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.

91裸聊视频淚 have no clue when I91裸聊视频檒l get a judgment to you,91裸聊视频� Justice Nigel Kent said after adjourning the case. 91裸聊视频淏ut I will in due course, thank you.91裸聊视频�

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 Canada91裸聊视频檚 Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

91裸聊视频淭his is not just political disagreement,91裸聊视频� Smith told the judge. 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�

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 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�

Smith argued the amendments were 91裸聊视频減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.91裸聊视频�

Matthew Voell, the lawyer representing the City of Surrey, argued 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裸聊视频淭he petitioners appear to want change in the city 91裸聊视频� they can effect change at the ballot box.91裸聊视频�

Voell told Kent that the constitutional challenge was brought forward for 91裸聊视频減olitical purposes91裸聊视频� and 91裸聊视频渢his is a manufactured dispute.91裸聊视频�

Meantime, Smith said it91裸聊视频檚 91裸聊视频渃rystal clear91裸聊视频� that no permits 91裸聊视频渃an be obtained, I suggest both for the public and the private land signs.91裸聊视频�

91裸聊视频淣o one, not even the councillors, knows what this bylaw says,91裸聊视频� he added. 91裸聊视频淭here is considerable confusion, even within the city.91裸聊视频�

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