1. law, govt and politics
2. law enforcement
3. police

PETERBOROUGH COALITION AGAINST POVERTY
GUIDE
FOR
SQUATTERS
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................3
............................................................................................................................................
.......... ......................................................................................................................Page 3
SECTION A: THE POLITICS OF SQUATTING
A1: What is Squatting?..........................................................................................5
A2: Why Squat?....................................................................................................6
SECTION B: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
B1: Relevant Land Acts........................................................................................ 8
B2: Common Charges Against Squatters...........................................................10
B3: Other Offences to Consider: Fire Codes, Safety Regulations & Drugs.......16
B4: Police Encounters ­ Questioning, Detention, Arrest & Searches.................17
B5: Forced Removal by Police: Assault, Brutality & Chemical Weapons...........23
B6: Legal Information for High Risk Groups.......................................................25
B7: Legal Information for Young People.............................................................26
B8: Legal Information for Squatters with Children..............................................27
B9: Legal Information for Immigrants, Refugees & Non­Citizens.......................30
B10: Legal Information for People with Physical Disabilities & Health Issues......32
B11: Legal information for Psych Survivors/People with Mental Health Issues...34
B12: Strategies to deal with the law......................................................................36
SECTION C: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
C1: How to find a place.......................................................................................38
C2: Researching the building: who owns it?.......................................................39
C3: Getting in.......................................................................................................44
C4: Securing your new home..............................................................................46
C5: Setting up services: water, electricity, gas & telephone...............................47
C6: Maintaining your place..................................................................................48
C7: Barriers to Women, Children & "High Risk" Groups.....................................49
1
SECTION D: THREE SQUAT STORIES
D1: The Overdale Squat, Montreal, 2001...........................................................51
D2: The Pope Squat, Toronto, 2002...................................................................57
D3: The Woodwards Squat, Vancouver, 2002....................................................60
SECTION E: CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................64
SECTION F: RESOURCES
Organization of Resources & Access to Libraries................................................65
F1: Why Squat? Social & Political Commentary on Squatting...........................66
F2: Canadian Property Law................................................................................67
F3: Legal Resources for Squatters.....................................................................68
F4: Practical Information for Squatters...............................................................71
F5: International Squatting ­ Recent & Historical Case Studies.........................71
F6: Squatting in Canada ­ Recent & Historical Case Studies............................74
APPENDIX A: Relevant Sections from the Canadian Criminal Code.......................77
APPENDIX B: Ontario Trespass to Property Act........................................................84
APPENDIX C: Sections from the Ontario Family & Children Services Act.............88
The International Symbol for Squatting:
2
The circle with the arrow comes from the hobo language meaning “to go on” or “to continue on.” As a sign that homeless folks would “go on” to the bitter end, the symbol was taken up by squatters in the 1970s, and is INTRODUCTION
We can’t wait any longer: Housing Now!
In the era of globalization ­­ where the gap between wealthy and poor is increasing dramatically and where the welfare state is being rapidly dismantled ­­ poverty and homelessness are on the rise. In Ontario, social assistance has been cut by more than 21.6 percent, all provincial funding for new affordable housing was eliminated in 1995, and the minimum wage, which has not increased in 8 years, remains well below the cost of living. Since the so­called Tenant Protection Act was introduced in 1997 and rent controls were abolished, eviction rates have skyrocketed and affordable housing has become more scarce. Thousands of people in Ontario remain on waiting lists for affordable housing, with an average waiting period of 6 ­10 years. Though homeless shelters, food programs and housing services have been organized to address these problems, such solutions are often temporary and inadequate. Many shelters, for example, are characterized by substandard living conditions, health risks, security problems and social control of residents. Within this context, homelessness has reached a state of crisis now described by some as a national disaster. While homelessness is often measured by who is visibly on the streets, "invisible" homelessness (people who are chronically under­housed, families who are one pay 3
check away from eviction, women and children fleeing abusive homes, youth who are “couch surfing”) is also growing. Peterborough is no exception to this increase in homelessness and poverty. Not only are the local shelters often full to capacity, many families are severely under­housed, living in one­bedroom apartments or sharing a house between two or three families. In 1999, the Ontario Non­Profit Housing Association identified Peterborough as having the most serious affordable housing crisis in the province. Within this context, Peterborough has been dubbed the "homeless capital of Ontario."
