Homeless people living under the Ville-Marie highway in Montreal will be evicted in mid-June and their camp will be dismantled. A judge on Tuesday refused to stay the eviction order any longer.
“The present case highlights the monumental challenges encountered in order to meet the needs of the homeless population,” wrote Justice Pierre Nollet of the Superior Court by way of introduction to his decision.
This difficult situation arose because the Quebec Ministry of Transport wants to carry out major repairs to the highway for the safety of users, he said, in this nerve center that crosses downtown Montreal. The work should last three years.
Nearly 20 homeless people have settled there in tents, forming a small community. This place is not public, nor accessible to all, as a park would be: itinerant people therefore occupy it without right, it is written in the decision.
Its inhabitants have mandated the Traveling Legal Clinic to defend their interests, demanding that the ministry implement a plan designed by the community organization Résilience Montréal to house them. The Clinic had obtained that the camp remain intact until June 15, and it recently requested an additional month, until July 15.
Judge Nollet refused this extension.
He says he is well aware that the members of this small community “may be in greater danger off the premises than on the premises”, that is to say under the Ville-Marie highway. Because “living in a group allows a higher level of security than living alone: the members protect each other. Without this makeshift camp, “these people are at increased risk of mental disorganization or even death. »
“However, it is permissible to consider that the situation which endangers the health, safety and life of the members of the community is not only the expulsion from the places where they are presently, but also the fact that they were forced or preferred to resort to this accommodation solution in the absence or lack of knowledge of the resources necessary to accommodate them. »
But these resources exist, continues the magistrate: “the proof has been made. »
Since the last order, the efforts of community organizations have led to these results: a member of the community will be housed in a funded apartment that has been awarded to Resilience Montreal. Le Chaînon will house two women and the Old Brewery organization is in the process of identifying housing for six other people.
Despite these efforts, some still have nowhere to go. But the urgency of the work remains.
To determine whether to extend the temporary injunction prohibiting the work and the dismantling of the camp, the judge explains that he must in particular determine who will suffer the greatest harm.
For homeless people, the damage is real, he writes: the dismantling of the camp will put an end to their community of mutual aid and protection. They also pleaded to risk losing their meager possessions in the event of displacement, but the Ministry of Transport has since offered to store them at its expense. On the other hand, the judge noted that the time requested may not be sufficient to rehouse everyone.
Then, he notes that the postponement of the work presents risks for the users who take this busy highway in the heart of the metropolis.
“The Montreal region has already seen the disastrous consequences of the lack of appropriate care given to road infrastructures. Besides the economic consequences, there are human consequences at play. They cannot be ignored. »
He believes that users will suffer greater harm.
In conclusion, the judge advances also delicately on this track: the delay of work is likely to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to the State. Why not include the cost of relocating a handful of people, he asks? It would be “a fraction of the cost. »
“Managed in this way, taxpayers, users of the Ville-Marie Expressway and members of the community would all come out winners from this situation. Judge Nollet indicates, however, that he cannot interfere in this decision, which is a matter for the government and not for the judiciary. He does not order anything, but stresses that “the option remains open to the parties. »