File photo (Image Credit: CFJC Today)

By Michael Reeve

DEFAMATION CASE

Judge dismisses Kamloops mayor’s defamation suit against councillor

Jan 30, 2026 | 3:54 PM

KAMLOOPS — Kamloops mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson’s defamation case against Katie Neustaeter has been dismissed in a written decision delivered Friday (Jan. 30).

“The defendant’s application to dismiss the action under the PPPA (Protection of Public Participation Act) is allowed. The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed,” reads the conclusion of BC Supreme Court Justice Jacqueline Hughes’ decision.

The two parties were in court for five days back in September presenting their cases. Neustaeter had filed an application under the PPPA to see the defamation case brought by Hamer-Jackson dismissed.

The case surrounded four alleged instances of defamation — three in emailed statements between council and one in a public statement Neustaeter made on behalf of council during a press conference.

Question of the Week

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

11h ago

Looped In

LOOPED IN WITH NIKKI OMEN: February 23, 2026

16h ago

1000 WAYS TO HEAL

1000 WAYS TO HEAL: Understanding the Bully

16h ago

Justice Hughes concluded all four instances fall within the defence of qualified privilege by Neustaeter.

“I therefore find that there are grounds to believe that the Public Statement was made on an occasion of qualified privilege and did not stray beyond the scope of that privilege. Consequently, I find that the application of the defence of qualified privilege to the Public Statement tends to weigh more in the defendant’s favour,” reads the decision. 

Hughes also found that the comments did not rise to the level of malice.

“In the result, I find that there are grounds to believe that the Council Statements and the Public Statement were made on occasions of qualified privilege and not defeated by malice in the sense that they were not made with reckless indifference to their truth,” reads the decision. 

“I agree with the defendant that this case is fundamentally one about political speech. Her assertion that the plaintiff is using this litigation to target her as a political adversary for speech that she made, which was critical of his conduct and governance in his role as mayor, is supported on the record before me,” continues the written decision. 

In finding the qualified privilege defence to be sound, it was unnecessary under the PPPA for Justice Hughes to consider the other defenses put forth by Neustaeter, as Hamer-Jackson had failed to meet his burden of proof that qualified privilege was not a valid defense.

“I have considered, for the purpose of [PPPA Section] 4(2)(a)(ii), the defendant’s primary defence of qualified privilege and found that the plaintiff has not satisfied his statutory merits-based burden of establishing that there are grounds to believe that this is not a valid defence. It is therefore unnecessary for me to consider the defendant’s alternative defences: Siman Trial at para. 134; Pointes at para. 112.,” reads the decision.

“Aside from the plaintiff’s bare assertions, there is no evidence of any causal link between the harms alleged and the defendant’s statements,” continues the decision.

Neustaeter is seeking costs from Hamer-Jackson, as is common under the PPPA. That hearing will be set within the next 30 days by Justice Hughes at a judicial management conference.

Hamer-Jackson still has two outstanding defamation cases before the courts — one against Kamloops developer Joshua Knaak and an additional claim with Neustaeter.

CFJC News will have more on this story on Monday (Feb. 2)