Because of this provincial, federal and global situation, many people ­ particularly mothers with children, young people, people with disabilities, psychiatric survivors and people of colour ­ face limited choices and opportunities to secure housing for themselves and their families. Moreover, as the state exerts greater control over those who receive social assistance and as the responsibility for social welfare shifts to private organizations and charitable individuals, many low­income people are further dis­
empowered from enacting strategies to secure housing. When a society or state refuses to ensure that basic human rights are met, individuals and groups may be forced to take matters into their own hands, even if this means defying public laws or social codes. Within the current context, squatting is a strategy worth exploring.
Although homelessness is primarily a structural problem (i.e. poverty exists not because of the particular flaws of individuals, but because of flaws in a system which creates and perpetuates poverty) it must also be recognized that many existing solutions (particularly those enacted by the state and by middle­class organizations), dis­
empower people who are poor by preventing them from articulating their own needs and enacting their own solutions. By contrast, squatting provides an opportunity for people to take housing into their own hands and to use this strategy for political gain. This guide is intended to assist potential squatters in making informed choices when it comes to squatting. The following report provides legal, practical and historical information to people who are considering squatting as a means to secure housing. While this report is by no means exhaustive, it provides a starting point for anyone who is considering squatting.
4
SECTION A:
THE
POLITICS
OF
SQUATTING
A1: What is Squatting?
Squatting is the act of taking over a piece of land or property without having licence or consent to do so. Often this means occupying an abandoned building, house or government office for the purpose of living. According to the Carswell Dictionary of Canadian Law a squatter is "someone who occupies property or land without consent or licence."
­ [(2nd Edition) Toronto: Thompson Canada Ltd, 1995)] ­
Squatting has a long history in Canada and elsewhere. It has been used as a means to secure housing and as a political strategy to further housing demands.
There are hundreds of examples of squatting throughout history and across the world, many of which have been very successful in securing housing for those who are homeless or under­housed. In Copenhagen, Denmark, for example, the Christiania 5
squat community recently celebrated its 30th anniversary. One of the largest squatter communities in the world, Christiania includes over 800 adults and 250 children. Although the people of Christiania have faced many eviction attempts, the community has managed to retain their right for self­secured housing. In fact, the area has been declared an autonomous zone that is exempt from many state laws. Similarly, in Amsterdam, Holland, squatting is highly tolerated ­ and in some cases encouraged ­ by the government as a means to reduce homelessness. While squatting of urban buildings tends to be more prevalent in European countries, whereas squatting of open land (where shanty towns are built) is more common in Southern countries, both types can be found throughout the world.
Canada has also seen its share of squats, some of which have lasted many years. In Vancouver, for example, numerous squats were maintained for several years before police intervention during the early 1990s. More recently in Montreal, a week­long squat of a downtown building by over 100 people was used successfully to pressure the city to give squatters another building for co­operative housing. In Toronto, the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty squatted a downtown building for three months. In each of these cases, squatting has provided shelter for homeless individuals while also proving an effective political strategy in the struggle for affordable housing.
A2: Why Squat?
Although squatting involves many practical challenges and legal risks, the political and social benefits can be enormous. Historically, squatting has proven an effective means to secure housing, particularly for individuals who are unable to access “traditional” shelters (such as government housing, temporary shelters, etc). Squatting also challenges those values that place property rights above basic human rights. 6
•
Squatting is a direct, self­empowering way to secure housing. •
Squatting does not require someone else to represent you or advocate for you.
•
Squatting does not rely on the charity of others; it is a do­it­yourself model.
•
Squatting can happen immediately – no waiting for governments to change.
