underlie the motion.
4) Any allegations of wrongdoing ought to be grounded in a conclusion, properly investigated, that a breach of a rule, policy, bylaw or law has actually occurred.
5) A staff report that is informational in nature, that does not clearly set out the allegations that would underlie a motion of censure, does not constitute sufficient notice.
6) If the Code of Conduct requires a certain process or amount of notice, the requirement must be strictly complied with unless the respondent gives clear and unequivocal waiver [paras 154-155].
7) Waiver of a procedural right requires both full knowledge of the right and an unequivocal and conscious intention to abandon it [para 150].
8) It is implicit in the principles of procedural fairness that the decision-making body cannot proceed on a different basis than the one it gave notice of and to which the respondent party responded to [para 165].
9) A party who knows of a procedural problem cannot lay in the weeds and then, once the matter is under appeal or review, bring forward the complaint [para 99].
Additional Comments from the Court (in obiter)
In commentary, it was not clear to the Court whether claims of an elected member’s failure to show leadership or failure to be accountable, without more, could reasonably give rise to censure.
The Court observed that there will be times that elected officials do not get along and that the power of censure, when used responsibly, is a political tool to hold individual members accountable to their electorate and to other elected council members. However, as cautioned in previous cases, such power is to be exercised with great care and great discretion and should not but used for “cheap political gain”.
The Court also left open the possibility that, in a future case, resolutions of censure and sanction that do not rely on any actual finding of misconduct might be subject to judicial review on a standard of reasonableness.
While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy in this article, you are urged to seek specific advice on matters of concern and not to rely solely on what is contained herein. The article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.