A group of Cluculz Lake property owners who are fighting the results of last month's Vanderhoof pool referendum hope to have a large enough war chest in place by Tuesday to finance their legal challenge.
Organizer Dick Martin said the group needs to raise between $35,000 and $40,000 to ensure it has enough money to pay for its court case against the Regional District of Bulkley Nechako. Martin said an undisclosed fundraising target must be hit by end of business on Tuesday to make the case viable.
The group held a public meeting on Saturday afternoon at the Cluculz Lake Community Hall where Martin and fellow group leaders explained the legal advice the group had received and disclosed the contents of the petition filed in B.C. Supreme Court on March 19.
"We read that to the people and then told them they would have to vote with their wallets," Martin said. "Basically what the lawyer told us is we have a case, but it's like any case when you're fighting government sometimes the courts are reluctant to overturn even it wasn't fair."
Petitioners Martin, Jeff Christianson, Reta Herrickm and Randy Holubush claim there were irregularities dealing with consultation about the bylaw ,which seeks to raise money to cover the municipal portion of $12 million aquatic centre project. In their court filing, they also take issue with the process used to inform voters of the non-resident property electors consent form, the distance some people needed to drive to reach a polling station and how the ballots and the published notices described the cost of the project.
Vanderhoof Mayor Gerry Thiessen said he couldn't comment on the case as it was before the courts.
Martin said lawyer Gaurav Parmar told the group there is enough evidence to show that the regional district didn't follow proper bylaw procedure and that there was evidence of bad faith.
Close to 200 people attended Saturday's meeting and were told if they each donated $200 to the cause, there would be enough in the bank to proceed with litigation.
Martin refused to say how close the group was to reaching its fundraising goal.
"Would you like to know how much money we've saved already?," Martin asked rhetorically. "You will never find out until the people who put the money in there find out."
Martin said the decision was made not to disclose the progress of the fundraising drive to ensure enough money was brought in and that contributions came from a wide variety of sources.
"You can give your wife enough money to go to the store to buy groceries or give her enough to put it back on the shelf," he said. "In our case, we want to make sure we get enough funds to proceed with this and the only way we get that is if we get contributions from everybody, not just a few."
Martin acknowledged that even if the court challenge is successful, another referendum could be held and that too could pass. However he anticipates that in a future vote those who were unable to cast a ballot this time will be able to make their voice heard and that could change the result.
"If the process is fair and everybody gets to vote and it passes, then majority rules and nobody would be objecting to this," Martin said. "It's like you come home and find out that everybody voted to go to Disney World and you get to pay for it."
The group is waiting for the regional district to respond to its petition and expects to have a preliminary court hearing by April 4.
