Heegsma v. Hamilton (City)

Summary

Fourteen appellants challenged Hamilton’s encampment restrictions under Charter ss. 7 and 15. ONCA found serious evidentiary and analytical errors, including reliance on stereotypes about mental illness and addiction. It allowed the appeal but made no Charter-breach finding, instead ordering a fresh Superior Court hearing where the challenged state action, facts, justification and any remedy must be determined.

Outcome

Appeal allowed unanimously. The application was remitted to the Superior Court for a fresh hearing before a different judge. ONCA did not decide whether the by-law, the 2021 Encampment Process or particular enforcement actions breached the Charter, nor whether damages should be awarded. Written costs submissions were invited.

Why this case matters

Authenticated public documents still require document-specific hearsay analysis, and credibility findings cannot rest on stereotypes about mental illness or addiction.

Paragraph references

Reasons must connect evidence, findings and conclusions: paras. 40-42. Rule 51 documents need no affidavit, but hearsay admissibility requires document-specific analysis: paras. 53-62. Group credibility findings based on mental-health or addiction stereotypes are legal error: paras. 67-74. Section 7 requires the two-stage framework, with competing social interests considered under s. 1: paras. 75-87. Disproportionate-impact equality analysis was required: paras. 88-91. Power does not determine damages for unconstitutional municipal by-laws or enforcement; Ward governs the fact-specific inquiry: paras. 92-99. Applicants must identify the challenged state action precisely: paras. 103-105. Disposition: paras. 106-107.