So Sue Me

I'll admit, that one surprised me. And it might surprise you too.

At the end of the June 28, 2026 Committee of the Whole meeting, Councillor Katie Neustaeter said something to Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson that the recording didn’t quite pick up.

The Mayor asked, “Pardon me?” Neustaeter leaned into her microphone. “I said, so sue me.”

Shortly after that, I posted a link to the video and a question on Facebook: Do you feel like Councillor Neustaeter respects you and your tax dollars that are funding her legal defence over things she likes to say to or about the Mayor?

I could have left it there, as council meetings are full of sarcastic comments, interruptions and disagreements. But the more I thought about the history behind those words, the more I felt I had an obligation to share it. And once you understand the history, “so sue me” sounds a little different.

It didn't start with “so sue me”

Earlier in the meeting crime statistics were being discussed. Neustaeter was explaining why she thought the City's crime numbers needed to be looked at in context. She talked about population growth, the crime severity index and reporting practices.

Then she made comments that were clearly directed at the Mayor. Neustaeter referred to “trigger-happy people” who “like to brag about hundreds of files” and call things in “every five minutes.”

Long before Hamer-Jackson became Mayor, he operated a car lot on West Victoria Street. A supportive housing complex was established across the street from the business in 2020, adding to the facilities already operating in that area. Businesses along West Victoria have experienced significant crime and street disorder, problems Hamer-Jackson spoke about publicly for years.

He's described vandalism, open drug use, threatening behaviour, break-ins, and fires at his former business.  He'd also become one of the people speaking publicly about the impact those problems had on him and other businesses in the area. Dissatisfied with the response they were receiving, he eventually decided to run for Mayor.

So when Neustaeter talked about people who report hundreds of incidents as “trigger-happy” and suggested they like to brag about it, it was no surprise that the Mayor responded.

It appeared to end there, but shortly afterwards, the Mayor returned to the subject.

How did we get here?

The first lawsuit goes back to March 17, 2023 when Neustaeter stood in front of the media and read a statement about the Mayor on behalf of the councillors. The statement accused the Mayor of violating personal and professional boundaries and engaging in belittling and disruptive behaviour.

The Mayor later sued Neustaeter for defamation. I've written about that several times because I thought an important distinction was getting lost in the coverage. The court didn't decide that everything in the councillors' statement was true.

Justice Jacqueline Hughes dismissed the lawsuit after finding that qualified privilege protected the statements in the circumstances in which they were made. That's a legal protection for the communication, not a finding that the allegations were proven true.

That's an important distinction when taxpayers are also paying the legal bills arising from the dispute.

Then there was a second lawsuit

In 2024, the Mayor became involved in a disagreement over Neustaeter's access to an area of City Hall restricted to council members. He asked City staff about the matter.

Neustaeter responded by accusing the Mayor of “surreptitiously tracking” her and referring to what she described as “creepy behaviour.” The Mayor filed another defamation action.

I wrote about that case because I wanted to understand how an email asking about access to a restricted area had turned into allegations that the Mayor was effectively monitoring Neustaeter’s bathroom visits.

And now there are two defamation proceedings between the Mayor and a sitting councillor.

The City is paying her legal costs

This is where “so sue me” becomes more interesting. The City's Legal Matters page confirms that Council resolved to indemnify Neustaeter in both lawsuits.

The first resolution was passed June 20, 2023, shortly after the first lawsuit was filed. The second was passed August 12, 2025, after the Mayor filed the second lawsuit. The City says both proceedings remain before the court.

The City explains that section 740 of the Local Government Act allows Council to indemnify a municipal official in connection with the exercise, or intended exercise, of their powers or duties. When Council resolves to indemnify someone, the City says it pays the costs incurred by the official to defend the action, including legal fees.

So when Neustaeter says “so sue me,” there's an important bit of context. For most of us, “so sue me” means go ahead and sue me; I'll deal with the consequences. In this case, the City has already agreed to cover Neustaeter's defence in both lawsuits.

I wondered why nobody else seemed interested

After hearing the exchange, I checked to see whether other local media had reported. Mel Rothenburger's August 13 Armchair Mayor column briefly discussed it, but I haven't found another local media report that mentions it. 

Then there's the money question

This is something I wrote about a few days ago. On August 11, Council gave third reading to its new Council Remuneration Bylaw No. 71. Section 10 deals with circumstances where a council member owes money to the City. This bylaw will likely be formally adopted at a council meeting in the near future.

The new bylaw specifically addresses the recovery of legal costs and indemnified expenses the City has advanced on behalf of another council member. There's a chance this provision could apply to these particular legal costs. There's also a 30-day window in which the bylaw could be challenged in court, something I wrote about in a prior article. Why the O’Reilly Case Matters to Kamloops Residents

And there's already an unresolved legal-cost dispute involving two members of Council. Neustaeter has sought costs following the dismissal of the first lawsuit, while the Mayor has appealed the underlying decision. As I wrote previously, there's currently no court-ordered costs debt owed by the Mayor.

What happens after the election?

Reflecting on the June 28 incident, I wonder whether the joke could eventually be on Neustaeter if the newly elected Council decides to revisit the decisions to indemnify her.

I don't know whether a future Council could simply cancel the existing indemnification decisions or make the City's previous legal expenses disappear. That's a legal question. But a new Council could certainly ask how those decisions were made and whether they should continue.

Why was Neustaeter indemnified and what advice did Council receive before making those decisions? What exactly did the City understand by “the exercise or intended exercise” of her municipal duties?

These questions don't assume Council acted illegally, and they don't assume Neustaeter was wrong. They just require somebody to explain the decisions.

So what do I make of “so sue me”?

I don't think three words at a Council meeting are the biggest problem facing Kamloops. There are more important things happening. But sometimes a comment like that tells us something about the larger situation around it.

Given the history between the Mayor and Neustaeter, I don't hear “so sue me” quite the same way I would have if I'd heard it four years ago. There have been two lawsuits, and two Council decisions to indemnify Neustaeter.

There has been a court ruling in the first case, an appeal and a second case that remains before the court. There are unresolved questions about legal costs. And now there's a new Council pay bylaw that addresses the recovery of legal costs and indemnified expenses.

Maybe Neustaeter was just making a joke, and maybe she didn't give those words a second thought.

But if the newly elected Council eventually starts asking questions about the legal costs that have accumulated during this fight, I suspect somebody else might be thinking about them quite a bit more carefully. And that might make “so sue me” look a little different too.

Disclosure: I have written extensively about Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson, Councillor Katie Neustaeter, Kamloops City Council and the disputes between them. I've expressed opinions about Council's conduct, the Mayor's conduct and the way some of these matters have been reported by local media.

This article is based on public Council records, City documents, court proceedings, meeting recordings, published media reports and my own observations. Nothing in this article is intended to suggest that an allegation that remains before the courts has been proven. Where I discuss the legal proceedings, I've tried to distinguish between what was alleged, what the courts have actually decided, and what remains unresolved.