ѻý

Skip to content

Surrey opposes B.C.ѻýs bid for judge to seal info in cop transition case

Judicial review aimed at quashing Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworthѻýs order to replace the RCMP with the Surrey Police Service
web1_230406-sul-newsurreystockimages-surreyrcmpsurreypolice_6
A judicial review of Surreyѻýs police transition is underway in B.C. Supreme Court. (Photo Anna Burns)

The City of Surreyѻýs petition for a judicial review aimed at quashing Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworthѻýs order to replace the RCMP with the Surrey Police Service is now before Justice Kevin Loo in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver court, as the five-day hearing began Monday morning (April 29).

The day began with discussion concerning proposed redactions and sealing orders, with the provincial governmentѻýs lawyer seeking to seal part of the record and the City not seeking to seal anything. The Cityѻýs legal counsel opposed the order sought.

ѻýItѻýs too much detail, in my submission, about police planning and operational matters to be made public really for no reason,ѻý the Provinceѻýs lawyer Trevor Bant argued. ѻýIt doesnѻýt relate to anything that is at issue.ѻý

Loo replied ѻýit may well be relevant to this petition.ѻý

ѻýItѻýs my responsibility to make sure that the court principle, or the principle of court openness is impacted as little as possible by a sealing order,ѻý the judge noted.

Lawyer Craig Dennis, representing the City of Surrey, told Loo that ѻýthe city is not seeking to seal or withhold any information in this proceeding, itѻýs the Province that seeks to do so.ѻý

READ ALSO: No ѻýparade of witnessesѻý in Surreyѻýs cop transition court case

Concerning some information, he said, ѻýletѻýs be clear what the Province is asking, Justice, what the Province is asking for in respect (to an exhibit) is not to seal it from the public, itѻýs to seal it from you, Justice.ѻý

ѻýTheyѻýre not going to give it to you, judge. Theyѻýre not going to give it to you what the minister had, theyѻýre not going to give it to the petitioner, the party bringing the challenge.ѻý

ѻýAll the City is saying is transparency. The court should have, and the parties should have, what the minister had,ѻý Dennis said.

He said that in his ѻýrespectful submission it would be quite an unprecedented order, what the Province is asking you to make, to deny even your own ability to review something that the minister had without any evidence or basis to conclude what interest, but important public interest, would be vindicated in doing so.ѻý

Loo is expected to rule on the sealing and redaction order request Tuesday.

City challenging ѻýconstitutionalityѻý of police decision

Surrey Mayor Brenda Locke announced in November that the city is challenging in court the ѻýconstitutionalityѻý of the provincial governmentѻýs decision to replace the Surrey RCMP with the SPS.

On Oct. 13, 2023, the City of Surrey filed its first petition with the Supreme Court of British Columbia seeking a judicial review of Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworthѻýs July 19, 2023 order to proceed with the SPS. An amended petition to the Oct. 13 filing was then submitted to the court on Nov. 20, 2023, with Locke characterizing it as a ѻýsignificant step to stop the NDP police serviceѻý and a reply to the provincial governmentѻýs ѻýattempted police takeover, which would require a double-digit ѻý double-digit ѻý NDP tax hike on Surrey taxpayers.ѻý

Last week saw sabre-rattling from both sides concerning this court case, with Farnworth maintaining it wonѻýt have an impact on the transition.

ѻýIt is not about overturning the decision that was made, and we are confident in our position, and if it were to go the other way, it would bring it back to what is the law of the province today, and the law of the province today is Surrey will be policed by the Surrey Police Service,ѻý he said.

