[Fwd: Trial of Toronto Homeless Advocates -- Day 1, Oct 26] (fwd)

Leslie Schentag (wy497@victoria.tc.ca)
Tue, 27 Oct 1998 12:19:08 -0800 (PST)


Here is some information about Totonto's Homeless Advocates
L.

  "When Freedom Is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Be Free"
    Webmaster:<L1><a href="http://gremlinresearch.ourfamily.com">Gremlin
Research</a>
    Webmaster:<L1><a href="http://bcpoverty.freeservers.com">B.C. Poverty
Issues</a>     

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:59:27 -0500
From: Graeme Bacque <gbacque@idirect.com>
To: HPN <hpn@aspin.asu.edu>
Subject: [Fwd: Trial of Toronto Homeless Advocates -- Day 1, Oct 26]



------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date:          Mon, 26 Oct 1998 19:24:05 -0500
From:          Bob Olsen <bobolsen@aracnet.net>

Subject: 

 POLICE TRY TO AVOID HOMELESS CHARTER CHALLENGE: Toronto Oct 1998
 POLICE TRY TO AVOID HOMELESS CHARTER CHALLENGE: Toronto Oct 1998


 HOMELESS ON TRIAL.....  Report 26 Oct, 1998 by Bob Olsen, Toronto


 OCAP (Ontario Coalition Against Poverty) lawyers are making a Charter
 challenge (Oct 26-29) on behalf of the homeless.

 The police, I believe, are trying desperately to avoid the Charter
 challenge as they do not want their authority reduced by the courts.

 They first avoided the Charter challenge by not showing up for our
 tresspassing trial on March 4, 1998, forcing the Crown (prosecutor)
 to drop the tresspass charges against 25 of us when our lawyers were
 prepared to challenge the Tresspass Act by arguing that:

       "A person's constitutional right to shelter takes precedence over
       any property rights of the owner of an unused apartment
building."

 Secondly, I believe that the Crown (prosecutor) intends to avoid the
 Charter challenge in the current (Oct 26-29) criminal trials by
 presenting a very weak case and thus allow the judge to declare the
 accused not guilty on some or all of the charges and leave the Charter
 challenge moot.
 
 Today, (Oct 26) the Crown seemed to be acting as a defense lawyer,
 questioning the defendants in detail about the plight of the homeless.
 He did not seem intent on prosecuting the case.  He was just going
 through the motions. The criminal charges against three of the six
 defendants were dropped.  At the moment, John Clarke, Gaetan Heroux
 and Mac Scott are still on trial.

 OCAP's lawyers are prepared to argue that:

	"... the principles of fundamental justice requires that
	the state not deny homeless persons rights to seek shelter
	in privately owned premises when the owner is not using or
	developing the premises."


 The trials will continue at Old City Hall in Toronto.  
 Tuesday,   Oct 27, 10:00 am - 4:00 pm, courtroom 122
 Wednesday, Oct 28,  2:00 pm - 4:00 pm, courtroom 125
 Thursday,  Oct 29, 10:00 pm - 4:00 pm, courtroom 124
 And if necessary on Friday, 10:00 am, courtroom 116


 Tuesday Oct 27 the defense will call a series of expert witnesses,
 including, I believe, doctors Wang and Ty Turner, Bill Morris of the
 Co-op Housing Federation of Canada, Bruce Porter of the Centre for
 Equality Rights in Housing and possibly some homeless persons.


Professor David Hulchanski of the University of Toronto will be 
called on Wednesday afternoon.

Our lawyer Peter Rosenthal said:

	The criminal trials of six people who were either homeless
	or assisting homeless people will begin on Monday, October
	26, 1998 at 10:00 an in Old City Hall at Bay and Queen Sts
	in Toronto.

	What crimes are they accused of?  Committing "forcible
	entry" and "mischief" by attempting to enter and clean up
	abandoned apartment buildings so that homeless people could
	find temporary shelter.

