A Right to Housing in a Pandemic and Beyond: An Ontario Perspective

22 December 2021

“Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest”.[1]

The Site in Brief: An Introduction

March 17, 2020 is a day that will be forever imprinted on experience. A global pandemic was raging and a state of emergency “on the basis that COVID-19 constitutes a danger of major proportions that could result in serious harm to persons”[2] was declared for all of Ontario. Two days later, an order suspending evictions was issued by the Ontario Superior Court.[3] This however, was only a partial moratorium on evictions. Despite various stay-at-home orders and public health pleas to social distance, renters were still being evicted from their homes.

During this time, real-estate soared[4] and an estimated 355,000 lost their job. [5] When combined with the system of vacancy decontrol,[6] incentives to evict increased. More than half of the 48,422 eviction hearings in 2019-2020 were for non-payment of rent. [7] It wasn’t until July 21, 2020 that the Landlord and Tenant Board was even required to consider whether the landlord had attempted to negotiate an agreement with the tenant about pandemic related rent arrears prior to ordering an eviction.[8] The government simply encouraged landlords to “work with tenants to establish fair arrangements to keep tenants in their homes”.[9] Although a freeze on increases on residential rents was imposed for 2021, notices of increases continued to be given to tenants.[10]

With in-person hearings suspended, tenants were forced to transition to a system of remote hearings. Less than half of tenants attended through this new format and evictions were made in their absence.[11] Sarah Buhler notes that in Saskatchewan, although “eviction prevention was an important public health strategy for mitigating the spread of the virus”,[12] many tenants continued to be evicted during their partial moratorium for non-urgent reasons including smoking in the unit, landlord and purchasers own use, and rent arrears.[13] Heather Campbell asserts that different rules for social housing can make eviction even easier for this low-income population.[14]

The fallout from pandemic pressures was eviction and homelessness for many renters. Toronto alone added “30 new shelter facilities and  secured over 1,200 additional hotel rooms”.[15] By June 2020, 99.5% of Toronto shelter beds were filled.[16]  

Housing has been described as a human right yet the pandemic exposed a great disconnect between its conceptualization and operation. This divide is most evident for vulnerable renters and the homeless. This paper asks whether there is a right to housing in pandemic times and investigates corresponding implications. It focuses on the housing situation in Ontario. To answer this question, this essay will analyze a diverse selection of scholarly research supplemented by journalistic offerings in this area. This paper suggests that a right to housing remains beyond the grasp of Ontarians. It begins by laying the foundations for the right to housing as supplied by property law concepts; it continues by commenting on the current housing climate; next it assesses a framework for protection; and finally wraps up with proposals for a relational and normative approach to help reinforce this right.

Foundations of a Right to Housing


The traditional basis for property law is found in John Locke’s theory of labour-deserts. Despite its ancient agrarian roots, it continues to proliferate modern approaches to property. Locke holds that property springs from the “fruits of one’s labour” and can only be held for as long as it remained useful with a duty to leave “enough and as good” for the public benefit.[17] If one is fortuitous to have property transferred to them or the ability to create it, they are divined as property owners bequeathed with all of the benefits ownership entails. Because individuals only formed collectives in an attempt to protect their property, the state merely assumes a role for the protection of property rather than for the creation of rights.[18] Conceptualized as a boundary approach to property, this theory leaves the have nots without a right to sleep in.


For Margaret Jane Radin however, housing (property) should be conferred simply by virtue of being human. Premised on a theory of personhood, housing is excluded from its full commodification[19] “because it protects interests such as privacy, security, dignity, and liberty—all of which are central to one’s lived experience and self-actualization”.[20] Where regulation must intervene, it has the limited reach over isolated sticks in the property bundle rather than over the right as a whole. [21]

Housing as a Human Right

International obligations loom large in assessing whether there is a right to housing. Canada is a signatory to both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[22] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.[23] Article 25 of the UDHR declares that “[e]veryone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including … housing … and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control”. Similarly, Article 11 of the ICESC recognizes “the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions”. [24]

Canada finally declared housing to be a human right in their National Housing Strategy announced in 2018.[25] Ontario subsequently agreed to bilaterally implement this initiative. The National Housing Act, implementing the ICESCR, was passed in 2019. This legislation recognizes that “the right to adequate housing is a fundamental human right” and “essential to the inherent dignity and well-being of the person and to building sustainable and inclusive communities”.[26] This legislation affirms a rights-based approach to housing in Canada. However, as we shall see, good intentions are not necessarily rights.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples[27] was recently implemented into Canadian law.[28] While this does not specifically provide a right to housing, it does give Indigenous Peoples a voice in how the Declaration is implemented.

