Document Type
Article
English Abstract
Two recent decisions of the Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court, Evans (2016) and Brett (2020), introduced a dangerous new idea into homeless encampment jurisprudence: that the purportedly “private” character of encampment sites determines that defendants’ Charter rights are not engaged, and that government landowners are entitled to interlocutory injunctions evicting homeless encampments from publicly owned land. These decisions distort the established test for engaging section 2(b) of the Charter, collapsing a nuanced spectrum of government-owned property into a formalistic dichotomy in which any state-owned property that is not formally open to the public as of right is “private property” for civil and constitutional purposes. Moreover, they inappropriately extend the section 2(b) “public arena” inquiry to section 7, ignoring the established test for engagement of the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. These decisions drop the already low bar for granting interlocutory injunctions to evict homeless encampments from publicly owned land onto the ground, further tilting the homeless encampment litigation playing field against some of society’s most marginalized and vulnerable members. They should not be followed.
Citation Information
Wood, Stepan.
"When Should Publicly Owned Land Be Considered Private in Homeless Encampment Cases? A Critique of Recent Developments in BC."
Journal of Law and Social Policy
36.
(2023): 64-96.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/0829-3929.1452
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/jlsp/vol36/iss1/5
References
1 Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, s 91(24) [Charter]. 2 2016 BCSC 1708 [Evans].
3 2020 BCSC 876 [Brett]
4 Maple Ridge (City) v Scott, 2019 BCSC 157, leave denied (sub nom. Maple Ridge (City) v Copperthwaite) 2019 BCCA 99 [Scott] Victoria (City) v Smith, 2020 BCSC 1173 [Smith].
5 I use the adjective "interlocutory" to encompass both interlocutory injunctions proper, which remain in effect until trial, and interim injunctions, which remain in effect for a shorter specified period, often from a few days to a few weeks.
6 For details see Stepan Wood, "What is the Test for Interlocutory Injunctions Affecting Homeless Encampments? A Critique of Vancouver Fraser Port Authority v Brett and Associated Case Law," Centre for Law & the Environment Working Paper No 3/2022 (September 2022), online: [https://allard.ubc.ca/cle] [perma.cc/Y7DP-NZCK]. A revised version is forthcoming in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal.
7 British Columbia v Adamson, 2016 BCSC 584 [Adamson #1] Vancouver (City) v Wallstam, 2017 BCSC 937 [Wallstam].
8 British Columbia v Adamson, 2016 BCSC 1245 [Adamson #2].
9 Provincial Rental Housing Corp v Hall, 2005 BCCA 36, rev'g (sub nom. Provincial Rental Housing Corp v Doe) 2002 CarswellBC 3738 (BCSC) [PRHC]. In early 2022 another BC judge refused an interlocutory injunction to evict a homeless encampment from publicly owned land, bringing the total of which I am aware to four. Prince George (City) v Johnny, 2022 BCSC 2282 (refusing interlocutory injunction to clear encampment because conditions set out in an earlier court order not satisfied).
10 See e.g. Patricia Hughes, "The Intersection of Public and Private Under the Charter" (2003) 52 UNB LJ 201.
11 See e.g. Gerald Turkel, Dividing Public and Private: Law, Politics and Social Theory (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992); Margaret Thornton, ed, Public and Private: Feminist Legal Debates (Melbourne and New York: Oxford, 1995); Susan B Boyd, ed, Challenging the Public/Private Divide: Feminism, Law and Public Policy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997); Nicola Lacey, Unspeakable Subjects: Feminist Essays in Legal and Social Theory (Oxford: Hart, 1998); Law Commission of Canada, ed, New Perspectives on the Public-Private Divide (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2003); Gavin W Anderson, "Social Democracy and the Limits of Rights Constitutionalism" (2004) 17 Can JL & Juris 31; Claudio Michelon et al, eds, The Public in Law: Representations of the Political in Legal Discourse (London and New York: Routledge, 2012). For further references see Mark Zion, "Making Time for Critique: Canadian 'Right to Shelter' Debates in a Chrono-Political Frame" (2020) 37 Windsor YB Access to Justice 88 at 111 note 140.
