Osoyoos Called It a Retirement. Taxpayers Paid at Least $319,171

FOI records reveal nearly $298,000 in salary in lieu of notice and vacation pay, plus more than $21,000 in legal fees—but the Town will not disclose the breakdown

When the Town of Osoyoos announced the departure of Chief Administrative Officer Rod Risling on May 4, 2026, the message was warm, brief and uncomplicated.

Council said Risling had “retired from his position” following an extended leave to attend to a family matter. The announcement thanked him for his dedication and leadership, wished him well in retirement and said the interim CAO would remain in place while Council considered its next steps.

What the announcement did not mention was that Risling’s departure would cost taxpayers at least $319,171.72.

That figure is now documented through records released by the Town following a Freedom of Information request.

According to the Town’s August 6 disclosure, Risling received or is entitled to receive a combined gross payment of $297,809.12, consisting of:

Salary in lieu of notice; and Vacation payout.

The Town also disclosed $21,362.60 in related legal fees:

$18,480 paid to Ascent Employment Law Corporation; and $2,882.60 paid to Nixon Wenger LLP.

Those legal totals were calculated only up to May 30, 2026. The Town cautioned that additional fees might still be billed.

That makes $319,171.72 the minimum confirmed cost—not necessarily the final cost.

A retirement announcement that left out the expensive part

Nothing in the Town’s May 4 announcement told residents that salary in lieu of notice would be paid. Nothing mentioned a negotiated financial departure package. Nothing mentioned lawyers or legal expenses.

The public was simply told that Risling had retired after an extended leave.

The financial records do not prove that Risling was fired, dismissed for misconduct or forced from office. They do not reveal why he left, what happened behind closed doors or whether Council and Risling mutually agreed on the language used in the public announcement.

But the records do establish something important: this was not merely an employee reaching a retirement date, collecting ordinary wages and going home.

A payment described by the Town itself as “salary in lieu of notice” means compensation was provided instead of some period of working notice. Combined with more than $21,000 in legal bills, the documented facts show that this departure required a substantial financial arrangement and professional legal involvement.

Residents are entitled to consider those facts and draw their own reasonable conclusions.

They are also entitled to ask why none of this appeared in the retirement announcement.

What can—and cannot—be inferred

There is an obvious temptation to look at salary in lieu of notice and declare that Risling was fired. The documents do not take us that far.

Salary in lieu of notice can arise from a termination, but it can also form part of a negotiated resignation, retirement, mutual separation or settlement. Without the agreement, the employment contract or an explanation from the parties, the precise legal nature of Risling’s departure cannot be stated as fact.

The involvement of employment lawyers also does not prove wrongdoing, conflict or litigation. Municipalities routinely obtain legal advice when senior employment relationships end.

Still, nearly $298,000 in departure-related compensation and more than $21,000 in legal fees are not insignificant administrative details. They show that considerable public money and legal work were involved in arranging or completing this departure.

It is fair to question whether the Town’s short retirement announcement gave residents a complete picture.

One large number, but no breakdown

The Town has not disclosed how the $297,809.12 was divided.

Residents still do not know:

How much was salary in lieu of notice. How much was accumulated vacation pay. How many months of salary the payment represented. Whether the money was paid in a lump sum or over time. When it was paid. Whether benefits or pension contributions continued. How much Risling was paid during his extended leave. The beginning and ending dates of that leave. Whether the disclosed figure includes every departure-related payment.

Those distinctions matter.

Vacation pay is compensation already earned. Salary in lieu of notice is compensation paid instead of allowing an employee to work through a notice period. Combining the two into a single number prevents taxpayers from knowing how much of the package represented an ordinary employment entitlement and how much resulted from the conclusion of the employment relationship.

The original FOI request specifically asked for the amounts to be categorized. It listed salary in lieu of notice, vacation pay, sick-leave or holiday payouts, retirement allowances, top-ups, bonuses and settlement-of-claims payments.

The Town disclosed only the combined total and said it consisted of salary in lieu of notice and vacation payout. It withheld the itemized amounts, payment structure and timing.

What the Town says it cannot release

The Town refused to release the settlement agreement and release, relying on settlement privilege and personal privacy.

It said settlement privilege is jointly held by the parties and cannot be waived by the Town alone. It also said portions of the records concern Risling’s employment history and are therefore protected under section 22 of British Columbia’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Town refused to release underlying legal invoices and general-ledger entries under section 14, which protects solicitor-client privilege.

It also refused to disclose the specific dates of Risling’s leave, saying leave records form part of an employee’s protected employment history.

In an August 7 response to a taxpayer inquiry, Mayor Sue McKortoff said she was speaking for all of Council.

“The law protects settlement communications and personal information,” she wrote. “The Town has released the legal fees paid in connection with the matters raised in the request. The Town cannot comment further on personnel matters. Employee privacy is protected by law.”

That is Council’s stated position.

