--- title: "Kim Richter is still being sued for libel by the mayor she helped defeat" description: "Eric Woodward's defamation lawsuit names Langley Township Councillor Kim Richter. She denies any part in the videos and has countersued. No court has ruled, and no trial date is set." canonical_url: "https://voche.me/bc/langley-township-2026/news/kim-richter-libel-lawsuit" last_updated: "2026-10-31T22:53:29.470Z" --- [Kim Richter](/bc/langley-township-2026/candidates/kim-richter) was re-elected to Langley Township Council on October 17, 2026, with 16,280 votes, a ninth term by her own count since 1999. She is also a defendant in a defamation lawsuit filed by Eric Woodward, the mayor her [Langley Strong](/bc/langley-township-2026/parties/langley-strong) team defeated the same night. The Langley Advance Times reported on May 27, 2026 that Woodward was still suing her and six others after two of his council allies dropped out. No court has ruled on any of it, and no trial date has been set. ## The fire truck videos The lawsuit is about an article and three videos. The Langley Advance Times reported on September 12, 2025 that an article called "Friends With Benefits" appeared on a site named the Langley Monitor in the summer of 2024. It said the Township had made a no-bid purchase of $11.5 million of fire trucks and that the sales representative was a political ally of Woodward. On January 2, 2025 a Facebook page called Langley Township Watch posted a video making the same claims, with two more on January 17 and February 3. Woodward and councillors Tim Baillie and Rob Rindt filed a claim on May 1, 2025 against a dozen unnamed people, because the posts were anonymous. Court orders then made Meta and others hand over information. On September 3, 2025 an updated claim named Kim Richter and her husband Bob Richter, former MLA Rich Coleman, businessman Thomas Martini and his company Lorval Developments, and three other people. The claim says the videos were published online by Coleman, Martini, Lorval, the Richters and two of the others, and asks for aggravated and punitive damages. The paper wrote that none of the claims had been tested in court. CBC News reported the same day that the lawsuit alleges Richter took part in spreading the content, and that an affidavit filed by Woodward's lawyers includes an email that Coleman is alleged to have forwarded, which came from an account with the same name as Bob Richter. CBC reported that Richter did not respond to its requests for comment. Woodward told the Advance Times he had not expected a sitting councillor to be a defendant when the case began. ## Richter's answer and her countersuit The Richters' response, reported by the Advance Times on October 28, 2025, denies any involvement in a campaign of defamation and says they had no hand in creating the videos. It says the lawsuit is "part of a campaign by the plaintiffs using public funds" to deter them from taking part in public affairs. On October 22, 2025 the Richters filed a countersuit against Woodward, Rindt and Baillie. It says the lawsuit is an abuse of process, that the mayor and the plaintiffs had launched "a series of formal investigations" against Kim Richter, "numbering three at the present time", and that the investigation of the websites was paid for with Township funds under a resolution that involved the plaintiffs' own interests and was passed without proper authority. The Richters ask for a declaration and damages. Woodward told the paper that the Township covered the first costs because the videos named staff and firefighters, and that once it was known who was behind them, "taxpayers are most definitely not covering any costs whatsoever." The Chilliwack Progress reported on November 17, 2025 that Woodward, Rindt and Baillie had filed a response denying any "improper purpose" and saying the suit was brought "for the legitimate purpose of vindicating their reputation." No trial date had been scheduled. ## Two plaintiffs leave, one stays On May 27, 2026 the Advance Times reported that lawyers for Rindt and Baillie had filed a notice of discontinuance, which means they dropped their claim. Baillie said the point had been made and that he had not been in it for money. Woodward wrote by email that the case "will and must continue to hold Coun. Richter, Rich Coleman and Thomas Martini, and others accountable for their actions." The paper noted that Richter had just joined Langley Strong, the team that would run against Woodward's [Progress for Langley](/bc/langley-township-2026/parties/progress-for-langley) in October. The Township's own money then became a separate court matter. The Advance Times reported on July 27, 2026 that ten residents had petitioned the B.C. Supreme Court to disqualify Woodward, Baillie and Rindt, claiming the Township had paid personal legal bills. Council had voted in a closed meeting to authorize up to $500,000 for the three men's legal costs in that petition; the paper reported that Richter was absent from the vote. On August 21 the paper reported the respondents' answer: Council had voted six to three in a closed meeting on September 23, 2024 to consider legal action and find out who was behind the videos, and Woodward had repaid the Township for everything spent on the defamation action, with interest. Those claims have not been tested in court either. ## A censure in 2018 Richter has been in a dispute with a council majority before. The Abbotsford News reported on October 1, 2018 that Council had censured her on September 24, 2018 and ordered her to take training on the Township's Respectful Workplace Policy. The motion followed a report by lawyer Donovan Plomp; the Township said the investigation and follow-up would cost "about $50,000". It began in 2017, when Richter wrote to Council that a catering contract for the Township Farm Tour, won by a company owned by Councillor Angie Quaale with a bid of $1,453.76, was not right. The Township's lawyers said there was no conflict. Councillor Charlie Fox then moved for a legal opinion on whether the workplace policy had been broken. Richter told Global News in February 2018 that hiring a lawyer at $375 an hour to review councillors' social media was retaliation meant to keep councillors off social media. After the censure she said she had been punished "for doing my job" and called it "a political stunt to sully my good name." Mayor Jack Froese said Council was the only body that could discipline a councillor and that it wanted to prevent such incidents. The Township did not release the report. ## The exchanges with Woodward Richter's clashes with Woodward were on the record before the lawsuit. The Advance Times reported on April 25, 2023 that her motion questioning four administrative positions she said reported mainly to the mayor was defeated 7 to 2; Woodward called it "a conspiracy theory" and said it had been brought to Council only for show, and the Township's administrator said all staff reported to him. The Surrey Now-Leader reported on January 28, 2026 that during a 20-minute argument over the agenda Woodward said to Richter, "I believe you were on a cruise at the last council meeting," and she answered, "What does me being on a cruise have anything to do with this meeting?" On June 15, 2026, when Council voted to lower the majority needed to censure a councillor from two thirds to a simple majority, Richter asked whether conflicts declared in closed meetings carried over, said "Five of us have a conflict, related to closed," and left the room with Barb Martens before the vote. The change takes effect on November 2, 2026, the day the new Council first meets. ## What to watch The defamation case and the countersuit stay in B.C. Supreme Court with no trial date. The petition over the Township's legal costs has no hearing listed. Richter sits on the new Council from November 2, 2026, and Woodward does not. ## Sitemap See the full [sitemap](/bc/langley-township-2026/sitemap.md) for all pages.