The Village of Sayward Suddenly Withdrew Its Quorum Reduction Petition

In a surprising turn of events, the Village of Sayward has abandoned its Petition to the Supreme Court of British Columbia related to section 129 Community Charter. Originally filed in October, 2025, the Petition sought to reduce the number of councillors required for quorum to only two. This stunning reversal comes mere days after Mayor Mark Baker’s defamation lawsuit against prior CAO John France was dismissed.

If the quorum issue was as critical to the smooth operation of the municipality as described in The Village of Sayward’s October 2025 media release, why is it no longer important? How many taxpayer dollars were wasted during this drawn out legal process for seemingly nothing? We’ve reached out to The Village of Sayward and the PR firm they hired, Coast Communications and Public Affairs, for comment.

Summary of Petition Withdrawal

The May 14, 2026 BC Supreme Court requisition confirms that the Village of Sayward abandoned its Section 129 petition before the scheduled June hearing.

Key points from the document:

Filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Victoria Registry (File No. 2512336)
Filed by Dana Goodfellow, lawyer for the Village of Sayward
Requested removal of the petition hearing from the June 1, 2026 chambers hearing list
The petition had originally been filed October 14, 2025 under Section 129 of the Community Charter
The document explicitly states:

“The Village of Sayward will not be proceeding with the hearing of its Petition … or the order sought within the Petition.”

In practical terms, the Village withdrew or discontinued pursuit of the court order it had previously sought under Section 129 of the Community Charter.

Looking Back To October 2025

Village of Sayward Statement October 15, 2025

The October 15, 2025 media release announced that the Village of Sayward had filed a petition in BC Supreme Court seeking to temporarily reduce council quorum from three councillors to two.

The Village said the move was intended to:

help council function effectively under the Community Charter,
restore “order, civility, and professionalism,”
and allow council to continue making decisions and advancing priorities such as economic development, grants, and asset management.

The release stated that council had struggled with governance issues since the last election, including the resignation of two councillors and the need for a by-election.

The Village argued that ongoing dysfunction threatened long-term municipal stability in the community of roughly 350 residents.

The statement concluded by saying the matter was before the courts and no further comment would be made.

Village of Sayward Petition Filed October 14, 2025

The document is a petition filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by the Village of Sayward under section 129 of the Community Charter.

Main purpose of the petition

The Village is asking the court to temporarily reduce council quorum requirements from three councillors to two councillors so remaining councillors can deliberate and vote on possible disciplinary actions.

Key allegations

The petition alleges that councillors Susan Poulsen and Scott Burchett may have:

Violated conflict-of-interest and conduct provisions under the Community Charter and Village bylaws.
Improperly disclosed confidential information from closed council meetings.
Engaged in disrespectful behaviour toward former Chief Administrative Officer Keir Gervais.
Potentially participated in wilful misconduct.

The petition also references possible legal action against at least one councillor, possible Village staff involvement, and allegations involving John France for allegedly assisting in possible misconduct.

Background included in the petition

The filing outlines:

The structure of Sayward council.
Recent resignations and by-elections that changed council composition.
The municipality’s small size and isolated location.
Details about council procedure bylaws and code-of-conduct bylaws.

Relief sought

The Village wants the court to allow councillors Debbie Coates and Jason Johnson to proceed with discussions and votes despite quorum complications arising from the allegations involving the other councillors.

The petition also seeks costs if the application is opposed.

Additional Documents

Affidavit of Mark Baker

This affidavit was sworn by Mark Baker in support of a court petition by the Village of Sayward seeking permission to temporarily reduce council quorum requirements.

Main purpose

The affidavit supports an application to the Supreme Court of British Columbia to allow two remaining councillors — Debbie Coates and Jason Johnson — to continue council business involving disciplinary matters despite conflict and quorum issues involving other councillors.

Main allegations described

The affidavit outlines allegations that councillors Susan Poulsen and Scott Burchett may have:

Improperly disclosed confidential information and documents from closed council meetings.
Breached provisions of the Community Charter and Village bylaws.
Engaged in disrespectful conduct toward former CAO Keir Gervais.
Potentially participated in wilful misconduct.

The affidavit also references possible legal proceedings involving councillors, Village staff, and John France for allegedly assisting in possible misconduct.

What the affidavit seeks to enable

The reduced quorum would permit council to:

Resume consideration of a motion of censure and sanctions.
Discuss possible litigation.
Continue governance functions that would otherwise be stalled because councillors facing allegations cannot participate in those matters.

Overall tone and significance

The affidavit presents the situation as a governance and operational crisis for the Village, arguing court intervention is necessary so municipal business can continue despite conflicts involving sitting councillors.