	The defendants will take the position that they had the
	right to try to obtain shelter in the circumstances; in
	particular, that the Canadian Charter of Rights and
	Freedoms should be interpreted to imply that the right of
	homeless persons to seek shelter take precendence over any
	right an absentee landlord has to prevent others from using
	his unused property.

	The defendants will testify.  Also, other homeless people
	who were seeking shelter that day will explain why an
	abandoned apartment building is better than a hostel.
	Several experts on housing issues and on health problems
	of the homeless will provide evidence that homelessness is
	a danger to liberty, security of the person, and to life
	itself.

	It is anticipated that the trials will continue through
	Thursday, October 29 from about 10:00 am to 4:00 pm each
	day (with a break each day from 1 to 2)

	Your attendance at the trials will support the defendants
	and the rights of homeless persons to shelter.


 OCAP's lawyers, Bob Kellerman and Peter Rosenthal prepared the
 following Outline of Argument:


   PART I: The Application

	1. This is an application pursuant to section 24(1) of the
	   Charter for a dismissal of criminal charges against the
	   applicants.

   PART II: The Facts

	It is anticipated that viva voce evidence will establish:

	2. The buildings at 88 and 90 Carleton Street in Toronto are
	   apartment buildings that have been unoccupied for several
	   years, since the present owners evicted the previous 
	   tenants.  The buildings have not been put to any use
	   during this period.  There has been no work on the
	   property for any other use.

	3. There are a number of homeless people in Toronto for whom
	   no suitable housing is available, including some of those
	   who attempted to enter the buildings at the relevant times.

	4. On April 19,1997, several homeless people attempted to
	   enter the vacant premises at 88 and 90 Carleton Street in
	   order to provide shelter for themselves.  Other members
	   and supporters of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty
	   accompanied the homeless persons to assist them in
	   establishing shelter in the premises.  The homeless persons
	   and those assisting them were prevented from entering by
	   members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force.  The
	   applicants were arrested and charged with contravening
	   certain provisions of the Criminal Code.

	5. Being homeless creates serious dangers to physical and 
	   mental health, and to life itself.

	6. Canada has failed to fulfill its obligations under
	   international treaties to provide adequate housing for
	   all its residents.

   PART III: Issues and Law

	a) Does the right to security of person within the meaning of
	   section 7 of the Charter include the right to adequate
	   housing?

	7. Section 7 of the Charter provides:

	   Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of
	   the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except 
	   in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

	   Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s.7.

	8. Analysis of s.7 of the Charter involves two steps.  To
	   trigger its operation there must be a finding that there
	   has been a deprivation of the right to life, liberty and the
           security of the person and, secondly, that the deprivation
	   is contrary to the principles of fundmental justice.

	   R v. Beare (1988), 55 D.L.R. (4TH) 481 at 492 (S.C.C.)

	9. Life, liberty and the security of the person are independent
	   interests, which must be given independent significance by
	   the Court in the present case, each of the three interests
	   are affected.

	   R v. Morgentaler (1988) 44 D.L.R. (4th) 385 at 398 (S.C.C.)

	   Re Singh and Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985)
	   17 D.L.R. (4th) 422 at 458-459 (S.C.C.)


       10. The concepts of "life", "liberty" and "security of person"
	   are capable of a wide range of meaning.  Their interpretation
	   should be "generous rather than a legalistic one."

	   R v. Big M Drug Mart (1985), 18 D.L.R. (4th) 321 at 360
	   (S.C.C.)

	   Re Singh and Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985)
	   17 D.L.R. (4th) 422 at 458 (S.C.C.)

       11. Section 7 of the Charter should be interpreted in conformity
	   with Canada's international obligations.

	   Slaight Communications Inc v. Davidson (1989). 59 D.L.R.
	   (4th) 416 at 427-428 (S.C.C.)

       12. The Charter should generally be presumed to provide
protection
	   as least as great as that afforded by similar provisions in
	   international human rights documents which Canada has ratified.

	   Re Public Service Employees Relations Act (1987), 38 D.L.R.
	   (4th) 161 at 185 (S.C.C.)

       13. Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
	   provides:

	   Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for
	   the health and well-being of himself and his family, including
	   food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social
	   services, and the right to security in the event of 
	   unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or
	   other lack of livelyhood in circumstances beyond his control.