12 Nikolas Rose & Peter Miller, "Political Power Beyond the State: Problematics of Government" (1992) 43:2 Brit J Sociology 173 at 174. https://doi.org/10.2307/591464
13 Philippe Nonet & Philip Selznick, Law and Society in Transition: Toward Responsive Law (New York: Harper Colophon, 1978) at 9.
14 See e.g. Margaret Thornton, "The Public/Private Dichotomy: Gendered and Discriminatory" (1991) 18 JL & Soc'y 448. https://doi.org/10.2307/1410319
15 Margot Young, "Why Rights Now? Law and Desperation" in Young et al, eds, Poverty: Rights, Social Citizenship, Legal Activism (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2007) 317 at 325 https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774856010-018 Sarah Buhler, "Cardboard Boxes and Invisible Fences: Homelessness and Public Space in City of Victoria v Adams" (2009) 27:1 Windsor YB Access Just 210 at 218. https://doi.org/10.22329/wyaj.v27i1.4568
16 See e.g. Sarah E Hamill, "Private Property Rights and Public Responsibility: Leaving Room for the Homeless" (2011) 30 Windsor Rev Leg & Soc Issues 91 Hamill, "Private Rights to Public Property: The Evolution of Common Property in Canada" (2012) 58:2 McGill LJ 365. https://doi.org/10.7202/1017518ar
17 See e.g. Jeremy Waldron, "Homelessness and Community" (2000) 50 U Toronto LJ 371 at 374. https://doi.org/10.2307/825960
18 See e.g. Stepan Wood, "Green Revolution or Greenwash? Voluntary Environmental Standards, Public Law and Private Authority in Canada," in Law Commission of Canada, supra note 11, 123; Wood, "Environmental Management Systems and Public Authority in Canada: Rethinking Environmental Governance" (2003) 10 Buffalo Envt'l LJ 129.
19 RJR-MacDonald v Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 311. I address these other problems elsewhere. See Stepan Wood, "What is the Test?" supra note 6; Wood, "A Tale of Two (Tent) Cities-And One Judge: How (Not) to Weigh Evidence in Homeless Encampment Injunction Cases," (Paper delivered at the 8th Annual International and Comparative Urban Law Conference, University of British Columbia, 15 July 2022), [unpublished].
20 Evans, supra note 2 at para 3.
21 Ibid at para 36.
22 Ibid at para 52, citing Patel v WH Smith (Eziot) Ltd, [1987] 1 WLR 853 (CA) (Patel) at 858; Board of School Trustees of School District No. 27 (Cariboo-Chilcotin) v Van Osch, 2004 BCSC 1827 [Van Osch] at para 14; British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v Boon, 2016 BCSC 355 at para 59.
23 Brett, supra note 3 (Application Record, Affidavit #3 of Anita Gill, Manager, Security, division of Land Operations and Security, VFPA (2 June 2020); Affidavit of Chrissy Brett, encampment resident and informal organizer (1 June 2020) (Brett affidavit)).
24 Ibid at para 76.
25 Ibid at para 35.
26 SOR/2000-55 [Regulations].
27 Brett, supra note 3 at para 47, quoting Vancouver (City) v Maurice, 2005 BCCA 37, aff'g 2002 BCSC 1421 [Maurice], which in turn cited Maple Ridge (District) v Thornhill Aggregates Ltd (1998), 47 MPLR (2d) 249 (BCCA) [Thornhill] and British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v Okanagan Indian Band (2000), 187 DLR (4th) 664 (BCCA). 28 Ibid at para 98.
29 Ibid at para 90, quoting R v SA, 2014 ABCA 191, aff'g 2012 ABQB 311, leave denied 2014 SCCA No 373, at para 96.
30 Ibid at paras 52, 94, citing Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v Canada, [1991] 1 SCR 139 [Committee for the Commonwealth].