For Lockeѻýs part, she told the Now-Leader that ѻýfor the City of Surrey, weѻýre in court on the 29th, thatѻýs where the truth will come out, and weѻýll see whatѻýs going to be next. I look forward to the truth being told to the public.ѻý

On Monday (April 29) Dennis provided Loo with a written argument indicating Farnworthѻýs order will increase the annual cost for policing to Surrey taxpayers by ѻýat leastѻý $75 million (or 46 per cent) ѻýwithout any funding to the City from the Province despite an initial decision to contribute $150 million that earlier this month the minister abruptly withdrew without justification and seemingly because the Cityѻýs coming to court.ѻý

The Cityѻýs counsel argued that contrary to a May 2023 agreement between the mayor and premier, ѻýand repeated representation by the Province to Surrey and the public, aligned with the provisions of the Police Act that it was for the City to decide on its model for policingѻý and ѻýwithout a plan for a transition away from the RCMP ѻý Surreyѻýs police of jurisdiction today and for the past 70 years ѻý could be carried out feasibly and safely with the minister to the contrary later telling Surrey, in effect, ѻýyou figure it out.ѻýѻý Moreover, the City argues, Farnworthѻýs order was contrary to the ѻýexpressed mandateѻý from Surrey voters in the 2022 city election ѻýwhere policing was the central issue and Surrey voted to keep the RCMP.ѻý

Concerning the Charter question, Dennis told the judge in the case before him the provincial government ѻýintervened and nullified the vote, nullified the mandateѻý in a state action ѻýtargeted to a specific municipality ѻý not legislation and general application ѻý targeted to the specific municipality with the express purpose of nullifying the electoral mandate.ѻý

Province imposed transition on Surrey ѻýin the absence of any planѻý: City

The City argues that the Police Act gives the City, ѻýnot the minister, the authority to decide on keeping the RCMPѻý and ѻýin any event, the ministerѻýs decision was unreasonable in an administrative law senseѻý because he ѻýfundamentally misunderstood the key documents that were before him, considered only half the equation that is by hiring 161 officers to re-staff the RCMP could be achieved without a risk to public safety without seriously considering whether hiring 600 ѻý because thatѻýs what would have been needed ѻý 600 SPS officers could also have similar or more serious consequences,ѻý and that Farnworth imposed the transition to the SPS on Surrey ѻýin the absence of any plan to make that work.ѻý

The Cityѻýs counsel noted that according to the Community Charter, principles governing relations between the provincial government and civic governments state that ѻýthe citizens of British Columbia are best served when in their relationship with municipalities and the provincial government they a) acknowledge and respect the jurisdiction of each, b) work towards harmonization of provincial and municipal enactment, policies and programs and c) foster cooperative approaches to matters of mutual interest.ѻý

Further, Surreyѻýs counsel noted, Subsection 2, concerning the relationship between the municipalities and provincial government, is based on the following principles: A) The provincial government respects municipal authority and municipalities respect provincial authority, and B) The provincial government must not assign responsibilities to municipalities unless there is provision for resources required to fulfill those responsibilities.

Farnworthѻýs Surrey-specific legislative amendments, the judge heard, were introduced one business day after Surrey filed its petition with the court ѻýand they are targeted at Surrey and they treat Surrey different from every other municipality in the province of British Columbiaѻý and this, the City argued, interferes ѻýwith Surrey votersѻý expression and are an unprecedented attempt to reverse the outcome of a municipal vote, in this case a vote that delivered a mandate for keeping the RCMP as Surreyѻýs police of jurisdiction.ѻý

Dennis noted that Subparagraph G states that the provincial government and municipalities should attempt to resolve conflicts between them by consultation, negotiation, facilitation and other forms of dispute resolution.

ѻýThe mayor and the premier, they lived up to Subparagraph G and youѻýll hear that they made an agreement in May of 2023 to find a way through this. The City lived up to its end of the bargain, the minister pulled the rug out from under it with his July decision.ѻý

Breaking News You Need To Know

Sign up for free account today and start receiving our exclusive newsletters.

Sign Up with google Sign Up with facebook

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google and apply.

Reset your password

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google and apply.

A link has been emailed to you - check your inbox.



Don't have an account? Click here to sign up


About the Author: Tom Zytaruk

I write unvarnished opinion columns and unbiased news reports for the Surrey Now-Leader.
Read more