Document Type
Article
English Abstract
For around two decades, if not longer, Canada has seen a number of cases dealing with tent encampments, typically, but not always, located in public parks. Often these decisions arise out of municipalities seeking interlocutory or interim injunctions against the tent encampments. Property and property rights have a significant role to play in these decisions as the alleged harm to property and property rights tends to be determinative of the matter. In this article I seek to explore why it is that these decisions are showing property rights more respect than the rights of those within tent encampments. I argue, that contrary to recent theoretical arguments, property does not reflect relational justice nor respect for individuals as individuals. Instead, property requires respect for property rights because of the fact that property is a communal endeavour. Thus, the question should not be whether these tent encampments are causing property rights irreparable harm but whether the legal treatment of these tent encampments and their residents reflect the broader community in which they exist.
Citation Information
Hamill, Sarah E..
"Property Says No: Relational (In)Equality, Encampments, and Property Rights."
Journal of Law and Social Policy
36.
(2023): 119-138.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/0829-3929.1454
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/jlsp/vol36/iss1/7
References
1 Black et al v City of Toronto, 2020 ONSC 6398 at para 1 [Black].
2 Ibid at para 8.
3 Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation v Williams 2014 BCSC 1926 at para 61 [Williams], cited in Nanaimo (City) v Courtoreille 2018 BCSC 1629 at para 136 [Courtoreille].
4 See Liam Casey, "Toronto planning encampment clearing operation for months, built profiles of residents", Toronto Star (1 May 2022), online: [www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/05/01/toronto-planned-encampment-clearing-operation-for-months-built-profiles-of-residents.html] [perma.cc/HG3J-79WL].
5 See Ali Raza, "Advocates push for better response to homeless encampments after violence at Lamport Stadium", CBC News (22 July 2021), online: [www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/encampment-better-response-lamport-stadium-1.6113790] [perma.cc/DAV7-6EAQ].
6 See part IV below for more. For a relatively recent judicial summary, see Saanich v Brett, 2018 BCSC 1648 at paras 43-79 [Brett 2018].
7 See e.g. Victoria (City) v Adams, 2009 BCCA 563 [Adams].
8 See Leilani Farha & Kaitlin Schwan, "A National Protocol for Homeless Encampments in Canada: A Human Rights Approach" (30 April 2020), online (pdf): [www.homelesshub.ca/resource/human-rights-approach-national-protocol-homeless-encampments-canada%C2%A0] [perma.cc/L26K-PSJW].
9 By which I mean supports such as providing sanitation and so on.
10 See also Alexandra Flynn & Estair Van Wagner, "A Colonial Castle: Defence of Property in R v Stanley" (2020) 98:2 Can Bar Rev 358.
11 See e.g. Larissa Katz, "Exclusion and Exclusivity in Property Law" (2008) 58:3 UTLJ 275 at 293 https://doi.org/10.1353/tlj.0.0006
Avihay Dorfman, "Private Ownership" (2010) 16:1 Legal Theory 1 at 5, 17, 35. Concerns about property's power also abound, see e.g. Gregory S Alexander et al, "A Statement of Progressive Property" (2009) 94:4 Cornell L Rev 743. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325210000042
12 See Jane B Baron, "Homelessness as a Property Problem" (2004) 36:2 Urban Lawyer 273
Jeremy Waldron, "Community and Property-For Those Who Have Neither" (2009) 10:1 Theor Inq L 161 https://doi.org/10.2202/1565-3404.1212
Christopher Essert, "Property and Homelessness" (2016) 44:4 Phil & Public Affairs 266 [Essert, "Homelessness"]. https://doi.org/10.1111/papa.12080
13 For these arguments, see e.g. Yin Paradies, "Unsettling truth: modernity, (de-)coloniality and Indigenous futures" (2020) 23:4 Postcolonial Studies 438 at 444-45 https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2020.1809069
Manissa M Maharawal & Erin McElroy, "In the time of Trump: housing, whiteness, and abolition" in Maja Hojer Bruun et al, eds, Contested Property Claims (London: Routledge 2018) at 109. This list is not exhaustive. A full engagement with the argument for private property's abolition is beyond the scope of this article. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203712153-7
14 See Avihay Dorfman, "The Normativity of the Private Ownership Form" (2012) 75:6 Mod L Rev 981 at 1008 [Dorfman, "Normativity"]; Essert, "Homelessness", supra note 12 at 290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2012.00934.x
15 See Avihay Dorfman, "When, and How, Does Property Matter?" (2022) 72:1 UTLJ 81 [Dorfman, "When and How"]. Dorfman's argument is explored below. https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj-2020-0132
16 There are occasions when particular features of the owner matters for property law, typically in the context of whether certain, prescriptive rights can be claimed. I do not have space to fully explore this point; however, it is worth noting that the particular features of the owner tend to speak to how the land is held rather than the owner as an individual.
