CHARLOTTETOWN – The Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island has dismissed a legal challenge1 brought by a municipal councillor from Murray Harbour who was sanctioned for displaying controversial signs at his home, including one that referred to the discovery of unmarked graves at former residential schools as a “hoax”. The court found that the councillor, John Robertson, waited too long to ask for a judicial review and did not provide a reasonable explanation for the significant delay.
The case dates back to late September 2023, a time of national reflection surrounding the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. On September 29, 2023, Robertson displayed a sign on his property on Main Street in Murray Harbour which read, “Truth: Mass Grave Hoax. Reconciliation: Redeem Sir John A’s integrity.” The following day, September 30, the sign was changed to state, “A ‘Hoax’ Boys & Girls (Google it) is a lie told by people you were taught to trust.” The messages appeared in the wake of widespread reports about the discovery of potential burial sites at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School.
The signs prompted the Rural Municipality of Murray Harbour to launch an investigation under its “Code of Conduct for Members of Council” bylaw. The inquiry, conducted by a third party investigator, led to a special meeting of the municipal council on November 18, 2023. Robertson received notice of the meeting but informed the municipality’s chief administrative officer that he would not be attending. In his absence, the council voted to impose several sanctions against him based on the investigator’s findings that he had breached the bylaw. The penalties included a six month suspension from council duties, removal as the chairperson of a committee, a $500 fine, and a requirement to issue a written apology. Robertson learned of the council’s decision two days later, on November 20, 2023.
Under Prince Edward Island’s Judicial Review Act, an individual seeking to challenge such a decision in court must file an application within thirty days. This deadline for Robertson would have been December 18, 2023. However, he did not file his application for judicial review until February 16, 2024, a full ninety days after the council’s decision. This prompted his subsequent motion to the court, asking a judge to grant an extension to the statutory deadline. The hearing for that motion was held on February 6, 2025, with Justice Jonathan M. Coady delivering his written decision on August 6, 2025.
In his analysis, Justice Coady applied a well established four part test to determine whether granting an extension was appropriate. This required him to consider if Robertson had a genuine intention to seek judicial review before the deadline expired, if there was a reasonable explanation for the delay, if the case had arguable merit, and whether granting the extension would cause substantial prejudice or harm the principles of good public administration.
Justice Coady found that Robertson’s case succeeded on only one of the four factors. He agreed that the application for judicial review had arguable merit and a reasonable chance of success. Robertson’s lawyers argued that the municipal bylaw did not extend to a councillor’s private expression on private property. They also contended that the council, in its decision, failed to properly balance its objectives with Robertson’s constitutionally protected freedom of expression, a requirement established in several Supreme Court of Canada precedents. Furthermore, they pointed to potential flaws in the investigation, noting that the investigator relied on Wikipedia, which the judge called an “unusual” source for interpreting a legal instrument. Counsel for the municipality conceded at the hearing that Robertson had raised an arguable case. This factor weighed in favour of granting the extension.
However, the other three factors weighed against him. On the issue of whether Robertson had a genuine intention to sue before the deadline, the court was not satisfied. Justice Coady noted that while Robertson clearly disagreed with the sanctions, there was no evidence he communicated an intention to challenge the decision in court before the December 18 deadline. Robertson stated he exchanged a few messages with a lawyer, but the judge found this was not enough to demonstrate a concrete plan to commence a legal proceeding. The judge concluded that the more compelling evidence of an intention to sue arose only after the provincial Minister of Housing, Land and Community became involved on December 20, 2023, after the deadline had already passed. The Minister had sent a letter to Robertson ordering him to comply with the sanctions or resign, an order that was later revoked. The judge found that this ministerial intervention, not the original council decision, appeared to be the true catalyst for Robertson’s more serious efforts to obtain legal counsel and file a court application.
The court was also unconvinced by Robertson’s explanation for the delay. Robertson cited numerous reasons, including a pre planned annual holiday trip to England via New York City that began on December 6, a slip and fall injury he sustained while boarding the ship, the need to care for his cats and winterize an RV, and general confusion caused by the Minister’s actions. Justice Coady characterized most of these reasons as “ordinary incidents of everyday life” that did not provide a reasonable excuse for missing the legal deadline. He observed that the trip was not unexpected and that Robertson’s injury did not prevent him from travelling or communicating. The judge noted a “lack of diligence on the part of Robertson in the immediate wake of the decision by Council” and stated that he could have easily filed a basic notice of application, which is a standard court form, to meet the deadline and develop his full case later.
Finally, Justice Coady concluded that granting the extension would negatively impact good public administration. He emphasized the importance of finality and certainty for government bodies. The law sets short time limits for judicial review so that municipalities can operate effectively, secure in the knowledge that their decisions are final after a certain point. Allowing the challenge to proceed sixty days after the deadline had passed would introduce uncertainty and delay, undermining the stability of the municipal government. While recognizing the public interest in allowing an arguable case to be heard, the judge found that it did not outweigh the other factors in these specific circumstances.
In dismissing the motion, Justice Coady wrote that despite the strong arguments on the merits of the case, they were “not sufficiently weighty for the court to counterbalance the less than satisfactory evidence about his intention to seek judicial review before the statutory time period expired or the unconvincing explanation provided for his substantial delay.” As a result of the motion being denied, the underlying application for judicial review was also dismissed, bringing Robertson’s legal challenge against the Rural Municipality of Murray Harbour to an end. The matter of legal costs has yet to be decided.
