Record | September 16–23 — I Will Take Legal Action Against Richmond City Council

Let me say this first.

On September 23, I wrote again to Mayor Malcolm Brodie and all members of Richmond City Council, making one request clear:

Rescind Resolution R26/14-10, adopted on July 27, 2026, and correct the public record arising from that resolution.

I asked Council to consider this matter at its meeting on September 28, 2026.

If Council does not rescind this motion on September 28, I will begin legal proceedings on September 29 and commence an action against the City of Richmond.

I thought about that sentence for a long time before writing it.

Two months. Five letters. Four times asking the same question. Zero substantive replies. I have exhausted the procedural avenues available to me.

Why it came to this: a letter I had never seen

First, something I only recently learned.

Records obtained through a Freedom of Information request (FOI) show that:

On July 29, 2026, a lawyer for the City of Richmond wrote to the British Columbia Human Rights Commissioner, stating that content I had published violated sections 3 and 7(1) of the Human Rights Code.

Section 7 concerns discriminatory publications. This was a written statement alleging that I had violated the law, sent by the City’s legal representative to a statutory office-holder.

Regarding this letter:

Before it was sent, I received no notice and was not asked to provide any response.

After it was sent, I received no copy.

I only learned that this letter existed through the FOI process.

To this day, I still have not received any City document explaining exactly what allegation is being made against me, what it is based on, what response is being requested from me, or when I am expected to respond.

I want to make clear what I am disputing.

I am not disputing whether “I was wrong.”

Before Council adopts a resolution naming and targeting a resident,

and before the City states in writing to a statutory office-holder that the resident has violated the law—

should the person concerned be notified and given an opportunity to respond?

This is a procedural question. It is not about me personally. If it were any other Richmond resident, the question would be exactly the same.

About the BC Ombudsperson: a road that led back to where it started

I want to write this part in detail, because it shows what I have encountered over these two months.

Step One: the Ombudsperson directed me to first use the City’s internal complaint process.

After I filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsperson of British Columbia, Mr. Singer wrote to me and directed me to first raise my concerns through the City’s complaint process with Chief Administrative Officer Serena Lusk.

Step Two: I did so.

Following that direction, I wrote to the Chief Administrative Officer, fully setting out the substance of my complaint, requesting a written response, and copying the Ombudsperson’s office.

Mr. Singer asked me at the time to forward the City’s response or decision to him.

Step Three: there was no response.

As of September 23:

I had received no response from the Chief Administrative Officer’s office.

No decision.

No acknowledgement of receipt.

No file number.

And no indication of whether I would receive a response, or when.

So I had nothing to forward to the Ombudsperson.

Step Four: on September 23, I wrote to Mr. Singer again.

He had previously said that if I encountered problems using the City’s complaint process, I could contact his office.

That is exactly why I wrote again today—because the process itself produced no response.

In my letter, I asked the Ombudsperson’s office to consider the matter at this stage and said I was willing to provide any further documents required. I also requested communication by email so that a complete written record could be preserved.

The letter again noted that the July 28 letters to Mayor Brodie and Councillors Day, Gillanders and Heed, and the July 29 letter to Councillor McNulty, who introduced the motion, have all gone unanswered.

The documents attached included my complaint letter to Serena Lusk, a certified copy of Resolution R26/14-10, and the July 29, 2026 letter from the City’s lawyer to the Human Rights Commissioner.

I am setting out this process in full because it speaks for itself:

The Ombudsperson said: first use the City’s complaint process.

I did.

The City did not respond—not even with a file number.

So I returned to the Ombudsperson, because that route did not lead anywhere.

Another track: FOI extended to November 12

On September 23, I received a letter from the City of Richmond Clerk’s Office, signed by Claudia Jesson and dated September 23, 2026.

FOI #2026-172 was extended.

This request concerns the event held inside and outside City Hall on August 23, 2026. I requested records showing:

• the basis on which the City identified me as an organizer, contact person, applicant, or liaison for the event;
• internal communications referring to me in connection with the event;
• how the City obtained or selected my name and email address for contact;
• notices, complaints, applications, permit requests, or reports received that mentioned me; and
• how the City recorded or described my role in the event.

The City extended the response time under section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, by up to 30 days.

New response deadline: no later than November 12, 2026.

The letter also advised that I may request a review by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner within 30 days.

Please note: this is separate from another extension notice received on September 14, which extended a different request to October 28. These are two different applications and are being recorded separately.

The timeline now looks like this:

Date	Item
September 28	I ask Council to consider rescinding the motion
October 17	Municipal election voting day
October 28	Deadline for one FOI response
November 12	Deadline for another FOI response

Both key document response deadlines fall after voting day.

I will not comment. I am simply placing the dates here.

September 16 | The City’s second inspection of the property

Following the September 7 visit, City staff again attended the Richmond property I own.

Through my assistant, I learned that the City had received a telephone complaint alleging that someone at the property was carrying out electrical work, that there was loud noise on site, and that exposed electrical wires were present.

During the inspection that day, City staff found none of the alleged violations.

From the first notification on September 7 to the second inspection on September 16, the office and the other tenants continued operating normally.

I do not know who made the complaint, and I make no inference about it. I simply record this: two inspections, no violations found.

On the same day, Malcolm Brodie and former mayor Greg Halsey-Brandt held a press conference publicly supporting mayoral candidate Rob Howard.

September 22 | British Columbia calls an early provincial election

Provincial election day was set for October 24. I reviewed the public information and wrote an article titled “David Eby Took the Bet: October 24, a Five-Week Gamble.”

September 28 is a choice

I want to make this even clearer.

Rescinding a resolution does not require anyone to admit that they are a bad person.

It only requires acknowledging one thing: before naming a resident, that resident should first be notified and given a chance to speak.

This is about procedure, not position.

One mayoral candidate has already publicly acknowledged that this was handled wrongly. She did it. Others can too.

Until September 28, that door remains open.

After September 29, it will be the court.

I do not want it to come to that. But after two months, five letters and zero replies, I have no other path left.

Current record

Item	Status
Letters to the Mayor and Councillors	Five letters, zero substantive replies
“Please identify which sentence”	Asked four times, no one answered
Chief Administrative Officer’s Office	No reply, no acknowledgement, no file number
Ombudsperson 26-6922	Wrote again on September 23
Human Rights Tribunal complaint	Submitted August 31
City lawyer’s letter to the Human Rights Commissioner	Sent July 29; I received no notice beforehand and no copy afterward
FOI (one)	Extended to October 28
FOI #2026-172	Extended to November 12
Chinese Benevolent Association	No reply
CBC News	No reply
That image	Still remains on the public pages of two councillors