Although the City of Prince George will not disclose what it spent on legal costs associated with Coun. Brian Skakun's breach of the Privacy Act, documents obtained by The Citizen shows city spending with its law firm skyrocketed from 2009 to 2011.
Young Anderson Barristers and Solicitors lawyer Barry Williamson represented the city during Skakun's 2010-11 trial for violating the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and again when Skakun launched a petition in 2011 to the B.C. Supreme Court in attempt to block city council from censuring him. Skakun was charged with violating the act in Aug. 2009.
According to city financial documents, the city spend $34,381.89 with Young Anderson in 2009, $60,492.26 in 2010 and $103,483.85 in 2011.
However, the Skakun trial and petition were not the only court cases the city was involved in from 2009 to 2011. According to court documents, the City of Prince George was involved in 17 active civil suits in 2009, 11 in 2010 and five in 2011.
Young Anderson is also not the only law firm the city employs.
"The city retains external legal counsel on a case-by-case basis," city legislative services manager Walter Babicz said.
The city paid over $553,000 to three other law firms in 2009 and over $2.6 million to three other law firms in 2010. Numbers for 2011 were not available as of press time.
Young Anderson specializes in representing local governments and all aspects of local government law, according to the firm's web site.
Reasons for nondisclosure
Last week the Citizen reported the city's decision to not disclose its legal costs related to the Skakan affair. The decision was based on a 2010 ruling by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for B.C.
In his ruling, acting information and privacy commissioner Paul Fraser supported School District 49's decision to not release copies of invoices from the district's lawyer regarding two court cases. However, Fraser ordered the district to release, "the total amount of payment and the name of the law firm," from two summary documents the school district kept on the cases.
In a Jan. 17 letter, Babicz said the city will not disclose total amounts paid regarding the two Skakun cases because School District 49 has appealed the ruling.
"The Privacy Commissioner's Order F10-19 to produce the summary legal cost documents appears to be under appeal to the B.C. Supreme Court by way of judicial review. The legal basis of the appeal is that the commissioner erred in law or exceeded his jurisdiction in requiring the production of the summary legal expense documents," Babicz wrote.
In addition, the city never produced documents summarizing the legal costs associated with the Skakun affair, Babicz wrote.
"... the only responsive documents located and processed in response to your FOI request were actual law firm statements of account," Babicz wrote. "In other words, the portion of Order F10-19 regarding disclosure of summary documents has no application in regard to your FOI request. It is our view that your FOI request was processed appropriately based on the provisions of the Act."
School District 49 launched its appeal of Fraser's ruling in July, 2010.
According to School District 49's petition to the court, the person requesting copies of the district's legal costs, Charles Bryfogle, has launched several civil suits against the district since 2003.
"Bryfogle was declared a vexatious litigant by order of Mr. Justice Meiklem on April 2, 2007, which decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on June 5, 2009," the petition says.
Under the B.C. Supreme Court Act, a vexatious litigant is a person who, "... has habitually, persistently and without reasonable grounds, instituted vexatious legal proceedings in the Supreme Court or in the Provincial Court against the same or different persons .."
Once a person has been declared a vexatious litigant, the court has the power to end legal proceeding launched by that person without requiring a full trial.
The school district's lawyer, in the petition, also makes the argument that the Fraser, "erred in law, or alternatively, exceeded his jurisdiction," in ordering the legal cost summaries to be disclosed.
The appeal has yet to be heard by the courts.
