Court rules homeless camp in Oppenheimer Park should be dismantled by October 15

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      A so-called tent city that has occupied Oppenheimer Park since mid-July has had its day and now must come to an end, the B.C. Supreme Court has ruled.

      On October 8, justice Jennifer Duncan granted an injunction that the City of Vancouver sought to dissemble more than 100 tents that stand in the park located at the corner of Powell Street and Dunley Avenue.

      Camperswhich Duncan said number 175 to 200have been given until 10 p.m. on Wednesday, October 15, to find alternative shelter and vacate the property. At that time, the city can begin removing tents from the park.

      Affidavits filed in support of the city’s application for an injunction describe a number of health and safety concerns that became more serious the longer the tents remained in the park.

      Fire hazards persisted, there were fights and incidents in which some campers threatened others, drug abuse became an issue, and unsanitary conditions were found in some people’s tents.

      The campers were represented by lawyers with Pivot Legal Society. DJ Larkin argued that disassembling the camp would cause more harm to the homeless living there than those people’s occupation of the park was inflicting on the city.

      Duncan spoke at length about how she arrived at her decision to rule in the city’s favour.

      She acknowledged that some campers work regular jobs but cannot afford rent in Vancouver. She also noted that some campers have said they prefer residing in the park to sleeping at a shelter.

      However, Duncan found that people living in Oppenheimer were violating bylaws that prohibit camping in a public park; therefore, she ruled, tents should be removed.

      Shortly after the announcement of that decision, the city issued a media release stating that police and firefighters will continue to monitor the park.

      "The City of Vancouver will continue its efforts to assist those in the Park who are homeless to access available shelter and housing options ahead of the October 15, 10pm deadline," it reads. "The City hopes to count on the cooperation of camp residents to ensure that this transition period results in a safe and peaceful resolution."

      The release goes on to note that in recent weeks the city has opened over 100 new shelter spaces.

      One day earlier, on October 7, the Coalition of Progressive Electors proposed establishing a permanent tent city. Opponents, including park board chair Aaron Jasper dismissed the idea as "irresponsible".

      At its peak-size in mid-August, as many as 400 people were living in some 200 tents pitched in the park.

      According to the region’s last homeless count, the number of people sleeping unsheltered on the streets of Vancouver has more than tripled over the past three years, from 154 in 2011 to 536 in 2014.

      Follow Travis Lupick on TwitterFacebook, and Instagram.




      Oct 8, 2014 at 3:09pm

      Unfortunately Chambers Judges usually go with the Status quo in this case the City's by laws.

      However I believe there is a Constitutional Challenge against the City possible since our Charter gives us free access and travel in any public lands.

      It ought to be challenged up to the Court of Appeals in BC than the SCC.

      0 0Rating: 0


      Oct 8, 2014 at 4:16pm


      Does this mean that people are also allowed to prevent other people from free access and travel by their rights to free access and travel? I can't freely access or travel across the park because of the tents. Doesn't that contravene my rights?

      0 0Rating: 0

      DJ Jazzy Jeff

      Oct 8, 2014 at 6:29pm

      Its refreshing to see another music artist using their voice to help those who sometimes feel they have none. Kudos DJ Larkin!

      0 0Rating: 0

      Constitution is Clueless

      Oct 8, 2014 at 7:21pm

      There is no constitutional right to live on public property. There is no constitutional right to deprive others of the use of public green spaces. There is no constitutional right to create a public nuisance and a health hazard. There is no right to an appeal, either to the CA or the SCC. Leave would have to be granted at both levels.

      If you want a society without rules, move to Somalia and see how that works out for you.

      0 0Rating: 0


      Oct 8, 2014 at 9:01pm

      - wunder if they're gonna install porta potties before then?? Now, THAT would be helpful for the people there.

      0 0Rating: 0


      Oct 8, 2014 at 9:02pm

      I SO hate censorship

      0 0Rating: 0

      Martin Dunphy

      Oct 8, 2014 at 11:20pm


      At 9:01 p.m. you post a comment.
      At 9:02 p.m. you complain about censorship.
      Let me guess: you're used to getting your way?

      0 0Rating: 0