•
Squatting evades the social controls that characterize traditional shelters
•
Squatting is a direct challenge to capitalist values.
•
Squatting is a local, grassroots, non­violent strategy.
•
Squatting defies laws which legislate homelessness and poverty.
•
Squatting makes more efficient use of unused property and land space.
•
Squatting can restore old buildings at minimal or no cost to government.
•
Squatting challenges property rights and consumerism.
•
Squatting promotes alternative culture and lifestyles.
Every squat is different. In some cases, squatting is primarily a strategy for individuals to secure housing. In others, it can be connected to a larger community movement for political change and social justice. Sometimes squatting is quite successful and other times it accomplishes little more than getting people arrested. The success of a squat depends on the use of strategy, to what extent the law is enforced and the broader political context of the squat. For these reasons, it is important to consider the following legal and practical information.
SECTION B: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
IMPORTANT NOTICE!!!!
The following is provided for informational purposes only ­­ to assist the reader in understanding the law as it relates to squatting. This information is of a general nature and will not answer every question nor apply to every case. The information should not be relied upon in any legal proceedings or be used to replace proper legal advice. 7
Squatters in Canada have very few legal rights. Unlike many other countries where squatting is tolerated and in some cases protected by the law, Canadian land and property laws severely restrict the rights of squatters. The following information outlines relevant land laws, possible charges, and legal rights during police encounters, and legal strategies. This information has been compiled from a variety of sources, which are noted in the resources list at the end of the guide (Section F). Where large sections from these sources have been excerpted, the specific references are given; otherwise the material is generally referenced in Section F3. Please note that laws change frequently and that court cases routinely set new precedents (examples which set a standard for the interpretation of other law cases). In other words, legal issues are prone to frequent changes! For up­to­date Canadian criminal laws, see: www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c­46/
For up­to­date Ontario provincial laws, see: www.e­laws.gov.on.ca
For further information, see the original sources listed in the bibliography (Section F) or consult a lawyer. B1: Relevant Land Acts
All land in Canada falls under two systems: either the Land Registry System (the old system) or the newer Torrens System of Land Titles (sometimes just called "land titles"). Under the Land Registry System, all deeds (proof of ownership) pertaining to land are filed by name of purchaser at a central registry. Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland use registry. Under a Torrens system, the government retains custody of all original certificates of title to land and guarantees their accuracy. Torrens systems are used in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. The remaining provinces ­­ Ontario, New Brunswick and Manitoba ­­ use a combination of both systems. Squatters’ rights differ under each system as follows:
8
Land Registry System
Under the Land Registry system it is possible to gain legal possession of land through squatting. Commonly known as "squatter's title," the legal term for this is "adverse possession." This refers to a process by which someone acquires title (legal ownership) of land or property without paying rent, due to the length of time they occupy the land and by the original owner's neglect to remove them. Despite this legal formality, however, the odds are stacked against the squatter. As property lawyer Bruce Ziff writes: "To succeed, acts of possession must be open and notorious [without the owner's permission but not in hiding from the owner], adverse, exclusive, peaceful (not by force), actual and continuous. If any one of these elements is missing, at any stage during the statutory period, no rights against the paper owner can be successfully asserted." In other words, the ‘rightful' owner of the land must know that the squatter is there and not take action to remove them, the squatter must remain continually on the land, and land possession must not be obtained by force. Not only are these terms stringent, but the time period that a squatter must stay to claim title is long. To acquire legal possession of land or property that is owned by the state (known as "crown land") the squatter must remain on the land (as outlined above) for 60 years. For all other land under this system, the period is 10 years. This means that few cases of squatting result in legal land ownership. Most land, however, falls under the Torrens system of Land Titles. As such, the Canadian government is in the process of transferring all crown land from the old system to the new; in a few years time, all crown land will fall under Land Titles. Ontario Land Titles Act (Torren's System)
The majority of private and commercial land falls under the Torrens' system of Land Titles, whereby the government oversees all certificates of title. While some provincial Land Titles systems allow the principle of adverse possession (squatter's title) to be exercised (i.e. Alberta) this is not universal. Under the Ontario law, it is explicitly stated that the adverse possession clause does not apply. Section 51 of the Ontario Land Titles Acts reads:
No title by adverse possession, etc.
