When City Hall Said No, Nicole Frey Said "Watch Me"

Adminstrative overreachjudicial reviewfighting city hall

Jan 10

Results from Friday’s court proceedings regarding a Judicial Review that Frey initiated against the City Of Medicine Hat. A cautionary tale of how city policies can be weaponized to silence its own residents, and what happens when someone refuses to stay quiet.

Nicole Frey has been held up as a pariah by the City of Medicine Hat since 2023. She made numerous requests of city administration as well as council members, many of her requests were ingored. She was put on restrictions by fired City Manager Ann Mitchell without recourse - she has now been restricted for

779 days
over 25 months
over 2 years

Why?

Because she allegedly sent too many emails, made too many phone calls during her attempt to hold the city administration/ council to account. The city has never defined how many e-mails or phone calls are too many, not even in their Public Code of Conduct Policy.

Background

Nicole Frey is not a lawyer, she’s a (former) resident who has been living under an outrageous restriction imposed by the City of Medicine Hat’s administration for well over two years. Frey and her family moved away, alleging unfair treatment by city administration which made it impossible for them to run their business in Medicine Hat.

Frey sustained a brain injury in early 2023 and has experienced numerous side effects from it. At the bottom of every email she sent read

*please note - I am recovering from a brain injury so please excuse any typos or grammatical errors

My personal experience with her was frustrating at first (mid 2023), she seemed to be closed-minded and unwilling to listen to other views. She was distrustful of almost everything (who isn’t?). She and I spent hours texting back and forth, it seemed that I was unable to get through to her. She called me (and others) unkind names. Since I was not related to her, I had no obligation to continue communication (I don’t work for any organization she must deal with) and at one point I did cut off communication. I chose to spend my limited energy doing more productive things.

It was not until months later that I realized she showed similar symptoms as my husband Carl (he had been on life support for a month) - quick to anger, forgetfulness, irritability, emotional disregulation, brain fog, unwilling to see another side of an argument, etc. His inability to think clearly was very frustrating to him and he lashed out verbally at times. That was not his fault, it was the brain injury. I was able to reason with Carl only because we had been married for over 25 years and he trusted me with his life. My presence calmed him when he got angry. If I could not reason with him, I asked him to trust me and he did. Carl’s brain eventually recovered but until then it could be challenging at times.

Like Carl, Frey’s behaviour was not her fault - it was the brain injury. Over time, Frey’s brain has improved - the symptoms have abated significantly and she has also learned techniques on how to deal with them.

Once I recognized her symptoms, I was more understanding and more sympathetic than I had been. We have since resumed communication; Frey and I are much more cordial now.

You Ask Too Many Questions - We Want You to STFU

On November 24, 2023, the City of Medicine Hat's administration sent a letter to Ms. Frey formally placing under restrictive conditions. The letter stated it was a temporary measure while the city developed its new Public Code of Conduct Policy.

The terms were severe:

Ms. Frey was restricted from direct communication with city staff or managers.
City staff were instructed they were "not required or expected to respond to her communications."
Frey could still use the online service portal, file FOIP requests, or call the general city service line for basic transactions.
This all changed in Nov 2024 when all her substantive correspondence had to be directed to an external lawyer in another city, hired and paid for by the City (your tax dollars), who would act as the sole conduit. She was no longer permitted to contact Customer Service at that point.

This was not a ban on speaking with elected officials, administration cannot tell councillors what to do. Council members were free to communicate with her - if they chose to do so. Internal emails show that city councillors were reluctant to do so. They appeared to lack the training or the will to challenge the administration's decision.

Let’s face it - part time council members are often short on time, it makes life much easier to accept administration’s judgement that a resident is not to be believed rather than taking the time to investigate.

At least one council member from the 2021 council was publicly critical of their own resident at a public committee meeting when the letter to Ms Frey was being discussed. He laughingly asked, "What is her problem anyway?" While they did not mention her by name, it was clear who was being talked about. The contempt for Ms Frey was obvious.

The Owl has this committee meeting on our YouTube page.

The general attitude was

“She’s unreasonable therefore nobody has to listen to her”, the adult equivalent of sticking one's fingers in their ears shouting La la la la la la la!

The "temporary" restriction has now been in place for over two years, indicating that city administration obviously has their own definition of temporary.

Frey had no options.

Made Persona Non Grata by admin
No fair internal complaint process
Force to correspond through a city-hired lawyer
Ignored or publicly ridiculed by council members

Frey opted for a judicial review (JR) to force the city to take action. On Friday, January 9 2026, Frey faced the city in court with a request to withdraw the JR.

"They Already Did What I Asked For"

Ms. Frey made a good case in court - her lawsuit actually worked.

She told Judge Marion her application sought three things: an investigation into the City Manager who oversaw her silencing, a new vote on a public complaint system, and for the court to order one if council refused.

July 2025: The City Manager, Ann Mitchell, was placed on leave, an investigation started and later fired.
October 2025: Council held a re-vote and passed a motion to create a public complaint mechanism.
A new councillor committed in writing to implementing it by March 2026.