Exhibits of Mark Baker Affidavit

Main themes across the exhibits

1. Complaints about mayoral conduct

Several exhibits relate to allegations involving Mayor Baker’s behaviour and interactions with councillors, staff, and others. These include:

Emails and written complaints.
References to alleged inappropriate jokes and comments.
Apology correspondence from Baker acknowledging that some people felt offended or disrespected.
Materials connected to harassment and code-of-conduct complaints.

One exhibit includes a written apology from Baker stating he never intended to offend anyone and would try to avoid repeating conduct that others perceived as inappropriate.

2. Internal political conflict on council

The exhibits show an escalating political divide within council involving:

Susan Poulsen
Scott Burchett
Mayor Baker
Other council members and residents

Documents suggest disputes over:

Closed-meeting confidentiality.
Council procedure.
Investigations into complaints.
Spending of taxpayer funds.
Whether disciplinary processes were fair or politically motivated.

3. “Sayward Rant & Rave” social media activity

A substantial portion of the exhibits appears to consist of screenshots from the Facebook group “Sayward Rant & Rave.”

These posts discuss:

Alleged misconduct by council members.
Criticism of the mayor and council majority.
Concerns about municipal spending and investigations.
Claims that governance in Sayward had become dysfunctional.

The posts repeatedly characterize the complaint process as politically motivated and expensive for taxpayers.

4. Communications involving John France

The exhibits include emails and meeting arrangements involving John France, Susan Poulsen, and Scott Burchett.

These documents appear intended to support allegations that:

Certain councillors coordinated responses to the governance dispute.
External assistance may have been provided regarding complaints, strategy, or public communications.

5. Defamation and legal dispute materials

The later exhibits appear to include portions of court pleadings connected to a defamation lawsuit involving Mayor Baker and online/public statements about him.

These materials include:

Defences to alleged defamatory statements.
Arguments about truth, qualified privilege, and public-interest criticism.
Detailed responses to allegations regarding behaviour and comments attributed to the mayor.

Overall significance

Taken together, the exhibits portray a prolonged and highly public breakdown in relationships within Sayward municipal government. They appear designed to support the Village’s position that:

Governance has become impaired.
Councillors are deeply divided.
Alleged misconduct and confidentiality breaches require formal action.
Court intervention is necessary to allow council business to continue despite conflicts and disqualifications.

Affidavit of John Thomas

This affidavit was sworn by John Thomas in support of the Village of Sayward’s application to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for a temporary reduction in council quorum requirements.

Main purpose of the affidavit

Thomas supports the Village’s request to reduce quorum from three councillors to two councillors so remaining council members can:

Resume consideration of censure motions and possible sanctions.
Discuss possible litigation and misconduct allegations.
Continue municipal governance despite conflicts involving other councillors.

Key allegations described

The affidavit repeats and supports allegations that councillors Susan Poulsen and Scott Burchett may have:

Improperly disclosed confidential information and documents from closed council meetings.
Violated provisions of the Community Charter and Village bylaws.
Engaged in disrespectful conduct toward former CAO Keir Gervais.
Potentially participated in wilful misconduct.

The affidavit also references possible legal proceedings involving councillors, Village staff, and John France.

Thomas’s role and perspective

Unlike the mayor’s affidavit, this filing appears to come from an administrative and governance perspective. As a former acting CAO and advisor, Thomas presents himself as someone familiar with:

Council procedures.
Municipal governance requirements.
Closed-meeting confidentiality obligations.
Operational impacts caused by council dysfunction.

Overall significance

The affidavit reinforces the Village’s argument that governance has become impaired by ongoing disputes, allegations, and conflicts of interest, and that court intervention is needed to allow council operations and disciplinary proceedings to continue.

Exhibits of John Thomas Affidavit

The exhibits attached to the affidavit of John Thomas contain bylaws, correspondence, FOI materials, complaints, emails, legal communications, and governance records related to the ongoing conflict within the Village of Sayward.

Main themes in the exhibits

1. Municipal governance and officer authority

Several exhibits contain:

Village bylaws defining the powers and responsibilities of municipal officers and the CAO.
References to sections of the Community Charter governing council conduct and administration.
Legal and procedural guidance about how councillors can direct staff and how council decisions must be made through formal motions.

These materials appear intended to support the argument that individual councillors cannot independently direct municipal administration outside formal council processes.

2. Freedom of Information and privacy disputes

The exhibits include:

FOI requests.
Complaints to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia.
Allegations that confidential or in-camera information was improperly disclosed.

Some documents specifically reference concerns that closed-meeting information connected to litigation involving Mark Baker and John France may have been released without proper council authorization.

