Tara Kearsey
Northern News Services

Yellowknife (Jun 21/00) - The city's solicitors squared off in Supreme Court Monday against houseboater Matthew Grogono's lawyer.

Grogono's lawyer Austin Marshall argued to submit new evidence which he suggests should be heard in the Court of Appeals this fall.

After the city filed a lawsuit against Grogono in 1996, Marshall proposed the case be dropped on grounds that the city did not have a right to file the lawsuit because council did not pass a motion before the senior administrative officer of the day, Doug Lagore, proceeded with the lawsuit.

However, Supreme Court Justice H.C. Irving disagreed and ruled Lagore did have the authority to file the suit. Marshall has since appealed the judge's decision.

That appeal, after several delays, is scheduled to be heard in early October.

On Monday, Marshall said new evidence that surfaced after Justice Irving's decision could have led to a different verdict if it had been heard.

Marshall wants to submit the minutes and affidavits of two former councillors -- Dick Peplow and Jo McQuarrie -- which occurred during council briefing sessions held in secret that were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court a few years ago.

Marshall said the affidavits and minutes of those meetings are significant as they prove certain "councillors did not want this litigation."

Marshall claims Peplow's affidavit clearly states he "did not want litigation going against ratepayers" and that "ratepayers, including Matthew Grogono, should not have to hire lawyers ... and incur legal costs."

Marshall said McQuarrie's affidavit stated the city's solicitors could act for both sides during the litigation.

"That evidence -- the minutes of the meetings and statements for two councillors -- are material evidence as to whether the senior administrative officer had authority to initiate this action," Marshall said in court.

"We're going to be in a much better position to argue (the appeal) when all the facts are before the court ... this material would be very important for the trial judge to know and analyze and sift through.

"If that doesn't happen then justice is defeated," Marshall concluded.

City solicitor Jeffrey Weist argued the affidavits should not be admitted as evidence, as he claimed it was not relevant to the appeal.

"(The affidavits) don't have a lot of relevance to this appeal. Maybe for the trial, but not the appeal," said Weist.

He also argued the documents were privileged, were not dated, and also did not specify which case against the houseboaters were being discussed (the city has filed lawsuits against three individual houseboaters).

A representative from Marshall's law office said Justice Gaulthier did not specify when he would be announcing his decision.