In a landmark ruling, the Quebec Superior Court has intervened to protect a homeless encampment in Montreal, preventing the city from dismantling it due to a lack of suitable alternatives for its residents. This decision underscores the need for the city to adhere to its own recently enacted bylaw addressing homelessness, which stipulates that the relocation of encampments should be a last resort, requiring the identification of designated areas for tents. Justice Alexandre Pless’s ruling, dated Monday, reaffirms the fundamental rights to safety, security, and dignity for individuals experiencing homelessness.
Court Ruling Details
The court’s decision was prompted by the city’s attempt to evict approximately ten individuals residing under the Van Horne overpass, a location they have occupied since autumn 2025. Justice Pless ruled that the city failed to provide viable alternatives for these residents and granted an indefinite injunction permitting them to remain until the case is fully assessed. “This does not imply a free-standing right to appropriate any property they choose for as long as they choose. But a human being cannot exist nowhere,” Pless stated in his ruling.
The judge further indicated that should the city find a sustainable and dignified location for the residents, it would have the option to request their relocation.
Context of the Eviction
Earlier this year, the city issued a notice to the Van Horne encampment’s residents, urging them to relocate to facilitate public access to a nearby skate park and basketball court. This action prompted the Mobile Legal Clinic, an organisation dedicated to advocating for justice for homeless individuals, to intervene and file an injunction against the eviction.
In addition to this case, the clinic has successfully secured protective measures for another encampment located in the city’s eastern sector, highlighting a growing trend of legal actions aimed at safeguarding the rights of homeless populations in Montreal.
Legal Implications and Expert Opinions
Karine Millaire, a law professor at Université de Montréal, noted that Justice Pless’s injunction is likely to have significant weight when the case is examined in detail, potentially leading to a permanent order against eviction. She drew parallels to a recent ruling from Ontario’s Superior Court, which invalidated a bylaw in Waterloo that would allow the city to clear an encampment earmarked for a transit hub. Justice Michael R. Gibson emphasised that evicting vulnerable individuals without providing alternatives infringes upon their fundamental right to life.
Millaire cautioned that the situation reflects a growing humanitarian crisis across Canada’s major urban centres. “It is becoming a humanitarian crisis in Canada’s major cities,” she remarked, noting the courts’ role in balancing individual or state ownership against the rights of people to live with dignity.
Unsuitable Alternatives Offered
Court documents reveal that the City of Montreal had proposed two alternative sites for the residents of the Van Horne encampment. The first option was another area under the same overpass, but further from public parks. Residents rejected this site, citing concerns over noise from traffic that made it difficult to sleep. The second proposed location was dismissed by the legal clinic as inadequate, as it is slated to be converted into a skating rink during the winter months.
In their argument, the clinic contended that dismantling the encampment would violate the residents’ rights to safety and dignity, potentially causing serious and irreversible harm. Justice Pless corroborated these concerns, referencing an expert report indicating that evicting homeless individuals from encampments leads to heightened stress, diminished mobility, social isolation, loss of community support, and increased health risks.
Why it Matters
This ruling not only highlights the ongoing challenges faced by homeless individuals in Montreal but also serves as a critical reminder for cities across Canada to develop humane and just responses to homelessness. As urban centres grapple with rising homelessness, the judiciary is increasingly being called upon to safeguard the rights of the most vulnerable in society. This decision could set a significant precedent, forcing municipalities to rethink their approaches to homelessness and prioritise the dignity and well-being of their residents.
