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.

鈥淚 have no clue when I鈥檒l get a judgment to you,鈥� Justice Nigel Kent said after adjourning the case. 鈥淏ut I will in due course, thank you.鈥�

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鈥檚 Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

鈥淭his is not just political disagreement,鈥� Smith told the judge. 鈥淭his isn鈥檛 a couple of political adversaries going at it in the normal cut-and-thrust.

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�

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 鈥渘ot for personal reasons, but in an effort to protect political speech and expression in the City.鈥�

Smith argued the amendments were 鈥減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.鈥�

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

鈥淭he petitioners appear to want change in the city 鈥� they can effect change at the ballot box.鈥�

Voell told Kent that the constitutional challenge was brought forward for 鈥減olitical purposes鈥� and 鈥渢his is a manufactured dispute.鈥�

Meantime, Smith said it鈥檚 鈥渃rystal clear鈥� that no permits 鈥渃an be obtained, I suggest both for the public and the private land signs.鈥�

鈥淣o one, not even the councillors, knows what this bylaw says,鈥� he added. 鈥淭here is considerable confusion, even within the city.鈥�

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