A judge has decided not to remove the mayor of St. Albert from office, despite two instances where pecuniary interest rules were violated.
A judge has decided not to remove the mayor of St. Albert from office, despite two instances where pecuniary interest rules were violated.
On Thursday afternoon, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Brian Burrows released his decision that found Mayor Nolan Crouse in violation in two of the three pecuniary interest allegations brought forward by citizen Steve Stone. Burrows said despite breaking the rules, Crouse reached his decisions “entirely in good faith.”
“I have determined that it would be entirely unjust and disproportional to the seriousness of the violations to declare Mayor Crouse disqualified and his position on St. Albert City Council to be vacant,” Burrows said in his decision.
Pecuniary interest matters involve instances where a politician can be affected monetarily.
Crouse said that he has mixed feelings about the case.
“The feeling of having to have gone through it is worse than the glee of having it behind me,” Crouse said.
Stone, who recently announced he is running for city council, said that he respects the judge's decision but he believes what Crouse did was unethical and wants him to resign his position.
“The judge chooses to be charitable in terms of his penalty. My view was that it was unethical anyways and the judgment was against him,” Stone said.
Judge's decision
In the first instance brought forward, Crouse voted against a motion on May 25, 2015 concerning an independent audit of his expense claims. The original motion was introduced by Councillor Sheena Hughes. The expense claims had been reviewed by city administration, but some members of council wanted an independent review. The motion was defeated by Crouse, Heron, Osborne and Brodhead. It was found that the motion could have monetarily affected Crouse and he was “found to have a pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the motion.”
Burrows said that Crouse had reviewed the Municipal Government Act prior to the meeting and taken advice on whether he had a pecuniary interest in the motion. Crouse concluded that he did not have one.
“I am satisfied that he came to that conclusion in good faith, though it was incorrect,” wrote Burrows.
The second incident was on Nov. 16, 2015 and involved a motion by Councillor Cam MacKay to limit the funding for a defamation lawsuit launched by the then-city manager Patrick Draper. Crouse was named as a third party defendant. Burrows found Crouse to be in a “technical” violation of the MGA but noted that the pecuniary interest was not obvious.
The document went on to say that Crouse was trying to be careful to not pass the point in the meeting when he was approaching a pecuniary interest and he took the advice of administration during the meeting, who said it was appropriate to gather information before he decided to recuse himself.
“It is clear in the evidence that Mayor Crouse had considered whether or not he had a pecuniary interest. He had determined that in fact he had one in relation to certain aspects of the motion. He concluded that he did not have one in relation to the question of whether the Plaintiff's funding should be limited,” Burrows said in the decision.
The third allegation involved environmental concerns at 80 Salisbury Avenue, Burrows found that Crouse had no pecuniary interest when voting on the matter in multiple council meetings in 2016. Resident Craig Skarupa had asked council on numerous occasions to pay the full cost of an environmental audit at his neighbouring property.
The decision said the evidence does not establish that the environmental concerns at 80 Salisbury could impact the value of Crouse's family property at 86 Salisbury Avenue.
The ruling stated that counsel may arrange to speak to costs.
Crouse has just over two months left in office and is not seeking re-election. Council is currently on a summer recess and will sit again on Monday Aug. 21.
To read the full decision click here