17 See Baron, supra note 12 at 273.
18 This personal property is not always well protected. See Nicholas Blomley, Alexandra Flynn & Marie-Eve Sylvestre, "Governing the Belongings of the Precariously Housed: A Critical Legal Geography" (2020) 16 Ann Rev L Soc Science 165. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-021020-105357
19 This point has been recognised by the scholars cited previously. See generally Paradies, supra note 13; Maharawal & McElroy, supra note 13.
20 For this theory see Stephen R Munzer, "A Bundle Theorist Holds On to His Collection of Sticks" (2011) 8:3 Econ Journal Watch 265.
21 Ibid at 266; see also JE Penner, "The "Bundle of Rights" Picture of Property" (1996) 43:3 UCLA L Rev 711. 22 The idea is most closely associated with Ernest J Weinrib. See e.g. Corrective Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
23 But see JE Penner, The Idea of Property in Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997) at 1 [Penner, Idea]. See also Jennifer Nedelsky, "A Relational Approach to Property" in Nicole Graham, Margaret Davies & Lee Godden, eds, The Routledge Handbook of Property, Law and Society, 1st ed (London, UK: Routledge, 2022). Jennifer Nedelsky's work, while relational, follows a very different approach.
24 Supra note 11 at 278.
25 See Penner, Idea, supra note 23 at 5.
26 "The Concept of Property: Relations Through Objects of Social Wealth" (2003) 53:4 UTLJ 325. https://doi.org/10.2307/3650892
27 See JE Penner, Property Rights: A Re-Examination (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020) at 19. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198830122.001.0001
28 Arthur Ripstein, Private Wrongs (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016) at 6. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674969896
29 For examples of this theory see Weinrib, supra note 22; Ripstein, ibid at 28.
30 By way of example, see Avihay Dorfman & Assaf Jacob, "The Fault of Trespass" (2015) 65:1 UTLJ 48 https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.2637
Christopher Essert, "Nuisance and the Normative Boundaries of Ownership" (2016) 52:1 Tulsa L Rev 85 [Essert, "Nuisance"].
31 See e.g. Eric R Claeys, "Property 101: Is Property a Thing or a Bundle?" Book Review of Property: Principles and Policies by Thomas W Merrill & Henry Smith, (2009) 32:3 Seattle UL Rev 617 at 640.
32 See Avihay Dorfman, "The Society of Property" (2012) 62:4 UTLJ 563 at 601. https://doi.org/10.1353/tlj.2012.0022
33 Dorfman is explicit about property acting as a proxy. See Avihay Dorfman, "Private Ownership and the Standing to Say So" (2014) 64:3 UTLJ 402 at 421. I have elsewhere called this the proxy problem. See Sarah E Hamill, "Community, Property, and Human Rights: The Failure of Property-as-Respect" (2017) 27 JL Soc Pol'y 7 at 10, 21ff [Hamill, "Community"].
34 Supra note 30 at 102.
35 See Dorfman, "Private Ownership", supra note 11 at 18.
36 Essert, "Nuisance", supra note 30 at 102.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid at 89.
39 The differences need not concern us here.
40 See Essert, "Homelessness", supra note 12 at 290; Dorfman, "Normativity," supra note 14 at 1007.
41 This phrase is taken from Dorfman, "Normativity," supra note 14 at 1008, 1004.
42 Ibid at 1008.
43 "Homelessness", supra note 12 at 290.
44 "Nuisance", supra note 30 at 102.
45 See Hamill, Community, supra note 33 at 23-24.
46 These aspects are sometimes referred to in passing. For analysis, see ibid at 22-26.
47 See e.g. Sarah E Hamill, "Enduring Trespass: What Adverse Possession Reveals About Property" (2020) 96 SCLR (2d) 215 [Hamill, "Enduring Trespass"].
