An Ontario Superior Courtroom decide has dominated the Metropolis of Hamilton didn’t infringe on encampment residents’ Constitution rights when imposing its bylaw that banned tents from parks.
Justice James Ramsey sided with town Monday in a scathing rebuke of encampments, following a three-day listening to final week.
He wrote in his 15-page resolution that town is looking for an answer to homelessness with restricted assets, not exhibiting “a disregard” for Constitution rights, and must be left to take action with out “micro-management by judges.”
“The general public is mostly sympathetic to the homeless, however it tires of seeing its public areas appropriated by lawless, unsanitary encampments,” he wrote. “There must be a steadiness, and the democratic course of is greatest geared up to realize that steadiness.”
Fourteen candidates, who’ve all skilled homelessness, have been in search of a complete of $445,000 from town for evicting them from parks between August 2021 and 2023.
Their legal professionals, on behalf of the Hamilton Neighborhood Authorized Clinic, argued town’s encampment ban (in place till final summer time) violated their proper to life, liberty and safety, and was discriminatory as girls, individuals with disabilities and Indigenous individuals have been disproportionately impacted.
‘Lawless, harmful and unsanitary’
The town denied any Constitution breaches and argued shutting encampments down is important to guard parks, property, financial and social wellbeing, and group well being and security.
Its legal professionals stated the ban did not immediately hurt any individuals experiencing homelessness.
Whereas Ramsey acknowledged the court docket gives safety to society’s most susceptible that does not essentially imply solely people who find themselves unhoused.
“I observe that probably the most susceptible consists of not solely the homeless but in addition the aged particular person and the kid who wish to use a sidewalk or a metropolis park with out tiptoeing by used needles and human faeces,” he stated.
A serious argument made efficiently by town was that it did not evict encampment residents at evening — solely throughout the day, Ramsey stated. It due to this fact did not cease individuals from creating shelter — within the type of tents — when indoor shelters have been full.
He famous most indoor shelters additionally require individuals to maneuver out each morning.
Ramsey additionally accepted proof from medical specialists that there are well being dangers related to encampments to each residents and the general public.
Attorneys with the authorized clinic advised the court docket final week encampments residents confronted elevated dangers of hypothermia, dehydration and sexual and bodily assault, and misplaced entry to privateness, medical care and important objects they’d in any other case have in the event that they have been allowed to pitch tents.
In his resolution, Ramsey stated enforcement of the bylaw is not what’s placing their life, liberty and safety in danger, nonetheless.
“They’re put in danger by homelessness. Encampments contribute to this threat. They’re lawless, harmful and unsanitary.”
Source link