       14. Article 11(1) of the Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural
	   Rights provides that:

	   The states parties to the present covenant recognize the right
	   of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and
	   his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and
	   to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The states
	   parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization
	   of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential
	   importance of international co-operation based on free consent.

       15. "Security of the person" includes freedom from the threat of
	   physical punishment or suffering, and protects both the 
	   physical and psychological integrity of each individual.
	   Psychological trauma can take the form of stigmatization,
	   stress and anxiety resulting from a multitude of factors.
	   More generally, section 7 protects against interference with
	   an individual's health and safety.

	   Re Singh and Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985)
	   17 D.L.R. (4th) 422 at 460 (S.C.C.)

	   R v. Morgentaler (1988) 44 D.L.R. (4th) 385 at 399-400 (S.C.C.)

	   Everingham v. Ontario (1993) 100 D.L.R. (4th) 199 at 210
	   (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div)

       16. Although "property" was intentionally excluded from s.7 of
the
	   Charter, "this is not to declare... that no right with an
	   economic component can fall within "security of the person".
	   While a corporation's economic rights find no protection in
	   section 7, economic rights of individuals fundamental to 
	   human life or survival may come within section 7.

	   Irwin Toy Ltd v. Quebec (1989), 58 D.L.R. (4th) 577 at 633
	   (S.C.C.)

	   Schaff v. Canada (1993), 18 C.P.R. (2d) 143 at 165 (T.C.C.)

       17. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the right to 
           adequate shelter is a component of the right to life and the
	   security of the person within the meaning of section 7 of the
	   Charter.  It is further submitted that this right to adequate
	   shelter takes precedence over any property rights of the
	   owner of an unused building as any such property right is not
	   constitutionaly protected.

	b) Does "liberty" within the meaning of section 7 of the Charter
	   include the right to seek shelter in the circumstance of this
	   case?

       18. It is submitted that, whether or not there is a positive
	   obligation on government to provide adequate housing,
	   "liberty" within section 7 of the Charter includes the
	   right of homeless persons to seek shelter in abandoned
	   buildings.

	c) Is it in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice
	   for police officers to prevent homeless persons from obtaining
	   shelter in the circumstances of this case?

       19. Principles of fundamental justice include not only procedural
	   considerations, but also substantive ones.

	   Rodriguez v. B.C.(A.G.)(1993), 107 D.L.R. (4th) 342 at 392
	   (S.C.C.)

       20. Principles of fundamental justice are those upon which there
	   is some consensus that they are fundamental or vital to our
	   social notion of justice.  They must be capable of being
	   identified with some precision and applied to situations in
	   a manner which yields an understandable result.

	   Rodriguez v. B.C.(A.G.)(1993), 107 D.L.R. (4th) 342 at 393
	   (S.C.C.) 

       21. In arriving at its understanding of these principles, the 
	   Court must balance the interests of the state and the
	   individual.  Fundmental justice requires that a fair balance
	   be struck between these interests, both substantively and
	   procedurally.

	   Rodriguez v. B.C.(A.G.)(1993), 107 D.L.R. (4th) 342 at 394
	   (S.C.C.)

       22. It is respectfully submitted that balancing the interests
	   in the present case in accordance with the principles of
	   fundamental justice requires that the state not deny
	   homeless persons rights to seek shelter in privately owned
	   premises when the owner is not using or developing the
	   premises.

   PART IV: Order Requested

       23. It is respectfully requested that the charges against the
	   Applicants be dismissed.

	ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

	Dated at Toronto the 8th day of October, 1998

				J. Robert Kellerman

				Peter Rosenthal

				Counsel for the Applicants
	....................................................

  For more information call the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty
  (OCAP) at 416-925-6939 or fax (if it is working) 416-925-9681

  or email bobolsen@aracnet.net  Subject: OCAP

  http://www.interlog.com/~cjazz/tasc.htm#5


 Bob Olsen	Toronto		bobolsen@aracnet.net   (:-)
 ............................................................