The Ontario Housing Climate

Current Housing Situation

Ontario is in the midst of an affordable housing crisis.[29] Average rental rates far exceed what lower income individuals can afford. Eviction without affordable rental options can leave tenants without adequate housing alternatives and can result in homelessness. While the pandemic did not create this crisis, it has introduced a “significant increase in the visibility and number of people sleeping in homeless encampments due to the ongoing affordable housing crisis and the limited numbers of safe shelters or other accommodations”.[30]

Structural Inequities

The effects of a lack of adequate housing is experienced by some more than others. One of the more dramatic revelations brought about through the pandemic is how the virus is not a “equal opportunity threat” and has a “disproportionate impact on Black and Brown people”.[31] Charles Reid links the damaging effects of COVID-19 to various characteristics including race, poverty, and gender.[32] Social distancing is a privilege that is not readily available to lower income workers or those living in shared spaces.[33] Olympia Duhart notes that “Black Americans [are] more likely to die first and most from COVID-19”.[34] This phenomenon carries true in the Canadian context with Black Canadians more likely to die from the virus than others.[35]

Charter Protection

In Canada, a right to housing has only been asserted successfully in the limited context of the right to construct temporary shelters in a park when there is insufficient shelter space. In this case, the British Columbia Supreme Court notably held that “the prohibition on taking up temporary abode …constitutes an interference with the life, liberty and security of the person of these homeless people [and that] the prohibition is both arbitrary and overbroad and hence not consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.”[36] This confirmed that “the ability to provide oneself with adequate shelter is a necessity of life that falls within the ambit of the section 7 provisions of life”[37] and this infringement could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter. The offending bylaw provisions prohibiting tents were ultimately declared “inoperative … as they apply to prevent homeless people from erecting temporary overnight shelter in parks when the number of homeless people exceeds the number of available shelter beds in the City of Victoria”.[38] In a separate British Columbia case, section 7 was also engaged in a similar circumstance to deny a prohibition on temporary shelters at night.[39]

However, in a recent Ontario decision in Tanudjaja v Attorney General (Canada) (Application),[40] a right to housing was denied. Such matters were considered to be policy choices and held to be for the legislature rather than the court. In a strong dissent, Feldman JA suggested that the Charter can be used “to give effect to social and economic rights”.[41]

In the context of the pandemic, a right to housing has been consistently denied. Insufficient distancing areas in shelters were simply “decanted” from consideration[42] and homeless applicants were denied the choice to access parks for shelter.[43]

A main barrier to having a right to housing entrenched, is that it has been described as a “positive right to shelter and, variously, access to affordable and appropriate shelter”.[44] Based on the notion of Parliamentary sovereignty, the courts have been reticent to impose positive duties on government.[45] Just because an individual is alive does not mean the government must keep them alive.[46]

Although the Supreme Court of Canada has been adamant in their reluctance to use the Charter to compel positive rights in the areas of social goods like housing[47] they haven’t completely shut the door to its possibility.[48] In recognition of the false distinction between positive and negative rights, Justice Abella notes that “this Court has recognized that rights and freedoms have both positive and negative dimensions… [and] that recognition has led the Court to adopt a unified purposive approach to rights claims, whether the claim is about freedom from government interference in order to exercise a right, or the right to governmental action in order to get access to it”.[49]

Mark Zion contends that the right to shelter within the context of a tent city is missing from Canadian case law and academic commentary.[50] Despite a right to housing being recognized in principle, the courts continue choose to balance the right of individuals to seek shelter in a park with that of the public interest in using it for recreational purposes and typically find for the recreational interest over a right to housing.[51] It seems that the courts require actual harm to the public interest in order to justify even a suspension of a by-law preventing camping in parks in order to outweigh city interests on a balance of convenience.[52]

Moving forward, Michael Da Silva suggests that the court can be persuaded by normative concerns about “why courts should recognize” positive rights[53] but contends that policy choices can sometimes be sufficient without recourse to a constitutional rights basis.[54] While a right to housing can be expanded using positive rights, he cautions that this should be adopted gradually.[55]

Structural Upgrades

A Relational Approach

Housing, as a product of social construction, must be viewed through a social lens that prioritizes all members of a society inclusively. Singer and Beermann suggest that this requires a decentralized decision-making process that is positioned from social relationships designed to support an equitable distribution of social obligations.[56] Shifting the focus from a rights-based assessment to a value-based one encourages greater inclusivity and effectiveness. They note that when traditional property systems such as feudalism and government ownership are compared with private systems, ownership becomes increasingly more decentralized. Combined with a widespread commitment to access to property, the system is able to dynamically adjust to social needs over time.

