The laws, bylaws, and regulations that apply to personal belongings in street spaces apply to anyone using public or private street space and anyone with personal belongings in that space. However, these laws disproportionately impact precariously housed people who continuously move through public and private spaces, including sidewalks, parks, shelters, transitional housing, storage facilities, rooming houses, single-room accommodations, and other insecure rental housing. For those who lack secure places to call their own, their increased presence in street spaces means they experience enforcement regarding their belongings beyond that experienced by other users. Even individuals who can access tenancy and non-tenancy private indoor residences or shelters may still heavily rely on public and private street spaces for reasons including lack of security or safety in the indoor accommodation, social support from people who remain living outside, or the need to access formal and informal sources of income.
Certain populations experience greater surveillance and criminalization while existing in street spaces. Indigenous, Black, and other People of Colour, visibly poor people, people who use drugs, people stigmatized around mental illness or other health conditions, people with disabilities, and people who are non-conforming in other ways often experience greater enforcement than others precariously housed individuals who exist in these same spaces and are able to exist within the complicated legal matrix of street spaces, or are not stigmatized in the same ways.
1.How Streets are Defined in this Report
City streets are often grouped by terms like “commercial” or “residential” or “public” or “private.” This chapter considers streets by how they are governed by municipal bylaws1 and their enabling provincial legislation2. In defining streets, we include roads, bridges, lanes, sidewalks, boulevards, alleys, and “any other way normally open to the use of the public.”3 While municipal streets bylaws mostly focus on the regulation of vehicles, this chapter includes other street-adjacent areas that may be public or private space, including parking lots, transit infrastructure, business entryways, and empty urban lots—effectively any urban space that is not a park, square, or public space as a place where people can congregate.
Precariously housed and unhoused populations use streets for shelter or as spaces where they can simply exist, as they often lack a legally protected, safe, and accessible home. This use of streets, coupled with lack of access to secure storage, means that the personal belongings of precarious housed people also often occupies these spaces. Living in encampments can provide greater stability and safety for people and their belongings. Encampments can exist on streets, but also in parks, and we discuss them in both sections of the report.
“Public” (streets, sidewalks, boulevards and transit corridors) and “private” spaces (parking lots, business entryways, or privately owned vehicles in public parking areas) are both regulated by municipal bylaws and provincial legislation. These laws limit the control that precariously housed people have over their personal property compared to people who have access to permanent housing or secure storage. These rules also give enforcement agencies authority and discretion to control items that violate the bylaw. While the designation of a space as public or private will impact exactly what legal tools can be used and will therefore have different impacts on the belongings of precariously housed people who rely on these spaces, the final impact on their personal belongings is often the same.
Vignette
Dave was evicted from a privately-owned single-room occupancy (SRO) building where he had been living for nearly five years. He packed up what he could of his clothes, valuables, photos, and other possessions into a few bags and suitcases that he could manage to carry around with him, but he had to sell or discard whatever he could not fit. Having negative experiences in shelters in the past, Dave decided not to stay in the nearby shelter, taking his chances on the street and sleeping rough. He didn’t have much outdoor sleeping gear, so he layered up, slept in spaces with awnings when he could, and tucked most of his possessions between himself and whatever building he was next to.4
Vignette
Each morning at 7am, city workers arrived at the entryway of the vacant building where Dave slept, waking him up and telling him to move on. Dave had a flexible part-time job that he had retained through his housing transition, so for several weeks, these wake up calls were uneventful and woke him up in time to get ready to go to work. While the job was within walking distance of the area he was sleeping in, he could not bring all his belongings with him to work. With few options and the inability to afford a private storage locker, in the early mornings Dave hid some of his possessions in some bushes, taking care to make them the least visible to passersby as he could.5 He was able to bring a small bag with him to work and store a few small bags with a former neighbour at his old apartment.
Dave hid some of his possessions in some bushes, taking care to make them the least visible to passersby as he could.
Vignette
After a few days, Dave returned to the bushes where he stored some belongings to find that his belongings were gone. He learned that City workers had come by and removed his belongings. As it got colder outside with winter approaching, Dave had a more difficult time waking up and packing up his belongings every morning at 7am when city workers showed up. Several times, he ignored them, and stayed wrapped up in his blanket and tarp, waking up to a ticket attached to his backpack. A week later, early one morning, Dave was woken up by city workers telling him he had fifteen minutes to pack his stuff. Dave began placing his belongings in bags and containers but was not able to finish within fifteen minutes. City workers used caution-tape to tape off his belongings and told him that if he crossed the tape, he would be arrested and given criminal charges. City workers allowed him to have one backpack, but proceeded to confiscate his mobility aid6, his tarp, and the rest of his belongings. From what he understood, the City was supposed to hold onto ‘unclaimed’ or ‘abandoned’ property for some amount of time.7 But Dave did not know where to go, who to talk to, or what it might cost him to get his belongings back. He considered them to be gone for good, which was a very painful and significant loss.8 Due to the stress he was experiencing, Dave had a difficult time completing his duties at work, and he ended up losing his job.
2.Public spaces
Streets and Sidewalks
For precariously housed and unhoused people, streets are risky places for belongings. Municipalities create bylaws that state which activities, behaviours, and items are permitted on streets and sidewalks. In Ontario and British Columbia, municipalities have different rules on which specific items, obstructions, and activities are allowed for people who use the street for shelter or as a place to store their belongings. Bylaws may be specific about objects that cannot be placed on city streets (e.g. tents), which therefore target unhoused people. Other bylaws may result in targeted enforcement due to the heightened visibility of unhoused people and the presence of their belongings on the street.
Ontario Municipalities
Most of the surveyed bylaws in Ontario municipalities specify that no one may cause an obstruction on a city street or sidewalk by way of their person, by placing an object, or by erecting a structure.9 None of the bylaws provide a definition for what they mean by “obstruction” so it is unclear whether an obstruction would need to fully or partially impede pedestrian or vehicle traffic. Without obstruction being defined, it is difficult to know how large an object would need to be or where it would be located for it to be at risk. This would likely depend on each city’s enforcement policies and practices. Municipalities can also create, approve, or ignore their own obstructions, like utility poles or other city infrastructure in the middle of a sidewalk.
Tents and other temporary shelters are specifically prohibited on streets in Toronto and Hamilton,10 and camping, dwelling or lodging on a Toronto street is prohibited.11 These prohibitions state that a person may not erect or place a structure on, over, or under a street.12 Thus, people setting up a tent or shelter under an overpass, viaduct, or similar infrastructure would also be in contravention of Toronto and Hamilton’s bylaws. Toronto also has a separate bylaw prohibiting people from camping or erecting tents and temporary shelters in the City’s public squares.13 Both cities’ bylaws also provide for enforcement by way of removing the structures, as well as any other items in contravention of the bylaw at the expense of the owner. After 60 days, no claims can be made to retrieve impounded objects in Toronto.14
Littering and dumping materials are also highly regulated in Toronto, which can have an impact for precariously housed people where their possessions are devalued and treated like garbage or litter. Toronto’s Municipal Code on littering and dumping prohibits people from dumping or placing any waste, including garbage, recyclable materials, and organic materials, on any City land and streets. “Garbage” is defined as any non-recyclable, non-organic waste including “unused” or “unusable” materials that appear to have been cast aside or abandoned, to be worthless or of no particular value, or to have been worn out.15 However what appears to meet the above definition in the eyes of a City worker or any other person who has the ability to store their belongings, might in fact be immensely valuable to its owner who has placed it on a street.
For example, if a person who engages in binning to earn an income is carrying around a bag or cart full of cans and bottles and needs to put it somewhere on a street so they can access a service or a washroom, those recyclables may be removed as garbage by bylaw enforcement despite them having a monetary or emotional value for the person who collected them and placed them on the street.