31 Ibid at para 90, quoting R v SA, supra note 29 at para 96.
32 Ibid at para 102.
33 Ibid at paras 108-09.
34 "Dozens of arrests made as Vancouver police enforce injunction against homeless camp", The Globe and Mail (17 June 2020), online: [theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-dozens-of-arrests-made-as-vancouver-police-enforce-injunction-against/] [perma.cc/6HEJ-X72G].
35 Personal observation, confirmed by post-eviction Google Street View imagery.
36 Jon Woodward, "Plan to disperse homeless camp backfires as campers move to park", CTV News (16 June 2020), online: [bc.ctvnews.ca/plan-to-disperse-homeless-camp-backfires-as-campers-move-to-park-1.4986305] [perma.cc/L8FT-RYCX].
37 Travis Prasad, "Some campers remain in Vancouver's Strathcona Park after moving deadline", CTV News (30 April 2021), online: [bc.ctvnews.ca/some-campers-remain-in-vancouver-s-strathcona-park-after-moving-deadline-1.5408923] [perma.cc/2ZD8-U5WY].
38 Renee Bernard, "CRAB Park tent city cleared again," CityNews 1130 (10 September 2021), online: [citynews1130.com/2021/09/10/crab-park-homeless-cleared-again/] [perma.cc/8BKZ-JXQF].
39 Those who stayed were partially vindicated in 2022 when a court ruled that the Park Board's orders were invalid and ordered it to reconsider them. Bamberger v Vancouver (Board of Parks and Recreation), 2022 BCSC 49.
40 See e.g. Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation v. Sterritt, 2003 BCSC 1421 [Sterritt] (encampment in city park); Provincial Capital Commission v Johnston, 2005 BCSC 1397 [PCC v Johnston] (encampment on grounds of provincially-owned national historic site); Smith, supra note 4 (encampment in environmentally sensitive areas of city park).
41 See e.g. Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation v. Mickelson, 2003 BCSC 1271 [Mickelson] (encampment in city park); Abbotsford (City) v Shantz, 2013 BCSC 2426 [Shantz #1] (encampment on city-owned parking lot); Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation v Williams, 2014 BCSC 1926 (encampment in city park); Scott, supra note 4 (encampment on unopened road allowance and on undeveloped lots owned by city and provincial crown corporation); Prince George v Stewart, 2021 BCSC 2089 [Stewart] (encampments on city-owned vacant lot and green space).
42 See e.g. Vancouver (City) v O'Flynn-Magee, 2011 BCSC 1647 [O'Flynn-Magee] (encampment on public art gallery plaza); Victoria (City) v Thompson, 2011 BCSC 1810 [Thompson] (encampment in city park); Abbotsford (City) v Shantz, 2013 BCSC 2612 (Shantz #2) (encampment in city park); Wallstam, supra note 7 (encampment on city-owned vacant lot); Nanaimo (City) v Courtoreille, 2018 BCSC 1629 [Courtoreille] (encampment on vacant lot owned by city and leased to private railway); Saanich (District) v Brett, 2018 BCSC 1648 (encampment on municipal park and provincial highway allowance).
43 See e.g. Victoria (City) v Adams, 2008 BCSC 1363, varied 2009 BCCA 563 [Adams] (encampment in city park) Johnston v Victoria (City), 2010 BCSC 1707, aff'd 2011 BCCA 400 (encampment in city park) Abbotsford (City) v Shantz, 2015 BCSC 1909 [Shantz #3] (encampments in city parks and streets).
44 Adams, ibid at para 130 (BCSC).
45 Ibid at para 79 (BCCA).
46 Supra note 30.
47 Maurice, supra note 27 at para 30.
48 Montréal (City) v 2952-1366 Québec Inc, 2005 SCC 62.
49 Shantz #3, supra note 43.
50 PRHC, supra note 9 at para 10 (BCSC) ("the protestors are trespassing on private property, taking the law into their own hands, and the plaintiff is not precluded from pursuing its civil remedy").
