Public Land on Property: (Re)Making Canada | An Open Legal Coursebook

Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v Canada

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the question of whether restrictions on political activity (engaging passers-by and distributing leaflets to recruit new members) at an airport owned by the federal government were in violation of the respondents’ Charter-protected freedom of expression. In the course of their decisions, the judges discussed some of the broader principles applicable to the limits that government can place on access to and the use of “public” property. The decision below is a short excerpt from Justice L’Heureux-Dubé’s opinion concurring with the majority’s finding that the respondents’ freedom of expression was infringed.

Victoria (City) v Adams

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

Ross J. — #

I Introduction #

This litigation arises from what Senior District Judge Atkins in Pottinger v. Miami (City), 810 F. Supp. 1551 (U.S. Dist. Ct. S.D. Fla. 1992) at 1554 described as:

… an inevitable conflict between the need of homeless individuals to perform essential, life-sustaining acts in public and the responsibility of the government to maintain orderly, aesthetically pleasing public parks and streets.

The particular issue in this litigation concerns the prohibition against erecting temporary shelter on public property that is contained in the Parks Regulation Bylaw and the Streets and Traffic Bylaw (the “Bylaws”) of the City of Victoria (the “City”). Natalie Adams, Yann Chartier, Amber Overall, Alymanda Wawai, Conrad Fletcher, Sebastien Matte, Simon Ralph, Heather Turnquist and David Arthur Johnston (the “Defendants”), who are all homeless people living in the City, contend that this prohibition infringes the rights of homeless people to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, contrary to s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, [Charter] being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982, (U.K.), 1982, c. 11. The intervener, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (the “BCCLA”), supports the defendants in this contention.

Bamberger v Vancouver

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

Kirchner J. — #

I. Introduction #

In 1984, an encampment of some 60 tents was established at the site of what would become CRAB Park at Portside in Vancouver. The encampment was a protest designed to pressure government authorities into creating a public park at the site. The name of the park is taken from the acronym for the activist group—Create a Real Available Beach Committee—that envisioned the establishment of a waterfront public park in an area of the city short of green space. The community activism and the camp protest had its desired effect and, in 1987, CRAB Park at Portside (“CRAB Park” or the “Park”) was established as a Vancouver public park on federal port land leased by the City.

Heegsma v. Hamilton (City)

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

Ramsay J. – #

The applicants are 14 homeless individuals who apply for a declaration that the City of Hamilton’s enforcement of its Parks by-law during the period from August 2021 to August 2023 breached their right under the Charter to life, liberty and security of the person (s.7) and to equal benefit of the law (s.15). They seek damages from the City.

The applicants say that they were evicted from encampments during the period from August 2021 to August 2023 in breach of the Charter, and that they suffered harm as a result.