British Columbia Municipalities
Vancouver is unique among the surveyed municipalities in having its own bylaw dealing with unclaimed property found in the City. Where B.C.’s Police (Disposal of Property) Regulation sets out the responsibilities of provincial police (RCMP) in handling unclaimed property, Vancouver’s Unclaimed Property Bylaw specifies the responsibilities and practices that the Vancouver Municipal Police Force must follow. The bylaw requires police to retain unclaimed property for at least six months before it can be auctioned off. However, as is the case with the provincial laws, the police may dispose of the property at any time if it is perishable or of no saleable value.16 Once again, the matter of what is considered of “saleable value” could have an impact on whether an unhoused person’s belongings will be retained or disposed of when removed from a street.
Municipalities in B.C., like in Ontario, have street and traffic bylaws that govern the placement of obstructions, structures, and waste on city streets. Vancouver’s Street and Traffic Bylaw No 2849 is broad in terms of the objects and activities that it regulates. City Engineering workers, accompanied by Vancouver Police, enforce regular “street sweeps” based on practices outlined in the City of Vancouver Safe Operating Procedure – Dismantling of Transient Camps.17 These sweeps include the seizure and destruction of possessions of people sheltering outdoors with the justification of cleaning city property. In addition to similar provisions relating to obstructions, structures, and waste/litter, Vancouver’s bylaw prohibits people from placing any merchandise, chattel, or wares on a sidewalk for sale, display, or any other purpose without a permit.18 This is likely to raise problems, for instance, where an unhoused person is selling items on the street as a form of survival income-generation, or where a person perhaps has a diminished capacity to keep their belongings organized in a public space. The visibility of such activities and their belongings increases the likelihood of enforcement.
In Victoria, a person cannot place or leave an object on a city street or sidewalk, especially one that causes an obstruction or nuisance, including garbage and any “offensive” substance or matter.19 Any items can be removed and impounded, and in order to retrieve the items, the owner must sign an undertaking that they will not place it again on a street or sidewalk. Retrieval of belongings can also require the owner to pay detention and removal fees of $25 or $40 for a first detention or removal, and $100 for second removal, and impound fees of $5 or $7 per day, both dependent on the weight of the impound.20 If an item is not retrieved, it may be sold at auction after 30 days.21 Another section of Victoria’s bylaw specifies that a person cannot set up a tent or temporary structure on a City boulevard. This means that the Parks Regulation Bylaw which permits overnight sheltering does not apply on streets and sidewalks.
Abbotsford’s Good Neighbour Bylaw specifies that no person can camp or erect a tent on a city street or other public place, nor can anyone obstruct another person on a city street, including on sidewalks.22 The City’s Street and Traffic bylaw notes that any obstruction may be removed and like in Victoria, may be sold at auction after 30 days.23 Abbotsford also prohibits people from “deposit[ing] or throw[ing]” trash, litter, and specifically bottles in any open place.24 This once again relates to the subjective matter of what is considered garbage or trash, and complicates the ability of people who rely on collecting waste and recycling materials for their own consumption or as a form of income to be able to store or leave those items in a public place.
Fire regulations also limit the control that precariously housed people have over their possessions. In August 2022, Vancouver Fire Rescue Services issued a fire order to remove structures and objects of an estimated 400 people in an encampment along the sidewalk of Hastings Street.25 This order was made despite a lack of alternative space for people to move to, and despite the city’s Street Sweeps Working Group which identified the need for storage facilities and garbage disposal sites to ameliorate fire and garbage concerns in advance of the fire order.26
Privacy Rights in Tents
What privacy rights does a person living on a street in a tent have or other temporary structure over their belongings? What if the tent owner is suspected of a crime? Can their tent be searched without a warrant, or do they have the same rights to privacy in their home as a person who is housed? This issue was at the centre of a 2018 B.C. case, R v Picard.27 Mr. Picard had been living in a tent located on a sidewalk with his girlfriend for about two years, and was being surveilled by police, who suspected he was trafficking drugs. Police searched his tent without a warrant. Mr. Picard argued that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the contents of his tent, and therefore that the warrantless search was unreasonable and that his Charter rights had been violated. The question was whether his tent, specifically, could be considered analogous to a ‘home’ that would afford him the highest degree of privacy.
The judge considered the facts that Mr. Picard considered the tent to be a home, that he ate and slept in the tent, that his belongings were mostly in the tent, that he owned the tent, and that he possessed it and controlled access to it. However, the judge also considered the facts that the tent was on City property, that there was a bylaw that prohibited it (even though the tent had never been forcibly removed), that it was mobile and not fixed to the ground, and that he was suspected of selling drugs at the time of the search. The fact that Mr. Picard did not have a legal right to erect his tent on a City sidewalk was an important factor in the judge’s finding that his tent was not a ‘home.’ However, the judge did find that Mr. Picard did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his tent and its contents even though it was not considered a ‘home.’ Despite this, the judge determined that the purpose of the police investigation was valid and reasonable, and that the search was conducted in a reasonable manner, so Mr. Picard’s Charter argument was dismissed.
What privacy rights does a person living on a street in a tent have or other temporary structure over their belongings? What if the tent owner is suspected of a crime? Can their tent be searched without a warrant, or do they have the same rights to privacy in their home as a person who is housed? This issue was at the centre of a 2018 B.C. case, R v Picard.28 Mr. Picard had been living in a tent located on a sidewalk with his girlfriend for about two years, and was being surveilled by police, who suspected he was trafficking drugs. Police searched his tent without a warrant. Mr. Picard argued that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the contents of his tent, and therefore that the warrantless search was unreasonable and that his Charter rights had been violated. The question was whether his tent, specifically, could be considered analogous to a ‘home’ that would afford him the highest degree of privacy.
The judge considered the facts that Mr. Picard considered the tent to be a home, that he ate and slept in the tent, that his belongings were mostly in the tent, that he owned the tent, and that he possessed it and controlled access to it. However, the judge also considered the facts that the tent was on City property, that there was a bylaw that prohibited it (even though the tent had never been forcibly removed), that it was mobile and not fixed to the ground, and that he was suspected of selling drugs at the time of the search. The fact that Mr. Picard did not have a legal right to erect his tent on a City sidewalk was an important factor in the judge’s finding that his tent was not a ‘home.’ However, the judge did find that Mr. Picard did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his tent and its contents even though it was not considered a ‘home.’ Despite this, the judge determined that the purpose of the police investigation was valid and reasonable, and that the search was conducted in a reasonable manner, so Mr. Picard’s Charter argument was dismissed.
Many bylaw violations are subject to different forms of ticketing or fines. One form of ticketing often used for property-related bylaw offences in BC are “municipal ticket informations” (MTIs), which are permitted under the province’s Community Charter.29 The maximum ticket that can be given with this form of enforcement is $100030 and the tickets can be disputed31. Neglecting to pay, however, can have implications on a person’s immediate financial status, including a credit score, which can then impact a person’s ability to rent or find employment.
Transit
The use of public transit spaces like buses, subways/trains, and transit shelters can also impact the regulaton of the belongings of precariously housed people. Public transit is owned by a Crown corporation that is publicly accessible upon payment of a fare, though payment is not always necessary for access to some transit-related spaces.32 Despite the publicly owned nature of transit infrastructure, the lines between what is private or public property can be blurred. For example, there are 67 transit shelters in the City of Richmond, B.C. Of those shelters, 48 are owned by a single private advertising company, 13 are owned by either the local transit authority, the provincial government, or the local airport, and the last 6 are owned by the City.33 Whether a given transit shelter is private property, City property, or provincial government property affects the governance of people and their belongings.