51 PHRC, supra note 7 (BCCA).
52 Supra note 7 at para 26.
53 See e.g. Buhler, supra note 15 at 218-19, discussing Adams, supra note 43. 54 Wallstam, supra note 7.
55 Courtoreille, supra note 42.
56 Supra note 7 at para 45.
57 Ibid at para 63.
58 Supra note 42 at para 118.
59 Third parties were also involved in Wallstam, but the court found that the evidence of harm to their interests was speculative or inadmissible whereas the harm that eviction would occasion the occupants was real. Wallstam, supra note 7 at paras 46-58.
60 PCC v Johnston, supra note 40.
61 Scott, supra note 4.
62 PRHC, supra note 9.
63 Committee for the Commonwealth, supra note 30.
64 Montréal (City), supra note 48.
65 Zion, supra note 11 at 114.
66 PRHC, supra note 9.
67 Maurice, supra note 27.
68 Ibid.
69 For a thoughtful study of the "Woodsquat," as it was called, see Nicholas Blomley, Unsetting the City: Urban Land and the Politics of Property (New York; London: Routledge, 2004) at 39-46.
70 Mickelson, supra note 41.
71 O'Flynn-Magee, supra note 42.
72 Thompson, supra note 42.
73 Shantz #3, supra note 43.
74 Earlier in his reasons, Hinkson CJ observed: "As I understand his position, Mr. Felger contends that the plaintiff's application somehow infringes the defendants' freedom of expression." Evans, supra note 2 at para 21. But other courts have held that a claim of a Charter violation cannot constitute a colour of right for purposes of trespass. O'Flynn-Magee, supra note 42 at para 71 ("There is no legal basis to find that a 'constitutionally suspect' by-law, even if it existed, could amount to a 'colour of right' as defined in the Trespass Act. 'Colour of right' is a right of property. It is not a defence based on Charter rights").
75 Montréal (City), supra note 48 at para 71 [emphasis in the original].
76 Committee for the Commonwealth, supra note 30 at 156.
77 Ibid at paras 240, 249-50.
78 Ibid at para 203. The six factors were (1) the traditional openness of such property for expressive activity, (2) whether the public is normally admitted as of right, (3) the compatibility of the property's purpose with the expressive activity, (4) the impact of the availability of such property for expression on the achievement of the purposes of section 2(b), (5) the symbolic significance of the property for the message being communicated, and (6) the availability of other public arenas in the vicinity.
79 Montréal (City), supra note 48 at para 72.
80 Ibid at para 74.
81 Shantz #3, supra note 43 at para 155. 82 Evans, supra note 2 at paras 32-33. 83 Weisfeld v Canada, [1995] 1 F.C. 68. 84 Evans, supra note 2 at para 36.
85 Supra note 3 at para 52.
86 Committee for the Commonwealth, supra note 30 at 155 (Lamer CJC, quoting Hugessen JA in the court below). 87 Adams, supra note 43 at para 131.
88 R v SA, supra note 29 at para 93.
89 See e.g. Committee for the Commonwealth, supra note 30; Montréal (City), supra note 48.
90 See e.g. Committee for the Commonwealth, ibid; Montréal (City), ibid; Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v Canadian Federation of Students - British Columbia Component, 2009 SCC 31 (GVTA); Batty v Toronto (City), 2011 ONSC 6862; R v Whatcott, 2012 ABQB 231; R v SA, supra note 29.
91 Brett, supra note 3 at para 4.
92 Letters Patent of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (effective 1 January 2008), in Order in Council PC 2007-1885, (2007) C Gaz I (22 December, Supp), 3 (VFPA Letters Patent).
93 SC 1998, c 10 (CMA).
94 Brett, supra note 3 at para 4.
95 The parking lot was a rough parallelogram around 130 m long and 50 m wide, comprising 6,300 m2. The grassy area was a triangle of around 2500 m2, for a total of around 8,800 m2 or 0.9 ha. Dimensions estimated by the author using the "measure distance" tool in Google Maps.
96 Brett, supra note 3 (Affidavit of Anthony Benincasa, Logistics & Operations Manager, VFPA (19 May 2020) [Benincasa affidavit]).
