Ending Chronic Homelessness

[Silie]

A little over a decade ago, I lived in the Nipigon area in northwestern Ontario, and worked at a college campus. Coming from the then-less-troubled south-central Ontario, it shocked me to find out that pretty much everything that could even remotely possibly be abused in a convenience store or pharmacy (so, all pain/allergy/cold and flu relief, mouthwash, peroxide, hand sanitizer, shaving equipment, glue, aerosol containers) had to be requested from a locked cabinet behind the cash register. At the college, the ashtrays in the smoking areas were frequently cut out of their bases and dumped out on the walkways, because people were sorting through butts. And the wildest part was that all the hand sanitizer dispensers in the college were stocked with a very watery foaming hand soap (if anything), because people would actually break them open and take off with the pouch of hand sanitizer to consume it. Now, I'm seeing similar steps being taken in this region and in Guelph. At what point do policymakers start giving a shit?

[Momo26]

A little over a decade ago, I lived in the Nipigon area in northwestern Ontario, and worked at a college campus. Coming from the then-less-troubled south-central Ontario, it shocked me to find out that pretty much everything that could even remotely possibly be abused in a convenience store or pharmacy (so, all pain/allergy/cold and flu relief, mouthwash, peroxide, hand sanitizer, shaving equipment, glue, aerosol containers) had to be requested from a locked cabinet behind the cash register. At the college, the ashtrays in the smoking areas were frequently cut out of their bases and dumped out on the walkways, because people were sorting through butts. And the wildest part was that all the hand sanitizer dispensers in the college were stocked with a very watery foaming hand soap (if anything), because people would actually break them open and take off with the pouch of hand sanitizer to consume it. Now, I'm seeing similar steps being taken in this region and in Guelph. At what point do policymakers start giving a shit?

This is fucking wild.

And a massive shame for a country to that calls itself part of the G7. Ghetto7 is where we are heading.

Drastic steps need to be taken. Help those with addiction - rehab until it works. Get homeless off the street.

Our Mayor is spending time thanking the Blue Jays and im sure enjoying every minute of the WS and that's fine, we deserve to have something positive, but more energy needs to go to solving the issues that face our community right now.

This has gotten out of hand.

[Momo26]

While this thread is clearly dying, looks like sympathy for homelessness in the region has reached a new low

https://www.reddit.com/r/kitchener/comme...ed_at_the/

[danbrotherston]

While this thread is clearly dying, looks like sympathy for homelessness in the region has reached a new low

https://www.reddit.com/r/kitchener/comme...ed_at_the/

This entire forum seems to be dying. Which is sad...just at a time when there are increasingly few online communities that aren't reliant on the good graces of tech oligarchs.

[KevinL]

I wouldn't go to /r/kitchener for any form of empathy; /r/waterloo have their heads on (a bit more) straight.

[tomh009]

While this thread is clearly dying, looks like sympathy for homelessness in the region has reached a new low

https://www.reddit.com/r/kitchener/comme...ed_at_the/

This entire forum seems to be dying. Which is sad...just at a time when there are increasingly few online communities that aren't reliant on the good graces of tech oligarchs.

Dying? I think the rumours about this forum's death are rather exaggerated. Posting traffic is lower at the moment, but it's quite understandable given the reduced construction activity.

[ac3r]

Nah, this forum is more or less dead. It's not really related to development proposals and all that. Now, it's just a tiny handful of people at this point. There's nothing to bring anyone here since there are many ways to follow development updates and more instantaneous ways to have a conversation with people of all viewpoints, which offer more free and neutral discussions. Discussions about anything now always end up taking a similar side/point of view, since most people here share the more or less exact same opinion and people who think outside of that little cube get told they're wrong, uneducated, unempathetic, fascists, racists, homophobic, right wing etc. There is an obvious slant towards middle-upper class, urban, white, neoliberal capitalist demographic within the discourse, which turns the vast majority of people off.

It started off alright and fun, with lots of differentiating views and opinions on what was happening in the region but turned into this tiny echo chamber of maybe a dozen regular users. That's nothing to do with how the forum was administrated by Spokes, of course, he kept it up and paid the bills all these years. It's down to the culture that was fomented and moulded by a segment of regular users.

[nms]

On May 21, 2026, Justice Michael R. Gibson of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice barred the Region from removing the encampment (PDF) at Victoria and Weber.  A quick summary from the Jurist is here.

I have not read the full 88-page decision, but I did read the Overview and the first 10 pages.  Among things listed in the Overview (any emphasis below is mine):

2. While no one measure of homelessness is fully reliable, municipal governments are mandated to conduct periodic “point in time” counts (“PiT Counts”). In a September 2021 PiT Count, 1,085 people were counted as experiencing homelessness in Waterloo Region, with 75% classified as experiencing chronic homeless.  By October 2024, those numbers had increased to 2,371 and 78% respectively.