In Ontario, each of the surveyed municipalities or their local transit authorities has enacted specific bylaws regarding the operation of their transit systems and the objects and conduct that are allowed or prohibited on transit. In BC, provincial laws like the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act and the British Columbia Transit Act delegate bylaw-making powers to transit authorities. However the transit authorities have not enacted bylaws that directly govern people’s belongings. Instead, the transit authorities in BC have published rules, regulations, and policies respecting transit etiquette, bags, animals, etc.34
Many of the rules respecting objects and belongings in spaces owned by public transit authorities overlap across municipalities in Ontario and B.C. Some common rules include:
No bags, luggage, or other belongings are permitted on seats; they must be on the owner’s lap or on the floor, and must not obstruct the aisle or other customers
Guide dogs and service animals are allowed on transit on leashes, but other pets must be in secure hand-held cages that can fit in the owner’s lap or floor without blocking other passengers
In Ottawa, owners require an Assistant Card proving their animal’s status as a service animal
In Toronto, animals other than guide/service animals are not allowed during peak hours
Bylaws in Ontario do not allow people to wear roller blades on transit property and prohibit littering on transit property
Ontario municipalities and transit authorities have rules that are not seen in BC. In Toronto and Ottawa, transit staff can refuse passage to people who are carrying anything that does or is likely to inconvenience other passengers or transit employees.35 Items that do or are likely to inconvenience others are not defined, leaving enforcement of these provisions up to the discretion of the transit authorities and their employees. People who are refused service or removed from transit property under these provisions are potentially subject to having their fares confiscated and are liable to fines under Ontario’s Provincial Offences Act.36 Given the stigma against the belongings of unhoused people and the vagueness of ‘items that are likely to inconvenience,’ this could lead to refusals of service where the quantity or quality of items that a person is attempting to bring onto transit are considered objectionable. The City of Hamilton’s bylaw is slightly clearer about items that could lead to a person being refused access to transit – any large, bulky, or sharp objects must not be placed in a way that could endanger other passengers.37
On a slightly more promising note for the belongings of unhoused people, the City of Hamilton’s transit bylaw specifies that a person who is carrying a bulky item has courtesy seating at the front of a bus, though they are not guaranteed a seat.38 Despite this explicit statement in the bylaw, Hamilton’s related policies and advertising materials emphasize that courtesy seating is meant for seniors, expectant parents, and people with small children, so it is unclear whether people with large items are accorded courtesy seating in practice.
Bicycles
In all the surveyed municipalities, bikes must be placed on bike racks when the owner is entering a bus, and bike owners are responsible for loading and unloading their bike safely and properly.39 A person’s ability to do so will depend on whether it is peak time, as most bus bike racks only have two spaces. The status of bikes on other forms of transit, such as trains and trams, varies depending on the transit authority. In Vancouver, electric and folding bikes are allowed on the SkyTrain, Seabus, and WestCoast Express.40 In Toronto, bikes (as well as skis and other large items) are not allowed on transit services during peak hours, except for bikes on bike racks.41
Reclaiming Items Lost/Found on Transit
Most of the surveyed municipalities have some procedure to allow people to reclaim items that have been lost on transit property. The Cities of Hamilton, Vancouver, and municipalities covered by B.C. Transit Authority specify that attempts to reclaim bikes must be made by appointment only. The Toronto Transit Commission holds onto most lost items for 60 days, though larger items like bikes are only kept for 30 days due to space limitations.42 Unclaimed items are sold at a police auction. In Hamilton, perishable items are disposed of, while other lost items are labelled, logged, and stored for 10 days, after which they are disposed of or donated to charity.43 In Ottawa, the transit lost and found is operated by a local non-profit organization which people must contact to reclaim their items, and unclaimed items are either donated to charity or sold by the non-profit.44
Other Public Spaces and Items
Provincial laws regulating abandoned and unclaimed property, including animals, in public street space can have a significant impact on the lives of precariously housed people. For example, Ontario’s Police Services Act45 and B.C.’s Unclaimed Property Act46 and Police Act (specifically the Police (Disposal of Property) Regulation)47 govern any personal property that is held by the government or by police. This could include “abandoned” personal property such as a sleeping bag or backpack found by the RCMP that had been tucked away by the owner who was trying to keep them out of sight until they returned for their belongings. In these cases, the laws require police to retain the personal property for three months to allow the owner a chance to reclaim their property, after which the items may be sold or disposed of.48 However, B.C.’s Regulation allows for items that are perishable or “unmarketable” to be disposed of at any time.49 Given that the possessions of unhoused people are often devalued and stigmatized,50 the perceived value of some items may result in their premature disposal as “unmarketable” property. Additionally, this language could mean that items with obvious sentimental value but no obvious saleable value, could be automatically disposable. Some of these laws are not exclusive to streets, and can apply in other public spaces, such as parks, or private spaces.
The City of Vancouver has multiple bylaws that also directly regulate non-park and non-street public property. These bylaws have consequences for unhoused and precariously housed persons and their belongings. Vancouver’s City Land Regulation Bylaw excludes parks and streets from its definition of city land. The bylaw prohibits people from placing waste on city land and from constructing or placing structures, tents, shelters, and other objects or things on city land.51 The bylaw empowers the City manager to remove any tent, shelter, or object that is on city land, and people who contravene the bylaw can be liable to a fine of between $250 and $2000 for each offence.52 In 2017, the City of Vancouver relied on this bylaw and the provincial Trespass Act53 to apply for an injunction to remove an encampment and personal belongings from a city-owned lot that had been empty for twenty years.54 The City sought the injunction “arising from the City’s right to enforce a breach of a City Bylaw due to the trespass of its property”55 and other grounds. The lot was slated for a new housing development for affordable social housing. The City’s application for an injunction was denied because they could not prove irreparable harm. The fact that the land was city-owned was not a factor in deciding against the injunction application, and the City was able to pursue an injunction in the same way as a private owner would have. As such, the designation of public space does not necessarily grant unhoused or precariously housed people greater rights when using this space for shelter or storage of their belongings.
Vancouver also regulates belongings in public space through its Unclaimed Property bylaw. If the municipal police find personal property on city-owned public property and cannot identify the owner of the personal property, then the object will be retained for six months before being auctioned, or it will be sold or disposed of immediately if it is perishable or inconvenient to store.56 A final example of a Vancouver bylaw that has implications on people’s possessions on public property is its Trailer Courts bylaw. This bylaw specifies that it is unlawful to park a trailer or ‘house-car’ (e.g. camper van or RV) anywhere in the city except in a trailer court (trailer park) when the intention is to live and sleep in the vehicle.57
Shopping Carts
Shopping carts are a practical way for precariously housed people to transport their belongings, particularly given the need that many experience to move between spaces. Bags, backpacks, and suitcases can only hold so much, and for people with health concerns or disabilities, being able to push one’s belongings can put less of a physical toll on their bodies. Perhaps because of their association with precariously housed people, shopping carts can become a regulatory target. For example, in the City of Vernon, B.C, voted in 2018 to implement a shopping cart bylaw that would prohibit their use in public spaces. It is clear from the way in which some councillors spoke about the use of shopping carts by unhoused people that they stigmatized the possessions of unhoused people as “things that come out of dumpsters,” and did not trust unhoused people to know what was actually valuable to them.58 A few months after the discussion, however, the City voted to quash the bylaw after receiving a great deal of criticism from advocates which suggested that the ban would not survive a challenge under the Charter, and after the City’s legal department recommended it not proceed with the ban.59
The City of Ottawa is unique among the surveyed municipalities in having a bylaw that directly targets shopping carts that are left on streets and on City property. Where a shopping cart is found on City property, the City may impound the cart and notify the owner, if possible.60 “Owner” in this case means the business which originally owned the shopping cart before it was acquired by someone who began to use it for their own purposes. The bylaw does not require the City to notify the owner of the contents of a shopping cart found on City property. When the shopping cart has not been claimed by the owner of the business for 60 days, the cart and its contents may be disposed of (though perishable items can be disposed of at any time).
