Sechelt resident George Goudie is suing the District for $25,236 for the alleged wrongful removal of signs he put up during the referendum in March and the seizure and disposal of his personal business signs in July.
Goudie’s notice of claim was filed in small claims court on Sept. 4 by his lawyer James W. Mandick.
Goudie alleges the District wrongfully removed 20 of his signs urging residents to vote no during the March 8 referendum on borrowing $7.4 million for Sechelt’s new sewage treatment plant.
The signs were taken by the District in the morning but later returned to Goudie at around 3:30 p.m. on voting day.
At the time they were seized, director of corporate services Margi Nicholas said she believed the signs were unlawful; however, she later changed her mind.
“It wasn’t clear whether they should or should not be [allowed], and in my interpretation, I initially thought it was more indicative they should not be there because they met the definition of election advertising in the Local Government Act. However, taking the legislation as a whole, I made a decision that it was not prescriptive enough and allowed them to go back up,” Nicholas told Coast Reporter at the time.
Goudie’s claim also alleges that following the incident in March eight or more signs for his personal business, George’s Roof Demossing, were seized and disposed of by the District “without colour of right.”
The claim alleges his signs did not violate Sechelt’s bylaws as they were situated on private property and put up only for the duration of the work being done.
Goudie said he wanted to have the issue put on a council agenda (by way of a letter) to seek some resolution from council, but he was refused, so he “went this route instead.”
Nicholas told Coast Reporter this week that Goudie’s letter could not be put on a council agenda due to Sechelt’s council correspondence policy which states correspondence regarding possible litigation must be “transferred to the appropriate department for further action.”
She noted the District was “not aware that Mr. Goudie’s claim is before the courts,” adding, “Mr. Goudie’s claim, as with all reports of claims or incidents filed with the District, has been referred to the District’s municipal insurance agency.”
She did note that the District believes Goudie’s signs “were lawfully removed” and said, “the District will not be providing a letter of apology or payment.”
Goudie said that while he wants to be paid for the loss of his signs and potential loss of business, a public apology “is important because it’s embarrassing to me. They are talking to my customers and making it look like I’m doing something wrong.”
He said he feels the District is “targeting me and my business.”
Nicholas denied the allegation.
“With respect to whether the District is engaged in differential enforcement of its bylaw, in general, councils have complete discretion under municipal law regarding whether and when to enforce their regulatory requirements,” Nicholas said.