[4] As I observed in my earlier decision regarding an injunction in this matter, homelessness poses significant challenges to our contemporary society. It is an extraordinarily difficult problem to grapple with. It presents a complex multi-faceted phenomenon of diverse origins not susceptible to easy resolution.  There is no prevailing academic or policy consensus about the best way to address it. It highlights chronic public policy tensions between unhoused individuals who are amongst the most disadvantaged in society (and their advocates), and other citizens who tire of the violence, drug use, squalor and derogation from public order that often attends homeless encampments, the disruption to neighboring residents and businesses, the significant expenditure of public funds in attempting to mitigate these, as well as the impediments to projects of significant public importance and benefit which may arise from them.

[5] It requires a compassionate, empathetic and respectful response, one worthy of the aspirations and values of our Canadian society and duly attentive to the dignity and rights of the unhoused, but also one that is clear-eyed in attempting to achieve the appropriate balance between rights of individuals and the broader public interest. This litigation throws this tension into sharp relief.

[6] Homelessness is a fact on the ground.  It is not going away in the proximate future.  An ostrich approach will not suffice.  Solutions to the homelessness crisis will require increased resources from all levels of government and other stakeholders, time to implement the required strategies, and a clear recognition of and focus upon the constitutional rights involved.

[7] What is clear is that all levels of government, and other actors in the public and private sectors, including healthcare, mental health and addiction supports, the justice system, charitable and religious organizations, and others, are required to work together to address this challenge.

[8] There are sharply diverging views about how best to tackle the issue of homelessness, and the optimal way ahead having regard to practical constraints on resources and the myriad competing alternative demands for the expenditure of public funds, as well as competing interests in advancing public infrastructure projects.  The polarization of this debate at times seems to resemble a “dialogue of the deaf’, frequently characterized by the caricaturing of, and unwillingness to listen to, opposing viewpoints.  This is not helpful.

[11] Homelessness is a public policy issue that engages practical, moral and legal dimensions.  The prevalence of encampments reflects Canada’s challenges in meeting its human rights obligation to ensure that all individuals have access to adequate housing - housing that is secure, affordable, habitable, accessible, culturally appropriate, and in a suitable location with access to services -, while faced with the practical constraints of available resources and the challenges in resource allocation, as well as planning for projects that aim to advance the public good.   

[12] Assessing the issue of homeless encampments from a Charter perspective requires consideration of contending factors that often seem to pull in different directions.  It is a complex and contentious task, often fraught with emotion, with no simple solution.  But it ultimately needs to be informed by one primary thought:  The homeless are not Other.  They are Us.  They are rights bearers no less entitled than any other Canadian citizens to the full benefit and protection of the Charter. 

[16] Page:  7 Since Persons Unknown 2023 was argued in 2022, the Region has more than doubled its operating budget for homelessness programs and services, from $30.9 million to $65.5 million, with corresponding increases in capacity. The Region has made significant efforts to address the needs of people experiencing homelessness. Despite this, the challenges have continued to grow. In a September 2021 point-in-time count (“PiT Count”), 1,085 people were counted as experiencing homelessness in the Region, with 75% classified as experiencing chronic homelessness. By October 2024, those numbers had increased to 2,371 and 78% respectively.

[17] The Region has a long-term plan to address chronic homelessness by 2030, together with community partners and other levels of government. This plan, adopted in April 2024, is known as the Plan to End Chronic Homelessness (“PECH”). The PECH was developed in consultation with stakeholders, calls for action from the other key partners in the fight against homelessness, and has the Region’s full support. 

[19] Accordingly, on April 23, 2025, the Region passed a site-specific by-law (“the SiteSpecific By-law”) to provide for vacant possession of 100 Victoria by December 1, 2025, accompanied by a plan (“Plan”) to provide alternative accommodation for those residing at 100 Victoria as of the date notice of the By-law was given (“Existing Residents”). Unlike all previous encampment cases, the present case considers a site-specific by-law with a specific purpose, rather than a general by-law. 

[20] Under the Region’s Plan, the approximately 40 Existing Residents will be offered alternative accommodation by the Region’s team of licensed professional unsheltered support workers (“USWs”), who will work with the residents to develop individual housing plans (“IHPs”) for them, tailored to their specific needs. The Region has allocated additional funding to try to ensure that they have a place to go. The Region indicates that it is confident that they can be transitioned to alternative accommodations. Some of the original 40 Existing Residents have made this transition, and some have left the Encampment of their own accord.