48 Dorfman, "When and How", supra note 15 at 84.
49 Dorfman, "Normativity", supra note 14 at 1008.
50 Hamill, "Community", supra note 33 at 23-24.
51 Dorfman, "When and How", supra note 15 at 84, 101-103.
52 Ibid at 86.
53 Ibid at 103.
54 Ibid at 103-108.
55 Ibid at 103-109. The "not for you" approach has some overlap with the limits to exclusion imposed by public accommodations law. See Joseph William Singer, "Property and Sovereignty Imbricated: Why Religion Is Not an Excuse to Discriminate in Public Accommodations" (2017) 18:2 Theor Inq L 519. https://doi.org/10.1515/til-2017-0023
56 Dorfman, "When and How", supra note 15 at 112.
57 Ibid at 113.
58 Ibid at 112-113. For an overview of the divergence in the Anglo-American sense, see Shyamkrishna Balganesh, "Property Along the Tort Spectrum: Trespass to Chattels and the Anglo-American Doctrinal Divergence" (2006) 35:2 Common L World Rev 135. https://doi.org/10.1350/clwr.2006.35.2.135
59 Dorfman, "When and How", supra note 15 at 112-13.
60 563 NW2d 154 (Wis. 1997), 209 Wis.2d 605 [Jacque].
61 See e.g. Henry E Smith, "Exclusion and Property Rules in the Law of Nuisance" (2004) 90:4 Va L Rev 965 at 983; Claeys, supra note 31 at 640. This list is not exhaustive. https://doi.org/10.2307/3202415
62 Jacque, supra note 60 at para 3. For Dorfman's recounting, see Dorfman, "When and How", supra note 15 at
114-19.
63 Dorfman, "When and How", supra note 15 at 114-19.
64 Ibid at 114.
65 Dorfman, "Normativity", supra note 14 at 998.
66 Dorfman, "When and How", supra note 15 at 114.
67 Jacque, supra note 60 at para 3.
68 For more on public accommodation laws, see Joseph William Singer, "No Right to Exclude: Public Accommodations to Private Property" (1996) 90:4 Nw UL Rev 1283.
69 But see Dorfman, "When and How", supra note 15 at 111-12.
70 For public rights of way in England, see Alec Samuels, "Public right of way: some recent legal issues" (2012) JPL 5
Angela Sydenham, Public Rights of Way and Access to Land, 4th ed, (Bristol: Jordan Publishing, 2010) at para 3.5.1.
71 Scotland is the jurisdiction Dorfman relies on. See e.g. ScotWays, "Outdoor Access," online: [scotways.com/outdoor-access] [perma.cc/9XJV-LWPY]; ScotWays, "What activities are not covered by rights of access," online: [scotways.com/ken/activities-not-covered-by-rights-of-access] [perma.cc/6JZJ-BLW8]. See also Dorfman, "When and How", supra note 15 at 118-19.
72 To be clear my criticisms of the "property for all" solution do not apply to calls for "housing for all." That said, absent legal changes to, for example, tenancy law, providing housing for all will still be subject to the power protected by property rights. For example, a tenant will have, in most cases, property rights in their housing, but those rights will be subordinated to the property rights of the landlord. I do not have the space to fully unpack the relationship between housing for all and property for all but suffice to say that without paying attention to how property works, any attempts to secure housing for all will fail. Not surprisingly, some calls for the abolition of private property suggest housing for all instead. See Maharawall & McElroy, supra note 13.
73 See Christopher Rodgers, "Towards a Taxonomy for Public and Common Property" (2019) 78:1 Cambridge LJ 124. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197319000011
74 There was historically some doubt about this. See e.g. Charles Sweet, "The True Nature of an Easement" (1908) 24:3 L Q Rev 259 at 259-61.
75 See Paul M Perrell, "The Creation of Easements" (2005) 30:4 Adv Q 487 at 491-93.
76 See e.g. Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 (UK), c 23
Party Wall etc. Act 1996 (UK), c 40.
77 See Henry E Smith, "Property as the Law of Things" (2012) 125:7 Harv L Rev 1691 at 1691-93 [Smith, "Law of Things"]; Penner, Idea, supra note 23 at 49.
78 See e.g. Carol M Rose, "Property as the Keystone Right?" (1996) 71:3 Notre Dame L Rev 329.
79 See Hamill, "Enduring Trespass," supra note 47.
80 See Alireza Naraghi, "Canada's richest communities 2019", Macleans (8 August 2019), online: [www.macleans.ca/economy/money-economy/canadas-richest-communities-2019] [perma.cc/5893-CCTD].
