This article was prepared with the assistance of summer law student Kylee Matravolgyi.
In the recent decision Woods v. Wilton (Rural Municipality), 2026 SKKB 117, the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench determined that a reasonable lack of awareness to challenge a municipal councillor’s disqualification within 10 business days may constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying judicial review of the resolution.
Case summary
The applicant, Donna Woods, was a member of the Organized Hamlet Board of Lone Rock. After election, the applicant failed to properly disclose conflicts of interest, so the Rural Municipality of Wilton (the RM) passed a resolution disqualifying the applicant and declaring her seat vacant.
The applicant sought to quash the resolution on the basis that the RM did not have jurisdiction to disqualify members of organized hamlet boards (OHBs), and that the RM did not afford her sufficient procedural fairness.
Municipalities have jurisdiction to disqualify hamlet board members
This is the first case in Saskatchewan to address the application of the amended Municipalities Regulations, M-36.1 Reg 1 (the Regulations) pertaining to organized hamlets.
Under s.31.1 of the Regulations, the conflict of interest provisions in s.142 of The Municipalities Act, SS 2005, c M-36.1 (the Act) apply with “necessary modification” to members of OHBs. Additionally, s.31.2 of the Regulations applies the enforcement provisions in s.148 of the Act to OHBs.
Justice Meschishnick interpreted these amendments as disqualifying members of OHBs who fail to satisfy the requirements in s.142 of the Act. This disqualification is then enforced by a resolution passed of the municipality where the hamlet is located.
Not knowing about the 10-day deadline may be an “exceptional circumstance”
In Baran v. Rural Municipality of Dundurn No. 314, 2022 SKQB 182 (Baran), the court determined that s.148(2.1) of the Act was an adequate alternative remedy to judicial review of municipal resolutions disqualifying councillors. As such, the court will decline an application for judicial review unless exceptional circumstances are present.
Justice Meschishnick applied Baran and concluded that s.148(2.1) of the Act provided an adequate alternative remedy. Despite this, Justice Meschishnick found exceptional circumstances justifying judicial review. Unlike Baran, the applicant could not have known or be presumed to have known that she was required to challenge the resolution within 10 business days of its passing. As such, Justice Meschishnick found exceptional circumstances in the applicant’s reasonable lack of awareness of the requirement to challenge the RM’s resolution within 10 business days under s.148(2.1) of the Act. Given the recent amendments to the regulations, the Court was not convinced the applicant knew or ought to have known she was restricted to the 10-day appeal period.
A resolution to disqualify an individual from municipal office is void without procedural fairness
Consistent with the court’s decision in Wushke v. Rural Municipality of Rocanville No. 151, 2025 SKKB 19 (Wushke), a municipal resolution is rendered void if the disqualified councillor is not afforded sufficient procedural fairness. As in Wushke, Justice Meschishnick concluded that the applicant here was entitled to:
- Notice in advance of the council’s decision to disqualify her from the OHB
- Opportunity to respond to the allegations against her
- Knowledge of the reasons for the decision
Key takeaways for municipalities
In light of this important decision, municipalities should seek legal advice before passing a resolution to disqualify members of organized hamlet boards or municipal councils. This will ensure that the disqualification process is followed correctly and that the resolution becomes voidable and immune from challenge after the 10-day period in s.148(2.1) of the Act has passed.
For more information on what this decision could mean for you or your municipality, contact our Municipal team.
Note: This article is of a general nature only and is not exhaustive of all possible legal rights or remedies. In addition, laws may change over time and should be interpreted only in the context of particular circumstances such that these materials are not intended to be relied upon or taken as legal advice or opinion. Readers should consult a legal professional for specific advice in any particular situation.
Share
