A local businessman who claimed the District of Sechelt (DOS) illegally targeted him through the removal of his business and anti-referendum signs in 2014 had his day in court last week.
George Goudie, owner of George’s Roof Demossing, said he was glad the day had finally come while entering small claims court in Sechelt on May 12.
Goudie’s lawyer James Mandick painted a picture for presiding Judge D. Moss of a district using its power to intimidate and punish a businessperson for standing in opposition to the district’s plans.
“This is a situation where the District of Sechelt acted like bullies and that ought to be represented in the court’s decision,” Mandick said.
The trial centred on two incidents, one on March 8, 2014 when Goudie’s signs opposing the DOS referendum to borrow $7.4 million for a wastewater treatment plant were seized by the DOS, and one on July 10, 2014 when his business signs were removed and destroyed following his appearance at a council meeting to oppose a bylaw change that would have allowed then mayor John Henderson to ride his Segway in parks and on trails.
The DOS lawyer, Sara Dubinsky of Lidstone & Company, argued the referendum signs were taken down due to a mistaken reading of the law on March 8, 2014 by presiding election officer Margi Nicholas. Nicholas testified that she was called by then chief of innovation and growth Ron Buchhorn on referendum day and asked if some anti-referendum signs he saw at the cenotaph could be removed.
Nicholas said that after a “quick read” of the Local Government Act pertaining to election advertising she decided they were in contravention of the act and could be removed.
At her order, about seven of Goudie’s signs were taken down by DOS superintendent of parks and works John Mercer on the morning of March 8, 2014.
Later that day Nicholas said she realized she “made a mistake,” after talking with legal counsel and discovering the signs were allowed as long as they were more than 100 metres from a polling station.
Nicholas returned the signs to Goudie at about 3:30 p.m., but Goudie said he had been drinking and could not put the signs back up before the polls closed that evening.
Dubinsky noted the July 10, 2014 removal of signs was appropriate because, in her opinion, the signs were in contravention of the DOS sign bylaw.
The sign bylaw states that contractor signs must be taken down after work is substantially finished. However, Goudie argued his work is not substantially finished until there is no visible moss left on a roof, which can take months depending on the severity and number of times anti-moss spray needs to be applied.
Mandick called three witnesses to the stand to make Goudie’s case, including Goudie himself, Sechelt councillor Alice Lutes and Marc Nixon, who was with Goudie on referendum day and at the council meeting the day before his signs were seized in July.
Lutes testified that council had a discussion about Goudie’s anti-referendum signs before the referendum, after a closed meeting, in which she said Nicholas was present.
“I don’t remember word for word. I do know there was a discussion around whether it was legal for the signs to be up at all, and the corporate officer at the time, Ms. Nicholas, said that it was legal that they be removed,” Lutes said.
“It was my understanding that staff had been directed to remove his [Goudie’s] signs the next day.”
Lutes said she then contacted Goudie to alert him to the plan.
When Nicholas was asked if she was aware of Goudie’s campaign against the referendum before the morning of March 8, 2014, she said no.
On the removal of several of Goudie’s business signs in July of 2014, DOS witness, bylaw enforcement officer Greg Horning, testified that he had been working with Goudie to ensure his business signs were being placed appropriately in the months following the referendum incident.
While Horning was away on holidays, however, several of Goudie’s signs “were removed from property and destroyed,” he said, adding: “I guess the relationship between the District of Sechelt and Mr. Goudie had eroded.”
Goudie’s business signs were removed by DOS bylaw officer Jane Bowers and Buchhorn on July 10 after Buchhorn made a complaint about the number of Goudie’s signs in the district and how long they had been up, Bowers said.
She could not produce other documented complaints against Goudie’s signs but said that once a complaint is made by the public or by staff, bylaw enforcement officers must act.
Goudie’s notice of claim asked the court for a total of $25,236 for damages due to the two sign seizure incidents. He said signs removed in March were worth $1,000, that signs removed in July were worth $1,600, that he lost $15,000 due to his business signs being taken down “during one of the busiest times of year,” that he wanted $2,500 for legal fees and $4,900 for lost freedom of speech, stress and aggravation. Goudie also asked for reimbursement of $236 for fees related to filing the claim.
Dubinsky said Goudie deserved no money for the seizure of referendum related signs because the signs were returned and could have been put back up after 3:30 p.m., that Goudie refused to provide invoices for his signs or the lost work he claimed so there was no proof of what was allegedly owed, and that legal fees were not allowed to be claimed in the case.
She also said provincial small claims court does not have jurisdiction in respect to freedom of speech and suggested the entire claim be dismissed by the judge.
Dubinsky spent much of her time at the conclusion of the trial citing other cases that supported her arguments.
Mandick used his time to reiterate that he felt Goudie “was clearly targeted by the District of Sechelt.”
He also asked the court to accept the testimony of Lutes over Nicholas that said Nicholas was present at the meeting discussing Goudie’s anti-referendum signs before referendum day.
“Alice Lutes in this matter is the hero in my respectful submission. She was the one who went against the regime and actually warned Mr. Goudie. Her evidence is contrary to the evidence of Margi Nicholas regarding the way Ms. Nicholas became aware of the signs and the issue regarding the signs,” he said.
The trial was heard by Judge Moss over two days; however, Moss reserved his judgment at the end, saying it was not appropriate to provide a decision immediately after the trial’s conclusion.
He said he would provide his written reasoning as soon as possible.
No judgment was released as of press time this week.
