•  
  •  

Osgoode Home > Osgoode Digital Commons > Journals > OHLJ > Vol. 61 > Iss. 1 (2024)

 

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Using a 2020 decision in which a judge granted an interlocutory injunction evicting a homeless encampment from an unused, unfenced, publicly-owned parking lot in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic as a springboard, I present the first comprehensive survey of British Columbia homeless encampment injunction decisions, revealing a whopping 85% success rate when governments seek interlocutory injunctions against encampments. The stakes are high: Interlocutory injunction applications dominate homeless encampment litigation, exposing encampment residents to continual displacement and elevated risks of isolation, illness, violence, and death. I argue that courts hearing applications for interlocutory injunctions against homeless encampments on publicly-owned land should apply the full three-pronged RJR-MacDonald framework; apply a strong prima facie case standard to the first prong; avoid prejudging complex, contested evidential or legal issues at the interlocutory stage, on the basis of affidavit evidence alone; and raise the bar for interlocutory injunctions to a height that reflects the fundamental interests at stake in homeless encampment cases.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Additional Files
3761_Wood.epub (402 kB)
EPUB version (e-reader software required)

References

  1. Canada Research Chair in Law, Society and Sustainability, and Director, Centre for Law and the Environment, Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia (“UBC”). I was involved on a pro bono basis with Vancouver Fraser Port Authority v Brett. I submitted an affidavit for the defence that documented public health advice for homeless encampments during the COVID-19 pandemic. I also oversaw a team of UBC JD students and alumni (Jade Dumoulin, JD 2022, Robert Munro, JD 2020, and Sebastian Ennis, JD 2017) who conducted pro bono legal research into homeless encampments for Pivot Legal Society in the summer of 2020. Neither I nor the research team played any role in the preparation of other affidavits or of the pleadings in the case. I am grateful to the members of the research team for their assistance and to Alexandra Flynn, Douglas Harris, Robert Munro, and Amandeep Singh for comments on an earlier draft. I also acknowledge the scores of lawyers in British Columbia who volunteer their time and expertise to represent defendants in homeless encampment litigation. Without their contributions, these defendants would be unrepresented, important evidence would not be presented to the court, and important legal issues would remain unexplored. These lawyers do a great service not just for their clients but for society and the justice system, but this article is dedicated to the people they represent: the residents of homeless encampments.
  2. Vancouver Fraser Port Authority v Brett, 2020 BCSC 876 [VFPA v Brett].
  3. [1994] 1 SCR 311 [RJR-MacDonald].
  4. The parking lot was a rough parallelogram around 130 m long and 50 m wide, with an area of around 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.
  5. VFPA v Brett, supra note 2 at para 4.
  6. SC 1998, c 10.
  7. 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.
  8. See VFPA v Brett, supra note 2 (Notice of Civil Claim), citing Port Authorities Operations Regulations, SOR/2000-55 [Regulations].
  9. Ibid (Notice of Application).
  10. Ibid (Application Record); ibid (Written argument, Applicant); ibid (Written argument, Respondents). The application record, updated on 4 June 2020, spanned 824 pages. The written arguments of the applicant and respondents spanned 45 pages and 32 pages, respectively. Several affidavits were also filed at the last minute.
  11. Ibid at para 116.
  12. Ibid at paras 117-18, 131. The issue of police enforcement clauses is beyond the scope of this article. See e.g. Kate Mitchell, “Challenging the Use of Police Enforcement Clauses in Ontario” (2018) 38 Can Fam LQ 85.
  13. VFPA v Brett, ibid at paras 38-39, quoting Patel v WH Smith (Eziot) Ltd, [1987] 1 WLR 853 (CA) at 858-59 (per Balcombe LJ) [Patel].
  14. 2003 BCSC 17 [Terbasket].
  15. 2004 BCSC 1827 [Van Osch].
  16. VFPA v Brett, supra note 2 at para 76.
  17. Ibid at para 35.
  18. Ibid at paras 50, 57.
  19. (1998), 47 MPLR (2d) 249 (BCCA) [Thornhill].
  20. VFPA v Brett, supra note 2 at para 47, citing Vancouver (City) v Maurice, 2005 BCCA 37 at para 34 [Maurice CA], aff’g 2002 BCSC 1421 [Maurice SC].
