Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Skakun trial hinges on definition of 'councillor'

The trial of Brian Skakun hinged on a technicality today as defence lawyer Jon Duncan introduced a motion asking the court to consider the legal definition of a councillor.
GP201010312109947AR.jpg

The trial of Brian Skakun hinged on a technicality today as defence lawyer Jon Duncan introduced a motion asking the court to consider the legal definition of a councillor.

Skakun is charged with violating a provincial privacy statute after it is alleged he leaked a confidential report to the media.

The statute applies to employees, officers and directors of a municipality.

On Friday morning, Duncan made a no-evidence motion arguing that none of the testimony given in the Crown's case indicates Skakun is an officer of the municipality.

The Crown council Judith Doulis said Skakun is considered an officer in its case, not a director or an employee.

Duncan presented case law and cited testimony from city officials - specifically now Mayor Dan Rogers and former Mayor Colin Kinsley - that argued a councillor is not an officer of the municipality.

He concluded by asking Judge Ken Ball to make a decision: rule a city councillor is an officer and proceed with case or rule a councillor is not an officer and end the enquiry.

Court adjourned to allow Crown to prepare a response.