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.

乌鸦传媒淚 have no clue when I乌鸦传媒檒l get a judgment to you,乌鸦传媒� Justice Nigel Kent said after adjourning the case. 乌鸦传媒淏ut I will in due course, thank you.乌鸦传媒�

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 Canada乌鸦传媒檚 Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

乌鸦传媒淭his is not just political disagreement,乌鸦传媒� Smith told the judge. 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�

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 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�

Smith argued the amendments were 乌鸦传媒減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.乌鸦传媒�

Matthew Voell, the lawyer representing the City of Surrey, argued 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.

乌鸦传媒淭he petitioners appear to want change in the city 乌鸦传媒� they can effect change at the ballot box.乌鸦传媒�

Voell told Kent that the constitutional challenge was brought forward for 乌鸦传媒減olitical purposes乌鸦传媒� and 乌鸦传媒渢his is a manufactured dispute.乌鸦传媒�

Meantime, Smith said it乌鸦传媒檚 乌鸦传媒渃rystal clear乌鸦传媒� that no permits 乌鸦传媒渃an be obtained, I suggest both for the public and the private land signs.乌鸦传媒�

乌鸦传媒淣o one, not even the councillors, knows what this bylaw says,乌鸦传媒� he added. 乌鸦传媒淭here is considerable confusion, even within the city.乌鸦传媒�

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