Primarily inspired by a Radin’s personhood theory, although a right to housing is a complex issue involving various priorities, this is a fundamentally human problem that demands human solutions. As social beings, viable solutions must be predicated on the relational. Where there are rights, there are also obligations.

Various relational devices to support a right to housing through policy rather than legal means may include redistribution through taxation, zoning by-laws, common ownership schemes, and consumer protections. The distribution of obligations is a central question in this debate. Radin asserts that the growing obligations are better placed on the collective through taxation rather than on the individual on an incidental basis.[57] When conceptualized through a collective lens as social obligations, wrongful economic discrimination of both owners and non-owners can be contained.[58] The ethical concerns of “imposing disproportionate distributive burdens on some sub-set of society on the relatively fortuitous basis”[59] are relieved when conceptualized as a contract that is connected to social roles and relationships within a larger communal structure. The question then becomes, “what is a fair distribution of obligations”?[60]

Zoning by-laws have been identified as a method by which non-housing sectors can be used to compensate for the efficiencies of housing sectors artificially supressed by rent control.[61] Rebecca Skahen offers the idea of inclusionary zoning policies where economic gains from rising real estate help build affordable housing.[62] Such a scheme is seen to be a reciprocal benefit to both the developer in the form of tax or regulatory benefits and to the municipality.[63] Inclusionary zoning is slated to take effect in Toronto in September, 2022.[64]

Anna di Robilant suggests that common ownership schemes can invite greater “equality of autonomy” as “more equitable access to the material and relational means that allow individuals to be autonomous”[65] and provide them with “effective agency”.[66] This system allows for all of the benefits of ownership within a shared structure.[67]

Martin Partington conceptualizes residential tenancies through consumer protection principles that ensure fairness and transparency rather than through ancient feudal principles.[68] This approach extends to all aspects of the landlord tenant relationship including dispute resolution mechanisms.[69] Affordable legal services, or indeed state-funded services, go a long way to ensuring consumer or tenant fairness in the process.

A Normative Approach

Law changes over time in response to societal evolution. Housing law in particular, changes as a function of social meaning by design of human relationships.[70] Traditional approaches must adapt. Elise Mercier reminds us that a pandemic can present “opportunity… to rethink… legal frameworks.[71]

Public interest litigation through movement lawyering seeks “to fundamentally transform those power relations to enhance the collective power of marginalized communities”[72] While the well-coordinated effort to gain legal recognition of a right to housing at the Ontario Court of Appeal failed in Tanudjaja, it did manage to change the conversation about housing.[73] Shortly after, housing was declared a human right.[74] This was only possible because of a shared commitment to the cause of housing rights. Movement lawyering on the vanguard of the law spurred on by the need for change and the voice of community.

Moral Imperative

Similar to the pandemic, the housing situation in Ontario presented its own crisis. In violation of public health warnings and even regulation to social distance, many took to the streets to protest rental related issues[75] and live in tent communities rather than shelters.[76] Police intervention included charges being laid and camps being cleared. Pandemic laws took priority over equity-seeking.

Structural injustice is sly. It can be perpetuated by “benevolent agents adhering to seemingly benevolent rules governed by innocuous norms”.[77] Peter Singer asserts that “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought to morally do it”.[78]

According to Ashwini Vasanthakumar, responding to pandemic emergencies is not clearly in conflict with protesting structural injustices. In fact, Vasanthakumar points out that a moral response to a pandemic necessarily entails responding to structural inequities rather than being used to silence political repression.[79] Justice in this larger sense, contemplates the distribution of resources in a way that supports moral equality and autonomy.[80]

People die from the COVID-19 virus and people die from inadequate housing. As there is a moral imperative to respond to emergencies, so too is there one in longer term situations of structural injustice. The increase in risk to marginalized populations simply exposes and supports the assumption that an adequate response to the pandemic must necessarily incorporate those inequities. As illustration, Olympia Duhart proposes that racial equity impact assessments for COVID-19 action be mandatory to minimize unintended racialized outcomes.[81]

