|
Human Rights & Housing Fights:
“I Think It’s Bullshit”
|
Municipal responses to encampments can be a matter of life and death for people experiencing homelessness, many of whom rely on encampments for shelter, safety, community, and mutual aid. Historically, responses to unsheltered homelessness in Canada have relied on neo-vagrancy bylaws and other regulatory approaches that criminalize survival in public space. At the same time, recent years have seen growing recognition of the Right to Housing (RtH) in Canada, including its recognition through federal legislation.
Focusing on experiences of encampment evictions, this presentation examines the harms caused by forced displacement. We argue that encampment evictions produce harms across all five pillars of a human rights-based approach to homelessness: decentring policing and law enforcement, meeting basic needs, ensuring accessible services, supporting meaningful participation, and upholding Indigenous rights. In doing so, we position forced displacement as a profound violation of the right to housing and related human rights.
Focusing on experiences of encampment evictions, this presentation examines the harms caused by forced displacement. We argue that encampment evictions produce harms across all five pillars of a human rights-based approach to homelessness: decentring policing and law enforcement, meeting basic needs, ensuring accessible services, supporting meaningful participation, and upholding Indigenous rights. In doing so, we position forced displacement as a profound violation of the right to housing and related human rights.
Presented on May 21, 2026 by
Laura Pin and Sidney Macdonald
Laura Pin and Sidney Macdonald
We want to begin by acknowledging that the researchers involved in this project are located in Hamilton, on the traditional territories of the Mississaugas, Haudenosaunee, Erie, Attawandaron, and Wendat Peoples, and in Waterloo Region, on the traditional territories of the Haudenosaunee, Anishinaabe, and Chonnonton Peoples.
We recognize that housing precarity and homelessness cannot be separated from the ongoing impacts of settler colonialism and the ways in which land, housing, and belonging continue to be structured in this society. Throughout this work, we try to remain attentive to the fact that questions of housing justice are also questions of Indigenous rights, sovereignty, and self-determination. While we acknowledge that we do this imperfectly, it is an important consideration that continues to shape how we approach this research and the conversations that emerge from it.
We recognize that housing precarity and homelessness cannot be separated from the ongoing impacts of settler colonialism and the ways in which land, housing, and belonging continue to be structured in this society. Throughout this work, we try to remain attentive to the fact that questions of housing justice are also questions of Indigenous rights, sovereignty, and self-determination. While we acknowledge that we do this imperfectly, it is an important consideration that continues to shape how we approach this research and the conversations that emerge from it.
|
In this presentation, we examine findings from a multi-year, community-engaged research project exploring encampment governance across Ontario. Titled "Realizing the Right: Municipal Policy Responses to Encampments", this project focuses on applying a human rights lens to municipal encampment responses.
Our research combines a policy scan of municipal neo-vagrancy bylaws and encampment protocols with a survey of 105 people who have lived in an encampment within the previous year. Throughout this presentation, we'll be focusing on forced displacement and its implications, while drawing on principles outlined in the National Protocol for Homeless Encampments.
|
|
|
We begin by situating encampment displacement within a broader human rights framework. International human rights standards recognize forced evictions and displacement from encampments as serious violations of the right to adequate housing. Rather than viewing encampments solely through the lens of enforcement, public order, or land use, we must examine them through the lens of human rights obligations and the lived experiences of those directly affected.
To help organize our findings, we used five key pillars identified within rights-based approaches to encampment governance:
|
|
As we reviewed municipal policies across Ontario, we found a widespread reliance on enforcement-based approaches. Every municipality included in our scan has some form of neo-vagrancy bylaw in place, while most encampment protocols prohibit camping, sheltering, or remaining in parks overnight. These policies often frame encampments as issues to be managed, regulated, or removed rather than as responses to inadequate housing and gaps in support systems.
Realizing the Right:
Municipal Policy Responses to Encampments
|
"Forced displacement isn't just about losing a place to stay in the immediate term. The harms of it are wide-reaching and they really affect every aspect of a person experiencing homelessness and their lives." |
|
The experiences shared by survey respondents reflect the real-world impacts of these approaches. More than six in ten respondents report being forced to leave an encampment against their wishes. These displacements most commonly involve interactions with bylaw officers, police, private security personnel, or other enforcement actors. While these actions are often presented as routine enforcement measures, the experiences shared by participants reveal much broader and more significant consequences.
One of the central findings we highlight is that displacement extends far beyond the immediate loss of shelter. For many participants, being moved from an encampment results in the loss of stability, routine, safety, and community. Approximately three-quarters of respondents report losing personal belongings or having belongings destroyed during displacement. These losses include items that are difficult or impossible to replace, such as identification documents, medications, clothing, survival gear, personal records, and possessions with emotional significance. "I can't get ahead because I'm constantly starting over."
"I had to reapply for ID, bank cards..."
"I lost access to showers, toilets, food, services..." |
|
We also find that displacement frequently disrupts access to essential services and supports. Participants describe losing connections with health-care providers, outreach workers, food programs, social services, and community supports. For individuals already navigating significant barriers, displacement often creates additional obstacles that make it more difficult to access assistance, maintain appointments, or continue progress toward housing and stability.
Many respondents describe displacement as a repetitive and destabilizing cycle. Each move can require individuals to re-establish service connections, replace identification documents, update contact information, reconnect with support workers, and restart housing or social assistance processes. Rather than helping people move toward stability, repeated displacement often pushes that stability further out of reach.
|
As we examine municipal encampment protocols, we also consider how communities address basic needs and service access. While many policies reference the importance of connecting people to services, we find limited evidence of clear standards related to accessibility, cultural appropriateness, continuity of care, or trauma-informed approaches. In many cases, support provisions appear secondary to enforcement mechanisms, raising important questions about whether people’s needs are being adequately addressed.
|
|
Another key theme we explore is meaningful participation. A rights-based approach requires that people directly affected by policies have opportunities to participate in decisions that impact their lives. However, our findings reveal limited evidence that encampment residents are meaningfully involved in the development of municipal encampment policies. This stands in contrast to the experiences reported by many survey participants, who indicate that they have attempted to provide feedback, share concerns, and engage with governments regarding encampment responses.
|
|
We must draw attention to a significant gap in relation to Indigenous rights. Across the policies reviewed, references to Indigenous rights, Indigenous leadership, treaty obligations, and culturally specific supports are largely absent. Given the disproportionate representation of Indigenous peoples among those experiencing homelessness, this absence raises important concerns. While some participants report access to Indigenous services, Elders, cultural supports, and traditional medicines, many indicate that these resources remain limited or insufficient to meet their needs.
Taken together, these findings demonstrate that displacement produces extensive harms that affect nearly every aspect of life for people experiencing homelessness. The impacts extend beyond the loss of a physical location and can affect health, safety, well-being, access to services, social connections, and pathways to housing. As we conclude this presentation, we reflect on the disconnect between the documented harms associated with displacement and the continued reliance on displacement-based responses by many municipalities. Participants consistently emphasize the need for immediate, safe places to stay while longer-term housing solutions are developed. They also stress the importance of sustained investments in affordable housing, supportive housing, and other measures that address the root causes of homelessness. |
Ultimately, our findings suggest that addressing encampments through a human rights lens requires moving beyond enforcement-focused responses and toward approaches that prioritize dignity, participation, safety, and access to adequate housing. The experiences shared by participants underscore the importance of policies that support stability rather than undermine it, and that recognize housing as a human right rather than a privilege contingent on compliance with enforcement measures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|