More is at stake here than the political drama of a council majority simply striking out at seven Surrey residents by asking a judge to prohibit them from attending council meetings.
Former Surrey mayor Bose Bose says it㽶Ƶֱs a test case which, if the City of Surrey㽶Ƶֱs petition to the court is successful, will have serious ramifications for democracy at the civic level in Canada.
㽶ƵֱIt㽶Ƶֱs an outrageous overkill,㽶Ƶֱ Bose told the Now-Leader. 㽶ƵֱWhat have these seven senior citizens done? They㽶Ƶֱve done absolutely nothing; they㽶Ƶֱre being accused of all kinds of things.㽶Ƶֱ
㽶ƵֱThis thing is totally out of hand,㽶Ƶֱ he said. 㽶ƵֱI understand for the seven to respond, they would incur tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs. Nobody㽶Ƶֱs going to do it pro bono.㽶Ƶֱ
㽶ƵֱIn my opinion this is a test case that deals with the powers of council to prohibit participation. It㽶Ƶֱs draconian,㽶Ƶֱ Bose said. 㽶ƵֱThe respondents need to have legal representation. It㽶Ƶֱs far more than a case where I㽶Ƶֱm putting on a square-foot addition to my house without permits and in violation of a zoning bylaw. For this matter to be fairly adjudicated, the respondents need to respond, and they need to have adequate legal counsel to respond properly. It㽶Ƶֱs a serious matter and it needs to be seriously adjudicated.㽶Ƶֱ
A petition to the court was filed by Lidstone & Company on behalf of the City of Surrey on Oct. 18, at the B.C. Supreme Court registry in Vancouver, asking the court to prohibit seven Surrey residents 㽶Ƶֱfrom physically attending City of Surrey Council and Committee meetings in person, until Council determines otherwise㽶Ƶֱ㽶Ƶֱ
The respondents named in the petition are Annie Kaps, Debbie (Debi) Johnstone, Colin Pronger, Ivan Scott, Merle (Meryl) Scott, Marilyn Smith and Linda Ypenburg. They have 21 days to respond.
㽶ƵֱThe respondents are regularly opposed to the policy decisions of the City㽶Ƶֱs Mayor and Council and have regularly made this opposition known through written correspondence and submissions to Council and City staff, as well as attending and appearing at Council meetings,㽶Ƶֱ the petition states, and alleges that 㽶Ƶֱon numerous occasions, the political opposition of the respondents has exceeded the bounds of respectful opposition.㽶Ƶֱ
Bose argues the City of Surrey has an obligation to indemnify the seven respondents for their legal costs 㽶Ƶֱif they㽶Ƶֱre serious about expanding the scope of denying citizens participation. This is no ordinary case.㽶Ƶֱ
The Safe Surrey Coalition majority on city council passed a motion during a land use meeting on Sept. 19 designed to 㽶Ƶֱprotect the democratic process㽶Ƶֱ by banning some speakers from attending public hearings in council chambers and to ensure 㽶Ƶֱa safe and respectful environment㽶Ƶֱ for council and staff.
Coun. Brenda Locke, who is seeking election for Surrey mayor in next year㽶Ƶֱs election as the Surrey Connect candidate, says she and other councillors were 㽶Ƶֱblindsided㽶Ƶֱ by that motion because it also authorized staff to take further steps including seeking court orders.
㽶ƵֱI didn㽶Ƶֱt really realize that because we didn㽶Ƶֱt have a copy in front of us,㽶Ƶֱ she said. 㽶ƵֱAs I said, we were all blindsided.㽶Ƶֱ
Locke said despite researching the issue she has 㽶Ƶֱnever found a council anywhere in Canada that has done this, so I would assume that there will be a lot of eyes watching to see how this moves forward.㽶Ƶֱ
Coun. Jack Hundial, also of Surrey Connect, called the city㽶Ƶֱs petition to the court 㽶Ƶֱfrankly uncalled for. There㽶Ƶֱs no reason to do this and it㽶Ƶֱs just another huge black eye for the city, the city doesn㽶Ƶֱt need it. I think a huge overreach by government. Really, people㽶Ƶֱs rights a freedoms.㽶Ƶֱ
Mayor Doug McCallum could not be reached for comment. Coun. Doug Elford, of the Safe Surrey Coalition, said Friday said he㽶Ƶֱs 㽶Ƶֱnot quite sure㽶Ƶֱ what precipitated the court petition beyond the original council resolution. 㽶ƵֱI have put a call into legal right now, waiting for a call back,㽶Ƶֱ he said. 㽶ƵֱI don㽶Ƶֱt have answer for you right now. I㽶Ƶֱve got my feelers out on this to find out what precipitated the reasoning for it, and that㽶Ƶֱs where we㽶Ƶֱre at.㽶Ƶֱ
Ivan Scott, one of the seven respondents, said Friday he hadn㽶Ƶֱt been served yet. Fighting the petition will no doubt be costly, he said.
㽶ƵֱThis is just another typical way that he㽶Ƶֱs trying to intimidate us, bully us and try and shut us down and restrict any type of resistance to anything he does,㽶Ƶֱ Scott said of the mayor, 㽶Ƶֱand especially the Keep the RCMP in Surrey campaign.㽶Ƶֱ
Scott hopes a lawyer might take on their case pro bono considering it㽶Ƶֱs 㽶Ƶֱabsolutely in the public interest.㽶Ƶֱ
㽶ƵֱWe㽶Ƶֱre just a group of volunteers here,㽶Ƶֱ he said. 㽶ƵֱThey should indemnify us if they㽶Ƶֱre going to fight their own citizens. In a case like this, they should in actual fact guarantee our legal costs, or stand for them anyway. That should be in the interests of the public. To just nail meal is not really in the interest of the public.㽶Ƶֱ
㽶ƵֱIf there was somebody who is interested in us and looking at this as a pro bono, we㽶Ƶֱd happily talk to him,㽶Ƶֱ Scott said.
tom.zytaruk@surreynowleader.com
Like us on Follow us on and follow Tom on