Clashing evidence about Kingston encampment at eviction hearing

Clashing argumentsinside a Kingston, Ont., courtroomfirst painted anencampment on city propertyas too dangerous for patrolling police, before describing it as theonly safe place for homeless people who use fentanyl.

The hearing to determine whether the city can evict dozens of people living in tents and makeshift shelters at Belle Park began Monday.

Citylawyers made their case first, laying out 13 points that touched onwhat they described as "unique dangers" presented by the camp north of downtown near the Cataraqui River.

They also argued that claims of discrimination and a Charter right to be close to the city's only supervised injection siteare insteadpreferences and assertionsofproperty rights.

The order encampment residents are seeking"effectively makes the city a landlord for this property where dangerous drug trafficking is going on," said lawyer William McDowell.

Not enough shelter beds

Legal representatives for the encampment were only able tolay out the facts as they see them before the hearing ended for the day.

They said the city can't peg lawlessness on the existence of theencampment and argued shelter spaces simply aren'tavailable.

Court heard that approximately 35 people currentlyliveat the sitein about 27 shelters ranging from tents to tree houses.

They represent just a fraction of the roughly 480 peopleon the latest"By-Name List," a registry of those who are homeless or precariously housed, according John Done,who's representing 14encampment residents.

He calculated there are just 166 shelter beds in the city.

The question of shelter capacity has taken on new prominence following aSuperior Court decision thatblockedthe Region of Waterloo fromcarrying out a similar evictionin January.

A judge in that case ruledthe region cannot remove people living on the site until it has enough spacefor everyone who's unhoused.

Questioned about available shelter space and the constitutionality of Kingston's bylaw against camping in parks, McDowell said the city is only seeking to remove the one encampment and there are enough beds for everyone living there.

He argued that approach is different than Waterloo, where the regionwas clear it would be using its bylaw to clear other sites too.

McDowell said another difference is that Waterloo failed to establish any dangers associated with the encampment.

City points to 'hostility' at site

McDowell spent much of the morning focused on safety concerns and evidence of problemsaround the site, including vandalism, violence and drug use.

He spoke at length about the harassment emergency crews have faced, referring to evidence thatfirefighters responding to calls at the encampment wear stab-proof vests.

Police have also faced hostilityat the siteand have determined regular patrols are an "unacceptable risk to safety" so officers don't visitunless called there, the lawyer said.

McDowell did seem prepared to make two concessions that Kingston'sbylaw is overly broad becauseit bans overhead shelter at night andthat there are not enough shelter spaces in the city for everyone who is homeless.

However, he told the court the city's legal team would provide written submissions to spellout their exact positions.

Encampment is close to supports

Done saidcarving out already scarce shelter spots for encampment residentsisn't practical.

He also pointed to the encampment being next to the Integrated Care Hub (ICH),which offers shelter spaces of its own, alongsideasupervised injection site and staff who are trained to respond to overdoses.

Other shelters in the city don't allow visitors to consume drugs and don't have the same expertise,Done told the court.

"For someone who is using fentanyl, it's just not safe to stay anywhere else," he said.

Justice Ian Cater broke in at that point, asking if the lawyer was suggesting all fentanyl users in Kingston should be able to camp outside the ICH.

The judgeinterjected with questions throughout the day, parsing the wording of the bylaw and asking what specifically the lawyers wereseeking for him to rule on.

Much of the evidence he heard seemed to weigh the pros and cons of encampments, Carter said, adding he's not an elected official.

Instead, he reminded the legal teams, his role is toaddress specific legal questions around the constitutionality of the city's bylaw.

Lawyers representing encampment residents are expected to continue making theirarguments Tuesday.