  21. VFPA v Brett, supra note 2 at paras 55-56.
  22. Ibid at para 57.
  23. Ibid at para 98.
  24. Ibid at para 101.
  25. Ibid at para 102.
  26. Ibid at para 107.
  27. Ibid at para 105.
  28. Ibid at para 103.
  29. Ibid at paras 108-109.
  30. Ibid at para 114.
  31. See Abbotsford (City) v Shantz, 2015 BCSC 1909 at para 82 [Shantz #3]; Prince George (City) v Stewart, 2021 BCSC 2089 at paras 67-68 [Stewart].
  32. I assess Hinkson CJ’s treatment of the evidence in VFPA v Brett elsewhere. See Stepan 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) [Wood, “A Tale of Two (Tent) Cities”] [unpublished, copy on file with author].
  33. VFPA v Brett, supra note 2 at para 80. The only evidence for some of these findings of fact was inadmissible hearsay, an issue I address elsewhere. See Wood, “A Tale of Two (Tent) Cities,” supra note 32.
  34. See “Dozens of arrests made as Vancouver police enforce injunction against homeless camp,” The Globe and Mail (17 June 2020), online: [perma.cc/ND9A-JEDQ].
  35. Personal observation, confirmed by post-eviction Google Street View imagery.
  36. See Jon Woodward, “Plan to disperse homeless camp backfires as campers move to park,” CTV News (16 June 2020), online: [perma.cc/TT7U-CWYB].
  37. See Sheila Scott, “Province, city, park board announce roles in moving residents from Strathcona tent encampment,” CTV News (7 April 2021), online: [perma.cc/L48S-4EPK].
  38. See Memorandum from the Ministry of Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Housing, City of Vancouver, and Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation (31 March 2021), “Memorandum of Understanding on Support for Unsheltered Vancouver Residents,” online (pdf): [perma.cc/P7L2-CQB6].
  39. See Travis Prasad, “Some campers remain in Vancouver's Strathcona Park after moving deadline,” CTV News (30 April 2021), online: [perma.cc/G7D2-Z3Z6].
  40. Ibid.
  41. Lisa Steacy, “Strathcona Park decampment ‘stressful, tense’ for residents,” News 1130 (1 May 2021), online: [perma.cc/UQ82-WZHW].
  42. Prasad, supra note 39.
  43. See Cheryl Chan, “Homeless campers at Vancouver's CRAB Park being evicted,” Vancouver Sun (9 July 2021), online: [perma.cc/5BYC-4FNY].
  44. Bamberger v Vancouver (Board of Parks and Recreation), 2022 BCSC 49 at para 3 [Bamberger].
  45. Ibid.
  46. Renee Bernard, “CRAB Park tent city cleared again,” CityNews Everywhere (10 September 2021), online: [perma.cc/PPD6-3PCG].
  47. Bamberger, supra note 44 (granting petition by encampment residents for judicial review, on the grounds that the orders lacked procedural fairness and could not be reasonably justified in light of the available evidence, and adjourning petition by Park Board for an injunction evicting the encampment, pending Park Board’s reconsideration of its orders).
  48. See e.g. Winston Szeto, “Bylaw officers removing people without homes from camp near downtown Kelowna,” CBC News (24 October 2022), online: [perma.cc/5ZFL-P8DF].
  49. See David P Ball, “Chrissy Brett remembered as a tireless advocate for homeless people, Indigenous rights,” CBC News (19 July 2022), online: [perma.cc/D7XK-HTGX].
  50. “Obituary of Christine Margery ‘Chrissy’ Brett,” (29 July 2022), online: Victoria Times Colonist .
  51. 2008 BCSC 1363 [Adams SC], aff’d 2009 BCCA 563 [Adams CA].
  52. Shantz #3, supra note 31.
  53. Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].
  54. For the other reported final decisions on the merits, see Johnston v Victoria (City), 2010 BCSC 1707, aff’d 2011 BCCA 400 [Johnston] (appeal of summary conviction for violating parks bylaw by maintaining round-the-clock encampment in public park); Saanich (District) v Brett, 2018 BCSC 2068 [Saanich v Brett #2] (unopposed application for final order granting permanent injunction against encampment in municipal park and provincial highway verge); Stewart, supra note 31 (petition by city for permanent statutory injunction against violation of municipal zoning and safe streets bylaws by erecting encampments in public park and city-owned vacant lot); Bamberger, supra note 44 (petition by homeless encampment residents for judicial review of Park Board orders closing public park to overnight camping and later to all public use; and counter-petition by Park Board for injunction clearing encampment). Injunctions were not at issue in two of these decisions and they are therefore excluded from the analysis I undertake in Part II. See Adams SC, supra note 51; Johnston.
