City of London claims covering up a downtown cannabis sign was justified

The city of London is defending its move to paint over a sign promoting a Richmond Row cannabis shop. CTV’s Sean Irvine reports.

The City of London is defending its move to paint over a sign promoting a Richmond Row cannabis shop.

The controversial action has sparked widespread online reaction, with many suggesting the move was an ‘overreach’.

“That’s a little ridiculous. They need a sense of humour,” a woman told CTV News as the sign was being painted over.

The move to cover the sign, which read ‘Your Highness Cannabis’, traces back to actions initiated by the city over three years ago, according to Ali Khan, the owner of the business.

Earlier this week, he spoke to CTV News off-camera about his frustrations with city staff and city councillor Peter Cuddy.

On Friday, he went before the lens with his reaction.

“Well, we’re still trying to digest this. What happened to our mural? We just need to get clarification from the City Council. On what basis did they do that?” he said.

Khan stated he has attended multiple meetings with Cuddy over the past several years. During each session, he was informed that the city planned to paint a more ‘welcoming sign’ over his message, and each time, he verbalized his opposition.

“My question was like, what’s wrong with the mural? Why do you want to take down my mural and put yours up?”

Cuddy has told CTV News the city went through the proper channels before acting.

However, when pressed, he could not explain, in detail, what process gave the city the legal right to paint over the sign.

CTV News asked the Director of Municipal Compliance, Housing, and Community Growth for an answer.

Amanda Pfeffer cited confidentiality, in part, but made it clear the sign was deemed a third-party advertisement that failed to meet both the property standards and signage bylaws.

“In this case, there were a number of bylaw violations under the signs bylaw, but we addressed this under the property standards bylaw, which requires that all exterior surfaces on a building are maintained,” said Pfeffer.

Khan has argued that he recently repainted the sign to meet those demands at a cost of $16,000.

However, what’s also at play is how the sign ended up on the building in the first place.

The city states cite confidentiality but tells CTV News that when it “appeared”, public complaints followed.

However, Khan has his own take.

“I don’t know if there’s a proper approval because it’s a paint job, just like a mural you see anywhere else.”

But Pfeffer disagrees and maintains that the city’s action was justified.

“I can certainly say that I am confident that our team followed the process in this case,” she said.

That process, she added, included proper notification.

As the business is two doors down from where the sign is, Khan wonders if the message on the sign is the real problem. He continues to speak with a lawyer.

Yet, with the sign covered – and the bill for the black paint passed on to the building owner – it may be a moot point.

Still, Khan said all ‘signs’ tell him to keep asking questions.

“I’m not trying to pick a fight with the city or try to fight with anybody. I think it’s just the way they handle it,” said Khan.

“It could be discrimination, or it could be they didn’t know what they were doing, and they just went ahead with it.”