Weathering the Ongoing Storm: Housing Rights Wrapped up

If nothing else, the pandemic has shed light on the social issue of eviction and homelessness. Housing stability is essential not only during a pandemic but beyond. “Homelessness is… [neither] a crime” nor a choice but rather “a social, economic and political ‘problem’ that requires social, economic, and political solutions”.[82] Building the housing agenda around relationships including personal, social, economic, and governance relationships can help to design law more responsively to the needs of individuals, families, and communities.[83]

Jurisprudence is more comfortable with placing the onus on individuals to overcome their very real and inherent limitations of poverty, disability, abuse, unemployment, and lack of adequate housing and lobby for policy change rather than to enforce their autonomous rights by virtue of being human. Although there is no “freestanding” right to housing, the Charter as a “living tree”[84] is not settled and must be allowed to grow in novel ways.[85] The chasm between these real limitations and a political agenda based on populist priorities can be bridged through coordinated collective morality. If our most vulnerable are to have equal opportunity, housing must be divorced from the political realm and steadfastly cemented as a right. “[M]ovements grow at the speed of trust”[86] and movement lawyering goes beyond legal technicalities requiring the trust and input of the community.[87]

[1] Mark Twain, “Note to the Young People’s Society, Greenpoint Presbyterian Church, 1901” online: < http://www.twainquotes.com/Right.html>.

[2] Black et al v City of Toronto, 2020 ONSC 6398 at para 87 [Black] citing the Declaration of Emergency, O Reg 50/20.

[3] Attorney General for Ontario v Persons Unknown, March 19, 2020, Geoffrey B Morawetz CJ, online: < https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/chief-justice-court-order-susp-resid-evict/>.

[4] Rachelle Younglai, “Off the charts: How Canada’s real-estate marked defied expectations in the COVID-19 pandemic” Globe and Mail (19 Feb 2021) online: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-off-the-charts-how-canadas-real-estate-market-defied-expectations-in/>.

[5] The Canadian Press, “Ontario lost 355,000 jobs in 2020, marking single largest decline on record: FAO” CBC News (18 Feb 2021) online: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-unemployment-job-losses-1.5919133#:~:text=CBC%20News%20Loaded-,Ontario%20lost%20355%2C000%20jobs%20in%202020%2C%20marking%20single%20largest%20decline,of%20the%20COVID%2D19%20pandemic.>.

[6] Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, SO 2006, c 17, s 111 (the process whereby landlords can reset the lawful rent to what the market will bear when the unit is vacant) [RTA].

[7] Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Ontario Tribunals, Annual Report 2020-2021 at 24.

[8] RTA, supra note 6, s 83(6).

[9] Helping Tenants and Small Businesses Act, 2020, SO 2020, c 23 – Bill 204 s, 17(6) [HTSBA].

[10] HTSBA, supra note 9, s 136.1(3).

[11] Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario, “Digital Evictions: The Landlord and Tenant Board’s Experiment in Online

Hearings” (2021) at 3, online: <www.acto.ca/production/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Digital-Evictions-

ACTO.pdf> [ACTO].

[12] Sarah Buhler, “Pandemic Evictions: An Analysis of the 2020 Eviction Decisions of Saskatchewan’s Office of Residential Tenancies” (2021) Journal of Law and Social Policy 35 at 77 [Buhler] referencing Yael Cannon, “ Injustice Is an Underlying Condition”  (2020) 6:2 U Pa JL & Pub Aff 201 at 240-242.

[13] Buhler, supra note 12 at 86.

[14] Heather Lynne Campbell, “The Reasonable Requirement Standard in Saskatchewan’s Residential Tenancies Act and “No Pet” Clauses in the Social Housing Context” (2009) 72 Sask L Rev 257 – 278 at 259.

[15] Black, supra note 2 at para 88.

[16] Black, supra note 2 at para 90.

[17] Sarah E Hamill, “Caught Between Deference and Indifference: The Right to Housing in Canada” ((2018) 7:1 Can J Hum Rts 68 – 95 at 73 – 74 [Hamill] referencing John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (New York: Hafner Publishing Co, 1947) at 123 – 29 at 33, 123 [Locke].

[18] Hamill, supra note 17 at 73 – 74 referencing Locke, supra note 17 at 123 – 29.

[19] Edward Iacobucci, “Rent Control: A Proposal for Reform” (1995) 27 Ottawa L Rev 311 at 5 [Iacobucci] referencing Margaret Jane Radin, “Residential Rent Control” (1986) 15 Philosophy & Public Affairs 350 [Radin].