  55. Maple Ridge (City) v Scott, 2019 BCSC 157, leave denied, (sub nom Maple Ridge (City) v Copperthwaite, 2019 BCCA 99) [Scott] (application for interlocutory injunction to enforce compliance with fire safety orders, vacate encampment temporarily for cleanup, and verify identities and intentions of returning residents); Victoria (City) v Smith, 2020 BCSC 1173 [Smith] (application for interlocutory injunction to remove tents from environmentally and culturally sensitive areas of a city park, so as to confine encampment to other portions of the park).
  56. I address these other problems elsewhere. See Stepan Wood, “When Should Publicly Owned Land Be Considered Private in Homeless Encampment Cases? A Critique of Recent Developments in BC” (2023) 36 J L & Soc Pol’y 64–96, DOI: [Wood, “Public Land”]; Wood, “A Tale of Two (Tent) Cities,” supra note 32.
  57. Vancouver (City) v O’Flynn-Magee, 2011 BCSC 1647 at para 21 [O’Flynn-Magee].
  58. Mark Zion, “Making Time for Critique: Canadian ‘Right to Shelter’ Debates in a Chrono-Political Frame” (2020) 37 Windsor YB Access Just 88 at 114, DOI: .
  59. For example, see Adams SC, supra note 51 at paras 11 and 17. Justice Ross noted that Justice Stewart had earlier granted an interim injunction evicting the homeless encampment in that case, while Justice Johnston had later denied a permanent injunction in the same case. See also Saanich (District) v Brett, 2018 BCSC 1648 at para 79 [Saanich v Brett #1]. Justice Branch referred to a decision in which Justice MacKenzie had granted the city of Duncan, BC an injunction prohibiting an encampment there. However, both of the referenced decisions are unreported.
  60. Provincial Rental Housing Corp v Doe, 2002 CarswellBC 3738 (SC (TD)) [PRHC SC], rev’d sub nom Provincial Rental Housing Corp v Hall, 2005 BCCA 36 [PRHC CA]; Maurice CA, supra note 20.
  61. See the Appendix for the list of decisions.
  62. O’Flynn-Magee, supra note 57; Abbotsford (City) v Shantz, 2013 BCSC 2426 [Shantz #1]; Prince George (City) v Johnny, 2022 BCSC 282 [Johnny].
  63. Maurice SC, supra note 20; Smith, supra note 55.
  64. Fraser Health Authority v Evans, 2016 BCSC 1708 [Evans].
  65. VFPA v Brett, supra note 2.
  66. Maurice SC, supra note 20; VFPA v Brett, ibid; Smith, supra note 55.
  67. Supra note 64.
  68. Supra note 2.
  69. Supra note 57.
  70. Shantz #1, supra note 62. In Johnny the test was not articulated because the injunction was refused due to the applicant city’s failure to fulfill the conditions of an earlier order, not due to the application of one of the established tests for granting an interlocutory injunction.
  71. British Columbia v Adamson, 2016 BCSC 584 [Adamson #1]; British Columbia v Adamson, 2016 BCSC 1245 [Adamson #2].
  72. 2017 BCSC 937 [Wallstam].
  73. Supra note 62.
  74. Supra note 31.
  75. PRHC CA, supra note 60.
  76. Shantz #3, supra note 31; Stewart, supra note 31. I classified the result in Stewart as “injunction denied” even though Chief Justice Hinkson granted an injunction in part. He granted an injunction only in respect of one of the two encampment sites at issue in the case, on the basis that most of its occupants had already moved to the other encampment and the remaining occupants could also do so, consolidating the encampment in one place. Since he denied the injunction to clear the other encampment, and that other encampment was the main or only active encampment at the time of the hearing, the substantial effect of the decision was to deny the injunction sought by the petitioner.
  77. Supra note 44.
  78. Saanich v Brett #2, supra note 54. Justice Branch had earlier granted an interim injunction against a homeless encampment. See Saanich v Brett #1, supra note 59. In the later case of Saanich v Brett #2, he granted a permanent injunction against the same encampment, but the defendants—having long since been evicted—did not oppose the later order.
