A Quebec Superior Court judge has barred the City of Montreal from dismantling a homeless encampment under the Van Horne overpass. This comes after the Clinique Itinérante, whose mission is to provide access to justice for those who are impoverished, homeless or marginalized, requested an application for a permanent injunction to ensure that the 10 people residing in tents near the skatepark and basketball court “can stay indefinitely.” In his judgement issued on Monday, Judge Alexander Pless prohibited the city “from taking any action aimed at evicting, dismantling and disposing of the property of community members...until a judgment on the merits is rendered.” The court document pointed out that most of the residents have lived in the area since the fall of 2025. “Several had previously camped on a neighbouring property, known as the Champs des possibles, until, it is alleged, the City forced them to move,” Pless wrote. He presented documentation showing that on May 13, city officials began taking steps to request that the encampment’s residents disperse. However, the judge noted that “sworn declarations filed in support of the application affirm that efforts to find space in shelters have proved fruitless,” leaving them without alternative options. “They faced the dismantling of their community and the support and protection it provides,” he argued, pointing out that around the same time, the city had adopted protocols to manage homeless encampments on its territory. He acknowledged the city’s suggestion of relocating the residents to the “Parc sans-nom” near Saint-Laurent Boulevard under the Rosemont overpass. However, that location was deemed unsuitable by the clinic due to heavy traffic, proximity to residential homes, and lack of access to water, washrooms, lighting, electrical services and more. Another location, L’Entrepôt 77, was also rejected as there were plans to turn it into a skating rink during the winter, at which time the residents would once again face eviction. Pless noted that “no person has the right to appropriate public property in a manner that is not authorized by the city,” but “the rights of the residents of the encampment to stay where they are is a consequence of the absence of evidence of a safe alternative.” As such, the judge concluded that residents do not have “a free-standing right to appropriate any property they choose for as long as they choose. But a human being cannot exist nowhere.” He encouraged both parties to find a solution ahead of the hearing on the merits of the case, pointing out that there is nothing to suggest that the city acted in bad faith. “Courts cannot build homes, and they cannot provide care for marginalized people,” he lamented. Pless also granted the application for an order to allow the clinic to preserve the individuals’ anonymity. The injunction is set to remain in effect until a final judgment is rendered in the case.