51 . (1 ) Despite any provision of this Act, the Limitations Act or any other Act, no title to and no right or interest in land registered under this Act that is adverse to or in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired hereafter or be deemed to have been acquired heretofore by any length of possession or by prescription. R.S.O. 1 990 , c. L.5 , s. 51 (1 ).
9
To determine if a piece of land falls under Land Registry or the Land Titles Act, you can check at the local municipal land registry (in Peterborough, at City Hall). All properties will be registered according to one system or another, and this information is available to the public.
Sometimes the registry status of a piece of property may be ambiguous, which is good news for squatters. In the recent case of the "Pope Squat" in Toronto, squatters initially could not be evicted because it was unclear who owned the property. The property was owned by a numbered corporation that failed to pay its corporate renewal fee 3 years in a row and was dissolved in 1994. As a result, the property automatically went to the crown but the crown never actually recognized its ownership. It was enough legal limbo to keep the squatters from eviction for three months. NOTE: Under most circumstances, squatting is against the law in Ontario and will not secure legal possession of occupied land or property. If you are considering squatting, you should be prepared for police encounters. B2: Common Charges Against Squatters:
Because of the character of Canadian and Ontario land laws, the act of squatting is generally illegal. Even if you are very strategic about squatting, there is a high probability that you will encounter the police at some point. Be prepared for the law!
There are a number of charges that squatters can face if caught and the consequences vary according to charge type and conviction. Civil charges (like trespass) generally involve a fine and/or a single court appearance. For criminal charges, the consequences are more significant in terms of time, money, hassle and punishment. First, it may take many months for the charges to be dealt with and you may be required to attend court numerous times before the process is complete. Second, a conviction may result in heavy fines, community service work, probation periods or even jail time. Conviction of a first offence may result in a discharge (a finding of guilt but no conviction record) a conditional discharge (no record after certain conditions like community service have been met), a fine or a suspended sentence. Although maximum jail terms for most offences are rarely ordered (and most offenders 10
serve only one third of their sentence before they are eligible for parole), the worst­case scenario of high penalties should always be considered. Third, depending on the charge (and if there is a possibility of jail time) you may have costly legal fees. Unless the charge that you face carries with it the possibility of jail time and you can prove financial need, you are unlikely to get Legal Aid (government funded legal assistance) to help pay for a lawyer. And while Duty Counsel (the lawyer that the government will provide if you cannot afford to hire one) is available, usually these appointed lawyers are overworked and not always sympathetic to squatters. Finally, a criminal record may affect your life in other ways, particularly for travel (especially to the US) and employment, and if you are not a Canadian citizen (see Section B9).
The following is a list of charges most commonly laid against squatters. [Note: The penalties listed below refer to those applicable to adults. For information on the Young Offenders Act, see section B7]
CIVIL CHARGES
Trespass to Property
Trespass is a civil charge under provincial law, which means that a conviction does not result in jail time and it does not include a criminal record. This charge can apply to public and private land or property. It can also include sleeping in a car, trailer, boat or railway car that is parked on someone else's land. The maximum fine for trespass is $2000. Regardless of whether the squatted land falls under the Land Registry System or the Land Titles system, the trespass charge can apply. The only exception is if you have acquired title (ownership) to the land through adverse possession. In other words, at any time during that 10­ or 60­year period in which you are trying to gain squatters title, you can be charged with trespass.
