In a significant ruling, the Quebec Superior Court has barred the City of Montreal from disbanding a homeless encampment located beneath the Van Horne overpass. The court’s decision underscores the city’s failure to provide adequate alternatives for the vulnerable residents, affirming their right to safety and dignity. Justice Alexandre Pless’s ruling not only challenges local authorities’ approach to homelessness but also reinforces the need for humane solutions in addressing this pressing issue.
Court’s Intervention on Behalf of Residents
Justice Pless’s decision, dated Monday, mandates that the City of Montreal adhere to a bylaw it enacted earlier this year concerning homelessness, which stipulates that the relocation of encampments should be a last resort. The bylaw also requires that officials identify areas where tent living is permissible. The judge emphasised that while people cannot claim any property indefinitely, “a human being cannot exist nowhere,” highlighting the necessity for humane treatment of the unhoused.
The encampment currently shelters ten individuals who have been residing there since autumn 2025. The judge issued an indefinite injunction that allows the residents to remain until a full hearing on the matter takes place. However, Justice Pless noted that should the city identify a sustainable and dignified alternative location for the residents, it could request a move.
City’s Attempts to Clear the Encampment
In May, the city issued a notice to the encampment’s residents, requesting their relocation to facilitate public access to adjacent recreational facilities, including a skate park and basketball court. The Mobile Legal Clinic, which champions the rights of the homeless, intervened by filing an injunction against the eviction, asserting that the city’s actions would violate the residents’ rights to safety and dignity.
The legal clinic has previously succeeded in securing protections for another large encampment situated in the eastern part of Montreal, demonstrating its commitment to defending the rights of those experiencing homelessness.
Legal Perspectives on the Ruling
Karine Millaire, a law professor at Université de Montréal, anticipates that Justice Pless’s injunction will significantly influence the case when it is eventually heard in full. She suggested that the ruling could lead to a permanent order preventing the city’s efforts to evict the encampment’s residents. Millaire referenced a recent Ontario Superior Court decision that overturned a bylaw in Waterloo, which would have allowed the city to displace a similar encampment. Justice Michael R. Gibson’s ruling in that case stated that evicting vulnerable populations without providing suitable alternatives infringes on their fundamental right to life.
Millaire cautioned that such judicial decisions should serve as a wake-up call, as Canada faces an escalating humanitarian crisis in its major cities. She argued that courts are increasingly tasked with balancing individual property rights against the right to live and exist.
Inadequate Alternatives Presented
According to court documents, the City of Montreal offered two alternatives to the residents of the Van Horne encampment. The first option was a different section of land beneath the same overpass, further removed from public amenities. However, residents rejected this site due to its proximity to heavy traffic, which made it nearly impossible to find restful sleep. The second proposed location was also deemed unacceptable, as it is slated for development into a skating rink for the winter months.
The Mobile Legal Clinic represented the residents, asserting that dismantling the encampment would inflict serious, irreversible harm on their wellbeing. Justice Pless concurred, referencing a report from an expert who testified that eviction leads to heightened stress, decreased mobility, social isolation, loss of community support, and heightened health risks.
Why it Matters
This ruling not only sheds light on the systemic failures in addressing homelessness but also emphasises the urgent need for cities to develop compassionate and sustainable strategies for unhoused individuals. As the crisis deepens across Canada, the responsibility falls on local governments to uphold the dignity and rights of all citizens, ensuring that no one is left without a place to call home. This case serves as a critical reminder that humane solutions must be at the forefront of public policy, particularly when dealing with vulnerable populations.
