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 乌鸦传媒済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 petitioners乌鸦传媒� constitutional protection for freedom of, among other things, their political expression.乌鸦传媒�

Kent found that the ambiguity arises from the amended bylaw definition of a political sign now extending past city, provincial or federal elections 乌鸦传媒渢o also include political 乌鸦传媒榠ssues乌鸦传媒� generally,乌鸦传媒� with the result of capturing signage related to such things as 乌鸦传媒淜eep the RCMP in Surrey乌鸦传媒�, 乌鸦传媒淪ave the Whales乌鸦传媒�, 乌鸦传媒淪top Logging Old Growth Forests乌鸦传媒�, 乌鸦传媒淕et Vaccinated乌鸦传媒� and the like.

乌鸦传媒淚 deny the substantive relief that the petitioners seek,乌鸦传媒� he said. 乌鸦传媒淗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.乌鸦传媒�

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 乌鸦传媒渘ot for personal reasons, but in an effort to protect political speech and expression in the City.乌鸦传媒�

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 Canada乌鸦传媒檚 Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

乌鸦传媒淜eep the RCMP in Surrey welcomes today乌鸦传媒檚 decision by Justice Kent ordering the city to amend its Sign Bylaw,乌鸦传媒� Smith told the Now-Leader after the decision was revealed. 乌鸦传媒淭he judge agreed with the petitioners乌鸦传媒� interpretation of the bylaw, confirmed that the bylaw currently bans Keep the RCMP in Surrey signs 乌鸦传媒� and many other arguably 乌鸦传媒減olitical乌鸦传媒� signs 乌鸦传媒� and found that to violate the petitioners乌鸦传媒� Charter rights to freedom of expression.

Smith added that the petitioners 乌鸦传媒渇eel vindicated乌鸦传媒� by Kent乌鸦传媒檚 comment that 乌鸦传媒渃ertain members of Surrey city council have directly targeted them, and the judge乌鸦传媒檚 criticism of the previous resolution banning them from attending council meetings and the lawsuit filed by Surrey against them which started this process.

乌鸦传媒淜eep the RCMP in Surrey believes that no one is above the law,乌鸦传媒� Smith continued. 乌鸦传媒淭he right to criticize government is a fundamental Canadian freedom, and Keep the RCMP in Surrey celebrates today乌鸦传媒檚 decision as a vindication of that principle.乌鸦传媒�

During the trial, Smith argued that 乌鸦传媒渢his is not just political disagreement.

乌鸦传媒淭his isn乌鸦传媒檛 a couple of political adversaries going at it in the normal cut-and-thrust,乌鸦传媒� he told Kent.

乌鸦传媒淎ll they乌鸦传媒檙e trying to do is make it harder for my clients to participate or to voice their views at all,乌鸦传媒� he said of Mayor Doug McCallum and 乌鸦传媒渉is council supporters.乌鸦传媒�

乌鸦传媒淭here乌鸦传媒檚 nothing normal about that. This suppression of political dissent by the government is exactly what the Charter is supposed to help prevent.乌鸦传媒�

Matthew Voell, the lawyer representing the City of Surrey, argued at trial that the contentious bylaw amendments were driven by city staff recommendations, and 乌鸦传媒渘ot driven by animus, by council, by the mayor.乌鸦传媒�

乌鸦传媒淭here was no improper purpose there,乌鸦传媒� Voell argued. 乌鸦传媒淭he petition should be dismissed.乌鸦传媒�

He declined to comment Thursday on Kent乌鸦传媒檚 judgment.

乌鸦传媒淚乌鸦传媒檒l pass on making a comment, thank you,乌鸦传媒� Voell told the Now-Leader.

Kent noted in his reasons for judgment that 乌鸦传媒渢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.乌鸦传媒�

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