11
According to the Law Union of Ontario, the trigger for a charge under the Trespass to Property Act is a request to leave. This means that an occupier should be given the opportunity to leave the premises before being charged, but this is not guaranteed. However, as the Ontario Law Union notes in its 1996 Edition of Offence/ Defence: Law for Activists, there are a few factors that can lengthen your stay:
1. Trespass in Public Places
Every place that is ordinarily and customarily used by the public, and any place not expressly barred to the public by notice, may be entered for any non­criminal purpose. Note that a "non­criminal purpose" includes sleeping; unless there are municipal by­
laws prohibiting sleeping in particular areas, it is generally not illegal to sleep in public places like parks or on benches. While it is illegal to set up a "dwelling" (like a tent or a shack) in a public place, the definitions of this are legally ambiguous and can be contested in court. Moreover, trespassing charges are sometimes laid against individuals in public places (particularly homeless people) even though that person has the right to be there. The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty challenges these charges on a regular basis in Toronto and has succeeded in getting such charges thrown out of court.
Permission to be in a public place may be “cancelled” by the person in control of the land or premises (i.e. the relevant government official), but you still must be given a reasonable length of time to leave. In this case, sometimes charges can be avoided by repeatedly moving locations (i.e. from park to park) before the police arrive.
2. “Person in Control” of the property: Only one person or corporation can be in “sufficient control” of land or buildings to tell you to leave. This means that it is the person in control of the building or land (usually the land­owner) who must ask you to leave or request police intervention. If the police cannot find the owner (or person in control) of the building, they cannot legally ask you to leave. Accordingly, it is helpful to know who owns the property that you are squatting so if the police intervene, you can ensure the police are asking you to leave under the direction of the right person.
If the premises are leased, the tenant, not the landowner, must ask you to leave. This means that if you are occupying a leased unit, the tenant must ask you to leave, but if you move to an un­leased unit, the landowner must ask you to leave. If the wrong person (relative to where you are occupying) approaches you with a request to leave, 12
you may freely ignore them. You will probably have to explain yourself to the police, but it will then take some time to find the proper person to ask you to leave.
Note: If the police see you doing something illegal in addition to trespassing (like damaging property or forcing your way into a building) they can lay criminal charges without speaking to the land owner.
CRIMINAL CHARGES
Under Canada's Criminal Code, there are two kinds of offences in Canada:
1. indictable offences: more serious offences with harsher penalties
2. summary offences: less serious and carry lesser punishments (usually a max of 6 – 18 months in jail). In some cases, charges are considered hybrid, which means that they can fall under either category. In these cases, the Crown (the lawyer who will prosecute the case against you in court) determines whether the charges will be prosecuted as summary or indictable. Generally speaking, most charges related to squatting would fall under summary offences. Note: Criminal charges can be applied regardless of whether the land you squat falls under the Registry or Land Titles system.
Beside each charge listed below, the bracketed information indicates whether the charge is indictable, summary or hybrid, and under what section of the Canadian Criminal Code (www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c­46/) the charge is found.
Mischief to Property [hybrid s. 430]
To be convicted of mischief you must wilfully destroy or damage property; render property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective; or obstruct, interrupt or interfere with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property. This is a very common charge and can include a wide variety of actions. In a squat situation, if you prevent the owner from entering the building (i.e. by barricading it, or by changing the locks) you are likely to face mischief charges.
The maximum penalty for criminal mischief is quite high but the actual sentences tend to be low: suspended sentences, fines or brief jail sentences. The maximum penalty for mischief causing damage under $5000 is two years in prison. For damage over $5000, the maximum sentence is ten years. 13
The consequences of mischief increase significantly if it causes harm to people, so be especially careful if occupying a building that is slated for demolition or in ill repair. Squatters should be wary of tampering with a building that violates safety codes, or could endanger people's safety. Not only is this a concern for squatters' safety inside the building, but endangering life has serious legal consequences. In such a case, criminal mischief causing actual danger to life can result in life imprisonment.
Forcible Entry [hybrid s. 72]
A person commits forcible entry when he or she enters property that is in the actual and peaceable possession of another, in a manner that is likely to cause a breach of the peace (disturbing public peace/breaking the law). Maximum prison sentence is 2 years.
