Surrey residents challenging the constitutionality of city bylaw amendments that govern the placement of political signs on private property await a verdict that was reserved after final arguments were heard Wednesday in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver.

含羞草研究社淚 have no clue when I含羞草研究社檒l get a judgment to you,含羞草研究社� Justice Nigel Kent said after adjourning the case. 含羞草研究社淏ut I will in due course, thank you.含羞草研究社�

Lawyer Kevin Smith, representing the plaintiffs, argued that the bylaw as amended on Oct. 18, 2021 presents an unconstitutional infringement on their freedom of expression under Canada含羞草研究社檚 Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

含羞草研究社淭his is not just political disagreement,含羞草研究社� Smith told the judge. 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�

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 are challenging 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�

Smith argued the amendments were 含羞草研究社減art of a continuing pattern of behaviour that discloses animus, bias and various steps by the mayor and his supporters to silence the opposition of the petitioners.含羞草研究社�

Matthew Voell, the lawyer representing the City of Surrey, argued 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.

含羞草研究社淭he petitioners appear to want change in the city 含羞草研究社� they can effect change at the ballot box.含羞草研究社�

Voell told Kent that the constitutional challenge was brought forward for 含羞草研究社減olitical purposes含羞草研究社� and 含羞草研究社渢his is a manufactured dispute.含羞草研究社�

Meantime, Smith said it含羞草研究社檚 含羞草研究社渃rystal clear含羞草研究社� that no permits 含羞草研究社渃an be obtained, I suggest both for the public and the private land signs.含羞草研究社�

含羞草研究社淣o one, not even the councillors, knows what this bylaw says,含羞草研究社� he added. 含羞草研究社淭here is considerable confusion, even within the city.含羞草研究社�

tom.zytaruk@surreynowleader.com
Like us on Follow us on   and follow Tom on