An Iroquois Falls man has lost his bid to be allowed to speak directly with council and staff in Iroquois Falls, with a judge upholding a council resolution limiting communication to a specific email. The decision was imposed on the resident “as a result of what it considered to be inappropriate or harassing behaviour,” said the Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court decision. “The Corporation of the Town of Iroquois Falls passed a resolution on Dec. 17, 2018, that all future communications … to the town be sent through a designated email address,” the court said. “This decision was communicated to (the resident) in a letter dated Jan. 7, 2019. The letter included reasons for the resolution. (He) expressed his disagreement with the resolution but ultimately used the designated email on at least a few occasions.” Sought a judicial review The arrangement worked fine until January of this year, when the man contacted the town but didn’t use the designated email. The clerk contacted him in March, reminding him to use the email. On April 1, he applied for a judicial review, seeking to have the town council’s motion overturned so he could contact councillors and city staff directly. In response, lawyers for the town argued that the statute of limitations to appeal the resolution had long since passed. But the resident argued that he was seeking a review of the town’s decision to keep enforcing the resolution, which only happened in March. “The town submits that the clerk was only reminding (him) of the original resolution and that what (he) is really seeking is judicial review of the resolution passed in 2018,” the court said. “If this is the decision subject to judicial review, then there was a delay of over seven years in seeking judicial review.” Statute of limitations However, the court ruled that the town was only reminding him about the resolution, and the fact it was still in effect several years later. In its decision, the court said that while no formal statute of limitations was in effect, “effective public decision making requires that judicial review be commenced without excessive delay to ensure the stability, efficiency and reliability of public administration. “Accordingly, this court has always had the discretion to deny judicial review in the face of such delay. A delay of seven years between the date of the decision and the issuance of the application is excessive.” The Iroquois Falls resident provided no real grounds for explaining the delay and sought a judicial review rather than try to get councillors to amend the motion. “I agree with the town that in this case prejudice can be assumed with a delay of this many years,” the decision said. “Witnesses are gone, employees have moved on, the composition of the town council has changed and there was nothing indicating that records should be kept. More importantly, the town is entitled to finality as it relates to resolutions passed, especially after so many years.”
