1. The Freedom of Information Requests: Documents Received

The freedom of information request I submitted on August 14 has been accepted by the City Clerk’s Office under reference FOI #2026-172. The statutory response deadline is September 28.

Through an earlier request, I have already obtained the key documents:

• A certified copy of Resolution R26/14-10;
• The original motion introduced by Councillor McNulty;
• An excerpt from the July 27 meeting minutes;
• The formal letter sent by the City’s Director of Legal Services on July 29;
• The July 26 report in The Province.

I have read these documents carefully, word by word, several times. Here is what I found.

2. Finding One: My Article Is Missing from the Records

This was one of the questions I most wanted answered. The documents now provide part of that answer.

Among all the materials I received through the freedom of information request, there was:

• No original Chinese text of my article;
• No English translation;
• No staff report;
• No legal opinion;
• No background material.

What was included was a motion dated July 27—the day of the meeting itself—and a newspaper from the previous day.

Since July 28, I have asked the same question in every letter I have written to the Mayor and councillors:

Before speaking about my article and voting on it, had any member of Council read the article in full—in any language?

Not one has answered me.

The records themselves now provide part of the answer.

3. Finding Two: The Motion States Its Own Basis

The motion itself identifies the newspaper coverage that brought the matter to public attention.

Motion introduced by Councillor Bill McNulty on July 27, 2026 — English translation of the supplied Chinese rendering; the original English text was not available in the supplied material.

Whereas the City of Richmond does not condone discrimination in any form and strongly objects to the discriminatory messages recently posted on social media, which have come to public attention through reporting by the Vancouver Sun and The Province, the City of Richmond formally requests that the party responsible for the post apologize to all Richmond residents and make a clear public statement condemning such messages. The City of Richmond will refer this matter to the BC Human Rights Tribunal for review.

The motion itself states that the matter came to public attention through coverage in the Vancouver Sun and The Province.

This is the wording of an official City document, rather than my interpretation.

4. Finding Three: The Letter Was Not Addressed to the Human Rights Tribunal

This point requires careful explanation because it is significant and easy to misunderstand.

Item 3 of the resolution states:

That the City of Richmond forward this matter to the BC Human Rights Tribunal for their review.

Yet in the July 29 letter I obtained, both addresses used by the City’s Director of Legal Services identified the recipient as:

Attention: Human Rights Commissioner, Kasari Govender

The Human Rights Tribunal and the Human Rights Commissioner are distinct bodies.

The letter specifically requested that the Commissioner initiate an inquiry under section 47.15 of the Human Rights Code—a Commissioner’s inquiry.

This means:

• No one had filed a complaint against me with the Human Rights Tribunal.
• I was not a respondent in any proceeding.
• No response deadline was running.

This also explains the reply I had previously received from the Human Rights Tribunal: it told me that it had received no complaint against either me or Luxmore Realty.

In other words, the “referral to the Tribunal” that I had spent the past month waiting for and worrying about had not, in fact, happened.

I hardly know what to say.

5. Finding Four: A Letter I Never Received

The July 29 letter contains another passage that needs to be addressed.

The City’s Director of Legal Services stated in writing that the material in question violated the prohibitions on discriminatory publication under sections 3 and 7(1) of the Human Rights Code.

I want to be clear about the nature of this action:

The City’s legal department, acting in the City’s name, asserted in writing to a statutory officer that an identifiable private resident had broken the law.

Before that happened:

• No adjudicative body had made such a finding;
• No one had asked me for my account;
• I had never received a copy of the letter.

I learned that the letter existed only after obtaining it through a freedom of information request.

6. Correcting a Statement I Made

Before continuing, I need to correct something I previously said.

In earlier articles and videos, I said that the motion had “passed unanimously.” The official meeting minutes do not support that statement.

I have now obtained a certified excerpt of the minutes issued by the City of Richmond. The voting result is recorded with just one word:

CARRIED

The minutes do not say “unanimously,” nor do they record each member’s vote.

The accurate statement is therefore: the motion passed. The minutes do not record how each councillor voted, and I should not presume to speak for them.

That was my error, and I correct it here.

From the first day, I have said that I would speak only about facts that can be verified. When my own words are inaccurate, I should correct them myself.

7. I Will Not Speculate About Anyone’s Motives

I know some people will ask: What was the purpose of all this?

I will not speculate.

From the first day, I have said that without seeing the complete record, I am in no position to judge anyone’s motives. Now that I have seen part of the record, that principle remains unchanged.

I will simply set out the facts shown in the documents, so that every reader can examine them:

• The motion was introduced on July 27 and passed that same day;
• The motion itself identifies the previous day’s newspaper coverage as its trigger;
• The records contain neither the original text of my article nor any translation;
• The resolution called for a referral to the Tribunal, but the letter was actually sent to the Commissioner, requesting an inquiry initiated by the Commissioner;
• To date, no body has opened a case concerning this matter;
• I never received a copy of the letter asserting that I had broken the law.

These are all the City’s own documents. I have not added a word.

8. What I Will Do Next

First, I will continue through the formal processes. I have filed a complaint with the Ombudsperson and sent a formal complaint to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). The response to my second freedom of information request is due on September 28.

Second, I am seeking legal advice. I have been contacting lawyers over the past few days. Some matters require professional judgment; I cannot work through them all on my own.

Third, I will make all the original documents public. I will provide them in full, without omissions, with Chinese and English versions side by side, so that anyone can check them independently.

This has always been my approach.

9. The Same Principle Still Applies

The principle I stand by remains the same, regardless of ethnicity:

Before Council passes a resolution concerning an ordinary resident, that resident should be informed in advance and given an opportunity to speak.

Before judging an article, one should read it.

Before asserting that someone has broken the law, one should first hear what that person has to say.

This is a matter of procedure, not of taking sides.

Today, it is me. Tomorrow, it could be any resident.

10. My Health

I am sleeping a little better than I was over the previous two weeks. I am still taking medication and attending my appointments with my mental health professional as scheduled.

To be honest, receiving these documents left me with mixed feelings. The thing I had worried about most for a month—being referred to the Human Rights Tribunal—had not actually happened.

I do not know whether to feel relieved or what else to say.

What I do know is that, had I not submitted this freedom of information request, I would still not know this today.

Once again, thank you to every friend who has shown concern for me during this time.