File photo (credit - CFJC Today)

By Michael Reeve

DEFAMATION CASE

Kamloops mayor’s lawyer unable to specify actual defamatory words in 1 of 4 pleadings; issues arise with 2 others

Sep 24, 2025 | 5:10 PM

KAMLOOPS — Wednesday (Sept. 24) was the first full day of the BC Supreme Court defamation hearing between Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson and Councillor Katie Neustaeter that was dedicated the submissions being delivered by Hamer-Jackson’s lawyer, Jody Wells.

The morning session was marred by stops and starts as Justice Jacqueline Hughes repeatedly had to asked wells for the relevance of Wells’ evidence, and specifically where the mayor’s lawyer would like the justice to apply it to Section 4 of Neustaeter’s PPPA application that Hamer-Jackson’s defamation suit be dismissed. Hughes told Wells it’s ‘her role as counsel’ to tell the justice where the evidence fits into the case presented by Neustaeter’s lawyer, Daniel Reid.

Wells stated that she was responding to Neustaeter’s lawyer’s submissions to the best of her ability, but Justice Hughes again reminded her she needs to apply the evidence to the test of the application the defense set out of fair comment, qualified privilege and lesser defamatory meaning.

In between the speed bumps, Wells was working to show that all the contact between Hamer-Jackson and Neustaeter’s father Kevin Krueger was one-sided, with Krueger always the one reaching out. Wells submitted that could not rise to the level of harassment on the part of Hamer-Jackson, as asserted by Neustaeter.

CFJC-TV

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

4h ago

TWO & OUT

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

9h ago

Looped In

LOOPED IN WITH NIKKI OMEN: December 11, 2025

Dec 11, 2025

Wells also raised some points in relation to Neustaeter’s brother Marshall Krueger’s role and how it differs from Neustaeter’s account of the facts, but was cautioned by the justice about double-hearsay evidence with regards to a blog post on Twitter.

Wells said Hamer-Jackson believed that Krueger was in ‘perfectly fine health’ and that he never broached the subject of Krueger with council until after Neustaeter brought it up. In fact, Krueger had been diagnosed with a form of dementia.

Wells submitted that Hamer-Jackson attempted to have council listen to a voicemail from Krueger as a “way to clear his name,” but council would not listen to the evidence, with Councillor Stephen Karpuk stating in an email submitted as evidence that he would respect Neustaeter’s privacy.

During cross examination prior to the hearing, Hamer-Jackson denied ever speaking about city business with Krueger during a lengthy phone call, rejecting a claim by Neustaeter. However under the same cross, the mayor stated he couldn’t recall a single thing he said on the call, saying he mostly listened. This was again brought forward by Wells in an attempt to show that the mayor was never the pursuer.

A major issue arose in the afternoon, with Wells unable to state which defamatory words were said in Hamer-Jackson’s first claim, the verbal statement during a meeting.

Hughes asked, ‘Where are the words?’ stating ‘the words matter’, and that the lack of specified words will be important to her consideration of the case. Wells admitted that no one is certain of exactly what the words were but stated she hopes to clear that up on Thursday through case law.

Hughes also had issues with two of the other pleadings, with the second not matching the written submission from Wells and the fourth not being clear on which statements in the press conference should be considered as defamatory.

Wells concluded her evidence-based submission Wednesday afternoon and will enter into her case law-based presentation on Thursday, before Neustaeter’s lawyer gets a chance to respond on Friday.