Two broadcasters want the B.C. Supreme Court to throw out a nuisance bylaw in Colwood, saying it's an unconstitutional attempt to regulate Triangle Mountain transmission tower signals.
But the municipality says the towers emit electromagnet radiation and broadcasting signals that interfere with everything from residents' telephones to electronics to garagedoor openers and do constitute a nuisance -something the municipality has the statutory authority to regulate.
CTV and Rogers Broadcasting Ltd., along with Triangle Mountain property owner Constance Christina Gibson, filed a civil claim in B.C. Supreme Court this month seeking to have Colwood's nuisance bylaw on electronic signals -which was passed last February -declared unconstitutional and set aside as null and void.
The broadcasters' statement of claim says: "The subject matter of radiocommunications and broadcasting lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament.
This exclusive jurisdiction includes the location, licensing and regulation of the operations of radio transmitters and the towers on which they are located."
When contacted, Scott Henderson, CTV vice-president communications, issued the following statement on behalf of Rogers and CTV: "The bylaw enacted by the City of Colwood is beyond the powers of the municipality. It has the effect of regulating the operation of radio broadcasting towers, a regulatory right that lies solely within the jurisdiction of Industry Canada.
"Our towers have always been, and will continue to be, operated in compliance with all statutory and regulatory permits and licences, including those set by Industry Canada. Additionally, the site has been designed, constructed and maintained to meet Safety Code 6 standards set by Health Canada."
The city maintains the bylaw "is not directed to the regulation of radio communications, but to nuisances," according to its response to civil claim filed this week
The bylaw states: "No person shall permit telecommunications equipment on their property be used, knowingly or unknowingly, in a manner that interferes with a person's reasonable use, security and enjoyment of his/her land.
"No person shall allow electronic signals to emanate from his property that interfere with the operation of another person's electronic equipment."
The city says the bylaw was enacted specifically for the purpose of preventing nuisance -something within its powers under the Community Charter.
Neither the statements in the notice of claim nor the city's response have been proven in court.
Colwood chief administrative officer Ross McPhee said there has been no attempt by the municipality to enforce the bylaw.
Mayor David Saunders said he was not fully briefed on the civil suit and could not comment.
Two Colwood councillors, both members of the municipality's EMR (electromagnetic radiation) Transmitters Task Force, expressed frustration that they had not even been briefed on the situation.
Councillors Ernie Robertson and Brian Tucknott said they have been kept in the dark, which, they said, is typical of the municipality's over-secretive manner of conducting business.
"I feel that my role as an elected official has been totally circumvented by unelected people. How can I be accountable to my constituents if I'm not in the know?" Robertson said.
"This is the culture that pervades the way information is communicated to council today. So many things are being done in camera, so many things are being done in a way that doesn't meet the test of public input and council involvement. Decisions are being made in the office and not in the council chamber, and that is of serious concern to me." bcleverley@timescolonist.com