[20] Terry Skolnik, “Homelessness and Unconstitutional Discrimination” (2019) 15 Journal of Law & Equity 69 – 94 at 86 [Skolnik] citing Margaret Jane Radin, “Property and Personhood” (1982) 34 Stan L Rev 957 at 991–2.

[21] Joseph William Singer & Jack M Beermann, “The Social Origins of Property” (1993) 6 Can JL & Juris 217 – 248 at para 18 [Singer] citing Margaret Jane Radin, “The Liberal Conception of Property: Cross Currents in the Jurisprudence of Takings” (1988) 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1667 at 1676.

[22] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res 217A (III), UNGAOR, 3rd Sess, Supp No 13, UN Doc A/810, (1948),

art 25 [UDHR].

[23] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, GA res. 2200A (XXI), 21 UN GAOR, Supp. No. 16, UN Doc. A/6316 (1966) 49 (entered into force 3 January 1976, accession by Canada 19 May 1976) at art 11 [ICESCR].

[24] ICESCR, supra note 24 at part 11 [ICESCR].

[25] Jean-Yves Duclos, Minister of Families Children and Social Development, “National Housing Strategy”, online: < https://www.placetocallhome.ca/-/media/sf/project/placetocallhome/pdfs/canada-national-housing-strategy.pdf > [National Housing Strategy].

[26]National Housing Strategy Act, SC 2019, c 29, ss 4(a),(b).

[27] UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 2 October 2007, A/RES/61/295, online: <https://www.refworld.org/docid/471355a82.html>.

[28] United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, SC 2021, c 14.

[29] Poff v. City of Hamilton, 2021 ONSC 7224 at para 53 [Poff].

[30] Poff, supra note 29 at para 9.

[31] Olympia Duhart, “Social Distancing as a Privilege: Assessing the Impact of Structural Disparities on the COVID-19 Crisis in the Black Community” (2021) 37 Ga St U L Rev 1305 at 1311.

[32] Charles J Reid, “Pandemic of Inequality: An Introduction to Inequality of Race, Wealth, and Class, Equality of Opportunity” (2020) 14 U St Thomas JL & Pub Poly 1 [Reid].

[33] Reid, supra note 32 at 29.

[34] Duhart, supra note 31 at 1314 referencing Monica Webb Hooper et al., COVID-19 and Racial/Ethnic Disparities, 323 JAMA NETWORK 2466, 2466 (2020), https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766098.

[35] John Paul Tasker, “More racially diverse areas reported much higher numbers of COVID-19. Deaths: StatsCan” CBC News (10 Mar 2021) online: < https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/racial-minorities-covid-19-hard-hit-1.5943878>.

[36] Scott McAlpine, “More Than Wishful Thinking: Recent Developments in Recognizing the “Right to Housing” Under s 7 of the Charter” (2017) 38 WRLSI 1 at 8 [McAlpine] citing Victoria (City) v Adams, 2008 BCSC 1363 at para 4, 299 DLR (4th) 193 [Victoria] upheld on appeal Victoria (City) v. Adams, 2009 BCCA 563 [Victoria].

[37] McAlpine, supra note 36 at 8 citing Victoria, supra note 36 at para 145.

[38] McAlpine, supra note 36 at 9 citing Victoria, supra note 36 at para 166.

[39] McAlpine, supra note 36 at 9 – 10 referencing Abbotsford (City) v Shantz, 2015 BCSC 1909 [Shantz].

[40] 2014 ONCA 852.

[41] Tanudjaja, supra note 41 at para 86.

[42] Sanctuary Ministries of Toronto et al v City of Toronto et al, 2020 ONSC 6207 at para 171, Sossin, J.

[43] Black, supra note 2; Poff, supra note 29.

[44] McAlpine, supra note 36 at 3 referencing Tracy Heffernan, Fay Faraday & Peter Rosenthal, “Fighting for the Right to Housing in Canada” (2015) 24 J L & Soc Pol?y 10 [Heffernan et al]; Jessie Hohmann, The Right to Housing: Law, Concepts, Possibilities (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2013); Rachel G Bratt, Michael E Stone & Chester W Hartman, eds, A Right to Housing: Foundation for a New Social Agenda (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2006).

[45] McAlpine, supra note 36 at 3 referencing Peter Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, student ed (Toronto: Carswell, 2016) at 47-3 [Hogg].

[46] Hamill, supra note 17 at 89 referencing Shantz, supra note 39.

[47] Chaoulli v Québec, [2005] 1 SCR 791 at para 104.

[48] Gosselin v Québec (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 84 at para 82.