97 A satellite image of the site, marked up to show the boundaries of the encampment site and of the parcel owned by the VFPA, was before the court. Ibid (Written Argument of the Applicant at para 13; Benincasa affidavit, Exhibit B). 98 Ibid (Written Argument of the Applicant at para 15).
99 The Gastown neighbourhood is a small sliver of Vancouver lying between the DTES to the east, Hastings Street to the south, the rail yard to the north and the Waterfront public transit station to the west. The parking lot lies directly north of Gastown, across the rail yard. Neighbourhood boundaries are informal, and the location of the boundary between Gastown and the DTES is a matter of opinion.
100 Imagery date: 29 June 2019. Imagery © 2022 CNES / Airbus, Maxar Technologies, Map data © 2022. Used in accordance with Google Geo Guidelines, online: [https://about.google/brand-resource-center/products-and-services/geo-guidelines/] [perma.cc/VE8K-TYA7].
101 Brett, supra note 3 at para 5; ibid (Written Argument of the Applicant at para 18).
102 Ibid (Affidavit of Donald Martin Larson, CRAB Park/Water for Life Society co-founder and encampment visitor (26 May 2020) [Larson affidavit]).
103 Ibid (Notice of Application at para 19; Benincasa affidavit).
104 Ibid at para 103; ibid (Written Argument of the Applicant at paras 52-53).
105 Ibid (Written Argument of the Applicant at para 54).
106 Ibid (Written Argument of the Respondents at para 73; Affidavit of Gilles Assier, Director, Container Terminal Construction, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (20 May 2020) [Assier affidavit]).
107 Ibid at para 103.
108 Ibid (Written Argument of the Applicant at para 115).
109 Ibid at paras 6, 51.
110 VFPA Letters Patent, supra note 92, s 7.1(c)(iii).
111 Ibid.
112 See infra note 124 and accompanying text.
113 Brett, supra note 3 (Written Argument of the Applicant at para 124).
114 Ibid at para 76; ibid (Written Argument of the Applicant at para 15).
115 Ibid (Written Argument of the Applicant at para 16; Benincasa affidavit).
116 The footpath was also clearly visible in aerial photos submitted by the applicant. Ibid (Written Argument of the Applicant at para 26; Affidavit #1 of Anita Gill, Manager, Security, division of Land Operations and Security, VFPA (20 May 2020), Exhibit E [Gill affidavit #1]).
117 Ibid (Affidavit of Veronica Butler, encampment resident, Anishinaabe elder and firekeeper (1 June 2020) [Butler affidavit]).
118 The vehicle-worn informal entrances to the parking lot were also clearly visible in the aerial photos submitted by the applicant. Ibid (Written Argument of the Applicant at para 26; Gill affidavit #1, Exhibit E).
119 There was plenty of evidence of measures taken by the Port Authority to assert control of and exclude unauthorized entrants from the site after the encampment was established, but that is a different issue.
120 Brett, supra note 3 (Written Argument of the Applicant at para 19).
121 William Boei, "Downtown Beach Campaign to Outlive Seaside Tent City," Vancouver Sun (27 August 1984) A3; Robert Sarti, "Squatters to Move Out," Vancouver Sun (28 September 1984) B6; Sarti, "CRAB Park Threatened," Vancouver Sun (30 January 1986) A8.
122 Imagery date: 29 June 2019. Imagery © 2022 CNES / Airbus, Maxar Technologies, Map data © 2022. Used in accordance with Google Geo Guidelines, online: [https://about.google/brand-resource-center/products-and-services/geo-guidelines/] [perma.cc/VE8K-TYA7].
123 Source: Brett, supra note 3 (Exhibit E to Affidavit #1 of Anita Gill, Manager, Security, division of Land Operations and Security, VFPA (20 May 2020)).
124 The name CRAB is an acronym of "Create a Real Available Beach," the slogan used by campaigners to lobby for the park's creation. For further background on the park's founding, see Blomley, supra note 69 at 46-48.
125 Don Larson, "History of CRAB Park and Crab-Water for Life Society" (June 2018), online: [cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2018/06/28/history-crab-park-and-society-don-larson/] [perma.cc/UYS9-7LHE].
