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 香蕉视频直播済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香蕉视频直播� constitutional protection for freedom of, among other things, their political expression.香蕉视频直播�

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

香蕉视频直播淚 deny the substantive relief that the petitioners seek,香蕉视频直播� he said. 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�

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 香蕉视频直播渘ot for personal reasons, but in an effort to protect political speech and expression in the City.香蕉视频直播�

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香蕉视频直播檚 Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

香蕉视频直播淜eep the RCMP in Surrey welcomes today香蕉视频直播檚 decision by Justice Kent ordering the city to amend its Sign Bylaw,香蕉视频直播� Smith told the Now-Leader after the decision was revealed. 香蕉视频直播淭he judge agreed with the petitioners香蕉视频直播� interpretation of the bylaw, confirmed that the bylaw currently bans Keep the RCMP in Surrey signs 香蕉视频直播� and many other arguably 香蕉视频直播減olitical香蕉视频直播� signs 香蕉视频直播� and found that to violate the petitioners香蕉视频直播� Charter rights to freedom of expression.

Smith added that the petitioners 香蕉视频直播渇eel vindicated香蕉视频直播� by Kent香蕉视频直播檚 comment that 香蕉视频直播渃ertain members of Surrey city council have directly targeted them, and the judge香蕉视频直播檚 criticism of the previous resolution banning them from attending council meetings and the lawsuit filed by Surrey against them which started this process.

香蕉视频直播淜eep the RCMP in Surrey believes that no one is above the law,香蕉视频直播� Smith continued. 香蕉视频直播淭he right to criticize government is a fundamental Canadian freedom, and Keep the RCMP in Surrey celebrates today香蕉视频直播檚 decision as a vindication of that principle.香蕉视频直播�

During the trial, Smith argued that 香蕉视频直播渢his is not just political disagreement.

香蕉视频直播淭his isn香蕉视频直播檛 a couple of political adversaries going at it in the normal cut-and-thrust,香蕉视频直播� he told Kent.

香蕉视频直播淎ll they香蕉视频直播檙e trying to do is make it harder for my clients to participate or to voice their views at all,香蕉视频直播� he said of Mayor Doug McCallum and 香蕉视频直播渉is council supporters.香蕉视频直播�

香蕉视频直播淭here香蕉视频直播檚 nothing normal about that. This suppression of political dissent by the government is exactly what the Charter is supposed to help prevent.香蕉视频直播�

Matthew Voell, the lawyer representing the City of Surrey, argued at 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.香蕉视频直播�

He declined to comment Thursday on Kent香蕉视频直播檚 judgment.

香蕉视频直播淚香蕉视频直播檒l pass on making a comment, thank you,香蕉视频直播� Voell told the Now-Leader.

Kent noted in his reasons for judgment that 香蕉视频直播渢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.香蕉视频直播�

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