In recent years, Canadian cities have grappled with a rise in homeless encampments, bringing public safety concerns and legal challenges into the spotlight. The issue gained traction as Alex Nuttall, mayor of Barrie, Ontario, called for provincial and federal governments to step up and address the growing number of encampments and the accompanying crime and disorder. But as encampments continue to proliferate across urban landscapes, a critical question arises: Who should take the lead in solving this crisis? Municipal governments? Provincial bodies? Or does the responsibility lie with federal leadership?
The answer isn’t as straightforward as it may seem. Encampments, homelessness, and public safety are intertwined in complex ways, and the solutions require a nuanced approach that balances the rights of unhoused individuals with the needs of broader communities.
The Rise of Homelessness in Canada
Homelessness in Canada has been steadily increasing for over two decades, exacerbated by a lack of affordable housing and cuts to social housing investments dating back to the 1990s. Today, an estimated 200,000 Canadians experience homelessness each year. A 2020 report found that on any given night, over 25,000 people were homeless in 61 communities across the country, a 14% increase since 2016. Vancouver, home to some of Canada’s most unaffordable real estate, has felt the impact acutely, with the 2019 Homeless Count identifying 2,223 unhoused individuals.
The situation is particularly stark in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside (DTES), which has seen a series of homeless encampments since 2016. These encampments have moved from one empty lot or park to another, highlighting the city’s ongoing struggle to find long-term housing solutions. As the epicentre of homelessness in Vancouver, the DTES reflects the broader challenges facing cities across the country.
Are Tent Cities Community or Crisis?
Encampments like Vancouver’s Oppenheimer Park and Strathcona Park tent cities have attracted significant attention. While some residents of these camps argue that living in a community provides greater safety than being unhoused alone, others have highlighted the serious safety concerns within the camps themselves. Violent crimes, including homicides and sexual assaults, have been reported, casting doubt on whether encampments truly offer a safe environment. Additionally, nearby residents and businesses have expressed frustration with the impact on their neighbourhoods, citing increased crime, open drug use, and the inability to use public spaces.
From a legal standpoint, the response to encampments has been inconsistent. Municipalities are tasked with enforcing local bylaws related to public spaces and safety, often leading to the removal of encampments. But as these camps have grown in size and frequency, the courts have increasingly become involved in determining whether such evictions are lawful.
Courts Take the Lead
In Canada, courts—not legislatures—have set the standard for what is permissible when it comes to encampment evictions. The 2009 Adams case remains a key precedent, with a provincial court of appeal ruling that bylaws restricting encampments in parks are constitutional only if adequate shelter spaces are available for all residents. This decision places the onus on municipalities to ensure that shelter space matches the number of individuals living in the encampments. But the definition of “adequate” shelter is evolving.
In 2022, a landmark Canadian court decision shifted the focus from the mere availability of shelter spaces to their suitability. The ruling underscored that shelters must meet basic standards of fairness and adequacy for encampment residents, a significant shift that has prompted cities to reconsider their eviction practices. This judicial review acknowledged the human rights of unhoused individuals, asserting that they deserve dignified treatment—even in eviction processes.
However, while court decisions set legal precedents, they do little to address the broader systemic issues that lead to homelessness in the first place. Many advocates argue that governments at all levels must stop relying on the courts to craft de facto legislation and instead take proactive measures to solve the housing crisis.
Public Safety vs. Human Rights
Mayor Nuttall’s comments reflect a growing frustration among many municipal leaders. He argues that inaction on encampments has led to unsafe conditions in public parks, prioritizing the needs of unhoused individuals over the rights of children and families to use those spaces safely. Nuttall’s calls for reform include allowing police officers to arrest people for repeat trespassing and developing alternative treatment plans for addicts. His remarks highlight the growing tension between maintaining public safety and respecting the rights of homeless individuals, a debate that continues to divide Canadians.
The situation in Vancouver’s DTES illustrates the complexity of this balancing act. Encampments have been both a lifeline for some and a source of danger for others. While local residents of the DTES argue that the tent cities provide a stronger sense of community and protection, the reality is that these makeshift settlements also expose individuals to significant risks. The area has seen an uptick in violent crimes, drug overdoses, and a general decline in public order—issues that resonate with concerns expressed by leaders like Nuttall.
That said, there are no official studies to date confirming a consistent connection between homeless encampments and a rise in violent crimes, drug overdoses, and a general decline in public order. While concerns about public safety and unruly behavior are often raised in discussions around encampments, hard data linking these issues directly to tent cities remains scarce. This gap in research leaves room for debate over whether encampments are the cause of these problems or simply a visible symptom of deeper, systemic issues.
