Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Pool lawsuit issuing refunds

A lack of a precedent led a group of Cluculz Lake property owners to withdraw their legal action against the Regional District of Bulkley Nechako over the Vanderhoof pool referendum.

A lack of a precedent led a group of Cluculz Lake property owners to withdraw their legal action against the Regional District of Bulkley Nechako over the Vanderhoof pool referendum.

The group of petitioners told a crowd of supporters over the weekend they would be refunding the majority of the more than $46,000 raised to appeal the February referendum results that would put Area F residents on the hook for to pay for the new civic facility.

Despite getting a significant amount of snow in Cluculz Lake Friday night, 160 people turned up for the Saturday afternoon meeting at the community hall, said Dick Martin, one of the four people involved in the aborted legal action.

Martin, along with Jeff Christianson, Reta Herrickm and Randy Holubosh, filed a notice of discontinuance on March 28 on the advice of their lawyer who suggested their odds of success would be less than 50 per cent due to the absence of case law supporting their argument the vote was unfairly conducted.

The appeal claimed the referendum in the electoral area to authorize a tax increase to build and operate an aquatic centre in Vanderhoof wasn't conducted properly, with insufficient information given to property owners leaving some of them unable to cast ballots.

Martin said despite the more than 80 signed affidavits from neighbours outlining various situations in which they had difficulties in voting, the courts would only be looking at whether or not the regional district had intentionally put barriers in their way.

"And if we can't find case law, [the judge] is not going to find case law," Martin said, adding the residents could be on the hook for than their own legal costs if they were unsuccessful. "It would be taxpayer money fighting taxpayer money."

The fact that seasonal property owners are almost never going to use the facility is only part of the issue, Martin explained, citing the fact that many of his neighbours also don't have school age children, but don't begrudge paying into the school district with their tax money.

He said the seasonal Area F residents - who only got one vote per property - didn't all have the necessary information, paperwork, some had to go great distances to a polling stations and were not properly consulted.

Electoral area director Jerry Petersen also didn't "get around to" holding any meetings with residents, Martin said.

"It can't be just, 'OK we want something and we'll make it happen.' That's what happened in this case," he said. "They made it happen, but they made it happen by not allowing other people an opportunity."

Even though there will not be a lawsuit, Martin said they are not without options in making their discontent heard in having to contribute to the $12-million municipal portion of the pool costs.

These avenues include running a candidate against Petersen in the next election, who was uncontested in the last municipal race. Others have pitched making their section of Area F its own incorporated municipality, which Martin said wasn't a very popular idea, as well as trying to get a benefit area exclusion on the tax.

There is also the option of protesting with one's wallet.

Martin said there is a petition with more than 120 signatures from residents who have made the commitment not to shop in Vanderhoof anymore.

"The community has to realize you can't go and bully your neighbours," he said. "People at Cluculz Lake don't say they shouldn't have a pool at Vanderhoof. They should have a pool. But they have to have one they can afford, with their own tax base, not with other people's money."

Those who made a direct deposit to the legal fund at the bank are asked to email a copy of their deposit statement to [email protected] or [email protected]. Faxed copies can also be sent to 250-441-3356.

After paying their lawyer fees and other associated expenses, which could total up to $6,500, the remainder of the donations will be paid back divided by property owner and their level of contribution.