3. Coordination among councillors and third parties

A significant number of exhibits appear to consist of emails between:

Susan Poulsen
Scott Burchett
John France
Other community or regional contacts

The correspondence discusses:

Draft complaint letters.
Audit and governance concerns.
Political strategy and responses.
Communications about investigations and elections.

These exhibits appear intended to demonstrate coordination regarding complaints and opposition to the mayor and council majority.

4. Conflict over council procedure and legality

Some exhibits involve:

Disputes about meeting notices and procedural compliance.
Legal advice regarding council meetings and Community Charter requirements.
Communications from former CAO Keir Gervais refusing to proceed with actions believed to be non-compliant with legislation.

The documents portray an administration struggling with competing instructions and governance disputes.

5. Broader political and public controversy

The exhibits also contain:

Community planning and operational documents.
Election-related complaints and allegations of interference.
Records showing the conflict expanded beyond council chambers into public and regional political disputes.

Overall significance

Overall, the exhibits support the Village’s broader argument that:

Governance within Sayward had become highly dysfunctional.
Confidentiality and procedural disputes escalated into formal complaints and legal action.
Relationships among councillors, staff, and members of the public had significantly deteriorated.
Court intervention was necessary to restore the municipality’s ability to function and make decisions.

Sayward Mayor Mark Baker Defamation Lawsuit Against Former Sayward CAO John France Dismissed

The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by Sayward Mayor Mark Baker against former Sayward CAO John France over a series of Facebook posts in the “Sayward Rant and Rave” group.

Justice Hamilton ruled that France’s posts about Baker’s alleged sexual harassment behaviour, the handling of complaints, and the use of public funds were matters of public interest tied to local governance and political accountability.

The case centered on complaints filed in 2023 by Talia Clark and Councillor Scott Burchett, who alleged Baker made repeated inappropriate comments, sexual jokes, and unwanted physical contact during community and municipal events. Baker admitted making several jokes and acknowledged he sometimes touches people on the shoulder or arm in greeting, but denied engaging in sexual harassment or acting with sexual intent.

France later made numerous Facebook posts criticizing Baker and council, alleging:

Baker engaged in sexual harassment;
council improperly handled the complaints in secret “in camera” meetings;
Baker improperly participated in decisions despite a conflict of interest; and
public money was being spent protecting Baker’s image instead of resolving the matter.

The court found Baker’s defamation claim had “substantial merit” because the allegations could damage his reputation. However, the judge concluded France’s defence of justification (truth) had a real prospect of success because the “sting” of the posts was substantially true.

Justice Hamilton found:

sexual harassment does not require vulgarity, sexual intent, or explicit propositions;
unwelcome touching and sexualized comments can qualify as harassment; and
Baker’s admitted conduct and the evidence from Clark and Burchett were capable of supporting findings of sexual harassment.

The judge also ruled Baker failed to show significant harm directly caused by France’s posts, noting that:

the complaints themselves;
ongoing council dysfunction;
resignations;
and widespread media coverage about Sayward governance issues
were likely major sources of reputational harm and stress.

In the final balancing analysis under B.C.’s Protection of Public Participation Act (anti-SLAPP legislation), the court held that protecting political speech and public debate outweighed Baker’s interest in continuing the lawsuit.

Justice Hamilton concluded that France’s posts were core political expression about municipal governance and accountability, and warned the lawsuit risked creating a “chilling effect” on public discussion in Sayward. The court dismissed Baker’s lawsuit.

Court Documents

Sayward Taxpayers Alliance – Notice Of Petition For The Disincorporation Of The Village Of Sayward

A letter petitioning for dissolution of the Village of Sayward prepared by the Sayward Taxpayers Alliance was sent by registered mail on March 26, 2026 to Minister of Municipal Affairs, (Investigation) Province of British Columbia, Dr. Anna Kindy, MLA Member for North Island, Strathcona Regional District (SRD) Board of Directors. To date, the Alliance has not received a response from any recipient.

Ottawa Spent $275 Million On Health Care For Rejected Asylum Claimants Since 2016

Canadian taxpayers have spent more than $275 million over the past decade providing health coverage to asylum seekers whose refugee claims were ultimately rejected, according to newly released federal figures.

The spending, disclosed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada in response to a parliamentary order paper question, covers the period from 2016-17 through 2024-25. It applies to claimants whose cases were denied by the Immigration and Refugee Board, but who continued receiving federally funded health benefits under the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP).

The IFHP was created to provide temporary, limited health coverage to refugee claimants and other eligible non-citizens who are not yet covered by provincial or territorial health plans. It pays for essential medical care, including doctor visits, hospital services, and certain prescription medications.