Encampments and the Law
The current legal framework, based largely on court rulings, leaves municipal governments in a difficult position. They must balance the constitutional rights of unhoused individuals with the need to maintain public safety and order. At the heart of this challenge is the question of whether municipalities have the resources and authority to address the root causes of homelessness.
Some have called for the use of the “notwithstanding clause,” a controversial provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allows governments to override certain Charter rights temporarily. This would give municipalities greater flexibility in enforcing bylaws and evicting encampments. However, critics argue that invoking the notwithstanding clause could further marginalize vulnerable populations and exacerbate the housing crisis.
Rather than focusing solely on evictions and enforcement, many advocates push for long-term solutions that address the root causes of homelessness, such as affordable housing, mental health services, and addiction treatment. In this view, governments should prioritize investments in permanent housing solutions and integrated social services, rather than relying on emergency shelters and encampment evictions.
The CRAB Park Precedent
While different levels of government continue to pass the buck on who is responsible for managing encampments, unique legal precedents are emerging, with the CRAB Park case in Vancouver standing out. CRAB Park, although located on federal land owned by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, is managed by the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation. Its location on federal land is significant because of the federal government’s recognition of the right to housing, enshrined in the National Housing Strategy Act (NHS Act), which came into force in 2019. Section 4 of the NHS Act recognizes housing as a fundamental human right and commits to the progressive realization of this right, as recognized in international law, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The conflict over CRAB Park is emblematic of broader tensions between local authorities, Indigenous advocates, and encampment residents. Indigenous rights have played a pivotal role in the case, with advocates arguing that forced removals from encampments, such as the CRAB Park camp, contravene reconciliation efforts and violate the right of Indigenous peoples to free, prior, and informed consent under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Indigenous groups, such as the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, have vocally opposed the forced decampment of Indigenous people from CRAB Park, highlighting that it undermines both human rights and Canada’s commitment to reconciliation.
In 2020, a court ruling sided with the Vancouver Port Authority, which sought an injunction to remove encampments from its lands, arguing that these lands were “private property” and not meant for public use. While the court ruled in favor of the Port Authority based on its regulations, the case also set a precedent for procedural fairness in encampment cases. Encampment residents brought a judicial review of the Parks Board’s decision to prohibit overnight sheltering in CRAB Park, and the court ruled that this decision was unreasonable. The court noted that the General Manager of the Parks Board did not provide adequate evidence that sufficient and appropriate shelter options were available for residents, thus violating their right to procedural fairness.
Although the ruling did not directly engage with the NHS Act’s recognition of the right to housing or the obligations under UNDRIP, it reinforced the idea that administrative decision-makers must treat encampment residents fairly, considering their circumstances. The CRAB Park case has already had a lasting impact on how courts handle issues involving encampments and the rights of unhoused individuals, especially in relation to government transparency and the use of procedural safeguards. Going forward, the case emphasizes the need for meaningful consultation with Indigenous communities and stronger adherence to human rights commitments when addressing homelessness and encampments on public and federal lands.
Charting a Path Forward
As the debate over encampments and public safety continues, one thing is clear: inaction is not an option. Homelessness is not going away, and temporary solutions like emergency shelters and tent cities are insufficient to address the scale of the crisis.
Municipal governments are often on the front lines, managing public safety and enforcing bylaws, but they are increasingly calling for help from higher levels of government. The legal landscape is also evolving, with courts recognizing the human rights of encampment residents and demanding more than just blanket eviction orders. Canada’s homelessness crisis requires a coordinated, multi-level response. Municipalities cannot—and should not—shoulder the burden alone. Provincial and federal governments must step in with funding and policy solutions that prioritize affordable housing and supportive services. At the same time, municipalities need greater clarity on their role in managing encampments and enforcing bylaws, while ensuring that the rights of unhoused individuals are respected.
In the end, the solution to Canada’s homelessness crisis lies in finding a balance—one that upholds human dignity while ensuring the safety and well-being of all citizens. This balance must be struck not in the courts, but in the halls of government, where policies can be shaped to meet the needs of the many, rather than the few.
Canada’s homelessness crisis is complex, and there are no easy answers. But with coordinated action and a commitment to balancing human rights with public safety, there is hope that Canadian cities can begin to find solutions that work for everyone.
Glenn is dedicated to scrutinizing government actions affecting the Downtown Eastside and holding those in power accountable for their commitments. With a focus on transparency and policy analysis, his writing aims to expose gaps between promises and outcomes, pushing for meaningful changes that benefit the community.
Leave a Comment