Peachland senior reignites decade-old legal beef with bylaw officer

A 79-year-old Peachland man, who got into a beef with a bylaw officer more than a decade ago and was banned from the district’s office, has refused an offer to have the case against him dropped and instead headed to trial where he gave some “inherently unbelievable” testimony.

The original reason for the dispute appears to have been resolved, but instead of accepting the offer to have it settled, Peachland resident Stuart Smith continued to trial, where he made references to taking the judge out with a sniper, and then denied it was a creepy thing to say.

Smith also made references to quotes from The Shining, The Terminator and Crocodile Dundee.

The case is laid out in a Nov. 3 BC Supreme Court which highlights some of Smith’s testimony.

During his beef with the municipality, the 79-year-old had made comments about going “postal” to a Peachland staffer and walking in with a Uzi.

“What would be the relevance of saying that?” the Crown asked.

“It was just off the top of the head on the spirit of the moment,” Smith replied.

The Crown asked more questions.

“Take all these passing comments together, ‘Spray everybody with an Uzi,’ ‘Part of the mafioso,’ ‘I’ll be back,’ references to the movie The Shining… Is it possible that somebody objectively standing back not involved, could go, ‘You know what? This gentleman is giving a little bit of concern. This is sounding creepy.’ Is that possible?” the Crown asked.

“Anything’s possible,” Smith replied.

The case dates back to 2009, when former District of Peachland bylaw officer Michael Girouard was called out to investigate a complaint Smith had made about his neighbour’s deck and a retaining wall.

The decision said Smith had a legitimate complaint, and Girouard could see his point, but the issue remained outstanding for several years.

“During this intervening time, Mr. Smith grew increasingly impatient and the relationship between Mr. Girouard and Mr. Smith deteriorated markedly,” Justice Briana Hardwick said in the decision.

Smith then started to display some “off‑putting behaviour” at District of Peachland council meetings.

He wore black leather gloves, even in summer, and throughout the meetings kept putting his hand in his chest pocket in a manner District staff thought perceived to be potentially consistent with concealing a weapon, although no weapon was ever found on him.

On one occasion, Smith swore at Girouard on the phone, and on another occasion, called him a liar and made a comment about having a knife while the two were in a meeting.

He delivered the ace of spades card to the District office and asked staff to give it to Girouard.

He later denied in court that he knew it was the “death card” and said he picked it because it looked “kind of fancy.” 

On another occasion, Girouard was concerned that Smith was following him home.

The District put in security protocols specifically due to concerns raised by staff about Smith’s conduct and then in 2013 banned him from its offices.

Smith returned, and the RCMP were called. He was charged with mischief, although he was later acquitted.

Several months after Smith was barred from the District’s office, Girouard filed in court for a restraining order. Smith denied any erratic or threatening behaviour.

It’s unclear why, but the case never moved forward and sat dormant for more than a decade.

What happened during that time isn’t discussed in the decision, but Girouard left the bylaw department and became a building inspector and the dispute appears to have died down.

Early this year, Girouard told Smith he would drop the case if they both paid their own legal fees.

“Smith was quite adamant that he would not agree to such an arrangement and wanted the trial to proceed,” the decision read.

Representing himself, the case went to trial.

“Assessing the credibility of Mr. Smith is an interesting exercise,” the Justice said. “In certain respects, Mr. Smith was an extremely candid witness. He not only made various admissions that were contrary to his interests, on occasion he gratuitously expanded upon them… perhaps because of his usual candidness, Mr. Smith is very poor in telling untruths.”

Justice Hardwick said some of Smith’s evidence was “inherently unbelievable” and sometimes “verged on preposterous.”

When questioned about a tape recorder Smith had used during a meeting with Peachland staff, he said it was, in fact, an Aero chocolate bar wrapped in tin foil, which he still had at home 13 years later.

“It defies any possible air of reality,” the Justice said.

During testimony, the 79-year-old denied he knew what a veiled threat was and made comments during the break about having a sniper shoot the judge.

“Does that sound creepy to you at all?” the Crown asked Smith to which he replied, “No.”

“So talking about a guy standing on the museum aiming at a judge in their car coming out of the garage doesn’t sound kind of creepy to you?” the Crown asked again. 

“No,” Smith replied.

Justice Hardwick noted the trial had taken place at the insistence of Smith, and her judgment was not intended to inflame past grievances.

“Certain conduct of Mr. Smith prior the delivery of the ‘Ace of Spades’ was inappropriate… the premeditated decision to prepare the ‘Ace of Spades’ card and personally deliver it to the District’s Office to the attention of Mr. Girouard would, I find, constitute a veiled threat in the eyes of an objective person,” the Justice said.

As Girouard was no longer concerned about the restraining order, the Justice didn’t grant it and she also stopped short of awarding special costs.

“Special costs may be awarded when a party has engaged in reprehensible conduct during the course of the litigation… there was nothing in Mr. Smith conduct during the course of the action that, in my view, reaches the threshold of reprehensible conduct,” the Justice said. 

The Justice did, however, get Smith to pay all Girouard’s legal fees, leaving him on the hook for expenses he wouldn’t have had to pay had he not insisted the case went to trial.

This story was updated at 1 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 6, 2025, after the BC Supreme Court published a corrected decision with accurate information about costs.