Shopping carts or other wheeled items are thus important to precariously housed people for storing and transporting their belongings, yet also at risk. To address these concerns, in 2018 engineering students at the University of British Columbia – Okanagan in Kelowna in 2018, were tasked with designing carts that would be strong, light, easily manoeuvrable, and importantly, lockable so that people would be able to securely store their belongings. A spokesperson noted that allowing unhoused people to store their personal belongings with these carts was an important “first small step in restoring their dignity.”61
Animals
The pets of precariously housed people can be very significant for their mental health and wellbeing, providing a sense of responsibility, stable social support and companionship, as well as comfort and safety.62 Many people consider their pets as members of the family, rather than possessions or objects. Pets are included in this part of the report to reflect the reality that the law generally categorizes pets as personal property, rather than family members. Their status as “personal property” means that pets may contribute to the barriers that their owners experience in accessing shelter and services. Often this is experienced in the form of no-pet policies at shelters and in other forms of housing.63 This has contributed to what has been described as a “pet before self” mentality among many unhoused pet owners, where they choose to sleep rough over having to give up their pet.64 Owning an animal while experiencing homelessness comes with additional stressors such as maintaining the health and well-being of the animal, and experiencing stigma from people who do not believe the owner can or should own an animal.65 Studies have shown the experience of losing a pet, whether by relinquishing it to another person or it needing to be put down, is extremely painful, distressing, and traumatic for unhoused pet owners.66 This is especially the case for those who describe the companionship of their animal as resembling a relationship between best friends or between a parent and child.67
For people living in parks and on streets with a companion animal, there are additional stressors caused by the heightened surveillance of their animals compared to the pets of housed people. For example, in Ontario, each of the surveyed municipalities has a requirement that dogs must be licensed, cannot be at large, and must be leashed outside of an off-leash area, or else they may be seized and impounded. Even a licensed dog that is off-leash in a public space could be impounded, as licensing systems do not necessarily prevent an animal from being impounded. Licensing systems simply allow impounded pets to be connected with their owners more easily68 and can reduce the fees associated with impoundment.69
Toronto and Ottawa’s bylaws also set out the responsibility of an animal owner to ensure that the animal has appropriate care, food, water, and shelter.70 Going a step further, the portion of Toronto’s municipal code dealing with animals states that a person cannot allow an animal to remain outside during extreme weather unless the animal has access to some enclosure that will protect it from the elements.71 In B.C., Vancouver’s animal control bylaw requires an animal owner to “provide for its housing in a suitable manner,”72 and the City of Victoria prohibits animal owners from keeping an animal outside without shelter that provides sufficient protection from the elements.73 In this framing of animal ownership and responsibility, pets in many of the surveyed cities have a right to adequate shelter while their owners do not. Consider the extreme difficulty a person might have in fully adhering to provincial and municipal legislation such as providing shelter for their animal if they lack adequate shelter themselves.
The pets of people who rely on public space are more visible than pets whose owners have access to their own private property, thereby making them more vulnerable to scrutiny from those looking for signs of animal distress and neglect, and making them more likely to being reported at large and thus impounded.74 Impounded animals become the property of the city after five business days in Toronto,75 or 72 hours in Vancouver,76 after which they can be adopted out, sold, or euthanized.
Provincial laws also target animals existing in public spaces like streets. While local bylaws tend to regulate the licensing and impounding of animals, provincial laws like Ontario’s Provincial Animal Welfare Act77 and B.C.’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act78 govern the welfare of abandoned and distressed animals. These acts set out the responsibilities of animal owners, including providing their animals with food, water, and shelter.
3.Private spaces
Entryways, Parking Lots, Empty Lots
Publicly owned streets and sidewalks coexist with private spaces. Entryways to commercial spaces, privately-owned and -managed parking lots, and empty lots are subject to provincial trespassing legislation in addition to municipal bylaws. There is heightened enforcement because property owners report violations to enforcement authorities.
In both Ontario and BC, municipalities place a significant amount of responsibility on private property owners and lawful occupants (e.g., tenants) to maintain the property based on certain standards. These regulations can impact precariously housed tenants and any belongings they keep in publicly viewable privately-owned space, such as parking lots, entry ways, and yard spaces. They can also impact people who are living on private property with the permission of the owner, but who have no property rights in the space, as well as those sheltering illegally on private property, such as in a doorway, a private parking lot, or on vacant private land.
Ontario Municipalities
Property maintenance and standards bylaws in Ontario often use both objective and subjective language to describe the kinds of objects and materials that are prohibited from being placed on private property. The property standards section of Toronto’s Municipal Code uses objective language to require property owners to keep their yards clear of dilapidated, collapsed, and unfinished structures, as well as wrecked and discarded vehicles.79 The same section goes on to use more subjective language to require property owners and occupants to keep properties in “clean and sanitary condition” and keep them clear of junk, rubbish, refuse, litter, and other debris.80 These subjective criteria can disproportionately impact those who are lower income, precariously housed, particularly in light of societal stigma towards poor and marginalized people, including people experiencing homelessness, a disproportionate number of whom are Indigenous.
As in Toronto, the City of Ottawa’s Property Standards bylaw employs some language that is drafted in a way that could be interpreted subjectively. The bylaw prohibits appliances, objects, and conditions in yards which could cause a health hazard or an accident hazard.81 However, the bylaw also prohibits the accumulation of materials and objects that create unsafe or unsightly conditions, and that are deleterious to the neighbouring environment.82 Any objects that meet these descriptions are to be removed from private property.
British Columbia Municipalities
The B.C. municipalities surveyed in this report have similar property standard bylaws to those in Ontario. Vancouver’s Untidy Premises bylaw prohibits property owners and occupiers from allowing the accumulation of discarded materials, rubbish, filth, and garbage on their property.83 Owners are provided with 10 days notice to remedy the issue if they are in contravention of the bylaw.84 Vancouver’s Standards of Maintenance bylaw also requires private land to be kept clear of rubbish and debris, and wrecked vehicles cannot be stored or left on any land.85 The City of Abbotsford’s Good Neighbour bylaw contains more subjective language, prohibiting property owners from allowing their property to become or remain unsightly through the accumulation of rubbish, derelict vehicles, appliances, or other discarded materials that can be visible to passersby or from neighbouring properties.86 Property occupiers are specifically required under the bylaw to keep the general appearance of rental premises to the standards of similar properties in a neighbourhood.87
The City of Victoria’s Property Maintenance bylaw differs slightly from each of the bylaws above because it provides an explicit definition for what is meant when something is considered “unsightly.” The bylaw defines “unsightly” as a state that is untidy or the otherwise non-aesthetic accumulation of filth, junk, and refuse on a parcel of private property.88 However, this definition still seems to remain highly subjective in terms of what is considered “junk” and “refuse.”
Trespass
In law, trespass to land occurs when a person intrudes upon another’s private property without permission from the owner. Trespass law also applies to objects that have been placed on land without the owner’s permission.89 (online), Trespass, “Trespass: Trespass to Land: General” (II.1.) at §29. Some permission to intrude onto another’s property can be implied (e.g., walking on a pathway to deliver a parcel), but if that person remains on the property after the owner asks them to leave, they are trespassing.90 The remedies for trespass can be an injunction or damages (compensation). In Ontario, the Trespass to Property Act sets out that any person who enters property without express permission from the owner and does not leave when directed to do so is committing an offence.91 In BC, the Trespass Act similarly sets out that it is an offence to enter enclosed land or engage in a prohibited activity on that land.92 In practice, these statutes authorize a property owner to take legal action against a person who is on or has left their belongings on the property or has not vacated the premises when asked. Both private and public property owners (e.g., municipal governments) also have the right to take legal action against a person who does not vacate or stop engaging in certain activities on the premises. Municipal bylaws and other regulations further regulate which activities are permitted on both public and private property.
