Proving a crime is difficult if elected officials resign in exchange for reward, says B.C. expert

Conservative Leader Kerry-Lynne Findlay. Photo by Arlen Redekop /PNG

Article content

As accusations fly that a B.C. Conservative MLA was offered a reward to resign so leader Kerry-Lynne Findlay could seek a seat in the legislature, one legal expert cautions there is a high threshold to prove any criminality.

Article content

Joven Narwal, a Vancouver lawyer with expertise in criminal defence and regulatory litigation, said the section of the Criminal Code that deals with situations like this does not generally prohibit political horse-trading.

Article content

Article content

Article content

“Negotiation, accommodation, and even a member’s decision to step aside so a leader can seek a seat are ordinary incidents of political life that are not criminalized,” said Narwal, an adjunct professor at UBC’s Allard School of Law.

Article content

Article content

“What the offence prohibits is narrow and transactional and captures more specifically, forms of purchase and sale of a public office,” he said.

Article content

Article content

Delta South MLA Ian Paton, one of those who left, has said he had been offered an agricultural adviser role by Findlay’s chief of staff, Chris Delaney, that would pay him the same amount he makes as an MLA, $122,043, if he resigned his seat to make room for her to get a seat in the legislature.

Article content

Findlay denied Paton’s allegations.

Article content

Another B.C. Conservative, Prince George-Valemount MLA Rosalyn Bird, said Paton’s allegations contributed to her decision to leave the party.

Article content

The RCMP would not say whether they have received a complaint or whether they are investigating.

Article content

Paton said Friday he has not made a complaint to police or another agency or regulator.

Article content

Article content

B.C. Conservative MLA Ian Paton leaves the chamber at the legislature in Victoria, on May 25, 2026. Photo by Chad Hipolito /POSTMEDIA

Article content

Narwal said that to prove criminality, a prosecutor would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a quid pro quo, that something was provided in exchange for something, and disprove any innocent explanations.

Article content

Article content

For instance, he said, an office holder may have decided, independently and for their own reasons, that it was time to leave public life.

Article content

And conversations about a future contribution may have begun after the decision was made, he added.

Article content

Or a party may simply have wished to keep an experienced and valued colleague involved and an appointment may have followed quickly because the need was immediate, not because it was promised.

Article content

“The issue would turn on the communications, meaning what was said, by whom, in what sequence, and on what conditions,” said Narwal. “A benefit that follows a resignation is not the same as a benefit promised for one, and the Crown (prosecutor) would need to meet a very high threshold of proof.”

Article content