  79. See Yellowhead Institute, Land Back: A Yellowhead Institute Red Paper (Yellowhead Institute, October 2019) at 10, 30.
  80. See e.g. Jorge Barrera, “Legal playing field tilted against First Nations in resource development battles, says new report,” CBC News (29 Oct 2019), online: CBC News [perma.cc/4LQQ-PRTL].
  81. Shantz #3, supra note 31.
  82. Saanich v Brett #2, supra note 54; Stewart, supra note 31; Bamberger, supra note 44.
  83. See BC, Supreme Court Civil Rules, BC Reg 168/2009, rr 1-2(4) (petitions and applications), 8-1 (applications), 10-4 (pretrial injunctions), 22-1 (chambers proceedings) [BC Rules]. The previous Rules, in effect before 2010, had broadly similar effect.
  84. Supra note 51.
  85. Supra note 54.
  86. Saanich v Brett #1, supra note 59 at para 52.
  87. See Adams SC, supra note 51 at para 28; Adams CA, supra note 51 at para 19.
  88. See Vancouver Parks Board v Mickelson, 2003 BCSC 1271 [Mickelson].
  89. See Scott, supra note 55.
  90. Abbotsford (City) v Shantz, 2013 BCSC 2612 at para 20 [Shantz #2].
  91. Mickelson, supra note 88 at para 18.
  92. Ibid at para 19, citing Manitoba (Attorney General) v Metropolitan Stores Ltd, [1987] 1 SCR 110 at 124 [Metropolitan Stores].
  93. Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation v Williams, 2014 BCSC 1926 at para 60 [Williams].
  94. Adamson #1, supra note 71 at para 35.
  95. Nanaimo (City) v Courtoreille, 2018 BCSC 1629 at para 110 [Courtoreille]. See also Saanich v Brett #1, supra note 59 at para 40; Scott, supra note 55 at para 30 (to the same effect).
  96. Courtoreille, supra note 95 at para 111. See also Wallstam, supra note 72 at para 36 (finding that Charter issues were raised despite no material being filed to that end in response to the application).
  97. Bamberger, supra note 44 at para 174. The court declined to decide this point, however, opting instead to adjourn the injunction application (ibid at para 175).
  98. In a fourth case, the court granted an injunction to remove a makeshift wooden pavilion erected to shelter homeless campers on a public parking lot, on the basis that “the City has established a breach of its bylaws and its statutory right to enforce them.” Shantz #1, supra note 62 at para 21. This decision appears to be based on the Thornhill rule, but it is of little precedential value because the court did not expressly articulate or discuss the test it applied. For purposes of my survey, I classified it as “not decided.”
  99. SBC 1953, c 55, s 571(1) (now s 334(1)).
  100. In O’Flynn-Magee, supra note 57 at para 23, Justice Mackenzie wrote that Justice Lowry “said that Charter rights were ‘engaged’ by the defendants in that case,” but this is clearly mistaken. What he actually said was “I do not consider that s. 2(b) of the Charter is engaged because…[o]bstructing the city’s sidewalks in breach of its by-law is clearly not a form of expression that is compatible with the use of the sidewalks.…I also do not consider that any of the other sections of the Charter that are raised are engaged.” Maurice SC, supra note 20 at paras 30-31.
  101. Maurice SC, supra note 20 at para 16.
  102. Ibid at para 22.
  103. See VFPA v Brett, supra note 2 at para 57.
  104. Ibid at para 98. I criticize this conclusion elsewhere. See Wood, “Public Land,” supra note 56.
  105. The relevant provision in Smith was the Community Charter, SBC 2003, c 26, s 274(1), while that in Maurice was the Vancouver Charter, supra note 99, s 571(1) (now s 334(1)). Both authorize local governments to apply for injunctions to enforce bylaws.
  106. See Smith, supra note 55 at paras 34, 39.
  107. 2003 BCSC 1421 at para 5 [Sterritt].
  108. O’Flynn-Magee, supra note 57 at paras 21, 24. The quotation is from para 21.
  109. Ibid at paras 27-28.
  110. Supra note 64.
  111. Supra note 2.
  112. Adamson #1, supra note 71 at para 26.
  113. Ibid at para 29.
  114. Supra note 57 at para 71.
  115. PRHC SC, supra note 60.
  116. Maurice CA, supra note 20 at para 34.
  117. Ibid at para 2.
  118. PRHC SC, supra note 60 at para 1.
  119. Ibid at para 10.
  120. Although the application was ex parte, a lawyer acting for some occupants heard about it and appeared at the hearing.