Where the property owner is a municipality, an injunction is more likely to be sought to remove the trespasser(s). While injunctions are typically regarded as extraordinary measures in trespass,93 (online), Trespass, “Trespass: Trespass to Land: Remedies: Injunction” (II.9.(a)) at §154. courts are more likely to interfere to grant an injunction when the trespass is continuing.94 Under the law, people who sleep or set up camp on public or private property, including parks,95 are therefore trespassing unless authorized to do so (by bylaw or otherwise).96
Although encampments are often described as being ‘evicted’ or threatened with ‘eviction’, eviction is a term generally connected to legal occupancy connected tenancies. As such, decampments are more likely to be realized using trespass law.
Vancouver recently extended a Trespass Prevention pilot program, also used in Abbotsford, where business and property owners authorize police to access their properties if unwanted people are “behaving in a manner that interfered with the use and enjoyment of private property.”97 Owners of private property place a yellow no-trespassing sticker on the door or window of their property, allowing police to actively displace people and their belongings from space without the requirement of the business owner to call for assistance.
Vehicles
Vehicles themselves amount to a personal belonging, one that may be used as shelter and storage, or may contain stored personal belongings even if not used for sleeping. Without the ability to park their vehicles in places that they control, precariously housed people by necessity must park their vehicles either on public streets, in public parking lots, or on private property, and are thus subject to laws, regulations, and zoning schemes pertaining to those spaces. Most municipalities regulate vehicles in terms of where they can be parked and at what times, whether a person can sleep in them overnight, whether recreational vehicles are allowed, when they may be impounded, and how they can be retrieved by the owner. For example, in Grand Forks (City) v Jennings,98 the court granted the city an injunction to remove a family living in their trailer on undeveloped city land. The trailer placement violated city zoning bylaws that only permitted trailers in areas zoned as campgrounds. There are also specific rules related to vehicles in relation to parks [link to relevant section in Parks chapter]. In some cases, this extends beyond the regulation of public spaces. Beyond municipal bylaws, Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act99 and British Columbia’s Motor Vehicle Act100 define “highway” in a way that includes private parking lots, further making private vehicle ownership a publicly regulated process. Additionally, vehicles and their contents are subject to certain warrantless search and seizure laws connected to possible criminal offences as laid out in the Criminal Code,101 as well as provincial motor vehicle offences.102
Bylaws can lead to fines and to the impounding of vehicles. For a person who lives in their vehicle, impoundment equals both the loss of their home and their every possession contained within the vehicle. Where city street parking permits are an option, most cities require proof of a residential address, still require vehicles to move regularly, and exclude certain large vehicles.103
Here are some examples of vehicle-related bylaws in the selected municipalities in Ontario and B.C.:
In Toronto, there are over 1900 pages of documentation associated with the City’s Traffic and Parking bylaw that set out the times of day in which stopping or parking on named streets are prohibited.104 These restrictions are indicated on street signs for street users’ benefit; however the volume of restrictions is significant for people who need to find a stable spot to park their vehicle in order to meet their needs.
The City of Victoria explicitly prohibits a person from parking a vehicle on a street for the purpose of sleeping overnight and prohibits the act of sleeping overnight in one’s vehicle when parked on a street.105 Additionally, Victoria’s Street and Traffic bylaw specifies that a motor home, camper truck, or trailer for recreational purposes that is registered in the region cannot be parked on a street between 10pm and 6am.106 Contraventions of these restrictions may result in a vehicle being impounded. The owner must retrieve the vehicle within 20 days and pay $200 and applicable towing and storage fees or else it will go to auction per the City’s vehicle impoundment bylaw.107
In addition to restricting where all vehicles can be parked and at what times of day, the City of Vancouver regulates larger vehicles based on their size. Vancouver’s Streets and Traffic bylaw provides that a vehicle with a height between 2.2m and 6.4m which is not designed primarily for the conveyance of a maximum of nine people must not park on a street between 10pm and 6am.108 This size restriction would likely cover some recreational vehicles used for sleeping, and subject them to impoundment. It is notable however that Vancouver’s impounding bylaw allows discretion for a fee waiver where the Vancouver Police Board accepts an owner’s claim that payment of the fees associated with the impounding would cause hardship.109
Toronto’s Municipal Code has a section governing parking on private or municipal property.110 It states that no person shall park or leave a motor vehicle on municipal property without the consent of the city, or on private property without consent of the owner.111 Police and bylaw officers have the authority to remove any contravening vehicles and fine the owner, though in most cases officers are obligated to wait 30 minutes before impounding a vehicle in case the owner returns within that time.
Ottawa and Hamilton both have idling bylaws that apply to parked vehicles. Both cities’ bylaws specify that a person cannot idle a vehicle for more than three minutes if the outside temperature is between 5 and 27 degrees Celsius,112 a temperature range in which both cities exist for approximately six months of the year. The bylaws are flexible based on temperature to allow a person to idle for a longer period in hot weather to cool their vehicle, and in cold weather to warm their vehicle. However, consider a person living in their vehicle who needs to charge a device, or use their vehicle’s power for whatever reason related to their survival for a period longer than three minutes when the temperature is within the range prohibited by the bylaw.
Vancouver’s Trailer Courts bylaw requires any ‘house-car’ like a camper van or RV to be parked in a trailer court when in use for sleeping and living.113 At the time of publication, there appear to be no designated trailer courts within the boundaries of the City of Vancouver. There are trailer courts in the neighbouring municipalities of West Vancouver and Burnaby. However these may not be practical options for many people depending on the cost of parking, spot availability, and the accessibility of other services around the trailer courts. In the absence of any trailer courts within Vancouver, a person living in a camper van, trailer, or RV will necessarily be acting in contravention of Vancouver’s bylaws if they are living in such a vehicle anywhere within the City’s boundaries.
Sidebar
In May 2021, individuals living in camper vans and other vehicles were facing forced displacement from a section of a Vancouver street where they had been camping for around two years. An advocacy alliance speaking on behalf of the campers emphasized the difficulties that arise when there are strict overnight parking restrictions and prohibitions throughout the City, and the difficulties that people face when large RVs are required to be moved every three hours. The campers spoke of not having anywhere else to go, and called for social housing at welfare and pension rates that is not in the form of supportive housing or SROs.114 An enforcement day was set which convinced about half of the RV residents to move on. The remainder received tickets and warnings that bylaw enforcement would return the following week.115
4.Legal decisions impacting people’s belongings on streets
Caselaw demonstrates that the determination of whether a space is public, private, or some combination of both, impacts the legal mechanisms used to enforce and remove people and their belongings. The majority of the caselaw in this chapter surrounds the use of empty lots which may be greenspaces but are not designated as parks.
Much of the case law regarding encampments and people’s belongings on streets and in empty lots has occurred in British Columbia and has revolved around the seeking and granting of statutory injunctions. When a municipality seeks an injunction to address a breach of a bylaw or other municipal provision, it seeks a statutory injunction.116 The granting of a statutory injunction is determined by one of two tests. Municipalities generally often do not need to prove irreparable harm to be granted an injunction, and injunctions are only refused in exceptional circumstances because of the presumption that the municipality is acting in the public interest (“Thornhill / Windsor test”).117 Where the seeking of a statutory injunction has Charter implications, in order for the injunction to be granted, the municipality must demonstrate three things (“RJR-MacDonald test”): (i) that there is a serious question at issue, (ii) that they will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, and (iii) that the balance of convenience favours the municipality in granting the injunction. In cases where an injunction is sought on the grounds of trespass on private land, the private property owner merely needs to prove trespass is occurring by proving clear title, without the requirement of proving that they have experienced any harm.118 The granting of injunctions to remove people from public space has significant impacts on their security to their personal belongings, which are often named in the injunction removal orders.
