Strategic Litigation & the Right to Housing
Across Canada, the human rights of people experiencing homelessness are being increasingly violated by government laws, policies, and enforcement practices, affecting their ability to live safely and with dignity. When this happens, courts can play an important role in holding governments accountable. Strategic litigation is one of the tools the National Right to Housing Network uses to advance the right to housing in Canada.
What is Strategic Litigation?
Strategic litigation uses court cases to address systemic issues rather than individual disputes. Instead of focusing on a single person or situation, it asks courts to clarify governments’ legal responsibilities to a widespread issue and set standards that apply more broadly.
In the housing context, this means examining how government laws, policies, and actions impact people experiencing homelessness or inadequate housing, and whether those laws and actions comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, international human rights law, and Canada’s own right to housing legislation — the National Housing Strategy Act.
Driving Systemic Change Through the Courts
Historically, landmark court decisions in Canada have done more than resolve individual cases; they have set standards that all levels of governments must follow and shaped rights many people now take for granted. Examples of strategic litigation below show how courts have upheld human rights and driven real life impact for everyone in Canada.
Read the Case Here...
Read the Case Here...
Read the Case Here...
What Does It Mean To Intervene in a Case?
NRHN does not bring cases or represent individual clients. Instead, we apply for intervenor status for ongoing cases relating to homelessness or the right to housing. Participating as intervenors means that we are not one of the main parties on the case, but we have been granted permission by the court to share our expertise and legal arguments, particularly on the right to life for people experiencing homelessness, Canada’s right to housing legislation, and how it connects to Charter protections.
As intervenors, NRHN works to protect the rights of people experiencing homelessness in court cases by:
- Providing broader legal and human rights context, such as Canada’s obligation to protect the right to life under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- Advancing arguments grounded in Canada’s right to housing legislation (the National Housing Strategy Act) and its connection to the Charter
- Raising additional human rights arguments, such as those grounded in international human rights law, that might not otherwise be heard.
- Helping courts understand how the outcome of a single case can shape how Canada meets its obligations to end homelessness beyond by a single community
Why does NRHN intervene?
We intervene when a case:
- Raises national implications for Canada’s right to housing legislation and ending homelessness
- Could set precedents affecting encampments residents, people experiencing homelessness, and government responsibilities to uphold the housing as a human right
NRHN brings a national, rights-based perspective grounded in domestic and international human rights law.
How Can Courts Help Advance the Right to Housing
Courts do not design policies or build homes, but they can…
- Interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to define what rights people have and what governments must do to respect them
- Decide whether government actions (or inaction) violate rights protected under Canadian and international human rights law
- Order governments to fix those violations for example, by changing laws, policies, or practices that cause harm
In housing cases, this can mean stopping harmful practices and setting minimum human rights standards that all levels of governments must meet to respect and protect the rights of people experiencing homelessness.
Cases we’re involved in
NRHN has applied for intervenor status in several cases that raise critical right-to-housing questions, including cases involving encampments and homelessness.
Waterloo v. Persons Unknown (2026)
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
In 2022, the Region of Waterloo attempted to evict encampment residents living on a regionally owned vacant lot when there were no safe or accessible shelter spaces available.
In 2023, during the first ruling of its kind in Ontario, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found the eviction would violate section 7 of the encampment residents' Charter rights; the right to life and security of the person.
The Region of Waterloo has since introduced a site-specific by-law targeting this encampment along with a broader homelessness strategy and is now asking whether this approach aligns with what the Charter requires governments to do in response to homelessness.
Heegsma v. City of Hamilton
Court: Ontario Court of Appeal
In Heegsma, 14 people experiencing homelessness challenged Hamilton's by-laws requiring daily removal of encampments and banning overnight stays in public spaces. They argued this put their safety and lives at risk, especially where shelters were full or inaccessible.
The case raises key questions about governments' responsibilities when homelessness threatens life, safety, and equality, and could influence how municipalities across Canada respond to encampments and housing insecurity.
Partners Involved in Strategic Litigation
Many of our partners also leverage the courts to advance social justice throughout Canada because it is one of the most effective ways to address and resolve systemic failures. NRHN is currently one of the only organizations in the country dedicated to using the legal system to specifically advance and protect the rights of people experiencing homelessness. Here are a few partners and organizations that also drive systemic change through strategic litigation.
FAQs
Does this mean courts can force governments to build housing?
No. Courts generally do not issue direct orders for governments to build specific units of housing. However, the courts can play a critical role in ensuring governments meet their obligations to uphold the right to housing.
For example, if a court finds that current housing policies or a lack of action from the municipality violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the National Housing Strategy Act, it can declare these policies unconstitutional or inadequate.
This creates a legal obligation for the government to realign its budgets and housing strategies to address the systemic gaps identified and implement more effective programs to ensure that everyone, especially people experiencing homelessness or housing precarity, has access to adequate housing.
If Canada has a right to housing legislation, why do the courts need to get involved?
Even though the National Housing Strategy Act (NHSA) legally recognizes housing as a fundamental human right, legislation is only as effective as its enforcement. The court can act as a vital mechanism for rights-based accountability.
When administrative processes or policy implementations fail to protect right-holders (i.e., people currently experiencing homelessness or housing precarity), raising these issues in the court system ensures that the NHSA is not just a statement, but a binding commitment that governments at all levels must address the root causes of homelessness and ultimately end it.
Why use courts instead of advocacy or policy work?
Strategic litigation is not a replacement for advocacy or policy work; it is a complementary tool that is a vital part of Canada’s democracy. While advocacy builds public and political momentum, the courts can hand out rulings that governments cannot ignore.
It is often the most effective way to resolve systemic failures where political processes have stalled or political will is not aligned with human rights. Court decisions can create precedents that provide long-term legal protection for people experiencing homelessness and mandate systemic changes that advocacy alone may not achieve.
The challenge is that strategic litigation can take a long time and may not also result in a successful decision. That’s why NRHN engages in both advocacy and strategic litigation efforts.
What role does international human rights law play in Canadian courts?
International human rights laws provide the foundational framework that Canadian courts use to measure our own progress. Canada has made formal obligations, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), to protect the right to adequate housing.
When our judges interpret Canadian laws, like the National Housing Strategy Act, they are supposed to refer to the ICESCR to make sure our domestic laws are living up to the standards set by our international obligations.
By using this international framework, our courts ensure that Canadian housing laws are constantly evolving to meet modern needs, specifically focusing on making sure housing is truly affordable, accessible, and safe for everyone.
Has the court decided on similar human rights issues and directed the government to take action?
Yes! Canadian courts have a history of directing the government to take action when systemic human rights obligations are not met. For example, in Eldridge v. British Columbia, the court ruled that the government’s failure to provide medical sign language interpreters was discriminatory, forcing a change in provincial healthcare policy.
Another example would be in cases like Vriend v. Alberta which led to sexual orientation being recognized as a protected ground under human rights law. These precedents prove that the Canadian court system is a powerful mechanism for compelling governments to take meaningful action to fulfill their human rights duties.
