A B.C. Supreme Court judge has ordered the City of Surrey to rewrite its contentious political signage bylaw after a group of Surrey residents challenged its constitutionality.
Justice Nigel Kent revealed his decision Thursday.
Kent concluded that 2021 amendments 含羞草研究社済ive rise to an ambiguity in the bylaw that arguably prohibits the posting of political signage on private property except during limited specified periods of time, and that such a restriction would infringe s. 2(b) of the Charter which guarantees the petitioners含羞草研究社� constitutional protection for freedom of, among other things, their political expression.含羞草研究社�
Kent found that the ambiguity arises from the amended bylaw definition of a political sign now extending past city, provincial or federal elections 含羞草研究社渢o also include political 含羞草研究社榠ssues含羞草研究社� generally,含羞草研究社� with the result of capturing signage related to such things as 含羞草研究社淜eep the RCMP in Surrey含羞草研究社�, 含羞草研究社淪ave the Whales含羞草研究社�, 含羞草研究社淪top Logging Old Growth Forests含羞草研究社�, 含羞草研究社淕et Vaccinated含羞草研究社� and the like.
含羞草研究社淚 deny the substantive relief that the petitioners seek,含羞草研究社� he said. 含羞草研究社淗owever, I agree that the amendments were poorly drafted and that clarity of ambiguity is required. Accordingly, I grant interim relief and direct Surrey city council to further amend the Surrey Sign Bylaw to clarify its intended effect and to eliminate the said ambiguity.含羞草研究社�
Surrey residents who challenged the constitutionality of city bylaw amendments governing the placement of political signs on private property had been awaiting a verdict since May. They sought a declaration from Kent that the amendments were inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that they be declared of no legal force or effect or be quashed altogether.
The petition was launched by Surrey residents Annie Kaps, Debra (Debi) Johnstone, Colin Pronger, Ivan Scott, Merle Scott and Linda Ypenburg, all members of Keep the RCMP in Surrey. The amended bylaw resulted in them removing related signage from their properties but their petition to the court states they challenged the amendments to the sign bylaw 含羞草研究社渘ot for personal reasons, but in an effort to protect political speech and expression in the City.含羞草研究社�
Lawyer Kevin Smith, representing the residents, argued at trial in Vancouver that the bylaw as amended on Oct. 18, 2021 presented an unconstitutional infringement on their freedom of expression under Canada含羞草研究社檚 Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
含羞草研究社淜eep the RCMP in Surrey welcomes today含羞草研究社檚 decision by Justice Kent ordering the city to amend its Sign Bylaw,含羞草研究社� Smith told the Now-Leader after the decision was revealed. 含羞草研究社淭he judge agreed with the petitioners含羞草研究社� interpretation of the bylaw, confirmed that the bylaw currently bans Keep the RCMP in Surrey signs 含羞草研究社� and many other arguably 含羞草研究社減olitical含羞草研究社� signs 含羞草研究社� and found that to violate the petitioners含羞草研究社� Charter rights to freedom of expression.
Smith added that the petitioners 含羞草研究社渇eel vindicated含羞草研究社� by Kent含羞草研究社檚 comment that 含羞草研究社渃ertain members of Surrey city council have directly targeted them, and the judge含羞草研究社檚 criticism of the previous resolution banning them from attending council meetings and the lawsuit filed by Surrey against them which started this process.
含羞草研究社淜eep the RCMP in Surrey believes that no one is above the law,含羞草研究社� Smith continued. 含羞草研究社淭he right to criticize government is a fundamental Canadian freedom, and Keep the RCMP in Surrey celebrates today含羞草研究社檚 decision as a vindication of that principle.含羞草研究社�
During the trial, Smith argued that 含羞草研究社渢his is not just political disagreement.
含羞草研究社淭his isn含羞草研究社檛 a couple of political adversaries going at it in the normal cut-and-thrust,含羞草研究社� he told Kent.
含羞草研究社淎ll they含羞草研究社檙e trying to do is make it harder for my clients to participate or to voice their views at all,含羞草研究社� he said of Mayor Doug McCallum and 含羞草研究社渉is council supporters.含羞草研究社�
含羞草研究社淭here含羞草研究社檚 nothing normal about that. This suppression of political dissent by the government is exactly what the Charter is supposed to help prevent.含羞草研究社�
Matthew Voell, the lawyer representing the City of Surrey, argued at trial that the contentious bylaw amendments were driven by city staff recommendations, and 含羞草研究社渘ot driven by animus, by council, by the mayor.含羞草研究社�
含羞草研究社淭here was no improper purpose there,含羞草研究社� Voell argued. 含羞草研究社淭he petition should be dismissed.含羞草研究社�
He declined to comment Thursday on Kent含羞草研究社檚 judgment.
含羞草研究社淚含羞草研究社檒l pass on making a comment, thank you,含羞草研究社� Voell told the Now-Leader.
Kent noted in his reasons for judgment that 含羞草研究社渢hese particular petitioners have been directly targeted by certain members of Surrey city council for special treatment; they were the subject matter of a (quickly and appropriately rescinded) bylaw prohibiting their attendance at council meetings and an injunction lawsuit seeking to enforce that bylaw. Their organization (KTRIS) has even been accused, wrongly it appears, of inflicting physical injury on the mayor.含羞草研究社�
tom.zytaruk@surreynowleader.com
Like us on Follow us on and follow Tom on