In Vancouver (City) v Maurice,119 the City was granted an injunction to remove around 200 people and their belongings from the sidewalks surrounding the former Woodward’s department store because their tents, mattresses and other belongings constituted obstructions which violated the Street and Traffic Bylaw. The injunction was granted relying on the Thornhill test, in part, because of the public nature of the space being relied upon by those sheltering on the sidewalk. Any potential hardship experienced by those sheltering outside arising from the enforcement of the injunction was not enough to make out exceptional circumstances to refuse the injunction and was outweighed by the public interest of keeping the “busy pedestrian thoroughfares”120 available to be used by the public unimpeded.121
In January 2023, the Ontario Supreme Court declined to declare that an encampment of people on a city-owned vacant parking lot in Kitchener was contrary to the bylaws. Instead, the court stated that the bylaw which prevented sheltering violated section 7 of the Charter by depriving people of life, liberty, and security of the person, and was inoperative if the number of unhoused people exceed the number of shelter beds in the city.122 The court determined that even if it did not violate section 7, that it would not to grant the interim and final orders because the Region did not meet its own Encampment Policy terms prior to enforcing the bylaw. The court stated that this amounted to an exceptional circumstance from which to deny the injunction, relying on the Windsor test.123
In Fraser Health Authority v Evans,124 because the lot containing a recently closed hospital was determined to be private property, and because the occupants were unable to demonstrate any right of possession, an injunction was granted permitting Fraser Health Authority to remove all “structures, tents, shelters, objects, and things owned, constructed, maintained, placed, or occupied by the defendants…”125 Despite arguments that the land was government-owned and should be constituted as public land, the determination that this land was private property meant that an injunction was granted without adhering to the RJR-MacDonald test because trespass is in itself actionable and does not require proof of damages.126
In other cases, the complex relationship between public and private land played an important role in how the court decided injunction applications. In Nanaimo (City) v Courtoreille, the City of Nanaimo was granted an injunction to remove all tents and belongings from city-owned public port authority land, because, as land leased to a conservation-based non-profit who sublet it to a rail company,127 it was not “purely public in nature”.128 According to the court, the private aspects of this land strengthened the case for an injunction because of the unquantifiable and non-compensable harm associated with the occupation that breached the Zoning bylaw and interfered with third-party rights.129 Notably, however, the court recognized the merit in the residents’ argument about the benefits of greater stability, security for personal belongings, and access to services.130
In Vancouver Fraser Port Authority v Brett,131 the port authority sought an injunction for an encampment located on Crown land managed by the port authority on several grounds: (i) common law trespass, (ii) the fact that the encampment violated the port authority regulations, and (iii) that they passed the RJR-MacDonald test. Encampment residents noted that the land adjoined a public park, had no fence, was unused at the time and thus differed from other public land leased to a third party.132 However the court granted the injunction based on the fact that the lands were being used for private commercial purposes and maintained private property qualities that disallowed public use.133
In Maple Ridge (City) v Scott, 2019 BCSC 157, an encampment existed on land that was owned by the city and owners of the BC Transportation and Finance Authority (BCTFA), who sought a court order to enforce several fire safety orders that had implications on encampment residents and their belongings. The application was granted. The judge noted that in previous cases involving encampments, significant fire risk has tipped the balance towards favouring the municipality. The occupants were ordered to comply with the fire safety orders, which included distances that tents and belongings had to be from one another and specifications on the use of tarps, heaters, propane and other survival related items.
An injunction is not guaranteed in every case. In Wallstam, the City of Vancouver was not able to demonstrate that the occupation of vacant City-owned property by tent city residents caused the City sufficient irreparable harm to meet the requirements for an injunction.134 The City argued that the presence of the tent city delayed the development of a social housing project to be constructed on the vacant land, however the court found that much of the City’s evidence was not admissible and that there was little to show that there was urgency in starting the development. Additionally, the proposed social housing would have fewer units available than the number of occupants of the vacant lot. While the court did not explicitly acknowledge the impacts an injunction would have on the security of the belongings of the encampment residents, the court did accept the residents’ evidence about impacts an injunction would have to their safety and survival directly connected to “having a stable place to sleep and live”135 and by extension, presumably, a place to keep their belongings. While the analysis in this case is highly fact-specific and future cases should not rely on the inadmissibility or insufficiency of a municipality’s evidence in injunction cases, Wallstam demonstrates that it is possible to successfully oppose an injunction application where people have set up shelter on municipally owned land.
Outside of court injunctions, other legal decisions have been made that have implications on people’s belongings in street spaces. In R v Tanton,136 the BC Provincial Court determined that bylaw officers did not have authority to seize a person’s belongings that were consensually stored on private property. Mr. Tanton had been warned by staff of a local drop-in centre not to leave his shopping cart of belongings in front of the building on the city sidewalk because of the risk of bylaw officers seizing it. Following this advice, with written permission, Mr. Tanton stored his belongings in the private parking lot of the drop-in. Mr. Tanton’s belongings were nonetheless seized by Kelowna bylaw officers. The fact that Mr. Tanton’s belongings were seized while being stored on privately owned property meant that his section 7 (life, liberty, and security of the person) and section 8 (protection against unreasonable search and seizure) Charter rights were violated. A judicial stay of proceedings was granted for charges Mr. Tanton was facing regarding uttering threats.
Additionally, other legal mechanisms have been used to clear encampments. On May 8, 2020, in the context of COVID-19, the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General of BC made a Ministerial Safety Order demanding that “[a]ll persons camping in, residing in or occupying” Oppenheimer Park in Vancouver, Topaz Park and the Pandora Avenue corridor in Victoria “must evacuate the area as soon as practicable”.137 This order spanned public space across both park and street spaces.
5.Conclusion
Provincial and municipal laws significantly restrict the type and number of possessions that a person can have and use in a street environment, whether public or private. These restrictions are further complicated by the lack of storage options in most municipalities and the stigma faced by precariously housed people.
In both Ontario and B.C., people who sleep rough on city streets are faced with a host of laws, bylaws, and City practices that jeopardize the security of their personal property. Unhoused people are severely restricted in their ability to erect tents and other structures on streets and sidewalks, either explicitly or where Cities prohibit “obstructions.” Whether or not people have some form of shelter, their belongings are at risk of being removed through City ‘sweeps’ and taken away by municipal workers. A person’s ability to retrieve their removed belongings depends on their ability to get to the site where their belongings are being held, to pay for the retrieval, and whether their belongings have already been discarded as devalued and “unmarketable” property. While many people living in tents in B.C. arguably have a reasonable expectation of privacy to the contents of their tents, their rights are significantly limited.
While the designation of the type of land which precariously housed people find themselves in as either public or private space effects the laws that they are subject to, the practical consequences of the laws end up being effectively the same. If a person finds themselves and their belongings on private property such as a parking lot or entryway, they are governed by provincial trespass laws, laws regulating what police can do with found or abandoned property, and property standards bylaws. These can lead to the dispossession of people’s personal belongings, as well as their displacement from private space to public space like streets, sidewalks, and boulevards where they become subject to municipal bylaws. Similarly, private vehicle use and ownership, without being tied to private personal property such as a tenancy or title holding and connected parking privileges, is subject to municipal bylaws regulating public space, such as through parking bylaws and other streets and sidewalks legislation.
