Surrey Connect called the recent victory by a Senior Citizens group over Mayor Doug McCallum’s high handedness an important freedom of expression triumph. Annie Kaps, Ivan Scott, and the other senior citizens won a judgment in the Supreme Court of BC that protects the public’s rights under The Charter of Rights and Freedom, to the free expression of political opinions in Kaps v City of Surrey, 2022 BCSC 1191.

By DESIBUZZCanada Staff

SURREY – Surrey Connect called the recent victory by a Senior Citizens group over Mayor Doug McCallum’s high handedness an important freedom of expression triumph.

Annie Kaps, Ivan Scott, and the other senior citizens won a judgment in the Supreme Court of BC that protects the public’s rights under The Charter of Rights and Freedom, to the free expression of political opinions in Kaps v City of Surrey, 2022 BCSC 1191.

What began as a challenge to amendments to Surrey’s sign bylaw ended in a handful of senior citizens winning the rights, on behalf of all citizens, to freely express their political views on signs placed on their private property. 

“We are all indebted to them for their selfless efforts to protect our democratic rights under the Charter,” said Brenda Lock’s Surrey Connect party in a press release Monday.

Justice Kerr ordered the City to amend its sign bylaw to explicitly permit citizens to erect political signs on their private properties outside the time constraints imposed on election signs.

The chief Justice acknowledged the petitioners were acting in response to the Mayor (McCallum) and his supporters on Council prohibiting their attendance and participation in public meetings of Council, and Council’s further application to the Court to enforce the prohibition.

Council’s actions were unjustified and inflicted costs and injury on a handful of seniors who happen to disagree with them on scrapping the RCMP. 

Council later rescinded the prohibition order, but only after the damage had been done.

The operative clause in the judgment (p 24[88]) reads in part:

             “the City admitted the amendment was not intended 

              banning signs, such as the KTRIS signs, outside the voting period,

              for this reason I have ordered the amendment expressly                

            confirming that intent”

Further, the Court directed the City address the matter of costs, and if agreement can’t be reached, the Court will rule.

There remains one more issue that Council has not yet addressed, and that is the question of a formal apology for the hurt it has inflicted on the seven seniors citizens involved.