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 is now asking the court to weigh in again. Specifically, it wants to know:
- Is this new approach constitutional?
- And if not, what does the Charter actually require governments to do?
Read more: Q&A with the lawyers from the original Waterloo case
Why NRHN Sought to Intervene
In addition to the original question at hand, this case in Waterloo is 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), is participating in this case as third party experts (intervenors). 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.
Our Core Argument
NRHN and CCPI will appear 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 are asking 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 are also arguing 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
What Comes Next
The oral hearings in April 2026 is an important step—but it’s part of a broader effort to make the right to housing meaningful in Canada.
We’ll continue to follow the case closely and share updates as it progresses.
Thank you for staying engaged with this work.
Resources
