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 sa国际传媒済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 petitionerssa国际传媒� constitutional protection for freedom of, among other things, their political expression.sa国际传媒�
Kent found that the ambiguity arises from the amended bylaw definition of a political sign now 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.
sa国际传媒淚 deny the substantive relief that the petitioners seek,sa国际传媒� he said. 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�
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 sa国际传媒渘ot for personal reasons, but in an effort to protect political speech and expression in the City.sa国际传媒�
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 Canadasa国际传媒檚 Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
sa国际传媒淜eep the RCMP in Surrey welcomes todaysa国际传媒檚 decision by Justice Kent ordering the city to amend its Sign Bylaw,sa国际传媒� Smith told the Now-Leader after the decision was revealed. sa国际传媒淭he judge agreed with the petitionerssa国际传媒� interpretation of the bylaw, confirmed that the bylaw currently bans Keep the RCMP in Surrey signs sa国际传媒� and many other arguably sa国际传媒減oliticalsa国际传媒� signs sa国际传媒� and found that to violate the petitionerssa国际传媒� Charter rights to freedom of expression.
Smith added that the petitioners sa国际传媒渇eel vindicatedsa国际传媒� by Kentsa国际传媒檚 comment that sa国际传媒渃ertain members of Surrey city council have directly targeted them, and the judgesa国际传媒檚 criticism of the previous resolution banning them from attending council meetings and the lawsuit filed by Surrey against them which started this process.
sa国际传媒淜eep the RCMP in Surrey believes that no one is above the law,sa国际传媒� Smith continued. sa国际传媒淭he right to criticize government is a fundamental Canadian freedom, and Keep the RCMP in Surrey celebrates todaysa国际传媒檚 decision as a vindication of that principle.sa国际传媒�
During the trial, Smith argued that sa国际传媒渢his is not just political disagreement.
sa国际传媒淭his isnsa国际传媒檛 a couple of political adversaries going at it in the normal cut-and-thrust,sa国际传媒� he told Kent.
sa国际传媒淎ll theysa国际传媒檙e trying to do is make it harder for my clients to participate or to voice their views at all,sa国际传媒� he said of Mayor Doug McCallum and sa国际传媒渉is council supporters.sa国际传媒�
sa国际传媒淭heresa国际传媒檚 nothing normal about that. This suppression of political dissent by the government is exactly what the Charter is supposed to help prevent.sa国际传媒�
Matthew Voell, the lawyer representing the City of Surrey, argued at 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.sa国际传媒�
He declined to comment Thursday on Kentsa国际传媒檚 judgment.
sa国际传媒淚sa国际传媒檒l pass on making a comment, thank you,sa国际传媒� Voell told the Now-Leader.
Kent noted in his reasons for judgment that sa国际传媒渢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.sa国际传媒�
tom.zytaruk@surreynowleader.com
Like us on Follow us on and follow Tom on