81 For a recount of this history, see Roop v Hofmeyr, 2016 BCCA 310 at paras 11-20 [Roop CA].
82 Ibid at para 6.
83 Ibid at para 26.
84 Roop v Hofmeyr, 2015 BCSC 1755 at paras 19-25 [Roop SC (TD)].
85 Roop CA, supra note 81 at para 21; Roop SC (TD), supra note 84 at para 53.
86 Roop CA, supra note 81 at para 21.
87 Roop SC (TD), supra note 84 at para 53.
88 Ibid.
89 Roop CA, supra note 81 at 21.
90 Ibid at para 22.
91 Roop SC (TD), supra note 84 at para 32.
92 Ibid at para 33.
93 Roop CA, supra note 81 at para 22.
94 Ibid at para 23.
95 In some instances, these may be captured by a "right of entry." For a recent analysis of this right in the American context see Bethany R Berger, "Property and the Right to Enter" Wash & Lee L Rev [forthcoming in 2023]. What is interesting about the cases which Berger examines is that they typically involve disputes between workers and the owner of the land-that is, the owner is attempting to use property rights to thwart union organising or similar rights of access granted by public law. As such, their "temporary invasions" are qualitatively different from that seen in Jacque. I would argue that the rights of access challenged in certain cases should properly be understood as part of the regulation of use rather than a taking. See Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid, 141 S. Ct. 2063 (2021). I do not have space to fully explore this argument and it would be beyond the scope of this article.
96 Certain instances of necessity will provide an exemption here, but the necessity is very strict. An illustration of the strictness can be seen in the English legislation allowing for temporary, statutory easements to allow access for essential repairs. See supra note 76.
97 These categories are taken from Dorfman, "When and How", supra note 15 at 84.
98 AJ Bradbrook, "Access to Landlocked Land: A Comparative Study of Legal Solutions" (1983) 10:1 Sydney L Rev 39 at 44-45. Admittedly, the Roops were not arguing for an easement of necessity, and some implied easements have a lower bar than strict necessity.
99 As surprising as it may seem, it is likely that this inconvenient route of access would be held sufficient even if the owner or occupant of 6993 had mobility issues and was thus physically incapable of using the steps. Easements of necessity, for example, do not have to grant anything beyond pedestrian access. Easements benefit the land not the owner.
100 2020 BCSC 876 at paras 10-15 [Brett 2020].
101 Ibid at para 16.
102 For the leading example, see Adams, supra note 7.
103 Some cases, such as Courtoreille emerge out of an attempt to get a final order via petition which then becomes an application for an interlocutory injunction. See Courtoreille, supra note 3 at paras 48, 60-134. Some cases do proceed to a final order. See Saanich (District) v Brett 2018 BCSC 2068. It is also possible that the final orders are not published online. Where the interlocutory injunction is not abided by, the plaintiff may seek prosecutions for contempt. See Vancouver Fraser Port Authority v Brett, 2020 BCSC 1368.
104 Williams, supra note 3 at paras 19-36; Brett 2018, supra note 6 at paras 35-39.
105 Williams, supra note 3 at paras 19-36; Courtoreille, supra note 3 at paras 27-33.
106 Courtoreille, supra note 3 at paras 17-26; Williams, supra note 3 at 8-17.
107 Vancouver (City) v Wallstam, 2017 BCSC 937 [Wallstam]; Black, supra note 1.
108 Wallstam, ibid, at para 64.
109 Ibid at paras 9, 45.
110 Jeremy Lye & Estefania Duran, "BC Supreme Court grants injunction against 10-Year tent city" Global News (26 June 2017), online: [globalnews.ca/news/3556575/last-day-of-hearings-for-10-year-tent-city-injunction] [perma.cc/5M94-ZNF7]. I have been unable to find any record of the decision relating to this injunction.
111 Victoria (City) v Smith, 2020 BCSC 2201 at para 4 [Smith].
112 Ibid at para 5.
113 Roxanne Egan-Elliott, "Friends of Beacon Hill Park Society heading to court to remove campers," [Victoria] Times Colonist (17 September 2020), online: [www.timescolonist.com/news/local/friends-of-beacon-hill-park-society-heading-to-court-to-remove-campers-1.24204550] [perma.cc/6ZGT-ZPQW].
114 [1994] 1 SCR 311 [RJR-MacDonald].
115 This phrasing is taken from Brett 2018, supra note 6 at para 41. For the phrasing in RJR MacDonald, see ibid at 334. For the sake of completeness, see also R v Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 2018 SCC 5 at paras 15-16. It should be noted that the Supreme Court amended the first limb of the test in the context of mandatory interlocutory injunctions. Following this case, those seeking such an injunction must show a strong prima facie case that they will succeed. Mandatory injunctions require a party to do something whereas prohibitory injunctions require a party to stop doing something or to refrain from doing something. Although not clear from the case law-as the line here is very fine-the encampment cases are prohibitory injunctions.
