Ontario’s Court of Appeal has reopened a constitutional challenge to Hamilton’s encampment restrictions. It has not decided whether those restrictions violate the Charter.
In Heegsma v. Hamilton (City), 2026 ONCA 726, the court allowed an appeal by 14 unhoused people and ordered a new hearing before a different judge. The challenge concerns municipal restrictions on tents and overnight stays in public parks.
The immediate significance extends beyond encampment policy. The decision addresses how courts evaluate evidence from marginalized people - and what constitutional reasoning must contain before a claim can properly be resolved.
Credibility must be assessed individually
The appellate court identified errors in the treatment of the applicants’ evidence, including collective credibility assessments and reliance on stereotypes associated with mental-health and addiction issues. It also found that the sections 7 and 15 analyses did not adequately apply the governing tests.
That distinction matters for litigation generally.
People who share circumstances do not necessarily share credibility. A court must examine the evidence and explain its conclusions rather than substitute assumptions about a group for an assessment of individual witnesses.
The broader lesson is methodological: the way a court establishes the factual record can shape everything that follows.
The Charter merits remain unresolved
A successful appeal does not necessarily establish the underlying constitutional claim.
Here, the new hearing means the dispute must be considered again. It should not be reported as a final ruling that Hamilton’s encampment restrictions are unconstitutional or that municipalities cannot regulate overnight occupation of parks.
For municipal counsel, the result preserves uncertainty about the ultimate merits while increasing the importance of a careful evidentiary record.
For counsel representing unhoused people, it creates another opportunity to present the claim under the proper analytical framework.
Constitutional reasoning needs a visible structure
Sections 7 and 15 raise different questions. A court must identify the applicable legal tests, connect them to the evidence and explain the conclusions reached.
Broad statements about public interests or personal circumstances cannot perform that work alone.
The same discipline matters when counsel prepare submissions. Lawyers should make each analytical step explicit and identify precisely which evidence supports it.
A constitutional argument becomes easier to assess when the reader can distinguish the claimed deprivation, the alleged inequality, the supporting facts and the justification advanced in response.
What practitioners should take from the decision
The practical lessons are straightforward:
- Assess credibility through the individual evidence.
- Examine whether assumptions about disability or addiction are influencing the analysis.
- Structure Charter submissions around the governing tests.
- Distinguish a new-hearing order from a final determination of constitutional validity.
The case returns an important municipal dispute to the courts. Its wider contribution is a reminder that procedural and evidentiary rigour are essential to constitutional adjudication.
The encampment question remains open. The evidentiary shortcuts do not.
Sources
Related coverage: Toronto Bike-Lane Advocates Plan Supreme Court Leave Application.
Related coverage: Ontario Place Appeal Tests Limits on Government Protection From Lawsuits.