S. Cox

The applicants, five individuals experiencing homelessness, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the City of Hamilton from enforcing a by-law prohibiting camping in city parks.

They argued that enforcement during the COVID-19 pandemic and housing crisis violated their rights under section 7 of the Charter and the Human Rights Code.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test.

While finding a serious issue to be tried, the court concluded the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm specific to themselves, as they had been offered or received shelter.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the City, citing the public interest in safe parks, the City's efforts to provide shelter and supports, and the health and safety risks associated with the encampments.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

During a motor vehicle accident jury trial, the defendant requested that the jury be asked to provide particulars of the defendant's negligence and list the plaintiff's injuries if liability was found.

The plaintiff opposed these questions.

The court reviewed the historical practice and case law regarding jury questions, noting both advantages and disadvantages.

The court concluded that in this case, where negligence was essentially res ipsa loquitur and the medical evidence was conflicting, asking for particulars would not assist in testing the jury's understanding and could unnecessarily confuse them.

The request to include the questions was denied.