By Mark Squibb/September 2, 2021
A group of activists has scored a Supreme Court victory in their legal proceedings against the Town of Witless Bay.
The Save Ragged Beach group has butted heads with council over potential development in the area in and around the beach for years.
Melanie LaFosse, a member of the group, had appealed a decision of Witless Bay council made on May 19, 2020 to “tender roadwork to extend Mullowney’ s Lane from the turnaround for 168 meters, and to upgrade the ‘Right-of-Way’ to the existing standards of Mullowney’s Lane.”
The Eastern Regional Board decided it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
LaFosse, in turn, appealed that decision, bringing the matter to the Supreme Court, which held that the Board did not err in law or jurisdiction and the appeal was dismissed. However, LaFosse also sought a judicial review of the decision, requesting that council’s decision be quashed on the grounds of five different arguments.
Only a part of one of those arguments, that council’s motion was passed in bad faith and for the ulterior purpose of benefiting the property of only one resident of the town, Deputy Mayor Maureen Murphy’s brother, passed muster with Justice Glen L.C. Noel.
But it was enough.
“I see no merit to any of LaFosse’s grounds for quashing Council’s Decision, except the ground relating to Council’s decision making-process and the Deputy Mayor’s involvement,” said Noel in his decision, dated June 30. “Council’s decision is not justified within the constraints of the legislation and guiding judicial authorities. Deputy Mayor Murphy was in a legal conflict of interest based on the language and interpretation of the statute.”
However, Noel did note that neither Murphy nor council acted in bad faith.
“I find no support in the record that Deputy Mayor Murphy or Council acted in bad faith,” Noel wrote. “They simply failed to apply a reasonable interpretation to the conflict-of-interest provisions in the act.”
Noel concluded that council’s decision be quashed because Murphy was indeed in a conflict of interest, and further, that Murphy not participate in any discussion of or vote on the matter should council introduce a new motion.
Murphy, it should be noted, had declared she was in conflict on the matter prior to voting, but her colleagues on council disagreed and voted that she was not in conflict.