Surrey policing feud hits the courts

Bad blood between the City of Surrey and the province was on display Monday as a contentious hearing over the future of policing in the city kicked off in B.C. Supreme Court.

As opening arguments began at a judicial review of Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth's refusal to allow Surrey to reverse course on a switch from the RCMP to a municipal force, a lawyer for the province told the judge there is no love lost between the two sides.

"There's a fair amount of mistrust between our clients," Trevor Bant told Justice Kevin Loo — stressing that the lawyers in the case all got along well.

But even that seemed in doubt a short time later, as Bant stood to accuse City of Surrey lawyer Craig Dennis of introducing new grounds of argument into the city's case at the last minute.

Measures to 'impose' municipal police

Bant's objection followed an outline of arguments the city hopes will convince Loo to both overturn Farnworth's order and void recent amendments to B.C.'s Police Act mandating a municipal force in Surrey.

At issue are measures Dennis said the province has taken to "impose on the City of Surrey and Surrey taxpayers a municipal police department" that will increase the annual cost of policing by at least $75 million — a hike of about 46 per cent.

He said the province has provided no funding to help with the switch — withdrawing an offer of $150 million — and accused Farnworth of violating B.C.'s Community Charter, which says the province can't assign responsibilities to cities "unless there are provisions of resources."

Dennis also accused the province of undermining the democratic will of Surrey voters who showed up to the polls twice to elect a city council who promised to stick with the RCMP. 

"There's never been any suggestion that Surrey through the RCMP is not fulfilling its obligations," the lawyer told the judge.

'Pulled the rug out'

The hearing is taking place in a courtroom with only a couple of dozen seats for members of the public to watch. Surrey Mayor Brenda Locke and several of her councillors attended the first day of arguments, as did Surrey's city manager.

The hearing began with provincial lawyer Bant asking the judge for a sealing order to keep parts of the documents filed in the case out of public view.

Loo reserved his decision on Bant's request until Tuesday. He appeared receptive to redacting information that might compromise safety by giving away staffing and enforcement numbers.

But Bant and Dennis sparred over other information in the documents that Dennis said the ministry was keeping private from both the judge and the city.

The battle over policing in Surrey dates back to 2018, when former mayor Doug McCallum was elected on a promise to switch to a municipal force.

Locke was elected in 2022 after a campaign in which retaining the RCMP was a central issue.

Dennis claimed Locke and Premier David Eby had reached a deal to proceed, but that Farnworth then "pulled the rug out" from under Surrey voters in July 2023 by concluding that a switch back to the RCMP would endanger public safety.

'They treat Surrey different'

In arguments filed ahead of the court proceeding, Farnworth claims the transition is already underway, with hundreds of Surrey Police Service officers gradually moving into roles previously occupied by RCMP officers.

The province fears a return to the RCMP could throw Surrey into a policing void if newly hired municipal officers leave en masse once it becomes clear their jobs are doomed. And pulling RCMP officers from other jurisdictions to fill the gaps could create problems elsewhere.

Dennis also faulted Farnworth for amending the Police Act to include clauses that say Surrey must have a municipal force.

"They were introduced one business day after this petition was filed and they are targeted at Surrey and they treat Surrey different from every other municipality in the province of British Columbia," Dennis said.

The City of Surrey plans to make a constitutional argument accusing the province of denying Surrey voters their right to freedom of expression through the ballot box.

But Dennis told the judge the case wasn't just about politicians breaking promises, but rather about one level of government taking action to "nullify" the mandate given to another level of government by voters to act on their behalf.

The hearing is expected to last all week.