Saskatoon Judge Rejects Bid to Halt Homeless Encampment Clearing

The City of Saskatoon can proceed with dismantling a homeless encampment in the Pleasant Hill neighbourhood after a Court of King’s Bench judge dismissed an emergency injunction to keep it in place.

In his Sept. 29 decision, Justice Richard W. Danyliuk rejected an application from advocates Crystal Fafard and Sheela McLean to prevent the city from clearing encampments at 301 Avenue K South and two nearby sites at 1112 and 1202 19th Street West until residents could find shelter.

The judge found that neither applicant had established standing to bring the case and that their evidence did not justify temporarily halting the city’s actions.

The city owns the properties, including two parcels it purchased from Imperial Oil in March.

By early September, the Saskatoon Fire Department had raised concerns about the growing encampments and safety risks involving burning barrels, barbecues and other burning materials, according to the decision.

The executive director of Station 20, a community organization serving Saskatoon’s westside neighbourhoods, had also raised concerns about fires. The city posted emergency notices on Sept. 22, directing occupants to address the conditions by Sept. 24 and listing organizations offering shelter or assistance.

The applicants argued that clearing the encampments would harm residents who faced barriers to accessing shelters. McLean cited shelter policies involving belongings, couples, pets and addiction or harm-reduction requirements, and alleged that the city’s actions breached its Community Encampment Response Plan.

She also argued that dispersing residents into alleyways or isolated riverbank areas would increase the risks of hypothermia, overdose deaths, and medical emergencies.

Danyliuk found that these claims lacked sufficient supporting evidence, noting that McLean had not provided facts or qualifications to substantiate her assessments of medical and psychological risks.

The judge acknowledged that Saskatoon lacked sufficient venues for homeless people, and that residents would face difficulties without proper shelter during a Saskatchewan winter. However, he found the applicants had not provided enough evidence to establish a sufficient risk of irreparable harm if the injunction was denied.

Neither applicant lived at the sites, the judge noted, and neither had submitted evidence from residents who would be directly affected by the removal. He also found no evidence that residents had authorized either applicant to represent them.

“Perhaps—and only perhaps—if there was evidence from one of the unhoused people actually living on the encampment site my analysis could take a different turn,” he wrote.

The city opposed the injunction, citing safety concerns and its rights as a property owner. Its evidence included photographs, body-camera recordings, inspection records and complaints from neighbours and a school.

Inspectors documented garbage, unsanitary sleeping conditions, needles, sewage, bodily fluids, and pests.

Community complaints included fires near tents and reports that children walking past the encampments had encountered needles, weapons, and strangers who shouted at or approached them.

Danyliuk also accepted evidence that members of advocacy groups had obstructed city employees, fencing contractors, and outreach workers. He distinguished those actions from the conduct of encampment residents, whom officials generally described as polite, respectful, or non-confrontational.

The judge found that allowing the encampments to remain would interfere with the city’s ability to enforce its bylaws and manage land intended for development. Although the properties are municipally owned, he said they were not public spaces where people had permission to stay.

“Leaving them where they are does not offer them housing security,” he wrote, noting that residents remained outdoors, in tents at best.

Danyliuk dismissed the request and ordered each applicant to pay the city $250 in costs. He kept the award modest because he said high costs could discourage people from bringing legitimate cases that are in the public interest.