File photo (image credit - CFJC Today)

By Michael Reeve

DEFAMATION CASE

Kamloops councillor’s lawyer argues for dismissal of mayor’s defamation suit

Sep 22, 2025 | 5:26 PM

KAMLOOPS — Kamloops Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson and Councillor Katie Neustaeter were back in a Kamloops courtroom Monday (Sept. 22), returning after an adjournment in their defamation case. BC Supreme Court justice Jacqueline Hughes is hearing an application from Neustaeter to dismiss the suit against her.

The suit, brought by Hamer-Jackson, alleges four instances of defamation by Neustaeter. One was based on a verbal statement made to council, two were based on statements made in emails between council and staff, and the fourth was based on a statement made on behalf of council back in 2023 in response to proposed changes to the committee structure at city hall.

Neustaeter is represented by Daniel Reid, who began the proceedings on Monday presenting background to each of the defamation claims. Neustaeter has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the statements made were expressions made in the public interest and related to her political position.

Neustaeter’s lawyer stated their defense covers three points — qualified privilege, fair comment and lesser defamation.

Question of the Week

With B.C. moving to end the time change, do you prefer permanent Daylight Savings Time, permanent Standard Time, or the status quo?

Mar 02, 2026

1000 WAYS TO HEAL

1000 WAYS TO HEAL: What are we doing with the land in Kamloops?

Mar 02, 2026

LOOPED IN

LOOPED IN WITH NIKKI OMEN: March 2, 2026

Mar 02, 2026

He began his submissions to Justice Hughes by stating that the majority of the claims set to be presented relate to Kevin Krueger, Neustaeter’s father, and the contact between him and Mayor Hamer-Jackson.

Neustaeter’s lawyer states Krueger was diagnosed with dementia back in 2017 and had multiple related hospital visits prior the election cycle. He has now been admitted to a care facility under the Mental Health Act. The points were raised to show why Neustaeter had asked Hamer-Jackson not to contact her father.

The main portion of the morning session was discussion around Neustaeter’s contention that Hamer-Jackson agreed not to speak with Krueger, while Hamer-Jackson claims he stated he would not reach out and that Krueger initiated the contact.

Neustaeter’s lawyer also submitted a number of confidential topics Hamer-Jackson allegedly brought up to Krueger during their lengthy conversation, including wanting to fire then-acting-CAO Byron McCorkell, an ongoing arbitration case, wanting to IQ test city staff and claiming council is ageist. Hamer-Jackson refutes those topics were ever discussed.

The afternoon session was briefly hampered by hearsay evidence. However, Neustaeter’s lawyer was able to provide a pair of case laws, allowing it to be submitted in a PPPA (the technical motion to dismiss submitted by Neustaeter), with the individual justice hearing the application given the ability to weigh it as they feel fit.

The fourth claim of defamation is for the most public statement, made during a March 2023 statement made on behalf of council. Neustaeter’s lawyer argued Hamer-Jackson contends that people took the statement of personal and professional boundaries to mean things including sexual or physical assault. Neustaeter’s lawyer presented that the first public statement to that effect was actually made by Hamer-Jackson’s former lawyer prior the suit being filed.

“An allegation that one’s ‘personal boundaries’ have been violated can mean many different things. It can suggest a wide range of misconduct, from cyber-bullying to verbal intimidation, from workplace harassment all the way to physical assault and, yes, even to sexual harassment and/or assault,” reads an excerpt of the opinion piece written by David McMillan and published on CFJC‘s website on April 5, 2023.

Neustaeter’s lawyer argued McMillan’s statement that only Neustaeter could be sued for defamation related to the public statement was incorrect under common defamation case law, where all parties behind the statement — meaning all of council in this case — could have been sued. Neustaeter’s lawyer alleges that shows the suit was politically motivated and is being used to silence his client.

Neustaeter’s lawyer is expected to complete his submissions on Tuesday, with Hamer-Jackson’s lawyer set to take over the proceeding on Tuesday afternoon. The hearing is currently scheduled to conclude on Friday morning.