In addition to smaller and mid-sized personal belongings that people need to either store or carry around with them, vehicles and animals pose additional limitations. Someone who is living in their vehicle must navigate street and traffic bylaw enforcement that places their vehicle at risk of impoundment. This is as much if not more so the case for people living in camper vans and larger vehicles due to their increased visibility on city streets.
The laws, bylaws, and rules described in this section directly and indirectly target the possessions of unhoused and precariously housed people on city streets. Without adequate storage options, many people have no choice but to risk the removal or theft of their personal property, which can intensify their experiences of homelessness and marginalization and disrupt an individual’s ability to secure stable shelter, employment, food, or health services. While the legislation is meant to keep public space like streets safe and unobstructed, in reality their enforcement perpetuates the vulnerability experienced by precariously housed and unhoused people.
Appendix: Legal Cases
Street Spaces - Legislation and Regulations Impacting People’s Possessions
An Act for making the system of Canadian ports competitive, efficient and commercially oriented, providing for the establishing of port authorities and the divesting of certain harbours and ports
To provide regulations related to cats, dogs, livestock animals, and prohibited animals include leashing, maximum number of pets permitted per household, registration, removal of waste, etc
Should the City of Vancouver be granted an injunction to enforce its bylaw and displace 200 people from a tent city outside a building in downtown Vancouver?
Injunction allowed. The court cites an older test for injunctions. Injunction granted because of a lack of exceptional circumstances that might otherwise permit the unlawful conduct of those camping on the sidewalks. Personal hardships are outweighed by public interest of having the law enforced.
Mr. Tanton left a shopping cart on private property with permission from the owner. Kelowna bylaw officers removed the cart. Mr. Tanton went to City Hall to complain and was arrested with uttering threats.
Were Mr. Tanton’s Charter rights violated when the bylaw officers removed his shopping cart?
The charges were stayed.
“Mr. Tanton’s rights were violated under Sections 7 and 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The police did not have authority to direct the seizure of his property when it was located on private property where the owner of the land had given him permission…” (para 44).
Should an injunction be granted to remove tents and possessions? Or does the engagement of the defendant’s s. 2(b) Charter rights place the balance in their favour?
The injunction was granted because the lands were government-owned private property not intended for public use, so the Charter right infringement was held to have been justified.
A tent city was erected on the site of a vacant City-owned property. The City argued that it interfered with the development of a social housing project. Tent city residents’ affidavits emphasized safety, community, and access to resources while living in the encampment.
Should the City’s application for an injunction be granted?
The application for the injunction was dismissed. The balance of convenience required to grant an injunction was not met because the City’s evidence of irreparable harm was insufficient.
“The occupants’ primary point is that the tent city is providing something they have been unable to obtain anywhere else: a supportive community that is safe and self-regulated. The social housing project being proposed may not fully address those concerns” (para 60).
A tent city was erected on port authority property after an encampment at City Hall was forcibly displaced. The City was concerned about fire safety, crime, and garbage. Residents cited safe storage for personal belongings, safer living conditions, and access to services.
Should the City’s petition for a statutory injunction to close and remove the tent city be granted?
The court ordered an interim injunction and referred more complex issues to trial.
The court recognized the merit in the residents’ argument about the benefits of greater stability, security for personal belongings, and access to services, but emphasized that addressing homelessness is for policymakers and legislators rather than for the courts.
The City had concerns about fire safety in the encampment on City land. The City Fire Department posted fire regulation notices. The City continued to have concerns about the use of in-tent heaters.
Should the City’s application for an order requiring occupants to comply with the Fire Department safety orders be granted?
The application was granted. The judge noted that in previous cases involving encampments, significant fire risk has tipped the balance towards favouring the municipality. The occupants were ordered to comply with the fire safety orders.
A tent city was erected on port authority lands not available for general use of the public.
Should the port authority’s application for an injunction be granted?
The injunction was granted. The court noted the residents’ statements about the benefits of the encampment, including not needing to move their belongings all the time, not losing belongings as much as they do in shelters, and being able to keep pets.
An encampment on a city-owned vacant parking lot violated municipal bylaws.
Should the city’s application for an injunction be granted?
The court declared that the bylaw preventing sheltering violated the section 7 Charter rights of the residents and was inoperative if the number of shelter spaces were not sufficient for number of people unhoused.
Even if it did not violate s7 rights, the court declared that it would not grant the order because the Region did not meet its own Encampment Policy terms prior to enforcing the bylaw. The court stated that this amounted to an exceptional circumstance from which to deny the injunction, relying on the Windsor test
1. This report focuses on the Ontario municipalities of Toronto, Hamilton, and Ottawa, and the BC Municipalities of Vancouver, Victoria, and Abbotsford. See City of Vancouver, by-law No 2849, Street and Traffic By-Law (1 March 2022), online (pdf), s 3; City of Victoria, by-law No 09-079, Streets and Traffic Bylaw, (1 May 2023) online (pdf) at s 4 [Victoria Streets Bylaw]; See of Abbotsford, by-law No 1536-2006, Street and Traffic Bylaw(Consolidated) (2021), online; See Toronto Municipal Code, c 313-1, Streets and Sidewalks, online (pdf); See City of Hamilton, by-law No 9329, Streets By-law (Consolidated) (25 February 1986), online (pdf) [Hamilton Streets Bylaw]; See City of Ottawa, by-law No 2003-498, Use and Care of Roads Bylaw (8 October 2003), online.
2.Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996, c318, s1; Transportation Act, SBC 2004, c 44, s 1; Community Charter, SBC 2003, c 26, Schedule 1; Municipal Act, SO 2001, c 25, s1.
3. City of Vancouver, by-law No 2849, Street and Traffic By-Law (1 March 2022), online (pdf), s 3.
4. This and other vignettes are not real-life stories of specific individuals. They are composites of experiences that people have described regarding the ways in which they navigate a variety of laws, bylaws and policies that impact their ability to retain their possessions or access services with their belongings. These stories reflect the experiences of real people who have shared their experiences with us, whether as individually identifiable people or as participants in studies that have contributed to knowledge on this issue. The elements that make up the stories are derived from multiple municipalities, so it would be inaccurate to name a particular municipality in any of them. The relevant body of research concerning these kinds of experiences focuses on particular areas in which people have been impacted, rather than on their entire experiences moving across different spaces.
5. Joshua Daniel Phillips, From Losing Everything to Finding Community: How Homeless People Narrate Their Lived Experiences (PhD Dissertation, Department of Speech Communication Southern Illinois University Carbondale, 2014) [unpublished] at 86: since storing personal possessions is an issue for most unhoused people “they must always travel with everything they own or hide their belongings in public places such as dumpsters, bushes, or drainage pipes.”
6. Jen St. Denis, “’Unprofessional and Disrespectful’: Walker Among Items Taken from Homeless People”, The Tyee (20 Jan 2021), online
7. People have described their experiences with Vancouver sanitation workers engaging in street sweeps, taking their possessions, and the difficulty in getting their possessions back: St. Denis, supra note 7. In San Francisco, the Stolen Belonging project is highlighting the immediate disposal of people’s belongings after these sweeps, such that it ends up becoming impossible to get one’s belongings back: “Stolen Belonging”, online.
8. In Dawson v Boundary Management Inc (No. 2), 2020 BCHRT 177 online, the tribunal acknowledged the pain and devastation that occurred when the complainant had all of her “treasured” possessions taken away from her (at paras 71-73).
9.Toronto Municipal Code, c 743, Streets and Sidewalks, Use of, online (pdf) [Toronto Streets Code]; City of Hamilton, by-law No 9329, Streets By-law (Consolidated) (25 February 1986), online (pdf) [Hamilton Streets Bylaw].
11.Toronto Streets Code, supra note 10 at §743-9(Q). This prohibition is subject to the application of Toronto’s Interdepartmental Protocol for Homeless People Camping in Public Spaces, discussed in greater detail in the Parks section of this report.
