The Rural Municipality of Alexander exceeded its authority when it barred a resident from municipal premises, future council meetings and contact with staff and councillors, a Manitoba judge ruled.
In Wiebe v. Alexander (Rural Municipality), an April 14, 2026 decision, Justice Bond declared two council resolutions invalid. The ruling did not decide whether Aaron Wiebe had behaved improperly, and it rejected his request for an additional declaration and order requiring the municipality to allow him to attend meetings.
The dispute began after Wiebe, a Pinawa Bay resident, became concerned in 2022 about a sewage lagoon near his home. He attended council meetings, emailed municipal staff, submitted complaints and made freedom-of-information requests. Municipal officials viewed his conduct as disruptive and harassing; Wiebe described it as legitimate engagement with local government.
A February 13, 2024 resolution barred him from the municipal administration and public works building until council allowed him back or for a maximum of three years. After further disagreements, council passed an April 16 resolution barring him from council meetings, including virtual meetings, and from contacting staff and council.
Expulsion from a meeting was not a continuing ban
The Municipal Act requires public council meetings, subject to exceptions, and permits the person chairing a meeting to expel someone for improper conduct. Alexander argued that its procedures bylaw, made under the Act’s broad rule-making power, supplied authority for the resolutions.
Bond accepted that the municipality had broad authority to establish procedural rules and found no basis to invalidate the bylaw provisions themselves. But those provisions addressed conduct at a particular meeting: the chair could require someone to leave, have them removed and prevent their return to that meeting.
That power did not extend to banning attendance at future meetings, entry to municipal offices or contact with officials. Reading the existing bylaw as authorizing a continuing meeting ban would also conflict with the Act’s public-access provisions. The Trespass Act did not authorize council to pass these resolutions either.
The judge left a broader question unresolved: whether council could enact a different bylaw expressly providing for such bans. Bond recognized both the importance of open municipal government and the practical difficulties of requiring a municipality to go to court to address disruptive or harassing conduct. That issue belonged in a case involving such a bylaw.
No endorsement of either side
Both sides had filed conflicting affidavits about their dealings. Bond declined to resolve credibility disputes or make unnecessary factual findings on evidence that had not been tested by cross-examination. The decision expressly cautioned that neither party should treat it as an endorsement of their conduct.
Invalidating the resolutions left Wiebe’s attendance governed by the Act and the existing bylaw. A further order compelling compliance was unnecessary, and the chair still needed to be able to respond lawfully if disruptive conduct occurred at a meeting.
The municipality might also have other legal avenues, such as an injunction or proceedings under the Trespass Act. Bond offered no opinion on whether they would be appropriate, but did not want an additional attendance order to conflict with a later court determination. The application therefore succeeded only in part, with costs left for agreement or further submissions.
Source: Wiebe v. Alexander (Rural Municipality), 2026 MBKB 50.
