South Surrey boating couple Karna and Gord Balsillie will have to remove their 40-foot catamaran from Ward’s Marina as a result of a judgment handed down in B.C. Supreme Court in New Westminster on Tuesday.
But the pair vow that they will pursue the matter with the provincial Office of the Ombudsperson, which they previously consulted, claiming the City of Surrey violated its own policies for resolution of conflicts in evicting them from the marina.
In his judgment, Justice Anthony Saunders upheld the City of Surrey’s case that the Elysium has been moored at the marina in breach of city bylaws since the city terminated their moorage contract in September of 2014 – and that it should be removed “forthwith”.
The couple – who had a more than two-decade history at the marina, and have previously been commended by city staff for their helpfulness in assisting other boaters and repairing storm damage – have long maintained city staff gave them no opportunity to resolve alleged breaches of their contract, and that they had been “singled out” for removal from the marina.
But while Saunders heard the couple’s arguments that the city staff had not met with them to resolve the matter, and had not accepted their attempts to pay moorage fees since the contract was cancelled, he told the Balsillies he had little choice under Section 274 of the Community Charter but to rule them in breach of city bylaws in continuing to moor Elysium at the marina.
“As sympathetic as I might be, there is nothing in law that requires the city to give you reasons (for terminating the contract) and nothing that obliges them to give you a contract,” Saunders told the couple, who represented themselves in court.
In support of Surrey’s injunction, assistant city solicitor Benjie Lee had cited case law pertaining to Section 273, including an instance in Osoyoos in which an unauthorized building was removed, even though it had cost some $50,000.
“Once a breach of bylaws is established, my discretion not to grant an injunction is only very limited,” Saunders said.
“The only way the court would have discretion is to establish a hardship, but a hardship is not demonstrated here. What is demonstrated is a nuisance.”
Costs were also judged against the couple, who were visibly angered as they left the courtroom.
“That’s what justice come to in this country,” Karna Balsillie said.
“We might as well have not bothered to come to court,” said Gord Balsillie. “We’ll be taking this to the Ombudsman – that’s our next step.”
“They asked us to come back to them after the court case was over.”