Judge Ken Ball ruled Friday the trial of Coun. Brian Skakun can continue after defence lawyer Jon Duncan and Crown Judith Doulis duelled over a tiny but critical point of law.
After a two minute or so of silence in Courtroom 102, Ball said a reference to a municipal councillor as an "officer" in the oath Skakun swore on taking his council seat provided sufficent, albeit "very small," evidence the case could proceed.
Duncan had introduced a no-evidence motion arguing that Doulis's case did not contain any proof Skakun - or any councillor - is an officer under Section 30.4 of the Freedom of the Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Skakun is on trial for violating the provincial statute after allegedly leaking a confidential report to the media.
Duncan presented case law and cited testimony from city officials during the - specifically Mayor Dan Rogers and former mayor Colin Kinsley - that argued a councillor is not an officer of a municipality and therefore cannot be charged under the act.
He argued Skakun should have been charged for violating the section of the Community Charter that deals with the disclosure of confidential material.
Doulis responded that the intent of the act is to protect municipal employees from the unlawful disclosure of their personal details, that a councillor's status as an "official" fit the definition of "officer" under the act and to exclude city councillors would not be a fair interpretation of that law.
Ball said he would not decide which lawyer was right at this stage of the proceedings; instead he denied the no-evidence motion.
Court then adjourned; Ball is expected to ask Duncan this afternoon if he wishes to present evidence as part of the defence's case.
