Raven, municipality react to Kings County judicial review

Kirk Starratt
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

Lawyer Peter Muttart and his client, Kings County councillor Pauline Raven, prepare to enter Supreme Court in Kentville on Dec. 19.

Kings County Coun. Pauline Raven disagrees that a point of order was properly called, but she says the most recent rulings in a code of conduct judicial review is a signal that the court will not interfere with the normal conduct of meetings – even when the person chairing it makes mistakes.

Raven said the court made it clear Jan. 7 that she or one of the other councillors should have challenged the warden at the time of the Oct. 1 ruling. Councillors should do this when they feel the chairperson has made the wrong decision, she said.

“I will be more diligent in the future,” Raven said.

Read more about the Jan. 7 court appearance here. 

She said that when Judge Pierre Muise ruled that the judicial review she requested would move forward and not be dismissed, as the county had argued, he made several pointed comments. Raven believes the judge’s comments should signal to council that the warden’s launch of a code of conduct investigation and the ensuing investigation were flawed.

“In my view, it’s now appropriate for our council to rescind the entire code of conduct issue so that council can all get back to the business of the day,” Raven said.

The exclusion by the court of portions of the county’s affidavits will make the judicial review more manageable and less costly, she added. With the point of order issue out of the way, Raven said, obtaining a court order to nullify council’s actions in the code of conduct matter is now “front, centre and less encumbered by the unnecessary distractions introduced by the county.”

She said the code of conduct matter was her key concern in bringing forward an application for judicial review and she is pleased that it’s now the focus of the court’s attention.

Kings chief administrative officer Tom MacEwan said a considerable amount of the material included in the affidavits focused on the issuing the warning by the chairperson, as well as issues related to an amended notice of judicial review, filed by Raven, that sought to increase the scope of the review from Oct. 1 and 15 into Sept. 17 and Nov. 12.

“Given that the majority of the information that was removed from the affidavits addressed the circumstances surrounding the issuing of the warning, and as the warning is not subject to judicial review, we do not foresee that the removal of certain paragraphs from the affidavits will have any impact on the Municipality of Kings’ position,” MacEwan said.

Muise found that issuing a warning was within the authority of the chair and not subject to judicial review, MacEwan pointed out. The municipality always maintained that the warning was issued as a point of order and is not subject to such a review and MacEwan said the county is pleased that the court confirmed the county’s position.

The court ruling limits the scope of the review to the motion passed by council on Oct. 15. This motion affirmed the code of conduct and the authority of the chair in maintaining decorum in the chamber; endorsed the warning given to Raven; and committed to move ahead in a spirit of mutual respect and co-operation.

“It is this motion of council which the court is being asked to review,” MacEwan said.

It is anticipated a hearing date will be set following the Jan. 21 court appearance. 

Geographic location: Kings

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Brenda M
    January 14, 2014 - 07:48

    The problem is that Raven does not know anything about what her job actually is as a councillor! She is a know it all, so focused on hate and disturbance she does not know how to act, and the procedures of council etc. I think if councillor Raven took a step back, thought about her residents she might be able to do some good. Monique, what has Raven actually done for her community? What work has she done by herself to make her community better, I live in the district and she has not contributed.

  • Bill
    January 13, 2014 - 20:14

    There are some problem people on this council (Raven , Bishop etc.)and they spoil the good work that the rest do.

  • dg
    January 13, 2014 - 11:14

    Folks, when you come up for air, from your tunnel vision pipe, maybe you'll see there's more to this picture than one thinks. Try dealing with most councillors, you'll get the Harper way, nothing. I've been trying to get some injustice corrected, but it's not in the county interest to look after those from a "less" important neighbourhood. But if you are fortunate enough to live, say Greenwood, well that's a little different. Check the incamera sessions that took place during the Meadowview Landfill issues and you'll get a better appreciation for what is now happening, but if still have your head stuck in mud, than you won't see that as an issue of importance. Smell the Cornwallis River, in Kentville. That folks is leachate from the "SAFE" operation of the Kings County council approved landfill, even though their own consultant reports told them otherwise. Someday when you require the county to defend itself you will face an array of these "incamera" sessions. Good Luck Pauline, you do have support, and I suspect these nay sayers are friends of the "Elected"

  • Ellie Hall
    January 13, 2014 - 07:20

    Pauline Raven is a discrace to this county. She is a trouble maker and does nothing for the community for which she represents.

    • Monique Harvie
      January 13, 2014 - 12:35

      Be it known that in the short period of time that Pauline Raven has been in council she has accomplished many things. Get your facts straight before you make yourself look like a idiot with comments like that. I would rather have someone stir the pot when needed. Then sit in the backburner and accomplish nothing.

    • Ed H
      January 14, 2014 - 13:19

      What has she done? You don't mention anything she has actually done! I agree she is a trouble maker that prevents others from doing their work!