CFJC Today File Photo

By Michael Reeve

DEFAMATION CASE

Hearing ends, judgment reserved in Kamloops councillor’s bid to dismiss mayor’s defamation suit

Sep 26, 2025 | 2:32 PM

KAMLOOPS — Friday (Sept. 26) was the final day of the five-day chamber application under the Protection of Public Participation Act (PPPA) by Kamloops councillor Katie Neustaeter to dismiss the defamation suit brought by Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson. Both lawyers provided their final comments to the justice as the litigants and public will now await a ruling.

Friday’s session began with Justice Jacqueline Hughes presenting a verbal ruling on an objection raised by Neustaeter’s lawyer Daniel Reid on Thursday (Sept. 25) with regards to a trio of affidavits, coming from Hamer-Jackson’s wife, daughter and a third from a city report.

The issue raised was that all three were provided to the defense after the deadline set out by Justice Hughes. Hamer-Jackson’s lawyer, Jody Wells, claimed that not accepting the evidence would be prejudicial against the mayor as it spoke to the harm of the defamation.

Hughes ruled that the objection would be sustained and that the plaintiff would ‘not be permitted to rely on the affidavits in the application’, noting the ‘evidence was available prior to the deadline’ and Wells failed to provide any explanation for why it was delivered late.

Question of the Week

Has the violence in Mexico changed your opinion about travelling there for a vacation?

15h ago

Looped In

LOOPED IN WITH NIKKI OMEN: February 23, 2026

20h ago

1000 WAYS TO HEAL

1000 WAYS TO HEAL: Understanding the Bully

20h ago

Following the ruling from Hughes, Wells concluded her written submissions into the case, speaking directly to the harm they allege Hamer-Jackson suffered as a result of the supposedly defamatory statements — listing mental stress, physiological stress and humiliation, along with reputational harm to the mayor’s standing in the community.

Wells submitted that any harm — even presumed harm — should outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression, and that they assert the malice defeats the defense of fair comment.

Neustaeter’s lawyer then had an opportunity to reply to the submissions, telling the court he would speak to six issues, staring with evidentiary issues presented by Wells. He also addressed potential issues with the pleadings, noting that the first does not even use the word ‘harass’, despite Wells saying it’s part of the ‘defamatory sting’, and that there was no allegation made of stalking, despite Wells asking the courts to raise the word ‘harassment’ up to that level.

Neustaeter’s lawyer submitted that the word ‘harassment’ was not used at all until after repeated asks by Neustaeter to not contact her father, Kevin Krueger, and after Hamer-Jackson again broached the subject unprompted in two emails to city council, including one with a voicemail from Krueger.

Reid said that point also goes to the claims of reckless indifference raised by Wells, as they claim Neustaeter was only ever responding to what came up from Hamer-Jackson, and that a December 9, 2022 letter to Hamer-Jackson from council — now published on the city’s website — showcases the concerns with governance and protection of confidential information was not unfounded.

The case concluded on Friday afternoon with Justice Hughes reserving her decision. Both lawyers declined to comment on camera for CFJC News, but Neustaeter’s lawyer did briefly say he’s glad he was able to present their case, and he expects the decision could take anywhere from weeks to months to be published.