  121. See PRHC CA, supra note 60 at paras 20, 60-62.
  122. Ibid at paras 20, 56, 58, respectively [emphasis added].
  123. See Victoria (City) v Thompson, 2011 BCSC 1810 [Thompson] (granting interlocutory injunction to clear Occupy Victoria encampment from public park); O’Flynn-Magee, supra note 57; BC/Yukon Association of Drug War Survivors v Abbotsford (City), 2014 BCSC 1817 (granting homeless advocacy organization public interest standing to sue city over its treatment of homeless residents); Courtoreille, supra note 93; VFPA v Brett, supra note 2; Smith, supra note 55; and Bamberger, supra note 44.
  124. See Adams CA, supra note 51.
  125. Google Inc v Equustek Solutions Inc, 2017 SCC 34 at paras 23, 25.
  126. R v Canadian Broadcasting Corp, 2018 SCC 5 at para 12 [citations omitted] [CBC].
  127. See e.g. Jeffrey Berryman, The Law of Equitable Remedies, 2nd ed (Irwin Law, 2013) at 95-98 (statutory injunctions), 203-10 (injunctions to enjoin trespass).
  128. Google, supra note 125 at para 25.
  129. Ibid. See also CBC, supra note 126 at para 13.
  130. British Columbia (Attorney General) v Wale, [1986] BCJ No 1395, aff’d [1991] 1 SCR 62, at para 52.
  131. MacKay v Brookside Campsite Inc, 2020 BCSC 375 at para 6 [citations omitted].
  132. Evans, supra note 64 at para 49.
  133. I develop this argument in more detail elsewhere. See Wood, “Public Land,” supra note 56.
  134. Wallstam, supra note 61 at para 38.
  135. Courtoreille, supra note 61 at para 11.
  136. See e.g. Canadian Forest Products Inc v Sam, 2011 BCSC 676 at paras 71-72, rev’d in part on other grounds 2013 BCCA 58 [Sam]; British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v Boon, 2016 BCSC 355 at para 41; AJB Investments Ltd v Elphinstone Logging Focus, 2016 BCSC 734 at paras 21-22; Marine Harvest Canada Inc v Morton, 2017 BCSC 2383 at para 51; Marine Harvest Canada Inc v Morton, 2018 BCSC 1302 at para 136; Alton Natural Gas Storage Inc v Poulette, 2019 NSSC 94 at para 32.
  137. See e.g. Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd v Doe, 2020 BCSC 388 at para 43 [CPR v Doe]; Canadian National Railway Co v Doe, 2020 ONSC 8225 at para 6.
  138. See Vancouver Fraser Port Authority v Doe, 2020 BCSC 244 at para 3.
  139. CPR v Doe, supra note 137 at para 47.
  140. See VFPA v Brett, supra note 2 at para 103.
  141. Supra note 13 at 858-59.
  142. See Terbasket, supra note 14 at paras 24-28.
  143. 2005 BCSC 1908 at para 18.
  144. Van Osch, supra note 15 at para 14.
  145. Ibid (“In spite of having reached the foregoing conclusion, I have also assessed the test of balance of convenience” at para 15); Sol Sante Club, supra note 143 (“Nevertheless, I will go on to consider the issues of irreparable harm and balance of convenience” at para 21).
  146. OSED Howe Street Vancouver Leaseholds Inc v FS Property Inc, 2020 BCSC 1066 at para 18.
  147. For a complementary argument, see Sarah E Hamill, “Private Property Rights and Public Responsibility: Leaving Room for the Homeless” (2011) 30 Windsor Rev Legal Soc Issues 91; Sarah E Hamill, “Private Rights to Public Property: The Evolution of Common Property in Canada” (2012) 58 McGill LJ 365.
