In the world of public administration, few accusations hit harder than misfeasance in public office. It’s the type of wrongdoing that signals a complete collapse of trust, where officials allegedly use their authority not for the public good, but to harm others or pursue improper objectives.
The Amended Statement of Claim filed by former Chestermere Mayor Jeff Colvin and Councillors Blaine Funk and Stephen Hanley puts this tort front and centre, alleging that several provincial and municipal officials engaged in deliberate, unlawful, and harmful conduct.
Let’s break down what misfeasance actually means, how Canadian courts view it, and what the Chestermere case claims went wrong.
What Is Misfeasance in Public Office?
The tort has two core elements—both must exist for a claim to succeed:
1. A Public Officer Engages in Deliberate and Unlawful Conduct
This means the official must intentionally act outside their legal authority or willfully misuse their lawful powers.
2. The Official Knows the Conduct Is Likely to Harm Someone
It’s not enough to be reckless or negligent—the official must know (or be willfully blind) that their actions will likely cause harm to a specific individual or group.
In short:
It’s not a mistake. It’s misconduct done knowingly and deliberately.
How the Chestermere Allegations Fit into This Framework?
According to the plaintiffs, multiple officials—including former Minister Ric McIver, Minister Rebecca Schulz, Inspector George Cuff, the Official Administrator Doug Lagore, and others—allegedly engaged in actions that meet the legal test for misfeasance.
While the courts will ultimately decide, the allegations in the Statement of Claim paint a troubling picture of governance gone off the rails.
Below are key areas where misfeasance is alleged.
1. Initiating and Directing an Inspection with Improper Purpose
Under Section 571 of the MGA, inspections must be triggered for legitimate reasons—public complaints, council requests, or genuine concerns about municipal operations.
The claim alleges the inspection was ordered not to investigate wrongdoing, but to:
- Remove the newly elected mayor and councillors
- Block investigations into prior financial irregularities
- Protect individuals involved in previous administrations
- Create a narrative that justified provincial intervention
The statement suggests the inspection’s purpose strayed far from neutral governance and entered the realm of political strategy.
2. Ignoring or Suppressing Evidence of Alleged Corruption
The plaintiffs claim they reported multiple serious financial irregularities, including:
- A $16 million road-paving cost discrepancy
- Alleged $6 million kickbacks related to a bridge project
- A $10 million stormwater project was deemed unnecessary and improperly funded
- A lift station project that tripled in cost and performed poorly
Instead of investigating, the inspection allegedly ignored these issues entirely.
If accurate, this falls squarely into misfeasance territory: knowingly disregarding evidence to protect certain interests while targeting others.
3. Denial of Procedural Fairness
Natural justice is foundational in administrative law. The right to:
- Know the allegations against you
- See the evidence
- Respond to claims
- Participate in proceedings affecting your office
According to the claim, the plaintiffs received none of these protections.
They were:
- Not told what allegations triggered the inspection
- Not shown evidence used against them
- Not interviewed
- Barred from the public release event of the inspection report
If proven, this becomes a textbook example of willfully harmful administrative conduct.
4. Public Release of Allegedly False Information
One of the most serious allegations involves public statements suggesting:
- The mayor signed illegal payout cheques
- Council members misused City funds
- Surveillance devices were planted in City Hall
- Criminal wrongdoing occurred
The claim asserts these statements were false—and that officials knew they were false.
Publishing knowingly incorrect allegations for political or administrative advantage is precisely the behaviour the misfeasance tort is meant to address.
5. Using Ministerial Power to Remove Elected Officials Improperly
Removing a mayor and councillors is one of the most drastic powers the province has. It should only occur when there is:
- Clear misconduct
- Breach of law
- Danger to municipal function
The Statement of Claim alleges the removal was:
- Premeditated
- Politically motivated
- Executed without evidence
- Contrary to the MGA
- Used to block investigations into prior councils
If courts accept these claims, it would signal one of the most significant cases of misfeasance in Alberta’s municipal history.
6. Collusion with Municipal Staff and RCMP Members
The claim includes allegations that certain staff members and even RCMP officers:
- Shared confidential information
- Fabricated statements
- Encouraged criminal charges without evidence
- Attempted to coerce testimony
- Manipulated administrative processes
If true, this goes beyond misfeasance—it edges toward conspiracy and abuse of authority involving multiple actors.
7. Election Interference as a Tool of Misfeasance
The Statement of Claim alleges that during the 2024 Chestermere by-election:
- A lawsuit was filed against the former mayor and councillors
- Mailouts were sent across the city
- Negative narratives were pushed
- All of this occurred during the writ period
If these actions were taken with the intent to damage candidates’ reputations and affect election outcomes, it would represent a severe misuse of public power.
Why the Chestermere Case Matters for All Albertans?
Even if the allegations remain unproven at this stage, the case highlights the fragility of local democracy when unchecked authority intersects with political motivations.
Misfeasance in public office exists precisely to deter this kind of abuse.
When public power becomes a weapon rather than a responsibility, the entire democratic system takes the hit, residents lose trust, elected councils become vulnerable, and transparency becomes optional.
Whether or not the plaintiffs ultimately succeed, the Chestermere case is a wake-up call for stronger oversight and clear boundaries between legitimate provincial authority and political expediency.
To stay informed about ongoing developments and reform efforts, visit CleanUpAlberta.ca.