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鈥檚 a test case which, if the City of Surrey鈥檚 petition to the court is successful, will have serious ramifications for democracy at the civic level in Canada.
鈥淚t鈥檚 an outrageous overkill,鈥� Bose told the Now-Leader. 鈥淲hat have these seven senior citizens done? They鈥檝e done absolutely nothing; they鈥檙e being accused of all kinds of things.鈥�
鈥淭his thing is totally out of hand,鈥� he said. 鈥淚 understand for the seven to respond, they would incur tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs. Nobody鈥檚 going to do it pro bono.鈥�
鈥淚n my opinion this is a test case that deals with the powers of council to prohibit participation. It鈥檚 draconian,鈥� Bose said. 鈥淭he respondents need to have legal representation. It鈥檚 far more than a case where I鈥檓 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鈥檚 a serious matter and it needs to be seriously adjudicated.鈥�
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 鈥渇rom physically attending City of Surrey Council and Committee meetings in person, until Council determines otherwise鈥︹��
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.
鈥淭he respondents are regularly opposed to the policy decisions of the City鈥檚 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,鈥� the petition states, and alleges that 鈥渙n numerous occasions, the political opposition of the respondents has exceeded the bounds of respectful opposition.鈥�
Bose argues the City of Surrey has an obligation to indemnify the seven respondents for their legal costs 鈥渋f they鈥檙e serious about expanding the scope of denying citizens participation. This is no ordinary case.鈥�
The Safe Surrey Coalition majority on city council passed a motion during a land use meeting on Sept. 19 designed to 鈥減rotect the democratic process鈥� by banning some speakers from attending public hearings in council chambers and to ensure 鈥渁 safe and respectful environment鈥� for council and staff.
Coun. Brenda Locke, who is seeking election for Surrey mayor in next year鈥檚 election as the Surrey Connect candidate, says she and other councillors were 鈥渂lindsided鈥� by that motion because it also authorized staff to take further steps including seeking court orders.
鈥淚 didn鈥檛 really realize that because we didn鈥檛 have a copy in front of us,鈥� she said. 鈥淎s I said, we were all blindsided.鈥�
Locke said despite researching the issue she has 鈥渘ever 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.鈥�
Coun. Jack Hundial, also of Surrey Connect, called the city鈥檚 petition to the court 鈥渇rankly uncalled for. There鈥檚 no reason to do this and it鈥檚 just another huge black eye for the city, the city doesn鈥檛 need it. I think a huge overreach by government. Really, people鈥檚 rights a freedoms.鈥�
Mayor Doug McCallum could not be reached for comment. Coun. Doug Elford, of the Safe Surrey Coalition, said Friday said he鈥檚 鈥渘ot quite sure鈥� what precipitated the court petition beyond the original council resolution. 鈥淚 have put a call into legal right now, waiting for a call back,鈥� he said. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 have answer for you right now. I鈥檝e got my feelers out on this to find out what precipitated the reasoning for it, and that鈥檚 where we鈥檙e at.鈥�
Ivan Scott, one of the seven respondents, said Friday he hadn鈥檛 been served yet. Fighting the petition will no doubt be costly, he said.
鈥淭his is just another typical way that he鈥檚 trying to intimidate us, bully us and try and shut us down and restrict any type of resistance to anything he does,鈥� Scott said of the mayor, 鈥渁nd especially the Keep the RCMP in Surrey campaign.鈥�
Scott hopes a lawyer might take on their case pro bono considering it鈥檚 鈥渁bsolutely in the public interest.鈥�
鈥淲e鈥檙e just a group of volunteers here,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hey should indemnify us if they鈥檙e 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.鈥�
鈥淚f there was somebody who is interested in us and looking at this as a pro bono, we鈥檇 happily talk to him,鈥� Scott said.
tom.zytaruk@surreynowleader.com
Like us on Follow us on and follow Tom on
