A B.C. Supreme Court judge has awarded a group of Surrey residents ordinary costs for court proceedings in their 2022 court fight against the City of Surrey over the constitutionality of its signs bylaw, but he declined to grant the petitionersB次元官网网址� application for special costs.

B次元官网网址淚 am simply not persuaded that this dispute transcended partisan politics and personal animus or that it was not possible to pursue the litigation with private funding,B次元官网网址� Justice Nigel Kent concluded.

B次元官网网址淧rincipally,B次元官网网址� he decided, B次元官网网址渢his is not a truly B次元官网网址榚xceptionalB次元官网网址� matter of public interest.B次元官网网址�

Kent rendered his decision in Vancouver on Oct. 20, related to Kaps v. Surrey (City). The petitioners were Annie Kaps, Debi Johnstone, Colin Pronger, Ivan Scott, Merle Scott, and Linda Ypenburg, all members of Keep the RCMP in Surrey.

The six residents in 2022 challenged the constitutionality of amendments to a City of Surrey bylaw which were approved in 2021, arguing they prohibited displaying political signs on private property.

Following the trial in Vancouver in 2022, Kent ordered the city to amend the B次元官网网址減oorly draftedB次元官网网址� amendments to the bylaw to eliminate ambiguity which he found arose from the definition of a political sign extending past city, provincial or federal elections B次元官网网址渢o also include political B次元官网网址榠ssuesB次元官网网址� generally,B次元官网网址� with the result of capturing signage related to such things as B次元官网网址淜eep the RCMP in SurreyB次元官网网址�, B次元官网网址淪ave the WhalesB次元官网网址�, B次元官网网址淪top Logging Old Growth ForestsB次元官网网址�, B次元官网网址淕et VaccinatedB次元官网网址� and the like.

During the trial lawyer Kevin Smith, representing the plaintiffs, argued that the bylaw as amended on Oct. 18, 2021 presented an unconstitutional infringement on the petitionersB次元官网网址� freedom of expression under CanadaB次元官网网址檚 Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Smith argued that the mayor at the time B次元官网网址� Doug McCallum B次元官网网址� and his supporters aimed to B次元官网网址渟ilence the opposition of the petitioners.B次元官网网址�

Matthew Voell, the lawyer representing the City of Surrey, argued during the 2022 trial that the contentious bylaw amendments were driven by city staff recommendations, and B次元官网网址渘ot driven by animus, by council, by the mayor.B次元官网网址�

B次元官网网址淭here was no improper purpose there,B次元官网网址� Voell argued. B次元官网网址淭he petition should be dismissed. The petitioners appear to want change in the city B次元官网网址� they can effect change at the ballot box.B次元官网网址�

At trial, the petitioners 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.

B次元官网网址淚 deny the substantive relief that the petitioners seek,B次元官网网址� Kent declared at the end of that trial. B次元官网网址淗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.B次元官网网址�

Kent noted in his subsequent related to awarding costs that the Supreme Court of Canada decided special costs should be awarded in the context of public interest only when certain conditions are met.

B次元官网网址淔irst, the case must involve matters of public interest that are truly exceptional. It is not enough that the issues raised have not previously been resolved or that they transcend the individual interests of the successful litigant: they must also have a significant and widespread societal impact,B次元官网网址� the judge noted.

B次元官网网址淪econd, in addition to showing that they have no personal, proprietary or pecuniary interest in the litigation that would justify the proceedings on economic grounds, the plaintiffs must show that it would not have been possible to effectively pursue the litigation in question with private funding. In those rare cases, it will be contrary to the interests of justice to ask the individual litigants (or, more likely, pro bono counsel) to bear the majority of the financial burden associated with pursuing the claim,B次元官网网址� he added.

Kent said he found no basis in which the City of SurreyB次元官网网址檚 conduct could be said to have engaged a public interestB次元官网网址攎uch less an B次元官网网址渆xceptionalB次元官网网址� public interest B次元官网网址� that had B次元官网网址渁 B次元官网网址榮ignificant and widespread societal impactB次元官网网址� outside of this local political context.B次元官网网址�

Kent accepted the cityB次元官网网址檚 B次元官网网址渂enign intent of the bylaw amendmentsB次元官网网址� and found the petitionersB次元官网网址� claims of B次元官网网址渂ad faith or an improper purposeB次元官网网址� hadnB次元官网网址檛 been proven in this B次元官网网址渞ather unusualB次元官网网址� case.

While the city B次元官网网址渨as clearly not the successful party in this proceeding,B次元官网网址� the judge noted, the petitioners had B次元官网网址渁ppropriately sought judicial review of the Surrey Sign By-law amendments in the circumstances and obtained a remedy, albeit one that neither party anticipatedB次元官网网址� and were B次元官网网址渢hus the substantially successful litigants and are entitled to costs of the proceeding.B次元官网网址