A B.C. Supreme Court judge has awarded a group of Surrey residents ordinary costs for court proceedings in their 2022 court fight against the City of Surrey over the constitutionality of its signs bylaw, but he declined to grant the petitionerssa国际传媒� application for special costs.

sa国际传媒淚 am simply not persuaded that this dispute transcended partisan politics and personal animus or that it was not possible to pursue the litigation with private funding,sa国际传媒� Justice Nigel Kent concluded.

sa国际传媒淧rincipally,sa国际传媒� he decided, sa国际传媒渢his is not a truly sa国际传媒榚xceptionalsa国际传媒� matter of public interest.sa国际传媒�

Kent rendered his decision in Vancouver on Oct. 20, related to Kaps v. Surrey (City). The petitioners were Annie Kaps, Debi Johnstone, Colin Pronger, Ivan Scott, Merle Scott, and Linda Ypenburg, all members of Keep the RCMP in Surrey.

The six residents in 2022 challenged the constitutionality of amendments to a City of Surrey bylaw which were approved in 2021, arguing they prohibited displaying political signs on private property.

Following the trial in Vancouver in 2022, Kent ordered the city to amend the sa国际传媒減oorly draftedsa国际传媒� amendments to the bylaw to eliminate ambiguity which he found arose from the definition of a political sign extending past city, provincial or federal elections sa国际传媒渢o also include political sa国际传媒榠ssuessa国际传媒� generally,sa国际传媒� with the result of capturing signage related to such things as sa国际传媒淜eep the RCMP in Surreysa国际传媒�, sa国际传媒淪ave the Whalessa国际传媒�, sa国际传媒淪top Logging Old Growth Forestssa国际传媒�, sa国际传媒淕et Vaccinatedsa国际传媒� and the like.

During the trial lawyer Kevin Smith, representing the plaintiffs, argued that the bylaw as amended on Oct. 18, 2021 presented an unconstitutional infringement on the petitionerssa国际传媒� freedom of expression under Canadasa国际传媒檚 Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Smith argued that the mayor at the time sa国际传媒� Doug McCallum sa国际传媒� and his supporters aimed to sa国际传媒渟ilence the opposition of the petitioners.sa国际传媒�

Matthew Voell, the lawyer representing the City of Surrey, argued during the 2022 trial that the contentious bylaw amendments were driven by city staff recommendations, and sa国际传媒渘ot driven by animus, by council, by the mayor.sa国际传媒�

sa国际传媒淭here was no improper purpose there,sa国际传媒� Voell argued. sa国际传媒淭he petition should be dismissed. The petitioners appear to want change in the city sa国际传媒� they can effect change at the ballot box.sa国际传媒�

At trial, the petitioners 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.

sa国际传媒淚 deny the substantive relief that the petitioners seek,sa国际传媒� Kent declared at the end of that trial. sa国际传媒淗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.sa国际传媒�

Kent noted in his subsequent related to awarding costs that the Supreme Court of Canada decided special costs should be awarded in the context of public interest only when certain conditions are met.

sa国际传媒淔irst, the case must involve matters of public interest that are truly exceptional. It is not enough that the issues raised have not previously been resolved or that they transcend the individual interests of the successful litigant: they must also have a significant and widespread societal impact,sa国际传媒� the judge noted.

sa国际传媒淪econd, in addition to showing that they have no personal, proprietary or pecuniary interest in the litigation that would justify the proceedings on economic grounds, the plaintiffs must show that it would not have been possible to effectively pursue the litigation in question with private funding. In those rare cases, it will be contrary to the interests of justice to ask the individual litigants (or, more likely, pro bono counsel) to bear the majority of the financial burden associated with pursuing the claim,sa国际传媒� he added.

Kent said he found no basis in which the City of Surreysa国际传媒檚 conduct could be said to have engaged a public interestsa国际传媒攎uch less an sa国际传媒渆xceptionalsa国际传媒� public interest sa国际传媒� that had sa国际传媒渁 sa国际传媒榮ignificant and widespread societal impactsa国际传媒� outside of this local political context.sa国际传媒�

Kent accepted the citysa国际传媒檚 sa国际传媒渂enign intent of the bylaw amendmentssa国际传媒� and found the petitionerssa国际传媒� claims of sa国际传媒渂ad faith or an improper purposesa国际传媒� hadnsa国际传媒檛 been proven in this sa国际传媒渞ather unusualsa国际传媒� case.

While the city sa国际传媒渨as clearly not the successful party in this proceeding,sa国际传媒� the judge noted, the petitioners had sa国际传媒渁ppropriately sought judicial review of the Surrey Sign By-law amendments in the circumstances and obtained a remedy, albeit one that neither party anticipatedsa国际传媒� and were sa国际传媒渢hus the substantially successful litigants and are entitled to costs of the proceeding.sa国际传媒