The Ontario Superior Court considered whether the City of Hamilton's enforcement of by-laws prohibiting encampments in public spaces violated the section 7 Charter rights of unhoused residents in circumstances where shelter capacity was inadequate.
Background
Following Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v Persons Unknown, applicants argued that municipal removal orders interfered with life, liberty, and security of the person. SRAC intervened to argue that the analysis must take account of Canada's obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
SRAC's intervention
SRAC's factum addressed three points: (1) that adequacy of alternative shelter must be assessed against international standards of dignity and habitability; (2) that the principles of fundamental justice include a right to be free from forced displacement absent meaningful alternatives; and (3) that systemic remedies, including supervisory declarations, are appropriate where rights violations are persistent and structural.
Decision
The Court accepted that section 7 is engaged by encampment removals where alternative shelter is unavailable, and adopted reasoning closely tracking Victoria (City) v Adams and Abbotsford (City) v Shantz. The Court also accepted that international human rights law informs the analysis, citing the Special Rapporteur on the right to housing.
Significance
Heegsma is among the most thorough recent applications of the Adams framework to a contemporary urban context, and is likely to be cited in pending challenges in Toronto, Kitchener, and Kingston.