  148. See e.g. Vancouver Charter, supra note 99, s 334(1); Community Charter, supra note 105, s 274(1).
  149. See e.g. Saskatchewan (Minister of Environment) v Redberry Development Corp, [1987] 4 WWR 654 (Sask QB) [Redberry QB], aff’d [1992] 2 WWR 544 (Sask CA) (provincial statute authorizing designated minister to apply to court for order enjoining contravention of statute, or of ministerial approval issued under it); British Columbia (Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks) v Alpha Manufacturing Inc (1997), 150 DLR (4th) 193 (BC CA) [Alpha Mfg] (provincial statute authorizing designated minister to apply to court for order restraining contravention of statute); British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v Okanagan Indian Band, 1999 CarswellBC 2475 (BC SC (TD)) [Okanagan Indian Band SC], aff’d sub nom British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v Adams Lake Band, 2000 BCCA 315 [Okanagan Indian Band CA] (provincial statute authorizing designated minister to apply to court for order directing compliance with, or restraining violation of stop order issued under statute).
  150. See e.g. Nelson (City) v Kranz, [1990] BCJ No 2695 (SC (TD)); Kamloops (City) v Baines, [1996] BCJ No 835 (SC (TD)); Thornhill, supra note 19 at para 7.
  151. See e.g. AG v Premier Line Ltd, [1932] 1 Ch 303; AG v Bastow, [1957] 1 QB 514; AG v Harris, [1961] 1 QB 74.
  152. See Thornhill, supra note 19 at para 9; Burnaby (City) v Oh, 2011 BCCA 222 at para 41, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 2011 CanLII 79128 (SCC).
  153. [1973] SCR 38 at 41 [Polai SCC], aff’g Toronto (City) v Polai (1969), 8 DLR (3d) 689 (O CA) [Polai CA].
  154. Polai CA, supra note 153 at paras 40, 42.
  155. O’Flynn-Magee, supra note 57 at para 27.
  156. See Metropolitan Stores, supra notes 92 and accompanying text; Williams, supra note 93 and accompanying text.
  157. Maurice SC, supra note 20 at paras 17-18, 22.
  158. See e.g. Okanagan Indian Band SC, supra note 149 at para 60; Maurice SC, supra note 20 at para 21; O’Flynn-Magee, supra note 57 at para 48.
  159. See Smith, supra note 55 at para 33.
  160. Maurice SC, supra note 20 at para 20. See also Smith, supra note 55 at para 29; O’Flynn-Magee, supra note 57 at para 47. Outside the homeless encampment context, see Alpha Mfg, supra note 149 at para 32; Okanagan Indian Band SC, supra note 149 at para 55.
  161. See e.g. VFPA v Brett, supra note 2 at paras 28-30 (referring to defendants’ persistent refusals to leave after being notified of alleged violations repeatedly).
  162. See e.g. Williams, supra note 93 (referring to defendants’ “expressions of intention to continue to flout the law” at para 50).
  163. VFPA v Brett, supra note 2 at para 57. Elsewhere the court explicitly rejected the defendants’ evidence about COVID-19 risks and precautions (ibid at paras 78, 111) and found that the defendants had responded to requests to leave with aggression and denied the plaintiff’s authority over the site (ibid at para 35).
  164. Robert J Sharpe, Injunctions and Specific Performance (Canada Law Book, 2019) (loose-leaf updated 2020, release 29) at para 3.150; Redberry QB, supra note 149 at 660; Alpha Mfg, supra note 149 at para 30; Thornhill, supra note 19 at para 9.
  165. Thornhill, supra note 19 at para 9. See also Sterritt, supra note 107 at para 5.
  166. Okanagan Indian Band CA, supra note 149 at para 11.
  167. Polai CA, supra note 153 at para 14.
  168. Sharpe, supra note 164 at para 3.150.
  169. Thornhill, supra note 19 at para 76.
  170. Bamberger, supra note 44 at para 185, citing Adamson #1, supra note 71 at para 185.
  171. Ibid at para 177.
  172. Ibid at para 189.
  173. Ibid at paras 191, 194.
  174. Ibid at para 198.
  175. Ibid at para 212.
  176. See e.g. Shaughnessy Heights Property Owners’ Assoc v Northup (1958), 12 DLR (2d) 760 (BC SC(TD)) at 763 (granting injunction pursuant to private act that prohibited multiple-family residences, and authorized any resident of the affected neighbourhood to seek injunction to restrain violations).
  177. It is worth acknowledging in this connection that port authorities are subject to federal privacy and access to information legislation.
  178. See AG v Sheffield Gas Consumers Co (1853), 3 De GM & G 304 at 311-12, cited in Sharpe, supra note 164 at para 3.160 (“in the present case, though the Attorney-General’s name is used, it is impossible not to see that the suit has been instituted more from regard to private than to public good” at n 41).
