A Manitoba councillor who spent years successfully contesting her own municipality’s attempt to remove her from office is now suing that municipality, alleging it refused to reimburse the legal costs she racked up during the dispute. Donna Cox, councillor for the southern Rural Municipality of Thompson, filed a statement of claim in Manitoba’s Court of King’s Bench on Aug. 6, naming the RM as the defendant. Cox, who was first elected in 2022, was automatically appointed to the local urban district committee, according to court documents. The committee later changed the start time of its meetings, and Cox missed three consecutive meetings between January and March 2023 because of work commitments, the documents state. In May 2023, council passed a resolution declaring Cox “disqualified from council,” citing a section of the Municipal Act that disqualifies a councillor who misses three consecutive council or local urban district committee meetings without leave. Cox refused to resign, and council passed a second resolution the same day authorizing an application to the Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba to remove her. A Manitoba judge dismissed that application in February 2024, saying the changes made it clear Cox was “bound to fail.” “Generally, communication, collaboration and compromise are hallmarks of good governance; here the municipality failed miserably,” Manitoba Court of King’s Bench Justice Chris Martin wrote in his decision at the time. “Just because the municipality believed it had a legal right to act as it did, does not mean it was right to do so.” Martin noted the five other councillors, all of whom are self-employed, changed the meeting times despite objections from Cox, who works full-time and said her employer would not grant her additional unpaid time off to accommodate the change. Cox was also awarded 95 per cent of her legal costs in the decision. The municipality subsequently appealed the ruling to the Manitoba Court of Appeal, which upheld the original decision in January 2026. Cox’s claim states she paid her legal fees and expenses upfront throughout the proceedings without indemnification or insurance coverage, and that she cashed in investments and used credit facilities to cover the costs. The claim adds that Cox submitted a request on March 23 to be indemnified for those costs, which it says was denied. The filing pegs her outstanding legal expenses, which remain unfinalized, at more than $48,200. Meeting minutes posted on the RM’s website show council passed a resolution in July authorizing an “ex gratia payment” of $1,323 to Cox, “notwithstanding the provisions of the RM of Thompson Indemnity By-law, which do not provide indemnification for the expenses being claimed.” The resolution states the payment doesn’t constitute an admission of liability, and that it was made “solely for the purpose of resolving this matter through mediation.” In her statement of claim, Cox alleges the municipality “acted negligently with regard to their duties to implement mandatory indemnification” under the Municipal Act and seeks payment of her legal expenses. A separate notice of application also seeks a declaration that the July resolution is invalid and that it was passed in “bad faith” and in a discriminatory manner. It is scheduled to be heard on Sept. 22. In a joint statement, Evan Edwards and Benjamin Manness, legal counsel for Cox, said the legal action seeks no financial windfall, only reimbursement for expenses she incurred while defending her position as an elected councillor. “Efforts to resolve this issue without further litigation were unsuccessful. As a result, Ms. Cox has been compelled to return to court once again,” the statement reads. In a statement to CTV News, RM of Thompson Reeve Brian Callum declined to comment, saying this was the first he’d heard of the matter and that he didn’t yet have all the details. The RM of Thompson has not yet filed a statement of defence, and none of the allegations in the indemnification claim have been proven in court. With files from CTV’s Danton Unger