[49] Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2021 SCC 34 at para 152, Abella J in dissent (and notes that this legal standard has been applied in the context of section 7 in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5 (CanLII), [2015] 1 SCR 331).

[50] Mark Zion, “Making Time for Critique: Canadian ‘Right to Shelter’ Debates in a Chrono-Political Frame” (2020) 37 Windsor Y B Access Just at 90.

[51] Black, supra note 2 at 143; Batty v City of Toronto, 2011 ONSC 6862.

[52] Black, supra note 2 at 150.

[53] Michael Da Silva, “Positive Charter Rights: When Can We Open the “Door?”.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 58.3 (2021) : 669-717 at 682 [Da Silva].

[54] Da Silva, supra note 53 at 683 referencing Nicole Hassoun, “The Human Right to Health: A Defense” (2020) 51 J Social Philosophy 166 at 11.

[55] Da Silva, supra note 54 at 699.

[56] Joseph William Singer & Jack M Beermann, “The Social Origins of Property” (1993) 6 Can JL & Juris 217 – 248 at para 68 [Singer & Beermann].

[57] Iacobucci, supra note 19 at 5.

[58] Singer & Beerman, supra note 56.

[59] Iacobucci , supra note 19 at 12 citing Michael Trebilcock, The Limits of Freedom of Contract (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993) at 100.

[60] Singer & Beermann, supra note 56 at para 13.

[61] Iacobucci, supra note 19 at 13.

[62] Rebecca K Skahen, “Opportunity in a Pandemic: Ending the Eviction Cycle by constitutionally Providing for Inclusionary Zoning with State-Enacted Land-Use Regulations: (2021) 43 Campbell L Rev 375 at 378 [Skahen].

[63] Skahen, supra note 62 at 378.

[64] City of Toronto, Official Plan Amendment 557; City of Toronto, Zoning By-law 941-2021.

[65] Anna di Robilant, “Common Ownership and Equality of Autonomy” (2012) 58:2 McGill LJ 263 – 320  at para 6 [di Robilant].

[66] di Robilant, supra note 65 at para 47.

[67] di Robilant, supra note 65.

[68] Martin Partington, “The Relationship Between Law Reform and Access to Justice: A Case Study – The Renting Homes Project” (2005) 23 Windsor YB Access Just 375 at 386 [Partington].

[69] Partington, supra note 68 at 388.

[70] Signer & Beermann, supra note 56 at para 33.

[71] Elise Mercier & Sean Rehaag, “The Right to Seek Asylum in Canada (During a Global Pandemic)” (2020) 57 Osgoode Hall LJ 705 – 738 at para 77.

[72] Fay Faraday, Tracy Heffernan & Helen Luu, “Winning the Right to Housing: Critical Reflections on a Holistic Approach to Public Interest Litigation” (2019) 90 SCLR (2d) 31 – 63 at para 9 [Faraday].

[73] Faraday, supra note 72 at para 46.

[74] National Housing Strategy, supra note 25.

[75] The Canadian Press, “Toronto protesters block sheriffs from conducting evictions amid COIVID-19” CBC News (18 Aug 2020) online: < https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ont-eviction-protest-1.5691332>.

[76] Ryan Rocca & Jessica Patton, “26 arrested as City of Toronto officials, police move to clear Lamport Stadium encampment” Global News (21 July 2021) online: < https://globalnews.ca/news/8046320/toronto-homeless-encampment-clearing-lamport-stadium/>.

[77] Ashwini Vasanthakumar, “The Urgent and the Important: Political Resistance During a Pandemic” (2021) 46:2 Queen’s LJ 305 – 316 at para 6 [Vasanthakumar].

[78] Vasanthakumar, supra note 77 at para 10 citing Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” (1972) 1:3 Phil & Pub Aff 229 at 231.

[79] Vasanthakumar, supra note 77 at para 4.

[80] Vasanthakumar, supra note 77 at para 5.

[81] Duhart, supra note 31 at 1314.

[82] Robert Tarantino, “Creating Conflict: Legal Strategies for Housing the Homeless in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside” (2010) 28 WRLSI 109 at 109 – 110.

[83] See generally, Partington, supra note 68 at 391 – 392.

[84] Edwards v Attorney-General for Canada, 1929 CanLII 438 (UK JCPC), [1930] AC 124, at p 106, Viscount Sankey.

[85] Hamill, supra note 17 at 87 referencing Tanudjaja, supra note 40, Feldman JA in dissent.

[86] Faraday, supra note 72 at para 30.

[87] Faraday, supra note 72 at para 33.