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香蕉视频直播� application for special costs.

香蕉视频直播淚 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,香蕉视频直播� Justice Nigel Kent concluded.

香蕉视频直播淧rincipally,香蕉视频直播� he decided, 香蕉视频直播渢his is not a truly 香蕉视频直播榚xceptional香蕉视频直播� matter of public interest.香蕉视频直播�

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 香蕉视频直播減oorly drafted香蕉视频直播� 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 香蕉视频直播渢o also include political 香蕉视频直播榠ssues香蕉视频直播� generally,香蕉视频直播� with the result of capturing signage related to such things as 香蕉视频直播淜eep the RCMP in Surrey香蕉视频直播�, 香蕉视频直播淪ave the Whales香蕉视频直播�, 香蕉视频直播淪top Logging Old Growth Forests香蕉视频直播�, 香蕉视频直播淕et Vaccinated香蕉视频直播� 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香蕉视频直播� freedom of expression under Canada香蕉视频直播檚 Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Smith argued that the mayor at the time 香蕉视频直播� Doug McCallum 香蕉视频直播� and his supporters aimed to 香蕉视频直播渟ilence the opposition of the petitioners.香蕉视频直播�

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 香蕉视频直播渘ot driven by animus, by council, by the mayor.香蕉视频直播�

香蕉视频直播淭here was no improper purpose there,香蕉视频直播� Voell argued. 香蕉视频直播淭he petition should be dismissed. The petitioners appear to want change in the city 香蕉视频直播� they can effect change at the ballot box.香蕉视频直播�

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.

香蕉视频直播淚 deny the substantive relief that the petitioners seek,香蕉视频直播� Kent declared at the end of that trial. 香蕉视频直播淗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.香蕉视频直播�

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.

香蕉视频直播淔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,香蕉视频直播� the judge noted.

香蕉视频直播淪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,香蕉视频直播� he added.

Kent said he found no basis in which the City of Surrey香蕉视频直播檚 conduct could be said to have engaged a public interest香蕉视频直播攎uch less an 香蕉视频直播渆xceptional香蕉视频直播� public interest 香蕉视频直播� that had 香蕉视频直播渁 香蕉视频直播榮ignificant and widespread societal impact香蕉视频直播� outside of this local political context.香蕉视频直播�

Kent accepted the city香蕉视频直播檚 香蕉视频直播渂enign intent of the bylaw amendments香蕉视频直播� and found the petitioners香蕉视频直播� claims of 香蕉视频直播渂ad faith or an improper purpose香蕉视频直播� hadn香蕉视频直播檛 been proven in this 香蕉视频直播渞ather unusual香蕉视频直播� case.

While the city 香蕉视频直播渨as clearly not the successful party in this proceeding,香蕉视频直播� the judge noted, the petitioners had 香蕉视频直播渁ppropriately sought judicial review of the Surrey Sign By-law amendments in the circumstances and obtained a remedy, albeit one that neither party anticipated香蕉视频直播� and were 香蕉视频直播渢hus the substantially successful litigants and are entitled to costs of the proceeding.香蕉视频直播