116 British Columbia v Adamson, 2016 BCSC 584 [Adamson].
117 Ibid at paras 23- 35; see also Coutoreille, supra note 3 at para 101.
118 Adamson, supra note 116 at paras 23-35.
119 RJR-MacDonald, supra note 114 at 341.
120 Williams, supra note 3 at para 53.
121 Ibid at para 57.
122 Ibid at para 60.
123 Courtoreille, supra note 3 at para 10.
124 Ibid at para 118.
125 Ibid at 119.
126 Ibid at paras 120-34.
127 Brett 2020, supra note 100 at para 4. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003011453-5
128 Ibid at paras 5-6.
129 Ibid at para 44.
130 Ibid at para 46 citing to Vancouver (City) v Maurice, 2002 BCSC 1421 at para 22.
131 Brett 2020, supra note 100 at para 52. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003011453-5
132 Ibid at para 93.
133 Ibid at para 98.
134 See Sarah E Hamill, "Private Rights to Public Property: The Evolution of Common Property in Canada" (2012) 58:2 McGill LJ 365 at 369, 392-96 [Hamill, "Private Rights"]. https://doi.org/10.7202/1017518ar
135 Brett 2020, supra note 100 at para 107. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003011453-5
136 Ibid at para 114.
137 Black, supra note 1 at paras 70-71.
138 Ibid at para 75.
139 Ibid at paras 79-85.
140 Ibid at paras 86-99.
141 Ibid at paras 100-123.
142 Ibid at para 100.
143 Ibid at paras 102-103.
144 Brett 2018, supra note 6 at para 8.
145 Ibid at paras 1, 8.
146 Black, supra note 1 at paras 104-109.
147 Ibid at para 133.
148 Ibid.
149 Ibid at paras 143, 150.
150 Sarah E Hamill, "Common Law Property Theory and Jurisprudence in Canada" (2015) 40:2 Queen's LJ 679 at 692.
151 Ibid at 690-67.
152 Brett 2020, supra note 100 at paras 103-107. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003011453-5
153 The Right to Private Property (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988) at 5.
154 Though admittedly, courts can struggle to understand non-private forms of property. See Hamill, "Private Rights," supra note 134.
155 Hamill, "Enduring Trespass", supra note 47.
156 Brett 2020, supra note 100 at para 44. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003011453-5
157 "Law of Things", supra note 77 at 1719.
158 Michael JR Crawford, "Justifying Possession (or How We Get From Here to There)" in Simone Degeling, Michael Crawford & Nicholas Tiverios, eds, Justifying Private Rights (Oxford: Hart, 2020) 155 at 176-78. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509931989.ch-008
159 Batty v Toronto (City of), 2011 ONSC 6862 at para 1.
160 This is, of course, not the only way of sharing common space and Indigenous scholars have argued for alternative methods. See e.g. Paradies, supra note 13.
161 Contract Law Without Foundations: Toward a Republican Theory of Contract Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019) at 7.
162 Adams, supra note 7 at paras 90-92. https://doi.org/10.1215/15476715-2010-037
163 Ibid at paras 93-97.
164 For a critique of municipalities' turn towards providing shelter as missing those who choose to reside in tent encampments, see Mark Zion, "Making Time for Critique: Canadian 'Right to Shelter' Debates in a Chrono-Political Frame" (2020) 37 Windsor YB Access Just 88. https://doi.org/10.22329/wyaj.v37i0.6563
165 See Black, supra note 1 at paras 10, 19, 23, 112.
166 2021 BCSC 2089 [Stewart]. I am indebted to David DesBaillets for bringing this case to my attention.
167 2022 BCSC 282 [Johnny].
168 Stewart, supra note 166 at paras 2, 12-13.
169 Ibid at para 95.
170 Ibid at para 116.
171 Ibid at para 115.
172 Johnny, supra note 167 at paras 1-2.
173 Ibid at para 5.
174 Ibid at paras 8-9.
175 Ibid at para 53.
176 Ibid at para 82.
177 Andrew Kurjata, "City of Prince George apologizes for 'trauma' caused by destroying part of homeless camp" CBC News (24 March 2022), online: [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/prince-george-apologizes-homeless-1.6396206] [perma.cc/K26E-3K86].
@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;}