top of page
Writer's pictureEngage Barrie

Community Legal Clinic Reminds City of Law Re: Evicting Encampments

The Community Legal Clinic of York Region has once again sent a letter to the City of Barrie, reminding them of the laws around evicting homeless encampments, and urges them to rescind their eviction notice


(Edited to add: the Berczy Park eviction did not take place on the 6th, but could still take place any day - there has been no rescinding of the notice)



The Community Legal Clinic of York Region has been paying attention to the City of Barrie ever since the Anti-Homelessness Motions last year - once again, they are reminding the Mayor and City of the Human Rights Law surrounding encampments.


The text of the letter will appear below the jpegs:



Text of above letter:

September 4, 2024


Mayor & Council

City of Barrie

City Hall

70 Collier Street

Barrie, ON L4M 475


Dear Mayor and Councillors,


Re: Proposed Eviction of Residents of Homeless Encampment this Friday


This is further to our letters to you of May 7, 2024 and August 14, 2024 (delivered through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario) attached.


We are responding to quotes attributed to the City of Barrie in a statement by Dawn McAlpine referred to in a story dated September 3, 2024 in Barrie Today and elsewhere. It is our understanding that the City intends to carry out encampment evictions this Friday, in accordance with Notices of Action Required served yesterday and giving a deadline of 10:30 Friday September 6th.


These statements include:


"Until recently, the city's authority to evict individuals from encampments has been limited due to the lack of available shelter space in the County of Simcoe's shelter system. ...


In light of the availability of shelter space and offers of shelter spaces being extended, the city is now in a position to enforce the parks use bylaw's prohibition on camping."


With the greatest respect, you know these statements to be untrue, and that Ontario law prohibits the eviction of encampment dwellers from public land unless "truly accessible" accommodation has been offered to them. "Truly accessible" requires considerably more than a shelter bed.


We would strongly urge you to comply with Ontario law and not attempt to evict encampment residents as apparently planned.


Ontario Law:


The leading Ontario cases are Waterloo and Kingston. Justice Michael Valente held, in the Waterloo case, for example, that:


[93] Furthermore, I accept that it is simply not a matter of counting the number of [shelter] spaces. To be of any real value to the homeless population, the space must meet their diverse needs, or in other words, the spaces must be truly accessible. If the available spaces are impractical for homeless individuals, either because the shelters do not accommodate couples, are unable to provide required services, impose rules that cannot be followed due to addictions, or cannot accommodate mental or physical disability, they are not low barrier and accessible to the individuals they are meant to serve.


Although not binding on me, I adopt and follow the decisions of the British Columbia Supreme Court in Shantz, Prince George (City) v. Stewart, 2021 BCSC 2089, 57 B.C.L.R. (6th) 118 [Stewart], and Bamberger, all of which hold that in order for the shelter spaces to be truly available, they must in fact be low barrier or accessible to accommodate the homeless population.


The Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. Persons Unknown and to be Ascertained, 2023 ONSC 670


Justice lan Carter, in the Kingston case, in striking down a bylaw substantially similar to Barrie's Nuisance and Parks Use bylaws, held that:


[130] It is no answer, in my view, to suggest that all shelter beds be "low barrier". The homeless population is not homogeneous. Their needs are diverse


[131] In other words, there is not one type of shelter that can be built that would be truly "accessible" to the entire homeless population.


[132] In addition, such a declaration would essentially place the focus on creating more shelter beds. It is far from clear based on the evidence before me that this is the only, or even most appropriate, solution to the problem. As noted by the Court of Appeal in Adams, it is not just sufficient shelter beds but also appropriate designated areas outside of parks to accommodate the homeless that might affect the constitutionality of the By-law.


The Corporation of the City of Kingston v. Doe, 2023 ONSC


Busby Centre:


With all due respect for the great work of the Busby Centre, they would be the first to acknowledge that they cannot afford to provide accommodation that meets the courts' definition of "truly accessible".