12.Toronto Streets Code, supra note 10; Hamilton Streets Bylaw, supra note 116.
13.Toronto Municipal Code, c 636, Municipal Squares, online (pdf).
14.Toronto Streets Code, supra note 10, ss 743-46.
15.Toronto Municipal Code, c 548, Littering and Dumping, online (pdf) at s 548-1.
16. City of Vancouver, by-law No 5078, Unclaimed Property By-Law (22 June 1993), online (pdf) [Unclaimed Property Bylaw] at ss 4(a) and (d).
17. Meenakshi Mannoe, “#Stop the Sweeps: Ending Cyclical Displacement and Criminalized Poverty in Vancouver” (2 May 2022) online (pdf) at 9.
18. City of Vancouver, by-law No 2849, Street and Traffic By-Law (1 March 2022), online (pdf), s 66(1).
19.Victoria Streets Bylaw, supra note 1. What is considered “offensive” is not clearly defined.
20. City of Victoria, by-law No 09-079, Streets and Traffic Bylaw, (1 May 2023) online (pdf) Schedule H.
25. Eva Uguen-Csenge, “No plan to house hundreds of people living in tents on Vancouver's Hastings Street, say advocates”, CBC News (10 August 2022), online.
26. Pivot Legal Society, “Hastings Tent City Residents Give City of Vancouver and Vancouver Fire Rescue Services an Overall ‘E’ Grade” (9 August 2022) online [Hastings Tent City].
27.R v Picard, 2018 BCPC 344, online. See also Ferencz, Sarah, Alexandra Flynn, Nicholas Blomley & Marie-Eve Sylvestre (2022). Are tents a ‘home’? Extending section 8 privacy rights for the precariously housed. McGill Law Journal. 67, 4, 371-407.
28.R v Picard, 2018 BCPC 344, online. See also Ferencz, Sarah, Alexandra Flynn, Nicholas Blomley & Marie-Eve Sylvestre (2022). Are tents a ‘home’? Extending section 8 privacy rights for the precariously housed. McGill Law Journal. 67, 4, 371-407.
29. See Community Charter, SBC 2003, c 26, Part 8.
30. British Columbia, “Municipal ticketing and Offence Act Prosecutions” (last accessed July 26, 2023), online.
31. British Columbia, “Municipal ticketing” (last accessed July 26, 2023), online.
32. Consider the difference between paying to enter and take a bus, versus not necessarily needing to pay to enter the sheltered portion of a subway station without advancing beyond the fare gates.
33. City of Richmond, “Transit Shelters – FAQs” (2015), online: Let’s Talk Richmond.
34. Metro Vancouver’s regional transit authority, Translink, has a list of Rules and Regulations which indicates that the rules are subject to the provincial Offence Act, RSBC 1996, c 338, and the published document advises readers to consult the applicable legislation. However, no directly applicable official legislation could be found on the matter other than the document published by Translink.
35. Toronto Transit Commission, by-law No 1 (21 January 2009), online [TTC Bylaw] at s 3.34(c); City of Ottawa, by-law No 2007-268, Transit By-Law, online (pdf) [Ottawa Transit] at s 32(d).
36.TTC Bylaw, ibid at ss 4.1-4.2; Ottawa Transit, ibid at s 35(1).
37. City of Hamilton, by-law No 16-111, Passenger Transportation System Bylaw (27 April 2016), online (pdf) at s 10(1)(c).
50. See Nicholas Blomley, Alexandra Flynn & Marie-Eve Sylvestre, “Governing the Belongings of the Precariously Housed: A Critical Legal Geography,” (2020) 16 Ann Rev of Law & Soc Sci 165 at 166 and 174; Christine Coulter, “Vernon Votes to Rein in Homeless By Banning Shopping Carts in All Public Spaces”, CBC News BC (25 July 2018), online.
51. City of Vancouver, by-law No 8735, City Land Regulation By-Law (8 June 2022) online (pdf) at s 3.
64. Michelle Lem et al, “Effects of Companion Animal Ownership Among Canadian Street-Involved Youth: A Qualitative Analysis” (2013) 40:4 J Sociology and Soc Welfare 285 at 291.
66. Jennifer Labrecque & Christine A. Walsh, “Homeless Women’s Voices on Incorporating Companion Animals into Shelter Services” (2011) 24:1 Anthrozoös 79 at 90.
69. See City of Vancouver, “Vancouver Animal Services fines and fees,” online.
70. See Toronto Municipal Code, c 349, Animals, online (pdf) at s 349-6(B) [Municipal Code Animals]; See City of Ottawa, by-law No 2003-77, Animal Care and Control By-law (February 2016), online (pdf) at s 3(1)(b) [Ottawa Animal Bylaw].
71. See Municipal Code Animals, ibid at s 349-6(C).
72. City of Vancouver, by-law No 9150, Animal Control By-law, at ss 6.1, 7.6 [Vancouver Animal By-law].
73. City of Victoria, by-law No 11-044, Animal Control Bylaw (1 January 2015), online (pdf) at s 10.
74. There is a considerable amount of stigma towards unhoused pet owners, the (usually misplaced) assumption being that because they have difficulty taking care of themselves, they will not be able to take care of an animal: See Kerman et al, supra note 63 at 8; Rebecca Ledger, “Pet Therapy: The Importance of Support for Homeless People and Their Pets”, Vancouver Sun (25 March 2016), online.
75. See Municipal Code Animals, supra note 71 at chapter 349-14 D.
76. See Vancouver Animal By-law, supra note 73 at s 6.8.
103. See City of Toronto, “Residential On-Street Parking” online. See City of Vancouver, “Buy an annual or a short-term residential parking permit” online.
104.Toronto Municipal Code, c 950 Schedule XIII: No Parking, online (pdf); Toronto Municipal Code, c 950 Schedule XIV: No Stopping, Traffic and Parking, online (pdf); Toronto Municipal Code, c 950 Schedule XV: Parking for Restricted Periods, online (pdf).
112.Ottawa Idling Bylaw, supra note 20, at ss 2-3; Hamilton Idling Bylaw, supra note 20 at ss 3.1-3.2.
113.Vancouver Trailer Courts Bylaw, supra note 58 at s 3(1).
114. Carlito Pablo, “Homeless People Living in Camper Vans and Cars Defy City of Vancouver Order to Break Up Camp by May 26”, The Georgia Straight (18 May 2021), online.
115. Christopher Cheung, “Vancouver’s RV Residents Prepare for a Crackdown”, The Tyee (28 May 2021), online.
116.Nanaimo (City) v Courtoreille, 2018 BCSC 1629, online at para 110; RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 311, 1994 CanLII 117, online.
117.Maple Ridge (District) v. Thornhill Aggregates Ltd. (1998), 54 BCLR (3d) 155, [1999] 3 WWR 93, 1998 CanLII 6446 (BCCA), online; The Corporation of the City of Windsor v Persons Unknown, 2022 ONSC 1168, online at paras 51-56.
137.Emergency Program Act, M150/2020 (8 May 2020), BC Ministerial Orders; Emergency Program Act, M128/2020 (24 April 2020), BC Ministerial Orders.
138. The ‘Purpose’ of each law is often stated directly in the preamble or body of the law and is understood as the general objective of the law from the perspective of law makers. This purpose does not necessarily consider the ways the effects of the law may diverge from their stated purpose, and how this inevitably impacts people in precarious housing situations.
139. The ‘Purpose’ of each law is often stated directly in the preamble or body of the law and is understood as the general objective of the law from the perspective of law makers. This purpose does not necessarily consider the ways the effects of the law may diverge from their stated purpose, and how this inevitably impacts people in precarious housing situations.
