Ontario Premier Doug Ford has strongly criticized a recent court decision from Waterloo, calling it 'beyond ridiculous' and accusing the judge of being 'a few fries short of a Happy Meal' for his reasoning on a homelessness ruling. The decision, made by Justice Michael Gibson, prevents the Regional Municipality of Waterloo from moving a homeless encampment to allow construction of a regional transit hub.
Ford, who is not a lawyer or legal scholar, argues that the ruling effectively rewrites the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by importing non-binding international norms. 'This decision cannot be denounced strongly enough,' Ford said. 'To let it stand would mean allowing a lower court judge to radically rewrite the Charter.'
Housing Must Be Approved by Drug Users
In his judgment, Gibson stated that the encampment residents cannot be moved until they are provided with housing they find adequate. The individuals involved in the challenge refuse to stay in shelters or motels paid for by the local government, demanding housing where they can continue to use crack, meth, and opioids without judgment.
'Emergency shelters are not always appropriate or available for people who lack capacity, have serious mental health, and/or substance use issues,' Gibson wrote. He noted that some have been barred from shelters due to persistent illegal drug use and that motels do not provide sufficient support for high-needs individuals.
International Law Used to Transform Canadian Law
Gibson arrived at his conclusions by interpreting Canada's Charter through the lens of several United Nations declarations and a non-binding report from the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Housing. He cited the National Protocol for Homeless Encampments in Canada report to invent a new right to housing, stating that 'adequate alternative housing, with all necessary amenities, must be provided to all residents prior to any eviction.'
This interpretation effectively transforms the Charter from a document protecting citizens from government overreach into one obligating the government to provide specific services. Critics argue this hands control from elected officials to appointed judges who answer to no one.
Justice Attempts to Rewrite the Charter
Gibson's decision redefines Section 7 (right to life, liberty, and security) and Section 15 (equality) of the Charter by appealing to international laws that support his position rather than Canadian legal tradition. 'In my view, the time has come that homelessness should be recognized as an analogous ground for the purposes of Sec. 15 of the Charter,' Gibson wrote.
Ford and others argue that this is not a legal argument but a personal and political one. 'If he wants to pass laws and legislate, then he should resign from the bench and run for office,' Ford said. It is now incumbent that this ruling be appealed, with higher courts expected to strike it down with force to prevent similar judicial overreach.
