A group of Langley Township residents is asking a judge to ban the mayor and two councillors from running for office again for four years.

Filed in B.C. Supreme Court at Port Coquitlam on July 9, the petition to the court was filed against the Township itself, as well as Mayor Eric Woodward, Councillor Tim Baillie, and Coun. Rob Rindt.

The petition alleges that the mayor and the named councillors violated the Community Charter, supposedly by voting to use public funds for the libel lawsuit Woodward launched last year.

The original lawsuit – Rindt and Baillie were originally parties to the suit but have since dropped out – was over allegedly libellous online videos and a blog post, all posted anonymously.

Woodward is suing a number of prominent locals, including Coun. Kim Richter, former MLA and cabinet minister Rich Coleman, and local businessman Thomas Martini.

That lawsuit has not yet been resolved in court, and those being sued have denied any wrongdoing.

The new petition to the court is based on the funding of Woodward’s lawsuit. The petitioners claim that Woodward’s libel suit was a personal matter, but that the legal bills for the suit were paid by the Township.

“While the corporation of the Township of Langley has provided some disclosure pursuant to freedom of information requests concerning its payments of legal expenses for the respondents Woodward, Rindt, and Baillie, these records are heavily redacted and fail to disclose the details of the records,” the petition claims.

“The payment of municipal councillors’ personal legal bills is not a use permitted by the Community Charter or the Local Government Act,” the petition also says.

It accuses Woodward, Baillie, and Rindt of conflict of interest.

The petition calls for a judge to declare that they are “disqualified from holding office in a local government for a period of four years.”

None of the allegations made in the petition have been tested in court.

When news of the libel lawsuit broke last year, Woodward told the Langley Advance Times that the Township initially paid the legal bills, but that he has since paid for all legal expenses. Asked recently, Woodward said that remains “100 per cent correct.”

Woodward called the legal action an election stunt linked to his opponents in the Langley Strong slate, which opposes his Progress for Langley slate. Rindt and Baillie are also Progress slate members and both are running for re-election this fall.

“This action is now costing taxpayers real money with yet another their smear campaign and election stunt,” Woodward told the Langley Advance Times via email. “What could have otherwise funded multiple playgrounds within our community will now go to lawyers.”

Woodward pointed to the fact that several of the petitioners have endorsed or worked with Langley Strong candidates in the past.

Barbara Sharp, the president of the Langley Strong electoral organization, denied the group had created the legal action.

“Langley Strong didn’t file, fund, or direct this petition – it belongs to the residents who brought it, and now to the court,” Sharp said in a statement.

The new legal petition will result in a legal bill for the Township.

“The Township of Langley is required to respond since it (and taxpayers) are a named party,” Woodward said.

A record released from a recent closed meeting showed that council had voted to authorize up to $500,000 to cover legal costs for Woodward, Baillie, and Rindt related to the petition.

The vote saw the Progress for Langley councillors, which has a 5-4 majority on council, vote in favour of the measure, while Langley Strong’s Councillors Margaret Kunst, Barb Martens, and Blair Whitmarsh were opposed. Langley Strong Councillor Kim Richter was absent from the vote.

Martens said that she didn’t support it because there was no information provided on what the money was for other than the file number of a law case.

“Would you agree to authorize half a million dollars based on a court file number?” she said.

Sharp was also critical of the decision to cover Woodward, Rindt, and Baillie’s legal costs.

“The public deserves to know: was there any staff report or any independent legal advice before the vote, and did the people who benefit declare a conflict of interest and leave the room?” Sharp said.

Woodward said he could not comment on specific factors of the legal petition yet.

“The Township’s response will have a fulsome, additional outline of key facts for the public to consider, additional key facts not even requested by the petitioners at any point,” Woodward said.

The Langley Advance Times reached out to the office of lawyer Glenn Laughlin, who represents the petitioners, as well as several of the petitioners themselves, but did not receive a response after several days.