Beacon Hill Park cannot be used for temporary sheltering under the terms of the trust that governs it, according to a ruling handed down in B.C. Supreme Court.
“Such activity by members of the public is contrary to the purpose of the trust: preservation of the park for the use, recreation and enjoyment of the people,” wrote Justice Robert Punnett, whose Thursday decision follows a September hearing in Victoria.
The City of Victoria filed a petition last spring asking the court to clarify whether the park can be used by people without homes for temporary sheltering. Beacon Hill Park is held in trust by the city under an 1882 Crown grant by the province.
The judgment did not include any orders requiring action in the park.
Last year, Victoria council passed a bylaw banning sheltering in the park in the wake of public debate about unhoused people living in the park during the pandemic.
“It really is a status-quo decision,” Victoria Mayor Lisa Helps said at city hall, noting the judgment brings clarity to how “this deeply valued park” can be used by the public and managed by the city. “It is important for the city to have a definitive answer to this question once and for all.”
Helps said sheltering in parks is not a solution to homelessness and the city is working with the province and other partners to achieve “functional zero homelessness” in the capital region.
When questions about the Beacon Hill Park trust arose during the pandemic, she said, “we were concerned about the needs of people sheltering outdoors with literally nowhere to go.”
Victoria Coun. Stephen Andrew said the city did not need to go to the courts for an answer that was “obvious from the start,” adding the park suffered hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage that Victoria city taxpayers are on the hook for.
Allowing people to shelter in Beacon Hill or other parks is a bad idea, said Andrew, who argues there is a difference between allowing someone to pitch a tent for the night and then move along in morning, as permitted by the Supreme Court of Canada, and allowing huge semi-permanent camps in parks.
Unhoused people began camping in parks when the pandemic saw many shelters sharply reducing their capacity because of new distancing rules.
After the number of tents swelled in the 900 block of Pandora Avenue, campers were allowed to move to Topaz and Beacon Hill parks. Some also camped next to the Crystal Pool.
The Friends of Beacon Park organization maintained at the time the city was violating the trust by permitting sheltering in the park.
In 2020, the city won a temporary injunction to prohibit sheltering in environmentally sensitive areas of the park.
Many Victorians were split about camping in the park. Some felt it was the right thing to do and said they were not afraid for their safety, while others wanted tenters to leave, citing assaults, deaths, fires, drug use and needles on the ground.
Tents left Beacon Hill Park last year after alternate accommodations were offered to campers, many in former hotels purchased by the province.
John Alexander, lawyer for the Friends of Beacon Hill Park, said the group is relieved at the decision and hopes it will prevent a future city council from “allowing a repeat.”
The group was among several that made submissions at the hearing on the trust’s jurisdiction, along with the city, the Attorney General’s Ministry, two people who had sheltered in the park, and the Together Against Poverty Society (TAPS).
Doug King, TAPS executive director, said he was surprised and disappointed at the court decision, which he said implies that a person who is homeless and using a park to sleep in does not have equal status in society to someone who has a home and is using the park for enjoyment.
That stigmatizes people without homes and reinforces the notion that someone sheltering in a park is doing something criminal and outside the bounds of society, he said.
TAPS will be looking closely at the decision and deciding whether or not to appeal, King said.
“It doesn’t actually answer the main question, which is whether or not the city still has to allow for sheltering because it’s their obligation under the charter [of rights and freedoms].”
