Summary & Analysis: Ontario Court Ruling on Encampments
What Happened
Ontario is grappling with a worsening housing crisis and an increase in visible homelessness. Municipalities are under pressure to respond, especially as encampments in public spaces become more common and contentious. One side wants to clear encampments; on the other, there are legal rights and human dignity questions.
Recently, a court decision in Kitchener (affecting Waterloo Region) blocked the forcible removal of residents from a longstanding encampment — at least for now — because there weren’t sufficient safe, accessible indoor shelter alternatives. This ruling is part of a broader legal trend pushing back against evictions when sheltering options haven’t been made available.
In contrast, in Barrie, the mayor declared a state of emergency, giving the city more latitude to dismantle encampments aggressively. These contrasting approaches across municipalities illustrate the tension between public safety / public order concerns, and human rights / constitutional protections for people experiencing homelessness.
Ashley Schuitema, Executive Director and lawyer with Waterloo Region Community Legal Services, has been speaking publicly about these issues, trying to clarify what the law currently allows — and what it does not — when it comes to governments’ powers (or limits) in clearing encampments.
Legal Principles & Rights at Stake
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms plays a central role. Under Ontario and Canada’s legal tradition, everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. Any eviction or displacement intersects with those rights. When a court orders or allows removal of people — for example, from an encampment — but no viable, safe shelter is available, there’s a risk that the action violates Charter protections. PressProgress
A municipality’s by-laws (rules about camping, public spaces, park usage) exist, but their enforcement is not unrestricted. Courts are looking at whether adequate shelter exists first, whether the displacement causes more harm (including risk to life or health) than remaining in place, and whether the municipality has taken substantive steps to offer or provide alternatives. PressProgress
The ruling in Kitchener suggests that evicting people from encampments when shelter alternatives are insufficient is legally precarious — at least, until those alternatives are in place. PressProgress
Impacts & Implications
Municipalities that have been trying to clear encampments without building or guaranteeing safe indoor shelter risk legal challenge. The ruling gives leverage to activists, legal clinics, and court-actions demanding that shelter provision be meaningful and accessible before evictions.
For people living in encampments, the decision provides a breathing space: forced evictions aren’t necessarily permitted simply because a public space is being used in a way disfavoured by local governments. Their rights need to be weighed against other concerns.
Politically, this puts pressure on provincial and municipal governments to invest in shelter infrastructure, not merely enforcement of bylaws. It shows that laws or policies that focus on eviction or punishment, rather than prevention and support, are vulnerable in court.
There’s also cost and capacity implications. Municipalities must consider how to fund, operate, and maintain sufficient shelter capacity — and under what conditions. Access, safety, dignity are factors: things like distance, facilities, accessibility (for people with disabilities or chronic illness), safety from weather, etc.
Finally, the public conversation may shift: from “encampments are a nuisance / public health / property concern” toward “what is our moral / constitutional duty toward people who have no shelter.” It changes the framing from enforcement to rights and responsibilities.
Our Opinion
This court ruling is a hopeful sign — not because it solves the homelessness crisis, but because it forces Ontario’s municipalities (and the province) to recognize that you can’t meaningfully address homelessness by treating visible encampments as problems to be cleared. The legal system is increasingly affirming that shelter isn’t optional; it’s a precondition for humane policy and lawful enforcement.
What Needs to Change
Invest in real, usable shelter
It’s not enough to say “there are shelters.” They must be adequate. That means indoor spaces that are accessible (including for disabled people), with sufficient capacity, safety (from violence, weather, health hazards), proximity, and dignity. If shelters are too far, unsafe, overcrowded, or have other barriers, evicting people into that is morally dubious and legally risky.Longer-term housing solutions
Shelters are stopgaps. To break the cycle, permanent supportive housing, rent subsidies, affordable housing development must scale up. Preventive measures are also important: affordable rents, income supports, mental health, addiction services, eviction prevention.Legal clarity & consistent standards
Municipalities need clearer guidance from the province and courts about what constitutes “adequate shelter.” What standards trigger the ability to enforce bylaw removals? When is a municipality failing its obligations? This clarity helps avoid patchwork responses and legal uncertainty.Respect for dignity & rights
Every person experiencing homelessness is a human being deserving respect. Policies should include the voices and rights of those impacted. Forced evictions (especially without notice, without alternatives) add trauma, stress, harm. Even daylight or “temporary” evictions matter.
What This Says About Shelterly’s Role (from Our Perspective)
As a property management / real-estate / housing stability oriented organization (Shelterly), this ruling underscores things we likely already believe: that stable, safe housing isn’t just good policy, it’s a legal and ethical foundation. We manage properties; we see what stable housing means in practice. What this means for us:
When our units are part of affordable / supportive housing systems, ensuring they remain accessible, well maintained, flexible for households in crisis matters.
We might see opportunity for partnerships with municipalities or non-profits to scale up emergency or transitional housing.
Our reputation and value proposition should lean into stability, respect, dignity: that tenants are not just clients, but people whose lives are deeply affected by housing stability (so policies, leases, maintenance, customer support should reflect that).
We should also monitor legal developments, as these rulings may affect municipal policies that touch landlords, tenants, and property-owners.
Conclusion
This court ruling is one more milestone in Canada’s evolving legal understanding of homelessness. It signals that governments cannot avoid responsibility by simply declaring encampments illegal when they have not ensured adequate housing alternatives. For Ontario, this should serve as a wake-up call: invest in shelters, plan for housing, and align law enforcement with human rights.
At Shelterly, that means redoubling our focus on safe, accessible housing, advocating for rights, and working toward long-term solutions. Because at the end of the day, homes are more than property — they are foundations for security, dignity, and justice.
