Image Credit: CFJC Today

By Michael Reeve

DEFAMATION CASE

Hamer-Jackson’s lawyer attempts to show Neustaeter’s ‘reckless indifference’ to the truth in defamation hearing

Sep 25, 2025 | 5:20 PM

KAMLOOPS — This week, BC Supreme Court is hearing a motion from Kamloops councillor Katie Neustaeter to dismiss the defamation suit against her brought by Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson. Day four of the proceedings heard from Hamer-Jackson’s lawyer, Jody Wells, explaining the case law and precedent that supports her argument that the defamation case should go to trial.

Wells began on Thursday (Sept. 25) morning clarifying a number of questions raised by Justice Jacqueline Hughes the day prior. Wells pointed to case law around why the specific words of the first pleading are not essential to the case, and that courts have previously upheld rulings based upon the general matter of the conversation.

It was noted that both the case law examples brought forward by Wells were not Protection of Public Participation Act (PPPA) applications, however.

Wells also took time to outline what Hamer-Jackson alleges to be the ‘defamatory sting’ of each statement. Beginning by lumping statements one, two and three together, Wells said Neustaeter claimed in a defamatory fashion that Hamer-Jackson targeted, stalked, harassed, disclosed city info to, and slandered staff to her father, Kevin Krueger. Wells went on to list several other defamatory stings.

CFJC-TV

Kamloops born-and-raised Dylana Kneeshaw to succeed Bill O'Donovan as CFJC-TV lead anchor

11h ago

TWO & OUT

PETERS: Boyle's supportive housing move is data-driven decision-making gone wrong

16h ago

Looped In

LOOPED IN WITH NIKKI OMEN: December 11, 2025

Dec 11, 2025

The defamatory stings alleged for the fourth pleading, the March 17 news conference, are the terms ‘repeatedly belittled’, and ‘disrespected council’, along with the words “violated personal and professional boundaries.”

Wells also submitted in that claim that no evidence was put forward to show that Hamer-Jackson had ever violated boundaries with Councillors Nancy Bepple, Stephen Karpuk, Margot Middleton or Mike O’Reilly despite them standing behind the statement made by Neustaeter on their behalf.

Wells outlined to the courts that, under Section 4 of the PPPA, the justice may determine the application is successful on all of the claims, none of the claims or some, meaning the case could proceed with only some of the four pleadings currently being considered.

One of the main points raised by Wells on Thursday was her submission that Neustaeter had ‘reckless indifference’ to the truth. Wells attempted to show that by alleging Neustaeter never worked to find out and was generally uninterested if what she was saying about Hamer-Jackson and Krueger was true. That, according to Wells, created malice, and therefore the PPPA should fail and the case proceed.

The day concluded with Neustaeter’s lawyer Daniel Reid rising on an objection on the final three affidavits entered by Wells. Two of the affidavits came from Hamer-Jackson’s wife and daughter, and the third was a city hall investigation.

The issue arises with all three affidavits being submitted approximately one month after the deadline to submit evidence. Wells says to exclude them would be highly prejudicial to Hamer-Jackson, but could not provide Justice Hughes with concrete reasons for why they arrived late.

Justice Hughes is set to begin Friday morning by providing a 15-minute verbal ruling on Reid’s objection, before Hamer-Jackson’s lawyer will get a chance to conclude her law-based submissions. Reid will then have an opportunity in response, before the case wraps up around the lunch hour break.

It has not been specified if Justice Hughes plans to rule quickly after submissions wrap up on Friday, or more likely, will reserve her decision to a future date.