.

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE HAS APPEARED IN THE RECORD May 15, 2002

Is Brome Lake responsible
for mayor's legal fees?



A few days ago a neighbor of mine wanted to know where I stood on the issue of the Town of Brome Lake's responsibility for Mayor Stanley Neil's legal fees. He was referring, of course, to Lloyd Sturtevant's $150,000 defamation lawsuit. Coincidentally, a day later the same conversation came up with another property owner. Their concern was based in part on what happened four years ago when, following the Supreme Court decision in the Allan Gauthier case, the town council imposed a one-time property tax hike to help cover both the $700,000 award and all of the legal fees.

I suggested to both residents that the Supreme Court decision was hardly a valid precedent for the payment of his legal costs, quite the contrary. Seeing that Stanley Neil had not made any public statement on the subject, I considered the issue too hypothetical to justify a column.

When I returned home over the weekend from a three-day trip and read last Thursday's Record, I discovered that Neil had indeed commented on the subject. It turned out that last Wednesday, he had been questioned outside of the Granby courtroom on the subject of his legal fees. According to the article, he stated that the decision on who is responsible for paying his legal fees and any damages which may result from the lawsuit was a "legal matter " to be determined later."Were my tires slashed because I'm Stanley Neil or because I'm mayor of Brome Lake?"

He seemed to imply that in the event his tires were slashed because he was the mayor, his legal fees should be paid by the town. If that was his contention, I respectfully disagree. On the basis of strict common sense, I still see no compelling reason why the slashing of his tires would or should engage the responsibility of the town and ultimately, the property owners, to reimburse his legal fees in the defamation suit.

Since the issue is not before the courts I can only speculate on how it could be presented. It would probably boil down to one simple question: can his legal fees be considered a legitimate expense incurred while, or as a result of, exercising his duties and responsibilities as mayor? When considering the question, it is important to remember the circumstances which led to the defamation lawsuit.

On Saturday, April 27, while attending a fundraising event in the Brome Lake Village of Foster, Stanley Neil had two of his car tires slashed. A complaint was made on the very same day to the TBL police who transferred it for investigation to the Sur? du Quebec. On Monday, April 29, Stanley Neil faxed a letter to The Record in which he provided a number of detailed "hints" regarding the identity of the person he believed was the culprit and which, for the most part, were referred to in The Record's front page article of April 30. The following day a similar article appeared in Le Voix de l'Est. Lloyd Sturtevant, well known for his critical letters to the mayor, immediately came forward and claimed that there could be no doubt that Stanley Neil was referring to him as being the person who slashed his tires, hence the defamation lawsuit against Neil .

As for the Supreme Court decision in the Gauthier case, it is important to remember that the main reason the Town of Brome Lake was held responsible was because it was the employer of both police officers and because their actions occurred while they were on duty. Contrary to the Gauthier case, the lawsuit against Neil is neither directed against the Town of Brome Lake nor is the town a party to the action. It was lodged solely against the person of Stanley Neil and not in his capacity as mayor.

As far as I can see, what Neil wrote in his letter had nothing to do with his public functions as mayor. When he sent his letter and gave interviews to the Record, he wasn't "speaking" or acting on behalf of the town any more than on behalf of the TBL residents. His "faxed" letter was neither sent on TBL stationary nor was it signed by Neil in his capacity as mayor. Furthermore, any claim that it "benefited" the TBL community would be ludicrous.

I can't see how the issues flowing from the lawsuit could support any argument in favor of the town covering Neil's legal fees. Assuming the trial is conducted like most defamation cases, the likelihood is that a Superior Court judge will have to decide, ( a) whether reasonably informed persons would conclude that Neil was referring to Lloyd Sturtevant seeing that the letter to The Record never mentioned his name;(b) considering the ordinary and natural meaning of the letter, does it constitute a defamatory statement; and (c) assuming the letter justifies the finding of defamation, what damages did Sturtevant suffer, if any?

Irrespective of the outcome of the trial, the judge will have no jurisdiction to direct the town to pay his legal fees. Naturally, any decision by the town council to cover his legal fees would be of particular interest to all of the TBL property owners. In fact, I strongly suspect that any such resolution would be vigorously contested and perhaps even end up before the courts. While it is true that, up to now, Neil has never requested reimbursement of his legal fees and may never do so, the town councillors might want to take a close look at the issues ...just in case.