Breach of the Peace [not convictable]
Breach of the peace is not defined in the criminal code as it is not actually a chargeable offence ­ you cannot be convicted of "breach of peace." This clause of the Criminal Code gives the police the right to arrest you in order to prevent you from breaking the law. The police are supposed to release you when the danger is over or within 24 hours.
Break and Enter [hybrid s. 348 hybrid]
This charge is considered indictable if committed in a “dwelling house” (i.e. someone’s home) and summary if committed elsewhere (i.e. a business). This charge only applies if you are caught breaking into a place with intent of committing, or having committed an indictable offence. In other words, if you simply break into a building and do nothing once inside (and there is no proof that you had intent of committing an indictable offence) you shouldn't be charged with break and enter. In theory, since trespass is not an indictable offence, simply being on the premises after breaking in does not constitute break and enter, but would amount to the lesser charge of forcible entry. However, since any damage, interference, or removal of property can be considered mischief or theft (both of which can be indictable offences), the break and enter charge could apply in conjunction with those crimes. The maximum penalty for break and enter into someone's home (a "dwelling­place") is life imprisonment whereas the maximum penalty for all other buildings is 10 years. According to these laws, there are two ways for squatters to avoid break and enter charges. 1) If you are caught forcing your way into a building, make sure there is no evidence that you intended to commit an indictable offence (i.e. mischief or theft). 2) If 14
possible, find a building that can be entered without force (i.e. one that has a broken window or unlocked door through which to enter). If the building was broken into prior to your arrival and you entered peacefully, the forcible entry charge should not apply. If caught inside a building, make sure there is no evidence that you entered by force.
Theft [hybrid s. 322, 334]
This charge applies if you remove anything from the squatted premises that does not belong to you. It is unlikely that such a charge would be applied to the act of squatting itself (mischief is the more standard charge), but since you are technically taking possession of something that does not belong to you, theft charges could apply. Where the value of stolen property is less than five thousand dollars, the charge is considered hybrid with a maximum penalty of two years in prison. Where the value is more than five thousand dollars or is a testamentary instrument (a Will or Codicil), the charge is considered an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of ten years in prison. Note: If theft occurs through violence the charge can be increased to robbery (which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment). Note the differences:
Theft [hybrid s. 322, 334] is committed when the offender, intending to and having no legal right to do so, takes away from another person any property or any rights concerning any property from anyone in any thing. Robbery [Indictable s.343, 344] is theft combined with the use or threat of violence. This includes theft when armed with a weapon, theft with threat or use of physical assault, or theft with intent to cause harm.
To avoid robbery charges, squatters should never carry any weapon, make threats or use force against another person while in the process of occupying. As such, squatters should not take over a property while someone else is on premises, since personal confrontations may lead to unexpected reactions. Although some strategies may entail personal confrontations (such as evicting a politician from their office), generally these situations should be avoided.
Disguise with Intent [Indictable s. 351(2)]
Wearing a disguise (e.g. a mask) with the intent of committing an indictable offence is an offence in itself. In the case of squatting where mischief charges could apply, the disguise charge could be laid. If taking over a building to squat, it is advisable not to wear a face covering since this charge carries a maximum penalty of ten years. 15
CRIMINAL CHARGES THAT MAY ARISE DURING ARREST Active refusal to cooperate with police can result in further charges. To avoid these charges it is very important to undergo a legal training prior to the squat. The following is a list of charges most commonly laid against individuals who actively resist police:
Obstruct police [Hybrid s.129] This means resisting or obstructing an officer in the lawful execution of their duty. Usually this charge is laid if you resist being arrested in a physical way, or you attempt to prevent an officer from arresting another person. In a squat situation, it may be tempting to prevent the police from arresting someone that you know – especially if you are squatting with family members of friends. It is your choice, but unless you are in a large crowd, it is usually very difficult to prevent an arrest; generally it simply risks obstruct police charges. If you are a parent of a child who is between the ages of 12 and 18, special provisions apply [see section B4].
Passive resistance (i.e. going limp when an officer tries to arrest you) should not be considered interference. You are not obligated to help the police arrest you, but you can't prevent them from arresting. Maximum prison for obstruct police is 2 years.
