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 鈥済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鈥� constitutional protection for freedom of, among other things, their political expression.鈥�
Kent found that the ambiguity arises from the amended bylaw definition of a political sign now extending past city, provincial or federal elections 鈥渢o also include political 鈥榠ssues鈥� generally,鈥� with the result of capturing signage related to such things as 鈥淜eep the RCMP in Surrey鈥�, 鈥淪ave the Whales鈥�, 鈥淪top Logging Old Growth Forests鈥�, 鈥淕et Vaccinated鈥� and the like.
鈥淚 deny the substantive relief that the petitioners seek,鈥� he said. 鈥淗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.鈥�
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 鈥渘ot for personal reasons, but in an effort to protect political speech and expression in the City.鈥�
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鈥檚 Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
鈥淜eep the RCMP in Surrey welcomes today鈥檚 decision by Justice Kent ordering the city to amend its Sign Bylaw,鈥� Smith told the Now-Leader after the decision was revealed. 鈥淭he judge agreed with the petitioners鈥� interpretation of the bylaw, confirmed that the bylaw currently bans Keep the RCMP in Surrey signs 鈥� and many other arguably 鈥減olitical鈥� signs 鈥� and found that to violate the petitioners鈥� Charter rights to freedom of expression.
Smith added that the petitioners 鈥渇eel vindicated鈥� by Kent鈥檚 comment that 鈥渃ertain members of Surrey city council have directly targeted them, and the judge鈥檚 criticism of the previous resolution banning them from attending council meetings and the lawsuit filed by Surrey against them which started this process.
鈥淜eep the RCMP in Surrey believes that no one is above the law,鈥� Smith continued. 鈥淭he right to criticize government is a fundamental Canadian freedom, and Keep the RCMP in Surrey celebrates today鈥檚 decision as a vindication of that principle.鈥�
During the trial, Smith argued that 鈥渢his is not just political disagreement.
鈥淭his isn鈥檛 a couple of political adversaries going at it in the normal cut-and-thrust,鈥� he told Kent.
鈥淎ll they鈥檙e trying to do is make it harder for my clients to participate or to voice their views at all,鈥� he said of Mayor Doug McCallum and 鈥渉is council supporters.鈥�
鈥淭here鈥檚 nothing normal about that. This suppression of political dissent by the government is exactly what the Charter is supposed to help prevent.鈥�
Matthew Voell, the lawyer representing the City of Surrey, argued at trial that the contentious bylaw amendments were driven by city staff recommendations, and 鈥渘ot driven by animus, by council, by the mayor.鈥�
鈥淭here was no improper purpose there,鈥� Voell argued. 鈥淭he petition should be dismissed.鈥�
He declined to comment Thursday on Kent鈥檚 judgment.
鈥淚鈥檒l pass on making a comment, thank you,鈥� Voell told the Now-Leader.
Kent noted in his reasons for judgment that 鈥渢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.鈥�
tom.zytaruk@surreynowleader.com
Like us on Follow us on and follow Tom on
