Surrey residents challenging the constitutionality of city bylaw amendments that govern the placement of political signs on private property await a verdict that was reserved after final arguments were heard Wednesday in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver.

香蕉视频直播淚 have no clue when I香蕉视频直播檒l get a judgment to you,香蕉视频直播� Justice Nigel Kent said after adjourning the case. 香蕉视频直播淏ut I will in due course, thank you.香蕉视频直播�

Lawyer Kevin Smith, representing the plaintiffs, argued that the bylaw as amended on Oct. 18, 2021 presents an unconstitutional infringement on their freedom of expression under Canada香蕉视频直播檚 Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

香蕉视频直播淭his is not just political disagreement,香蕉视频直播� Smith told the judge. 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�

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 are challenging 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�

Smith argued the amendments were 香蕉视频直播減art of a continuing pattern of behaviour that discloses animus, bias and various steps by the mayor and his supporters to silence the opposition of the petitioners.香蕉视频直播�

Matthew Voell, the lawyer representing the City of Surrey, argued 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.

香蕉视频直播淭he 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�

Voell told Kent that the constitutional challenge was brought forward for 香蕉视频直播減olitical purposes香蕉视频直播� and 香蕉视频直播渢his is a manufactured dispute.香蕉视频直播�

Meantime, Smith said it香蕉视频直播檚 香蕉视频直播渃rystal clear香蕉视频直播� that no permits 香蕉视频直播渃an be obtained, I suggest both for the public and the private land signs.香蕉视频直播�

香蕉视频直播淣o one, not even the councillors, knows what this bylaw says,香蕉视频直播� he added. 香蕉视频直播淭here is considerable confusion, even within the city.香蕉视频直播�

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