The Court began by noting that issues of accessible housing and ensuring unhoused persons have a place to live are “national issues that impact all Canadians”. To address those issues, both government and community must work together. While there is no solution to the current crisis, it is “only through consultation, cooperation, and compassion” that a way forward will be found.

The Coalition for Justice and Human Rights Ltd. (the “Coalition”) filed a Statement of Claim challenging the City of Edmonton (the “City”)’s response to encampments on public land. Among others, the Coalition sought public standing in the Action, and declarations for various Charter violations by the City’s policies, practices, and bylaws with respect to preventing unhoused persons from staying in encampments.

The City applied for an Order striking the Action for lack of public standing by the Coalition. Further, the City argued that section 24(1) Charter remedies were unavailable to parties claiming public interest standing, and the City sought to strike the claim on the basis that there was an insufficient record to find Charter breaches.

The Court denied the Coalition public interest standing and struck the Action.

Importantly, the City took the position that the evidence derived from the Questioning on Affidavit of the Coalition’s president established that the Coalition did not have direct involvement with the issue at stake, did not work with unhoused Edmontonians, had minimal, if any community recognition, did not conduct public outreach, and had no experience in the matter at stake.

Justice Martin explained that Applications to strike pleadings for lack of standing are advanced under Rule 3.68(1) and Rule 3.68(2)(d). Generally, if an applicant establishes that a commencement document is an abuse of process under Rule 3.68(2)(d), the Court may strike it under Rule 3.68(1)(a). On such Applications, “evidence may be considered, facts as pleaded are not presumed to be true, and the issue of standing does not attract the ‘plain and obvious’ standard”.

To grant public interest standing, the Court must generously and liberally weigh the following three cumulative factors. First, whether the case raises a serious justiciable issue. Second, whether the party that started the Action has a real stake or genuine interest in its outcome. Third, whether the proposed Action is a reasonable and effective means of bringing the Action to Court.

The Court did not hesitate in finding that the existence of encampments populated by unhoused persons and the availability of housing for unhoused persons created a serious justiciable issue. This factor weighed in favour of granting the Coalition public interest standing.

However, the Court found that the Coalition was a young organization without a reputation for advocating for unhoused persons. This Action was the first housing-related litigation undertaken by the Coalition. The Court reviewed in detail the founding objectives of the Coalition and its initiatives. It held that even though “one of the Coalition’s objectives is to demand accountability from all levels of government in the context of human rights, upon review of the evidence before this Court, the Coalition does not in fact bear any of the hallmarks of a party with a real stake or genuine interest in the outcome”. This factor weighed against granting public interest standing.

Turning its mind to final factor, the Court found that it did not weigh in favour of granting the Coalition standing. The evidence before the Court was insufficient to establish that the Coalition could present a well-developed factual setting that allowed for the appropriate adjudication of the Action.

After weighing all three factors, the Court denied the Coalitions’ request for public interest standing and granted the City’s Application to strike the Action.