What has drawn scrutiny is that eligibility for IFHP coverage can continue even after a refugee claim has been rejected. Under current rules, rejected claimants may remain covered while awaiting removal or while pursuing further legal avenues, such as a pre-removal risk assessment. In many cases, coverage only ends once the individual leaves Canada or becomes eligible for another public health plan.

The issue has become increasingly contentious as the overall cost of the program continues to rise alongside record levels of asylum claims and growing backlogs in the immigration system. Delays in processing mean many claimants remain in Canada—and on federally funded benefits—for extended periods, even after an initial rejection.

Critics argue that the arrangement places an added burden on taxpayers at a time when millions of Canadians struggle to access primary care. Supporters, however, contend that basic health coverage is necessary to protect public health and ensure humane treatment while legal processes are completed.

The federal government has already moved to curb rising costs. Beginning May 1, 2026, most IFHP beneficiaries will be required to contribute toward supplemental benefits, including prescription drugs, dental care, vision services, and counselling. Basic medical care, however, will remain fully covered.

The $275 million figure is likely to intensify debate over the balance between humanitarian obligations, fiscal responsibility, and the integrity of Canada’s immigration system. As asylum claims continue to climb, questions about the long-term sustainability of the program are unlikely to fade.

Canada Expands Military Recruitment To Non-Citizens

Canada’s armed forces are stepping up recruitment efforts, with permanent residents making up an increasingly significant share of new enrollees as the military works to address longstanding personnel shortages.

The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) recently surpassed its annual recruitment target for the second consecutive year, enrolling more than 7,300 Regular Force members in 2025–26 — the strongest intake in more than 30 years. Of those, roughly 1,400 were permanent residents, a dramatic increase from previous years.

The surge reflects Ottawa’s push to rebuild military capacity amid rising global instability and growing defence commitments. For 2026–27, the CAF has raised its recruitment goal even further, aiming to bring in 8,200 new members.

To accelerate enrolment, the military has streamlined parts of its recruitment and screening process. While officials say these changes are intended to reduce delays and modernize onboarding, critics warn that speed must not come at the expense of rigorous standards, particularly when national security and operational readiness are at stake.

Concerns have also been raised about whether recruitment standards are being applied consistently. Some observers worry that pressure to meet ambitious targets could lead to a more flexible interpretation of entry requirements, especially for non-citizen applicants. Military leaders insist all recruits must still meet the CAF’s core standards for fitness, aptitude, security screening, and training.

Language proficiency is another important consideration. The CAF operates in both of Canada’s official languages, English and French, and effective communication is essential in training, operations, and emergency situations. While applicants are generally expected to be proficient in at least one official language, there have been questions about whether some recruits may begin the process with limited language skills, creating potential challenges during training and integration. In a military environment, clear communication is not simply an administrative requirement — it is a matter of safety, cohesion, and operational effectiveness.

Permanent residents are eligible to apply for more than 90 military occupations, although many specialized roles still require Canadian citizenship or a minimum period of residency before a recruit can become fully employable. In February, the CAF updated its eligibility rules, requiring permanent residents to have at least three years of physical presence in Canada before they can enrol.

Military officials maintain that once enrolled, permanent residents are held to the same professional, training, and performance standards as Canadian citizens. Still, the rapid expansion of non-citizen recruitment is likely to remain a subject of public debate as Canada works to rebuild and modernize its armed forces.

The challenge for the CAF will be balancing urgent recruitment needs with the high standards required of a modern military — ensuring that every new recruit, regardless of origin, is fully prepared to serve Canada effectively and safely.

BC Officials Saddle Taxpayers With Above Average Vehicle Leasing Costs That Contradicts Their Own Policies

British Columbia’s executive vehicle leasing program is facing renewed scrutiny after records revealed taxpayers are covering roughly $370,000 annually for leased vehicles used by senior government officials.

Documents obtained through freedom of information requests show the province spends an average of about $1,103 per month on each executive vehicle lease for deputy ministers, associate deputy ministers, and other senior public-sector executives.

The spending has drawn criticism from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which argues the costs are difficult to justify—particularly when many luxury and hybrid vehicles are available at significantly lower lease rates. For comparison, some premium SUVs and hybrid sedans can be leased for hundreds of dollars less each month.

Under current provincial policy, deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers are eligible for a government-funded vehicle lease of up to $1,200 per month. Alternatively, they may opt for a $1,000 monthly vehicle allowance instead.

Critics say the policy appears inconsistent with the province’s own travel guidelines, which require government employees to use the most cost-effective and appropriate transportation available when conducting official business.

Questions have also been raised about transparency. While the province disclosed the total cost of the leases, it withheld details about the makes, models, and years of the vehicles, citing security and public safety concerns.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is now pursuing legal action in an effort to have those details released, arguing that taxpayers deserve to know exactly how public funds are being spent.