The National Right to Housing Network

The Waterloo Case: Do governments have a legal responsibility to address homelessness?

April 16, 2026

Background on the Waterloo Case

In 2022, the Region of Waterloo attempted to evict encampment residents living at 100 Victoria St. North: a regionally-owned vacant lot. This case raised a basic but important question:

Can governments remove people from encampments if there are no safe places for them to go?

In a 2023 decision, the court said no—at least not when there aren’t enough accessible shelter spaces available. In the first ruling of its kind, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Valente found that the Region of Waterloo’s attempt to evict encampment residents at 100 Victoria St. N violated the rights of the residents under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under Section 7: their right to life and safety.

As a response, the Region of Waterloo created a site-specific by-law targeting the same encampment at 100 Victoria, along with a plan to transition people out of encampments and a broader strategy to end chronic homelessness.

The Region then asked the court to weigh in again. Specifically, it wanted to know:

Is this new approach constitutional?
And if not, what does the Charter actually require governments to do?

Why NRHN Sought to Intervene

In addition to the original question at hand, this case in Waterloo was one of the first chances in over a decade for a court to consider another major, but unresolved, question in Canada:

Do governments have a legal responsibility under the Charter to take proactive steps to address homelessness?

This critical question was first raised in the 2014 Tanudjaja case, but never fully answered.

The outcome of Waterloo could have significant implications for the right to housing in Canada. This is why the National Right to Housing Network (NRHN), alongside the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues (CCPI), participated in this case as third party experts (intervenors). Participating as intervenors meant that we were not one of the main parties on the case, but we had 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.

Our Core Argument

NRHN and CCPI appeared in court, represented by counsel Martha Jackman, in April 2026 to present our oral arguments.

When governments fail to meet their human rights commitments to end homelessness, they often displace encampment residents without safe alternatives. This undermines their safety, dignity, and access to essential supports.

We asked the court to recognize that this is not just a policy gap—it is a violation of Charter rights for people experiencing homelessness, including:

Section 7: their right to life, liberty, and security of the person
Section 15: their right to equality and protection from discrimination

We also argued that homelessness itself should be recognized as a form of systemic discrimination under the Charter—because people experiencing homelessness face deep and persistent stigma. They are often treated as less deserving, excluded from services, and disproportionately impacted by overlapping forms of discrimination, including: Indigeneity, disability, and gender.

Ignoring these realities, or failing to respond to them, is not neutral. It has unequal and harmful effects.

Our Desired Outcome

If our arguments in the Waterloo case are successful, it could set a legal precedent that governments must take meaningful, proactive steps to ensure people experiencing homelessness have access to safe shelter, housing, and supports—and that courts can step in when they don’t.

In practice, this could mean:

Encampments cannot be cleared without real, safe alternatives in place
Governments must follow through on their commitments to end homelessness with clear plans, timelines, and accountability
Courts can hold governments accountable when they fail to protect the basic rights of people experiencing homelessness

Latest Update on This Case

May 21, 2026: NRHN’s arguments in court were successful — Judge Gibson made a landmark ruling recognizing homelessness as an “analogous ground” of discrimination under section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This means that homelessness is a protected ground under Canadian human rights law, and that all levels of governments can now be held accountable in the courts for unfair treatment of people experiencing homelessness and the lack of proactive measures to address the root causes. This is one of the most significant advances in law for people experiencing homelessness in a generation. Read NRHN’s press release.
June 16, 2026: The Region of Waterloo and the Ontario government announced that it will appeal Judge Gibson’s court decision. Read more here.

Webinar Recording – June 2026

On June 16, 2026, some of the legal minds that fought for this landmark Waterloo decision came together in a webinar to walk through Judge Gibson’s ruling and what this decision means for human rights and our fight to end homelessness across Canada, including:

Government accountability on homelessness, and why inaction may no longer be a legally defensible option;
Lawyers, advocates, and civil society organizations, and how you can use this decision in your fight to end homelessness, and;
Encampment residents in Waterloo, and what the Region is now required to do.

The panelists:

Jakob Stubbs: A rights-holder and resident of the Waterloo encampment who will speak about the community of people experiencing homelessness who are fighting for dignity, safety, and justice
Ashley Schuitema, Waterloo Region Community Legal Services: One of the lawyers who represented the encampment residents on the case
Martha Jackman, Professor emerita Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa: General counsel for the National Right to Housing Network and Charter Committee on Poverty Issues
Jen Danch, Swadron Associates: Lawyer representing the amicus (i.e., “friends of the court”) who provided independent legal expertise and insights to assist the judge in considering the case