Elder council challenged by former councillor in court

The elder council has the right to remove members from elected office, a fact which was not disputed by either party. McCallum’s case argued the elders heard and decided on a complaint against him without following proper procedure as outlined in their 2014 election code.

According to the code, for the PBCN elders to hear a complaint against an elected official, a member must bring forward a petition bearing the signatures of 25 per cent of the electors from the affected community. The petition which initiated the complaint against McCallum was signed by 260 members, and much of the morning’s debate focused on whether or not this was sufficient cause for the elder council to hear the complaint.

Both sides acknowledged it was nearly impossible to determine exactly how many urban residents are members of the Peter Ballantyne Nation with existing records.

“The council of elders complied with the rules of the election code,” Crystal Eninew, lawyer for PBCN, argued.

“When they received the petition, they did not have access to any voter list,” Eninew said, noting the information was destroyed 60 days after the election in keeping with standard procedure. The elder council therefore used their discretion in deciding to hear the complaint, Eninew argued.

McCallum’s lawyer, Kimberly Stonechild, argued the petition contained signatures from residents of Pelican Narrows, Sandy Bay and Stanley Mission, none of whom qualify as urban residents. This, combined with the uncertainty surrounding the required number of signatures, should render the petition moot, she argued.

Another point contested during the hearing was whether McCallum had been granted an acceptable standard of review prior to his termination.

McCallum’s side argued he was only given two days to produce financial records and a criminal record check at the request of the elder council. He argued the financials were part of the nation’s public records, and it was not his job to provide follow-up record checks beyond the documentation originally provided to the elections officer.

According to Eninew, the elder council acted with procedural fairness in giving McCallum notice of the proceedings against him as well as opportunities to defend himself.

“After meeting with the applicant [McCallum] and chief and council, the elders met with the applicant three separate times,” Eninew said. “They wanted to hear from him; they wanted to hear what he had to say.”

Instead, Eninew argued, McCallum was “uncooperative” and “focused his attention on challenging their authority” during the meetings. According to Eninew urban members were invited for a community consultation, and the final decision to remove McCallum was “not made in haste.”

Both sides are seeking to have their costs for the case reimbursed. Stonechild argued the process caused McCallum “extreme financial stress” about his removal and subsequent legal bills.

After hearing the arguments, which lasted into the early afternoon, Judge Martine St-Louis thanked both sides and reserved her decision for a later date.

Brian McKay, a concerned urban resident, told paNOW outside the courthouse he hopes to see the courts uphold the elder’s decision.

“We don’t want to see (the council of elders) to personally be in trouble. They were addressing the concerns brought before them,” McKay said.

McCallum declined to comment.

paNOW will bring you updates on this case as they develop.

Taylor.macpherson@jpbc.ca, bryan.eneas@panow.com

@TMacPhersonNews

by Taylor Macpherson & Bryan Eneas

Elder council challenged by former councillor in court

What's Trending