  179. See e.g. Montreal (City) v Morgan, [1920] 60 SCR 393, leave to appeal to the JCPC refused, 60 SCR v (30 July 1920) (PC) (WL Can); Polai SCC, supra note 153. There is also ample authority for the proposition that a government’s decision not to pursue criminal charges does not disentitle the court to enjoin potentially criminal behaviour at the suit of an affected party. See e.g. MacMillan Bloedel Ltd v Simpson, [1996] 2 SCR 1048; Teal Cedar Products Ltd v Rainforest Flying Squad, 2022 BCCA 26 at para 30 [Teal Cedar Products].
  180. Cambie Surgeries Corp v British Columbia (Medical Services Commission), 2010 BCCA 396 at para 34.
  181. Teal Cedar Products, supra note 179 at para 40 [emphasis in original].
  182. Patel, supra note 13 at 859.
  183. Terbasket, supra note 14 at para 25; Van Osch, supra note 15 at para 14.
  184. O’Flynn-Magee, supra note 57 at para 71.
  185. See Adams SC, supra note 51 at para 132.
  186. Evans, supra note 64; VFPA v Brett, supra note 2.
  187. See Patel, supra note 13 (“it is for the defendants to show that they have some right which is independent of the wishes of the plaintiffs to do that which they seek to do and have done” at 862).
  188. Ibid.
  189. [1991] 1 SCR 139 at 155 (citing Hugessen J in the court below).
  190. 2007 BCSC 1175 at para 20 [Gateway Casinos].
  191. Ibid at para 30.
  192. See supra note 2 (“most importantly…the plaintiff is entitled to the use of its land” at para 107).
  193. See CBC, supra note 126 at para 12.
  194. See RJR-MacDonald, supra note 3 at 338.
  195. See CBC, supra note 126.
  196. Ibid.
  197. Adamson #1, supra note 71 at para 18, citing Premium Weatherstripping Inc v Ghassemi, 2016 BCCA 20 at para 7.
  198. Wallstam, supra note 72 at para 49.
  199. See Prince Rupert Grain Ltd v Grain Workers’ Union, Local 333, 2002 BCCA 641; Gateway Casinos, supra note 190; Sam, supra note 136; Taseko Mines Ltd v Tsilhqot’in National Government, 2019 BCSC 1507; O’Brien & Fuerst Logging Ltd v White, 2019 BCSC 2011.
  200. See Sharpe, supra note 164 at para 2.210; Berryman, supra note 127 at 43.
  201. CBC, supra note 126 at para 15 [emphasis in original].
  202. Ibid [citations omitted]. See also West Moberly First Nations v British Columbia, 2018 BCSC 1835 at para 229; Yellow Cab Company Ltd v Passenger Transportation Board, 2020 BCSC 162 at para 28.
  203. CBC, supra note 126 at para 16.
  204. Ibid; see also TELUS Communications Inc v Shaw Communications Inc, 2020 BCSC 1354 at para 49.
  205. See VFPA v Brett, supra note 2 at para 116.
  206. Wilson v Adams Estate, 2019 SKQB 39 at para 42.
  207. See e.g. Mickelson, supra note 88 at para 1; Sterritt, supra note 107 at para 1; Saanich v Brett #1, supra note 59 at para 44.
  208. See Johnny, supra note 62 at paras 30-31.
  209. See Stewart, supra note 31.
  210. See Johnny, supra note 62 at para 83.
  211. Supra note 126 at para 17.
  212. See Mickelson, supra note 88 at para 23; O’Flynn-Magee, supra note 57 at para 54; Courtoreille, supra note 95 at paras 77, 90; Saanich v Brett #1, supra note 59 at para 84.
  213. Supra note 88. See also Courtoreille, supra note 95 at para 76 (adopting Pitfield J’s reasoning).
  214. See e.g. Fernandes v Legacy Financial Systems, Inc, 2020 BCSC 885 (“there is a strong prima facie case, and no obvious defences” at para 26); Quizno’s Canada Restaurant Corp v 1450987 Ontario Corp, 2009 CarswellOnt 2280 (WL Can) (Sup Ct) (“In reaching my conclusions about the strength of the case…I have considered the [defendants’] argument that they have a strong defence and counterclaim” at para 90).