The best measure of whether accommodation is truly accessible is whether the person to whom it is offered takes it. If they do, of course, they don't need to be evicted. If they don't see it as preferable to a tent then it isn't truly accessible to them.


Factors which must be considered in whether accommodation is truly accessible include:


1. Daytime sheltering


Generally, shelters require occupants to leave during the day. People often have no way to transport their belongings, no place to go, and transportation to get to indoor options. If the shelter is full on their return, they might not get in for the night.


2. Permit couples or families


Shelters often can't accommodate opposite sex couples to stay together, and family shelters are often full. Separation causes stress, anxiety and panic in partners who can no longer support and/or protect each other. If separated, one partner may not find shelter space. Often, one partner will stay with the other in an encampment in order to avoid separation.


3. Permit pets


Shelters generally don't permit pets. Pets can be an important source of emotional support for people who are unhoused. The loss of their pets (including the risk of their being put down) can be deeply traumatizing.


4. Substance Use and Harm Reduction Rules


Shelter spaces are often abstinence-based. These structural barriers can lead people with addiction disabilities to resort to staying outside where they can access the support of peers and harm reduction services to stay well and safe. Many shelters do not allow substances to be stored onsite, and some shelters do not even allow harm reduction materials. On the flipside and despite these restrictions, drug use can be rampant in shelters. People who are attempting to maintain sobriety are at risk of relapse if they are at a shelter where drug use takes place.


5. Provide secure accessible place for belongings


Shelters generally have very limited space for belongings. Items like tents, cooking and warmth tools, and clothing can take significant effort to obtain. When people living unhoused have to leave their tents, or their encampments are cleared, they are at high risk of losing all of their hard-won possessions. Given that shelters are routinely full and residents do not often have phones, they must walk with their possessions from shelter to shelter. It is very physically taxing, especially for those with physical disabilities, to spend their days moving their belongings.


6. Service Restrictions


Shelter stays are inherently unpredictable and precarious. Many people can find themselves abruptly evicted onto the street at any time of day and with any weather conditions. Service restrictions (or shelter bans) are often disability related, and can vary in length from hours and days, to years-long bans.

Individuals with mental health and/or substance use disabilities are particularly at risk of being service restricted, as their disability can manifest in disruptive behaviour.


7. Personal safety


Many people have experienced or witnessed violence and threats to personal safety in shelters. Theft is rampant and physical altercations sometimes occur. Shelters are often understaffed and despite best efforts, often can't provide adequate safeguards.


Present Action:


We would once again urge you to await the court's decision in our Hamilton encampment case, scheduled to be heard October 18-19, before taking any action against encampment residents.


We would also encourage you to work with the County to urgently create truly accessible housing, (as cheaply as possible). This is the only lasting solution to getting our ever increasing homeless citizen population out of parks and streets - as the public demands. The best truly accessible accommodation we have seen is tiny cabin villages. As you know, Peterborough, a city much smaller than Barrie, recently installed fifty cabins. Waterloo has two tiny cabin villages in addition to Kitchener's pioneering A Better Tent City. If the County won't co-operate we suggest action against them.


If you are determined to proceed with evicting encampment residents we strongly urge you to show the courts the same respect as was shown by Waterloo Regional Council and Kingston City Council, and first commence an application to obtain court approval for the eviction. (If you do not do so leave will be sought at court to refer to this letter.)


As always, we would be pleased to provide any additional information which may assist you in your deliberations, or to discuss this further with you or your staff.


We strongly urge you not to proceed with evictions this Friday.


Sincerely,


Jeff Schlemmer Executive Director


Sharon Crowe

Director of Legal Services


Community Legal Clinic of York Region

 

Engage Barrie Organization encourages our members and guests to contribute blog posts on a variety of topics that fall under our "equitable, empowered, engaged" umbrella, in the hopes of sharing a variety of perspectives and experiences.

Please be aware that the views and opinions expressed by our blog contributors do not necessarily reflect any official position of Engage Barrie Organization.

0 comments

Comentarios


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page