Privacy does not automatically cover every dollar

There is a legitimate legal basis for withholding confidential settlement communications, private employment details and privileged legal advice.

That does not necessarily mean every related financial fact must remain secret.

Section 22(4)(e) of BC’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act says disclosure of information about the position, functions or remuneration of an officer or employee of a public body is not an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy.

Previous decisions from BC’s Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner have found that severance payments can qualify as remuneration. In Order F11-33, the adjudicator noted that earlier orders had treated severance agreements involving public employees as remuneration. In Order F15-60, the OIPC found that employee names, severance amounts and bonus amounts fell under section 22(4)(e).

Other OIPC decisions recognize that settlement privilege can protect an agreement itself. That means the Town may have a sound basis for withholding confidential negotiations or the complete agreement.

The unanswered question is narrower:

Why can the Town not disclose the salary-in-lieu amount and vacation amount separately from its payroll or accounting records, without releasing confidential settlement language?

The Town has already disclosed the combined amount and identified both categories. Separating those two numbers would explain the expenditure without necessarily disclosing legal advice, negotiations, private family information or the reason for Risling’s leave.

That issue is part of a request for review prepared for the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Town made an error during the FOI process

The records also reveal a procedural mistake.

On June 25, the Town issued an extension letter stating that its “original response date was May 14, 2026.” May 14 was actually the date the request and payment were received—not the original response deadline.

The letter relied on section 10(1)(c) of FIPPA, which allows additional time for consultation, while saying more time was needed to “review and prepare” the records.

After the applicant challenged the notice, the Town acknowledged that it had misunderstood the timelines under sections 23 and 24, withdrew the extension and apologized.

The Town then issued its access decision on July 8, ahead of the corrected deadline.

The mistake was corrected. It does not establish bad faith or an attempt to conceal records. It does, however, reinforce why the exemptions and withheld categories deserve independent scrutiny rather than unquestioning acceptance.

The legal bills raise questions, not answers

The Town says the two named firms billed $21,362.60 in connection with the matters covered by the request.

Ascent Employment Law describes its practice as workplace and employment law. Nixon Wenger is a full-service law firm.

Their involvement confirms that legal services were required. It does not reveal what advice was provided, whether there was a dispute, who initiated the departure or whether either party was accused of doing anything wrong.

The invoices are privileged, and no responsible conclusion about their contents can be drawn from the totals alone.

But residents can reasonably ask why a departure publicly presented as a straightforward retirement required more than $21,000 in legal work—and why Council chose not to mention the financial arrangement when announcing it.

That is a question, not an accusation.

What is known—and what remains hidden

The documented facts are now clear:

Council publicly announced that Risling had retired following an extended leave. The Town subsequently confirmed a $297,809.12 gross payment comprising salary in lieu of notice and vacation payout. The Town confirmed at least $21,362.60 in related legal fees. The minimum disclosed cost is $319,171.72. Additional legal fees may still be billed. The Town has not disclosed the division between salary in lieu of notice and vacation pay. It has not disclosed the payment timing or structure. It has not disclosed the specific leave dates or the cost of salary and benefits during that leave. It has not released the settlement agreement, underlying legal invoices or related general-ledger entries. The records do not establish misconduct, cause for dismissal or the precise circumstances in which Risling’s employment ended.

There is no evidence in the disclosed material that Risling did anything wrong. There is also no basis in the documents to state as fact that Council fired him or deliberately misled the public.

What the records do show is a large, legally managed departure package sitting behind a very simple retirement announcement.

Whether that announcement was technically accurate is one question.

Whether it told taxpayers enough about a decision that has now cost them at least $319,171.72 is another.

The Town appears to believe the total is sufficient. Residents may reasonably disagree.

Public officials do not have to disclose private family matters or privileged legal advice. They should not be expected to publicly litigate personnel disputes.

But protecting legitimate privacy is not the same as avoiding public accountability for how tax dollars were spent.

The most important unanswered question is not gossip about what happened behind closed doors. It is a basic accounting question:

Of the $297,809.12 paid or payable, how much was ordinary earned vacation—and how much was the price of ending the employment relationship without Risling working through the notice period?

Until that breakdown is disclosed or independently reviewed, the public has been given the bill, but not the full explanation.

Editor’s note: This article is based on the Town of Osoyoos’s May 4, July 8 and August 6, 2026 correspondence and announcements, the original Freedom of Information request, related correspondence, and published decisions of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia. Statements about what the records establish are distinguished from questions and possible inferences. No finding of misconduct has been made against Rod Risling, any member of Council or any Town employee. Osoyoos News welcomes corrections and will consider any additional records or on-the-record response relevant to this report.

Osoyoos News has reviewed the complete FOI record provided for this matter, including the original request, the Town’s correspondence, access decision and final disclosure. This article was prepared by comparing those records with the relevant provisions of BC’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and published OIPC decisions.