  215. See e.g. Kent Roach, Constitutional Remedies in Canada, 2nd ed (Thomson Reuters, 2019) (loose-leaf) at para 7.171.
  216. See Karounis c Procureur général du Québec, 2020 QCCS 2817 at para 12.
  217. See Calin v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 731 at para 14.
  218. In rare cases, homeless people file suit and apply for interlocutory injunctions against governments. See e.g. Black v Toronto (City), 2020 ONSC 6398. In even rarer cases, they win such injunctions. See e.g. Paige Parsons, “Judge orders slowdown in removals of Edmonton homeless camps,” CBC News (18 December 2023), online: [perma.cc/J5LT-3MM9].
  219. [1975] AC 396 at 510 [American Cyanamid], cited in Metropolitan Stores, supra note 92 at 130.
  220. Sharpe, supra note 164 at para 2.70.
  221. Supra note 3 at 335. See also O’Flynn-Magee, supra note 57 (“constitutional arguments are properly examined at the trial of the matter to provide the parties sufficient time to prepare and to allow the Attorney General the opportunity to intervene” at para 41).
  222. Supra note 92 at 130.
  223. Ville de Montréal-Est c 2775328 Canada Inc, 2018 QCCS 4951 at para 58 [translated by author] [Montréal-Est].
  224. Berryman, supra note 127 at 32.
  225. Adamson #1, supra note 71 at para 182.
  226. Ibid at paras 108, 182.
  227. Ibid at para 51.
  228. See e.g. Montréal-Est, supra note 223 at para 59.
  229. Adamson #1, supra note 71 at para 187. See Sharpe, supra note 164 at para 2.230.
  230. American Cyanamid, supra note 219 at 510. I critically assess these evidentiary issues elsewhere. See Wood, “A Tale of Two (Tent) Cities,” supra note 32.
  231. See BC Rules, supra note 83, rr 1-2(4), 2-1(2).
  232. See Community Charter, supra note 105, s 274(1); Vancouver Charter, supra note 99, s 334(1).
  233. See PRHC SC, supra note 60; Maurice SC, supra note 20; Mickelson, supra note 88; Sterritt, supra note 107; Provincial Capital Commission v Johnston, 2005 BCSC 1397; O’Flynn-Magee, supra note 57; Shantz #1, supra note 62; Shantz #2, supra note 90; Shantz #3, supra note 31; Williams, supra note 93; Adamson #1, supra note 71; Adamson #2, supra note 71; Evans, supra note 64; Wallstam, supra note 72; Saanich v Brett #1, supra note 59; Saanich v Brett #2, supra note 54; Scott, supra note 55; VFPA v Brett, supra note 2.
  234. See Thompson, supra note 123; Courtoreille, supra note 95; Smith, supra note 55; Stewart, supra note 31; Bamberger, supra note 44; Johnny, supra note 62. All decisions since Smith in 2020 have been rendered in the context of petitions, which may suggest that government plaintiffs increasingly consider this the preferable form of proceeding. See the Appendix for a breakdown of civil actions versus petitions in injunction decisions issued between 2000 and 2022.
  235. See BC Rules, supra note 83, r 22-1(4)(a).
  236. Ibid, r 22-1(7)(d).
  237. See British Columbia (Milk Marketing Board) v Saputo Products Canada GP / Saputo Produits Laitiers Canada SENC, 2017 BCCA 247.
  238. See Ghag v Ghag, 2021 BCCA 106.
  239. Supra note 95 at paras 50, 55.
  240. Supra note 44 at para 174.
  241. Google, supra note 125 at para 23; Sharpe, supra note 164 at para 2.10.
  242. See e.g. Teal Cedar Products Ltd v Mashari, 2021 BCCA 353 at paras 10, 13; Edward Jones v Voldeng, 2012 BCCA 295 at para 55; Cambie Surgeries Corp v British Columbia (Medical Services Commission), 2010 BCCA 396 at paras 3, 39; Aetna Financial Services v Feigelman, [1985] 1 SCR 2 at 10. See also Stewart, supra note 31 (Per Hinkson CJ: “An injunction is an extraordinary remedy and should only be granted when there are no other alternatives” at para 103).
  243. Ahousaht First Nation v Canada (Fisheries, Oceans and Coast Guard), 2019 FC 1116 at para 49. See also Letnes v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 636 at para 34.

Download

Request a copy that is accessible using assistive technology (link opens in a new window)

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS