In a significant ruling, the Quebec Superior Court has barred the City of Montreal from dismantling a homeless encampment located beneath an overpass, highlighting the city’s failure to provide adequate alternatives for its residents. The decision reinforces a bylaw introduced earlier this year, which stipulates that relocating encampments should be a last resort, requiring officials to designate areas where tents can be tolerated. Justice Alexandre Pless’s ruling also underscores the constitutional rights of individuals experiencing homelessness, affirming their entitlement to safety, security, and dignity.
Court Ruling Details
Justice Pless issued the ruling on Monday, stating that while individuals cannot occupy any property indefinitely, every person has a fundamental right to exist. He noted that the city had not presented suitable options for the ten individuals residing under the Van Horne overpass, near a local skate park, since autumn 2025. As a result, Pless granted an indefinite injunction, allowing them to remain in their current location until the case is fully considered.
However, the judge did indicate that if the city could secure a viable, safe, and dignified alternative for the residents, it would be permissible for officials to request their relocation.
City’s Response and Legal Backing
In May, the City of Montreal had alerted the residents of the Van Horne encampment to vacate the area in order to maintain public access to adjacent recreational facilities. This prompted the Mobile Legal Clinic, an organisation dedicated to ensuring access to justice for those affected by homelessness, to intervene by filing an injunction against the city’s eviction efforts. The clinic has previously secured protective measures for another significant encampment in the eastern part of the city.
Karine Millaire, a law professor at Université de Montréal, anticipates that the implications of Justice Pless’s injunction will be substantial when the case is reviewed in full, potentially leading to a permanent ban on eviction. She pointed to a recent Ontario Superior Court decision that overturned a bylaw allowing the eviction of a vulnerable encampment in Waterloo, Ontario, emphasising that removing individuals from such sites without providing alternatives infringes upon their right to life.
The Broader Context of Homelessness in Canada
Millaire described the situation as a growing humanitarian crisis within major Canadian cities, highlighting the tension between individual rights and state ownership. Decisions like those made by Pless and his Ontario counterpart, Justice Michael R. Gibson, should serve as a critical wake-up call regarding the treatment of vulnerable populations.
Court documents reveal that the city had proposed two alternative locations for the residents. The first was another area under the same overpass, albeit further from public amenities. However, residents reported that the proposed site was lower and subjected them to excessive noise from passing traffic, making it unsuitable for habitation. The second option offered by the city was also rejected by the clinic, as it is slated for conversion into a seasonal skating rink, rendering it an inadequate long-term solution.
The Mobile Legal Clinic argued that dismantling the encampment would violate the residents’ rights to safety and dignity, leading to significant distress and potential harm. Justice Pless concurred, referencing expert testimony that indicated forced evictions compound issues such as stress, social isolation, and deteriorating health and safety conditions.
Why it Matters
This ruling marks a pivotal moment in how homeless individuals are treated in Montreal and beyond, spotlighting the urgent need for sustainable solutions. As cities grapple with escalating homelessness, the court’s decision underscores the necessity of addressing the systemic failures that leave vulnerable populations without support. The implications of this case extend beyond legal precedent; they challenge policymakers to rethink their approaches to homelessness, ensuring that human rights and dignity remain at the forefront of urban planning and social services.
