Wheatland County defeated in Court of Appeal, Koester sanctions deemed unreasonable

By John Watson Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

The Alberta Court of Appeal has dismissed Wheatland County’s appeal and is upholding the Court of King’s Bench decision to quash sanctions made against Coun. Glenn Koester. 

Coun. Koester’s challenge against the county was ruled in his favour in the Court of King’s Bench, as of Mar. 1, 2024. The decision made by the Court of Appeal was dated Sept. 16.

“I anticipated – you know, you always think you are going to win, not that I’m experienced at courts or trials or anything. You anticipate it, but when you hear it and see it in print, it is a feeling that is hard to explain,” said Coun. Koester. 

The battle in court between Coun. Koester and the county has been ongoing since 2022 regarding sanctions placed against him over an alleged code of conduct violation.

The original complaint was filed against Coun. Koester by Reeve Amber Link in March 2022. The complaint referred to two distinct events. One, being Koesters’ conduct as chair of the Board of Wheatland and Adjacent Districts Emergency Medical Services, and his conduct as chair of the Wheatland Housing Management Board. 

A full summary of both issues was published in the Feb. 8, 2023 edition of the Strathmore Times.

Throughout the process, details from Link’s original complaints, as well as from the investigation report which had led to Coun. Koester’s sanctioning had been kept sealed and confidential by the county. Additionally, a publication ban had been placed on the documents. 

The Court of Appeal has ruled, in addition to defeating the county’s appeal, to unseal the investigation report and lift the publication ban. 

In the document outlining the reasons for the decision of Justice D.J. Reed, he describes the investigation report to not contain any “‘summary of evidence from witnesses’ that is intelligible in any sense,” nor does it disclose who was interviewed, nor who said what about whom.

The summary of evidence is described to be completely unattributed and is impossible for a reader to determine the source of the content.

Additionally, the report described more than a dozen people having been interviewed throughout the investigation. These supposedly included CAO’s, members of Wheatland County council, and a selection of members from the four municipalities which also comprise the WADEMSA and WHMB boards.

Reed raised a concern as to whom the interviewed individuals were, and why they were selected, which cannot be resolved based on the contents of the report. 

“Gaps and leaps of logic make it impossible to understand why or how the investigator reached his conclusions” is quoted in the memorandum of judgement by Reed. “The report’s reasoning ‘makes no sense.’”

Coun. Koester maintains his stance that the whole debacle should not have been kept confidential and in-camera in the first place.

“I think if they were open and honest, and not do everything in camera – there’s too much in camera, the public is not allowed to know what is really going on, and that is not good,” he said. “That’s not good. They used that in-camera as a weapon against me. I can’t even (talk about) all the stuff that is in-camera. They spend almost a third of their meetings in-camera. To me, that is abusive.”

Link released a public statement regarding the judicial review detailing the county’s stance on the ruling. 

She first notes that the county respects the ruling of the Alberta Court of Appeal and the legal democratic process. 

“I must clarify several points as the recent decision is being publicly framed as a sweeping victory for Councillor Koester. It is not,” wrote Link. “The Court did not find that Councillor Koester was innocent or that he did not breach Wheatland County’s Code of Conduct. In fact, the Chambers Judge explicitly upheld council’s decision regarding the Wheatland EMS portion of the complaint and confirmed that our findings on that matter were reasonable. No judge has ever ruled that he did not violate the Code of Conduct.”

Link describes that the Court took issue with the process by which Coun. Koester was sanctioned. She also acknowledges that the investigation report was found to be flawed in its reasoning, specifically on the housing board matter.

Regarding the WADEMSA issue, Link describes in her statement that Koester publicly raised an unfounded suggestion of pecuniary interest, reported a refusal from Link to meet with him, and threatened her husband’s employment with WADEMSA. 

“That behaviour was unprofessional and unacceptable, and it was only one incident in a long, ongoing pattern of concerning behaviour that had created tension, disruption, and mistrust within council. Council agreed and sanctioned him, as was within their authority at the time,” she wrote. “Council’s decision was overturned on procedural grounds, not because he was exonerated. You are not ‘innocent’ simply because a decision is quashed for process flaws.”

“The report does not contain a rational chain of analysis from the facts found to the conclusion that the respondent breached the Code of Conduct,” wrote Reed in the memorandum of judgement. This statement, present in paragraph 50 of the memorandum of judgement, specifically references the complaint as it relates to the WMHB.

In relation to the EMS complaint, no such dismissal of the code of conduct violation complaint is present in the memorandum of judgement. Link acknowledges this in her public statement. 

Link also calls on Coun. Koester for supporting the censure of Brenda Knight, former county councillor, in 2015, and yet now calling for procedural information to be made public throughout his own censure. 

“[Koester] publicly decries this same process as unfair and secretive, despite Koester having raised no concerns when this longstanding procedure was used for other councillors or when he reviewed and approved our Code of Conduct Bylaw and the included processes with council annually at organizational meetings,” wrote Link.

Regarding legal fees, the county is insured against matters of this nature and has not expended taxpayer dollars throughout the legal process. 

No information or ruling has yet been made regarding whether Coun. Koester will be reimbursed whatsoever for his personal legal fees. The lost income from not having served on county boards and committees during his sanctioning has also not been detailed for reimbursement.

Bill 50, which was introduced by the Alberta government earlier this year, repeals municipalities from maintaining their own individual codes of conduct bylaws. 

The bill aims to prevent situations from arising more in the future where it may be that such codes of conduct are being weaponized against certain elected officials and preventing them from fulfilling their duties as council members. 

Regarding the upcoming municipal election, Coun. Koester intends to run again to continue serving as a county councillor.

Link has previously announced she will not be seeking re-election.

-With files from the Strathmore Times