Excerpts from B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson’s decision to grant the province an injunction to close tent city on the Victoria courthouse lawn, issued July 5, 2016.
• I find that the Province has incurred and continues to incur greater than anticipated costs due to the ongoing presence of the Encampment than it would if the residents of the Encampment were located elsewhere. The City of Victoria has similarly incurred and will incur greater expense in the future, which is straining the budget for the city police and compromising their ability to perform needed duties elsewhere in the city, and for which they have sought and continue to seek additional funding from the Province. As I stated on the plaintiffs’ first application, the expenses attributable to the Encampment will almost certainly be unrecoverable from the defendants.
• I do not fault those who have endeavoured to provide leadership at the Encampment. Indeed, I consider that they should be commended for their significant efforts. Unfortunately they have been unable to sustain that leadership, in part due to the changing nature of the Encampment.
• The plaintiffs contend, and I accept, that the demographic nature of the residents at the Encampment has changed since March of this year, and that the leadership that was present at that time has become less effective.
• One witness, who described himself as homeless in the City of Victoria for many years, deposed that:
In the course of my visits, I have personally noticed a shift in the population of the Courthouse Encampment. In or around the fall of 2015, I observed that the majority of campers were local individuals whom I recognized from my time living on the streets.
Currently, I observe that the Courthouse Encampment population is comprised mostly of individuals whom I do not recognize. I am informed by some of these campers and believe that these campers have come to Victoria from other communities specifically to live in the Courthouse Encampment. Another reason I chose not to stay at the Courthouse Encampment was because there were too many strangers with mental health issues and drug addictions there. Many of my homeless friends have left the Courthouse Encampment.
• The evidence on this application establishes that there has been a significant increase in the amount of garbage on the properties in the environs of the Encampment, to the point that it impedes those with mobility aids from traversing the area.
• There is evidence, which I accept, of up to eight dogs that now live with their owners at the Encampment, and at least some of the dogs are described as aggressive.
• While there was little evidence of the presence of rats at the Encampment on the plaintiffs’ initial application, the evidence on the present application confirms that rats are now present in numbers, and the use of rat traps to control them has been unsuccessful. There is evidence of at least two rats’ nests at the Encampment.
• I find that there has been considerable degeneration and deterioration in the health and safety circumstances at the Encampment, and for those reasons conclude that the Encampment poses a health and safety risk to both its residents and the residents and businesses in the area of the Encampment.
• Thomas Lacroix is a Security Officer with Paladin Security in Victoria, posted to the Encampment. He deposed that “nearly every male resident at [the Encampment] wears a knife on his belt in plain view,” and that some of those residents have admitted to him that they carry the knives for general use and protection.
• I find that the violence and criminal activities at the Encampment have markedly increased since March of this year to the point where the Encampment is unsafe, and for that reason conclude that the Encampment poses a risk to both its residents and the residents and businesses in the area of the Encampment.
• I have come to the conclusion that the Encampment is unsafe for those living there and for the neighbouring residents and businesses and cannot be permitted to continue. The residents of the Encampment can no longer remain where they are pending the trial of the plaintiffs’ action against them, and the Encampment must be closed. That said, I accept that I must still address the balance of convenience. To accommodate that balance, the residents of the Encampment must leave the Encampment as soon as the housing being made available by the Province is available.
• I do order that the residents of the Encampment forthwith:
a) Clear all fences and obstructions at the Encampment;
b) Remove trip hazards from pathways at the Encampment.
I further order that:
a) Within 3 days of the date of this order, the Defendants residing at the Encampment at the date of the order, who do not have access to housing elsewhere and who wish to transition to new housing from the Encampment must identify themselves to the plaintiffs’ representative or representatives by showing picture identification, or if they have no picture identification by agreeing to be photographed and providing their name “Qualifying Defendants” (and any photographs taken for that purpose are to be kept only for the purpose of verifying the identity of the Qualifying Defendants and are to be destroyed following their transition to alternative housing).
b) The Defendants must identify to representatives of the plaintiffs which tents, shelters, objects and things located on the Encampment belong to them.
c) The plaintiffs, their employees or agents are hereby authorized to prevent any person who is not a Qualifying Defendant, from taking up residence or continuing to reside at the Encampment.
d) As housing becomes available, and by not later than August 8, 2016, the defendants shall remove all structures, tents, shelters, objects and things owned, constructed, maintained, placed or occupied by them which are located at the Encampment, and otherwise cease to occupy or reside at the Encampment.
B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson's judgment [PDF]
