Findings:
Pillar 1: Decentre Policing and Enforcement
Rethinking Municipal Policy Responses to Encampments: Building a Human Rights Approach in Ontario
Exploratory Questions:
- Are encampments on public property made illegal through bylaws or other policy tools?
- Do bylaws or protocols provide guidance to minimize the involvement of police officers and/or bylaw officers?
- Are non-enforcement approaches to the safety and wellbeing of encampment residents centred in the municipal response?
Are encampments on public property made illegal through bylaws or other policy tools?
All the single tier and lower tier municipalities we examined had some form of "neo-vagrancy" bylaw: local regulations that make it illegal to sleep, shelter, or set up encampments in public spaces (see Table 2). These bylaws effectively turn homelessness into a bylaw enforcement issue and one of civil criminalization. In our scan we found that 32 of 38 municipalities had explicit rules prohibiting sleeping or sheltering in public spaces, and these bylaws apply without formal exemption to people experiencing homelessness, regardless of whether emergency shelter-beds are available. The only municipality that contained an exception for people experiencing homelessness is the City of Peterborough, where the Parks Bylaw allows temporary overnight sheltering in parks if the Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with local service managers, determines that there are fewer shelter beds than people who need them.
Among the 13 municipalities with formal encampment protocols, 10 had bylaws banning camping in parks, putting up shelters or tents, and in some cases, simply being present in parks overnight. The exceptions were Niagara Region and Waterloo Region, which are upper-tier municipalities in which many land regulation functions are designated to lower tier municipalities. In contrast, Thunder Bay, was the only single-tier municipality in our review with an encampment protocol that does not also have a bylaw banning overnight camping in parks. Thus, even if a protocol provides alternatives to forcible removal, most of the time peoples’ presence on public lands are still made illegal through bylaws, meaning that there is little protection against enforcement.
All the single tier and lower tier municipalities we examined had some form of "neo-vagrancy" bylaw: local regulations that make it illegal to sleep, shelter, or set up encampments in public spaces (see Table 2). These bylaws effectively turn homelessness into a bylaw enforcement issue and one of civil criminalization. In our scan we found that 32 of 38 municipalities had explicit rules prohibiting sleeping or sheltering in public spaces, and these bylaws apply without formal exemption to people experiencing homelessness, regardless of whether emergency shelter-beds are available. The only municipality that contained an exception for people experiencing homelessness is the City of Peterborough, where the Parks Bylaw allows temporary overnight sheltering in parks if the Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with local service managers, determines that there are fewer shelter beds than people who need them.
Among the 13 municipalities with formal encampment protocols, 10 had bylaws banning camping in parks, putting up shelters or tents, and in some cases, simply being present in parks overnight. The exceptions were Niagara Region and Waterloo Region, which are upper-tier municipalities in which many land regulation functions are designated to lower tier municipalities. In contrast, Thunder Bay, was the only single-tier municipality in our review with an encampment protocol that does not also have a bylaw banning overnight camping in parks. Thus, even if a protocol provides alternatives to forcible removal, most of the time peoples’ presence on public lands are still made illegal through bylaws, meaning that there is little protection against enforcement.
Do bylaws or protocols provide guidance to minimize the involvement of police officers and/or bylaw officers?
|
Among municipalities with encampment protocols, some protocols outlined a bylaw and/or police led response. For example, the City of Greater Sudbury states in their encampment protocol, “Law enforcement makes first contact to determine if by-laws are in violation and seeks voluntary compliance to dismantle structures.” This type of approach positions law enforcement as the primary responders to encampments. Another example of this type of approach, is outlined in the City of Kingston’s protocol, which states, “Street Outreach and By-Law staff are the primary individuals charged with responding, upon coming to an encampment, by-law staff will then issue a 6 hour notice of trespass.” Here, although outreach staff are present, the response is primarily a law enforcement response: not only are bylaw officers identified as first responders, but they are directed to issue trespass notices immediately. In these cases, the municipal responses do not minimize the involvement of police and/or bylaw officers.
|
|
Representing a slightly different approach, some municipalities did have protocols that outline a process by which both law enforcement and outreach jointly responded to encampments. An example of a joint law enforcement and outreach response is that of the City of Brantford where the encampment response team includes both outreach and bylaw, however, enforcement is described as “last resort” for bylaw contraventions. While this type of approach is more consistent with minimizing the role of police and bylaw, it is important to note that given the negative past interactions many people experiencing homelessness have had with law enforcement, and the effects of the civil criminalization of homelessness, the presence of law enforcement alongside outreach can escalate a situation and potentially undermine trust building between encampment residents and outreach.
Are non-enforcement approaches to the safety and wellbeing of encampment residents centered in the municipal response?
Several municipalities describe primarily service provider led responses, and these responses tended to have a greater emphasis on the safety and wellbeing of encampment protocols. For example, the City of London has a section explicitly stating that homelessness is not illegal, stating “people do not surrender their rights afforded by the Charter because they experience homelessness.” The Region of Niagara provides an example of centering non-enforcement approaches to safety and wellbeing of encampment residents, stating “An encampment site is only scheduled to be cleaned once everyone at that location has been assessed; offered safe and appropriate indoor space, when available; and notice has been provided to give people time to collect their belongings.”
Below is a summary of municipal approaches we analyzed in policy documents. It is important to note that even in municipalities with outreach-led responses bylaws prohibiting camping or sheltering in public spaces still apply. This means that enforcement remains a possibility whenever municipal officials decide an encampment is a problem.
Several municipalities describe primarily service provider led responses, and these responses tended to have a greater emphasis on the safety and wellbeing of encampment protocols. For example, the City of London has a section explicitly stating that homelessness is not illegal, stating “people do not surrender their rights afforded by the Charter because they experience homelessness.” The Region of Niagara provides an example of centering non-enforcement approaches to safety and wellbeing of encampment residents, stating “An encampment site is only scheduled to be cleaned once everyone at that location has been assessed; offered safe and appropriate indoor space, when available; and notice has been provided to give people time to collect their belongings.”
Below is a summary of municipal approaches we analyzed in policy documents. It is important to note that even in municipalities with outreach-led responses bylaws prohibiting camping or sheltering in public spaces still apply. This means that enforcement remains a possibility whenever municipal officials decide an encampment is a problem.
