A B.C. Supreme Court judge has awarded a group of Surrey residents ordinary costs for court proceedings in their 2022 court fight against the City of Surrey over the constitutionality of its signs bylaw, but he declined to grant the petitioners害羞草研究所� application for special costs.

害羞草研究所淚 am simply not persuaded that this dispute transcended partisan politics and personal animus or that it was not possible to pursue the litigation with private funding,害羞草研究所� Justice Nigel Kent concluded.

害羞草研究所淧rincipally,害羞草研究所� he decided, 害羞草研究所渢his is not a truly 害羞草研究所榚xceptional害羞草研究所� matter of public interest.害羞草研究所�

Kent rendered his decision in Vancouver on Oct. 20, related to Kaps v. Surrey (City). The petitioners were Annie Kaps, Debi Johnstone, Colin Pronger, Ivan Scott, Merle Scott, and Linda Ypenburg, all members of Keep the RCMP in Surrey.

The six residents in 2022 challenged the constitutionality of amendments to a City of Surrey bylaw which were approved in 2021, arguing they prohibited displaying political signs on private property.

Following the trial in Vancouver in 2022, Kent ordered the city to amend the 害羞草研究所減oorly drafted害羞草研究所� amendments to the bylaw to eliminate ambiguity which he found arose from the definition of a political sign extending past city, provincial or federal elections 害羞草研究所渢o also include political 害羞草研究所榠ssues害羞草研究所� generally,害羞草研究所� with the result of capturing signage related to such things as 害羞草研究所淜eep the RCMP in Surrey害羞草研究所�, 害羞草研究所淪ave the Whales害羞草研究所�, 害羞草研究所淪top Logging Old Growth Forests害羞草研究所�, 害羞草研究所淕et Vaccinated害羞草研究所� and the like.

During the trial lawyer Kevin Smith, representing the plaintiffs, argued that the bylaw as amended on Oct. 18, 2021 presented an unconstitutional infringement on the petitioners害羞草研究所� freedom of expression under Canada害羞草研究所檚 Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Smith argued that the mayor at the time 害羞草研究所� Doug McCallum 害羞草研究所� and his supporters aimed to 害羞草研究所渟ilence the opposition of the petitioners.害羞草研究所�

Matthew Voell, the lawyer representing the City of Surrey, argued during the 2022 trial that the contentious bylaw amendments were driven by city staff recommendations, and 害羞草研究所渘ot driven by animus, by council, by the mayor.害羞草研究所�

害羞草研究所淭here was no improper purpose there,害羞草研究所� Voell argued. 害羞草研究所淭he petition should be dismissed. The petitioners appear to want change in the city 害羞草研究所� they can effect change at the ballot box.害羞草研究所�

At trial, the petitioners 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.

害羞草研究所淚 deny the substantive relief that the petitioners seek,害羞草研究所� Kent declared at the end of that trial. 害羞草研究所淗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.害羞草研究所�

Kent noted in his subsequent related to awarding costs that the Supreme Court of Canada decided special costs should be awarded in the context of public interest only when certain conditions are met.

害羞草研究所淔irst, the case must involve matters of public interest that are truly exceptional. It is not enough that the issues raised have not previously been resolved or that they transcend the individual interests of the successful litigant: they must also have a significant and widespread societal impact,害羞草研究所� the judge noted.

害羞草研究所淪econd, in addition to showing that they have no personal, proprietary or pecuniary interest in the litigation that would justify the proceedings on economic grounds, the plaintiffs must show that it would not have been possible to effectively pursue the litigation in question with private funding. In those rare cases, it will be contrary to the interests of justice to ask the individual litigants (or, more likely, pro bono counsel) to bear the majority of the financial burden associated with pursuing the claim,害羞草研究所� he added.

Kent said he found no basis in which the City of Surrey害羞草研究所檚 conduct could be said to have engaged a public interest害羞草研究所攎uch less an 害羞草研究所渆xceptional害羞草研究所� public interest 害羞草研究所� that had 害羞草研究所渁 害羞草研究所榮ignificant and widespread societal impact害羞草研究所� outside of this local political context.害羞草研究所�

Kent accepted the city害羞草研究所檚 害羞草研究所渂enign intent of the bylaw amendments害羞草研究所� and found the petitioners害羞草研究所� claims of 害羞草研究所渂ad faith or an improper purpose害羞草研究所� hadn害羞草研究所檛 been proven in this 害羞草研究所渞ather unusual害羞草研究所� case.

While the city 害羞草研究所渨as clearly not the successful party in this proceeding,害羞草研究所� the judge noted, the petitioners had 害羞草研究所渁ppropriately sought judicial review of the Surrey Sign By-law amendments in the circumstances and obtained a remedy, albeit one that neither party anticipated害羞草研究所� and were 害羞草研究所渢hus the substantially successful litigants and are entitled to costs of the proceeding.害羞草研究所