126 Boei, supra note 121.
127 Sarti, "Squatters to Move Out," supra note 121.
128 Sarti, "CRAB Park Threatened," supra note 121; "Waterfront Parking Plan Sparks United Opposition," Vancouver Sun (17 March 1986) A12.
129 Sarti, "MLA Goes to Bat for Parking Foes," Vancouver Sun (20 February 1986) C7.
130 Kim Bolan, "Parking Lot Issue Pursues Harcourt," Vancouver Sun (24 March 1986) A3.
131 Sarti, "Expo Parking Demand a Pittance at Controversial CRAB Beach Lot," Vancouver Sun (5 June 1986) A3. 132 "Bus Lot Foe Arrested," Vancouver Sun (26 June 1986) A3.
133 Sarti, ibid.
134 Imperial Parking, Lot #1720, 601 Waterfront Road West, online: [https://lots.impark.com/imp] [perma.cc/3WPY-8ZBF].
135 Bolan, supra note 130.
136 See e.g. Jen St Denis, "'We Are Losing It as We Speak,'" Say CRAB Park Advocates," The Tyee (11 May 2021), online: [thetyee.ca/News/2021/05/11/Advocates-Say-Vancouver-Losing-Crab-Park/] [perma.cc/R748-TZS2]; Gordon McIntyre, "CRAB Park homeless camp could be ordered vacated by court injunction," Vancouver Sun (3 June 2020), online: [vancouversun.com/news/local-news/crab-park-homeless-camp-ordered-vacated-by-court-injunction] [perma.cc/6GH6-DQR8].
137 Interview of Don Larson by David P Ball (6 October 2020) on The Pulse, Vancouver Co-op Radio CFRO 100.5, Vancouver, online: [coopradio.org/content/the-pulse] [perma.cc/4JBU-HAP7].
138 Source: Sarti, "Expo Parking Demand a Pittance", supra note 131.
139 Sterritt, supra note 40 at para 2.
140 Ibid at para 3.
141 See Bernard, supra note 38 and accompanying text.
142 Supra note 30.
143 Supra note 29.
144 Supra note 2.
145 Brett, supra note 3 (Written Argument of the Applicant at para 148).
146 But see Maurice, supra note 27 at para 30 (BCSC) (holding public sidewalk not to be "public" within the meaning of Committee for the Commonwealth because camping there was incompatible with sidewalk's principal function or intended purpose).
147 R v SA, supra note 29 at para 96.
148 Ibid at para 25.
149 Ibid at para 26.
150 Ibid at para 98.
151 Ibid at para 101.
152 Ibid at para 62 (ABQB).
153 Ibid at para 153 (ABCA).
154 See e.g. Adams, supra note 43; Shantz #3, supra note 43. 155 R v SA, supra note 29 at para 85.
156 Supra note 30 at para 155 (per Lamer CJC, quoting Hugessen JA in the court below). 157 Brett, supra note 3 at para 99.
158 Shantz #3, supra note 43 at para 150.
159 Adams, supra note 43 at para 79 (BCCA).
160 Brett, supra note 3 at para 84.
161 See e.g. RWDSU v Dolphin Delivery Ltd, [1986] 2 SCR 573; Eldridge v British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 SCR 624 [Eldridge].
162 See e.g. Adams, supra note 43; Shantz #3, supra note 43; Chaoulli v Quebec (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 35; Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford, 2013 SCC 72; Carter v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5.
163 Shantz #3, ibid at para 188.
164 Ibid at para 189.
165 It was not clear, for example, whether the defendants might challenge the constitutionality of the Regulations themselves or just the actions taken by the Port Authority and police.
166 Compare Black v Toronto (City), 2020 ONSC 6398 at 46 ("Concerns regarding the right to 'security of the person' clearly arise in this case. … By requiring the applicants to leave encampments where they live and feel safe with others and be faced with a choice of either going to a shelter or moving along to another location rather than 'sheltering in place,' the City's actions cause the applicants anxiety, physical and psychological distress, and puts their health at risk").
