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 害羞草研究所済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害羞草研究所� constitutional protection for freedom of, among other things, their political expression.害羞草研究所�

Kent found that the ambiguity arises from the amended bylaw definition of a political sign now 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.

害羞草研究所淚 deny the substantive relief that the petitioners seek,害羞草研究所� he said. 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�

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 害羞草研究所渘ot for personal reasons, but in an effort to protect political speech and expression in the City.害羞草研究所�

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害羞草研究所檚 Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

害羞草研究所淜eep the RCMP in Surrey welcomes today害羞草研究所檚 decision by Justice Kent ordering the city to amend its Sign Bylaw,害羞草研究所� Smith told the Now-Leader after the decision was revealed. 害羞草研究所淭he judge agreed with the petitioners害羞草研究所� interpretation of the bylaw, confirmed that the bylaw currently bans Keep the RCMP in Surrey signs 害羞草研究所� and many other arguably 害羞草研究所減olitical害羞草研究所� signs 害羞草研究所� and found that to violate the petitioners害羞草研究所� Charter rights to freedom of expression.

Smith added that the petitioners 害羞草研究所渇eel vindicated害羞草研究所� by Kent害羞草研究所檚 comment that 害羞草研究所渃ertain members of Surrey city council have directly targeted them, and the judge害羞草研究所檚 criticism of the previous resolution banning them from attending council meetings and the lawsuit filed by Surrey against them which started this process.

害羞草研究所淜eep the RCMP in Surrey believes that no one is above the law,害羞草研究所� Smith continued. 害羞草研究所淭he right to criticize government is a fundamental Canadian freedom, and Keep the RCMP in Surrey celebrates today害羞草研究所檚 decision as a vindication of that principle.害羞草研究所�

During the trial, Smith argued that 害羞草研究所渢his is not just political disagreement.

害羞草研究所淭his isn害羞草研究所檛 a couple of political adversaries going at it in the normal cut-and-thrust,害羞草研究所� he told Kent.

害羞草研究所淎ll they害羞草研究所檙e trying to do is make it harder for my clients to participate or to voice their views at all,害羞草研究所� he said of Mayor Doug McCallum and 害羞草研究所渉is council supporters.害羞草研究所�

害羞草研究所淭here害羞草研究所檚 nothing normal about that. This suppression of political dissent by the government is exactly what the Charter is supposed to help prevent.害羞草研究所�

Matthew Voell, the lawyer representing the City of Surrey, argued at 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.害羞草研究所�

He declined to comment Thursday on Kent害羞草研究所檚 judgment.

害羞草研究所淚害羞草研究所檒l pass on making a comment, thank you,害羞草研究所� Voell told the Now-Leader.

Kent noted in his reasons for judgment that 害羞草研究所渢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.害羞草研究所�

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