Frey asked the court to drop the case saying.“I don't know what the court would be able to do at this point that council already hasn't done.” She did not want to waste any more of the court’s time.

"The Offer You Can't Refuse: Drop Your Rights, or We'll Bankrupt You"

The restrictive conditions from November 2023 have never been lifted.

Not after Ms. Frey moved away from Medicine Hat.

Not after Ann Mitchell was fired.

Residents are still paying for an external lawyer.

You’d think the city would be happy the Frey wanted to withdraw the judicial review.

Apparently not.

Hadzoglou (the city’s lawyer) agreed to the withdrawal but said her client wanted to recover costs in the amount of $5,500. Hadzoglou even phrased it as a doing Frey a favour, that the City could have asked for more (she is correct) but did not.

Frey said the city offered to let Frey withdraw the Judicial review without costs but only if she abandoned a separate civil claim.

Frey refused.

The Judge Saw Right Through the BS

Justice M. A. Marion seemed to be quite impressed with the quality of Frey’s submissions, saying “I guess I just wanted to know if you're a lawyer because you've prepared quite comprehensive briefs on your own.”

Judge Marion questioned if the city even had the right to ask for costs.

He also questioned whether Ms. Frey could be called “unsuccessful” when her lawsuit achieved its goals.

Judge Marion also brought up some interesting points.

He said he did not read all the materials saying “I'd like the parties to think about these things and address them”.

Here is what Judge Marion said.

1 Do I not need to address miss Frey's argument about the standing of the city, because if she's correct that Council is (the correct respondent), the respondent is not actually before me. Do I not need to wrestle with that issue? And if I decide that she's right that might throw a different light on what an appropriate cost award would be because at that point you have effectively a non-party seeking costs. So that's one.

(Frey named City Council as the Respondent, not the City of Medicine Hat)

2 Secondly, if I understood at least one part of the City's application it was that Ms Frey didn't comply with the strict requirements for service of the judicial review application on the minister. And the law may appear, it does appear based on what I looked at that was provided, that that may be fatal…to the judicial review application.

3 Thirdly Ms Frey explained certain things that have happened since she filed her judicial review. A question I have in my mind is when considering her withdrawal she's saying it's been withdrawn because her filing affected what she was seeking. And so is there not an argument (if that's correct and I don't know, I'm not finding that it is or isn't at this stage), does that perhaps suggest she's been successful and she's avoided proceeding because she basically got what she wanted.

The judge went on again to encourage both sides to settle, asking

“How much more energy do they want to put towards a costs dispute, which has a maximum amount of $5,500?”

He noted that while $5,500 was a lot of money to Frey, it was a small amount to the city.

(The Owl did the math - $5,500 is 0.001% of the nearly half billion city budget.)

The city’s lawyer, Christiana Hadzoglou offered some case law which she admitted she had not provided to Frey in advance. The judge gave Hadzoglou until January 23 to provide the materials to Frey; Frey has until February 6 to file her response.

Judge Marion once again urged them to work it out in the meantime.

The Bottom Line

Past council failed to properly manage and oversee their sole employee, City Manager Ann Mitchell. They allowed administration to spend taxpayer money on an external lawyer to avoid engaging with a citizen because of faulty procedures.

The mostly rookie 2021 council lacked the training, courage, or curiosity to effectively question administration or to hold them to account. (We all saw what happened to the mayor when she dared question the City Manager.)

The incumbent councillors accepted administration’s characterization of Frey as a problem to be ignored. That is one of the first things dictators and authoritarian regimes do - they discredit those who would oppose/ question them. Our previous council (save the mayor) were all suckered in.

The Next Steps - When Will The New Council Make it Right?

Ann Mitchell, who imposed the communications ban, is gone.

Frey and her family moved out of the city after a ridiculous amount of red tape prevented them from opening a business in Medicine Hat.

The lawsuit succeeded in changing policy.

Yet, the expensive, "temporary" communication protocol remains in place. As of January 10 2026, it has been in place for 779 days.

Frey withdrew the judicial review because the City has finally done what it should have done all along. However, city administration still wants to spend even more taxpayer dollars to stick it to Ms Frey.

The amount that they will continue to spend on lawyers will likely exceed $5,500.

This newly elected Medicine Hat council now faces a clear test.

Will they finally terminate the pointless restrictions, drop the punitive cost claim, and prove they are different from the council that asked "what is her problem anyway?"?

Or,

Will they let allow administration's costly overreach continue to define their city?

Will they direct administration to implement a policy on how to deal with people with brain injuries and /or cognitive difficulties? There are many in this city who may be dealing with the effects of a brain injury.

Yes, the city has a responsibility to keep staff safe from abuse. Part of that responsibility is making appropriate city policies such as setting boundaries - clearly define how much is too much. This protects staff when they have set boundaries they can point to, such as

“You sent X amount of messages this week which is in excess of the allowable amount of Y. We will not respond until next week.”

The whole city is watching.