167 GVTA, supra note 90 at para 16; see also Eldridge, supra note 157 at para 44.
168 See e.g. GVTA, ibid (GVTA substantially controlled by local government entity; BC Transit's entire board appointed by government).
169 See e.g. ibid (BC Transit designated by statute as agent of provincial government); Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assoc v Douglas College, [1990] 3 SCR 570 (college described by statute as agent of Crown).
170 GVTA, ibid.
171 See e.g. Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2000 SCC 44 [Blencoe] (Commission acted under statutory authority and had statutory power of compulsion not possessed by private parties)
R v Whatcott, 2002 SKQB 399 (university exercised statutory power of compulsion in enacting and enforcing parking bylaw to prohibit pamphleting in university parking lot).
172 See e.g. Eldridge, supra note 161 (hospitals implemented specific governmental program or statutory scheme). 173 Blencoe, supra note 171; Eldridge, ibid.
174 Singh v Montréal Gateway Terminals Partnership, 2016 QCCS 4521, aff'd 2019 QCCA 1494, leave refused 2020 CanLII 30838 (SCC) at para 130.
175 Air Canada v Toronto Port Authority, 2011 FCA 347.
176 CMA, supra note 93, s 8(2)(f); VFPA Letters Patent, supra note 92, s 4.6.
177 VFPA Letters Patent, ibid, ss 7.1(a), (c).
178 CMA, supra note 93, ss 7(1), 28(2)(a).
179 See e.g. ibid, s 61(1) (requiring the Port Authority to take appropriate measures to maintain order and the safety of persons and property in the port); Regulations, supra note 26, s 31 (empowering the Port Authority to instruct anyone to cease activities that are prohibited by or require authorization under the Regulations, comply with conditions for conducting them, remove things brought into the port in connection with them or restore any property affected by them, and empowering the Port Authority to remove and restore things if the person fails to comply immediately); VFPA Letters Patent, supra note 92, ss 7.1(a) (empowering the Port Authority to develop, apply and enforce rules, orders and bylaws respecting the use, occupancy or operation of the port), (b) (empowering the Port Authority to create, impose and collect fees).
180 Brett, supra note 3 (Written Argument of the Applicant at para 82).
181 The CMA and Regulations set out a federal policy scheme for the creation, management and operation of ports and the maintenance of safety and order therein, the implementation of which is part of port authorities' core mandates. See e.g. CMA, supra note 93, ss 4 (purpose of Act), 5-64.1 (Part 1. Canada Port Authorities); Regulations, supra note 26, ss 5-19 (Part 1. Safety and Order in Ports).
182 CMA, ibid, s 45 (a port authority's undertaking or defence of legal proceedings with respect to any federal real property it manages is "subject to any instructions that may be provided by the Attorney General of Canada").
183 Committee for the Commonwealth, supra note 30.
184 R v Booyink, 2013 ABPC 185 [Booyink].
185 Evans, supra note 2 at para 38.
186 Ibid at paras 40-42, citing McKinney v University of Guelph, [1990] 3 SCR 229; Harrison v University of British Columbia, [1990] 3 SCR 451; and Eldridge, supra note 161.
187 Evans, ibid at para 37.
188 See supra note 168 and accompanying text.
189 Evans, supra note 2 at para 41.
190 Eldridge, supra note 161 at paras 46, 51. The Evans decision also bizarrely misquoted Eldridge, presenting the following statement as a quotation from the decision: "As is the case with the Universities in this province, I find that the plaintiff's enabling legislation does not establish government control or influence upon the core functions of the Health Board [emphasis added]." Evans, ibid at para 41. This passage appears nowhere in Eldridge.
191 See Wood, "What is the Test," supra note 6; Wood, "A Tale of Two (Tent) Cities," supra note 19.
@font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}@font-face {font-family:Aptos; panose-1:2 11 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:536871559 3 0 0 415 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Aptos; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Aptos; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Aptos; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-font-kerning:1.0pt; mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:#467886; mso-themecolor:hyperlink; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;}a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; color:#96607D; mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;}.MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Aptos; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Aptos; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Aptos; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}