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 91裸聊视频済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 petitioners91裸聊视频� constitutional protection for freedom of, among other things, their political expression.91裸聊视频�
Kent found that the ambiguity arises from the amended bylaw definition of a political sign now extending past city, provincial or federal elections 91裸聊视频渢o also include political 91裸聊视频榠ssues91裸聊视频� generally,91裸聊视频� with the result of capturing signage related to such things as 91裸聊视频淜eep the RCMP in Surrey91裸聊视频�, 91裸聊视频淪ave the Whales91裸聊视频�, 91裸聊视频淪top Logging Old Growth Forests91裸聊视频�, 91裸聊视频淕et Vaccinated91裸聊视频� and the like.
91裸聊视频淚 deny the substantive relief that the petitioners seek,91裸聊视频� he said. 91裸聊视频淗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.91裸聊视频�
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 91裸聊视频渘ot for personal reasons, but in an effort to protect political speech and expression in the City.91裸聊视频�
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 Canada91裸聊视频檚 Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
91裸聊视频淜eep the RCMP in Surrey welcomes today91裸聊视频檚 decision by Justice Kent ordering the city to amend its Sign Bylaw,91裸聊视频� Smith told the Now-Leader after the decision was revealed. 91裸聊视频淭he judge agreed with the petitioners91裸聊视频� interpretation of the bylaw, confirmed that the bylaw currently bans Keep the RCMP in Surrey signs 91裸聊视频� and many other arguably 91裸聊视频減olitical91裸聊视频� signs 91裸聊视频� and found that to violate the petitioners91裸聊视频� Charter rights to freedom of expression.
Smith added that the petitioners 91裸聊视频渇eel vindicated91裸聊视频� by Kent91裸聊视频檚 comment that 91裸聊视频渃ertain members of Surrey city council have directly targeted them, and the judge91裸聊视频檚 criticism of the previous resolution banning them from attending council meetings and the lawsuit filed by Surrey against them which started this process.
91裸聊视频淜eep the RCMP in Surrey believes that no one is above the law,91裸聊视频� Smith continued. 91裸聊视频淭he right to criticize government is a fundamental Canadian freedom, and Keep the RCMP in Surrey celebrates today91裸聊视频檚 decision as a vindication of that principle.91裸聊视频�
During the trial, Smith argued that 91裸聊视频渢his is not just political disagreement.
91裸聊视频淭his isn91裸聊视频檛 a couple of political adversaries going at it in the normal cut-and-thrust,91裸聊视频� he told Kent.
91裸聊视频淎ll they91裸聊视频檙e trying to do is make it harder for my clients to participate or to voice their views at all,91裸聊视频� he said of Mayor Doug McCallum and 91裸聊视频渉is council supporters.91裸聊视频�
91裸聊视频淭here91裸聊视频檚 nothing normal about that. This suppression of political dissent by the government is exactly what the Charter is supposed to help prevent.91裸聊视频�
Matthew Voell, the lawyer representing the City of Surrey, argued at trial that the contentious bylaw amendments were driven by city staff recommendations, and 91裸聊视频渘ot driven by animus, by council, by the mayor.91裸聊视频�
91裸聊视频淭here was no improper purpose there,91裸聊视频� Voell argued. 91裸聊视频淭he petition should be dismissed.91裸聊视频�
He declined to comment Thursday on Kent91裸聊视频檚 judgment.
91裸聊视频淚91裸聊视频檒l pass on making a comment, thank you,91裸聊视频� Voell told the Now-Leader.
Kent noted in his reasons for judgment that 91裸聊视频渢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.91裸聊视频�
tom.zytaruk@surreynowleader.com
Like us on Follow us on and follow Tom on
