In catching up on local news I note Councillors Lorje and Dubois are both named in a law suit regarding actions allegedly taken regarding the sale of the Barry Hotel (SP Jan. 21/10). I am unclear what Dubois' participation was but if the allegations against Lorje are true, she deserves to be sued.
I don't think elected people should be liable for constituent concerns raised in council chamber or board rooms, or questions of concern asked in those venues. However there is a big difference between direct intervention by an elected individual and personal comments that may be deemed libelous vis-a-vis representation of public concerns. Damages resulting from actions taken by elected people outside of their authority and without the sanction of the whole elected body should be borne by the individual not by the people they represent. And they should foot their own legal bills.
On the other side, had the Alberta investors bothered to check Lorje out they might have realized that she holds no sway with this government, or I suspect, with her own party should they form government.
Of concern is the allegation that the fire department and health region were re-evaluating their approvals previously granted. If there were problems why weren't they caught the first time around?
I am not inclined to support blanket immunity to council members for comments in the council chamber for fear it will become the gong show we currently endure in parliament and the legislature. I do think guidelines should be put in place as to circumstances which would provide support to elected people for vexatious suits resulting from actions taken in course of their ordinary duties.
This ship sounds like it is a one-man sail boat with Lorje controlling the rudder.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I agree with the mistress about Lorje. Dubois' comments are just as ridiculous as Lorje's. It's about time someone called Dubois on her arrogance and stupidity - she deserved to be sued as well.
ReplyDeleteWhat were Dubois' comments?
ReplyDelete"On the other side, had the Alberta investors bothered to check Lorje out they might have realized that she holds no sway with this government, or I suspect, with her own party should they form government."
ReplyDeleteDoes not that comment conclude that, in CivicMistress's mind, this suit holds no ground because Lorje has no political influence?
Does not that comment conclude that, in CivicMistress's mind, this suit holds no ground because Lorje has no political influence?
ReplyDeleteObviously not, I am no lawyer but even I know that if you make remarks that other people rely on it does not matter if they were false or not. To draw a parallel, if I say that my friend Jimmy will burn your house down if you don't do what I say it doesn't really matter if I have a friend Jimmy or if he would even consider burning your house down. If Lorje used her 'title' to deter or induce someone to breach a contract she is liable for the damages the injured party suffers.
Please, use some common sense Anon 11:20 rather than looking to provoke a fight with the Mistress.
Perhaps the NDP did not teach basic legal concepts in their brainwashing seminar?
Once again CivicMistress comes out endorsing civil actions to clog the court system.
ReplyDeleteWe're still waiting for further updates on your fundraising campaign for Heidt's suit against Danielson:
http://civicmistress.blogspot.com/2009/11/priceless.html
Will you be raising funds for this suit as well?
Anon 12:18 you held as a legitmate rational person until your uncalled for remarks re:: NDP brainwashing. This type of rhetoric is so imature it makes you want to puke!
ReplyDeleteI think we are all tired of the old boring left - right bull..
Anon 12:18 here, I apologize for the boring rhetoric. But I am tired of coming to debate some civil matters here in an open forum only to see immediate posts from people who come here for nothing else but to post on message board smears against the Mistress.
ReplyDeletePlease look back at the previous blogs and tell me it isn't the same old tired smears, I don't think the Mistress could post "I love puppies" without, whoever it is, posting some smear about her again.
My comment was a little childish I admit, but from my brief history of the Mistress she has seemed to but heads with the 'left' throughout her tenure in politics and portrays a rather right wing view. I have worked for some municipal campaigns and know that when the Mistress was ultimately defeated there was a large push from the NDP to have her defeated. Further, I have seen in this forum and others repeated smears from the left against her. While yes I have no confirmation of the political stripes of the person responsible, I made an assumption based on history. For that I apologize. I shouldn't have included the comment, despite my beliefs.
To the Mistress I applaud you for taking the high road on the continued smears.
Anon 5:33 - Thank you for your kind comments. In truth I lost the election in 2006 because I was not focused on the campaign due to some family issues occurring at that time. Although encouraged to do so, I did not seek election in 2009 because I realized how pleasant my life was outside of elected office. I hope this puts to rest my political history and/or ambition, or lack thereof.
ReplyDeleteI do not respond to the personal comments because they are not worthy.
To all who participate here because you enjoy sharing your views, thank you. I do like to hear your opinions.