Obstruction of Justice [Indictable s. 139] This charge is more serious than obstruct police and is generally defined as attempting to "obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice." Maximum prison is 10 years.
Assaulting a peace officer (Assault Police) [Hybrid s. 270]
This is a serious charge. Although the maximum penalties are the same for regular assault (5 years), sentencing tends to be higher for police assault. It should be noted that any instrument which a police officer uses (i.e. a baton, bicycle, car) is considered an extension of the police officer’s body, so if you touch an object used by a police officer, you could be charged with assault. To avoid these charges, never touch cops.
B3: Other Offences to Consider:
Fire Codes, Safety Regulations & Drugs 16
Fire and Safety Codes
Many squats are shut down because of fire code violations or "safety" concerns. Sometimes these charges are trumped up to justify intervention (safety concerns are commonly cited as grounds for police intervention, especially if there is public support for the squat and the police do not want to get bad publicity). Other times, these charges may be legitimate, particularly if the building was abandoned for safety reasons or is scheduled for demolition. The best way to avoid these charges is to be aware of fire and safety regulations and follow them. The Ontario Fire Code and Ontario Building Code Act (Part Three) are the two most relevant codes of law. The full text is available online: www.e­laws.gov.on.ca . Because these codes are long and detailed, the specifics cannot be covered here. Note, however, that if the police want to shut down the squat, they can usually find a fire or safety code violation regardless of how careful you are. It is important to at least consider the following, not only for legal reasons, but also for the safety of everyone squatting:

Fire/smoke detectors and Carbon Monoxide Testers: Make sure that these detectors are installed and working on all floors of the building. 
Occupancy rates: The number of people allowed in a given space will vary from place to place, but generally if you think an area is too crowded, you may want to limit numbers of people. In public places, occupancy rates are sometimes posted. Otherwise, call the local fire department anonymously and ask for details about the number of people per area of space.

Fire Escape Route: Make sure that the building has at least one escape route other than the main entrance. If the building is multi­storied, check that fire ladders and escape routes are accessible and safe. Make sure that everyone who is squatting is aware of what to do in case of a fire.

Physical Risks: Try to be aware of physical problems in the building which may pose safety risks (ie. broken stairways, railings, collapsing frames, ceiling holes etc) and repair when possible. Also, if you have researched the building (see Section C1 on finding a place) you may have information about whether a building was closed due to safety risks.
Chemical Hazards: Be aware of chemical leaks and spills, particularly if the premise has been previously used for industrial purposes. If in doubt, Drug Laws

17
Squats can also get shut down because of drugs. To avoid drug charges, it is best to either prohibit drug use at the squat, or to be discrete so that the squat does not earn a reputation that may give police an excuse to enter. One should also consider the impact of drug use on other squatters ­ particularly if there are children present. It should also be noted that non­drug users could be implicated in drug possession charges if drugs are found in the vicinity.
B4: Police Encounters:
Questioning, Detention, Arrest & Searches
Image by COBP: www.tao.ca/`cobp
Note: Anyone who is considering squatting should undergo legal training in order to be prepared for police encounters, arrests, law proceedings etc. If you are planning to squat with a group of people, it is good to train together so that you can support / help each other and employ jail solidarity tactics. The following section is not intended to replace legal training, but offer some guidelines as related to squatting.
Questioning: When do I have to speak to the police?
In general you are under no obligation to speak to police officers or to answer their questions. The police have no power to make anyone talk to them or to require anyone to answer their questions. You may choose to speak to them or answer questions but you are certainly not obligated to speak to police. It may be very tempting to speak to the police. They may begin with small talk as a way to get you to open up and then incriminate yourself. The cops may ask you how you got into the building or if there were many other people with you at the time of entry. Don't get caught up in the conversation. IT IS ADVISABLE TO REMAIN SILENT. For instance, if you tell the police that all you did was remove an old piece of wood nailed to the door to get into the building, you may have just incriminated yourself in forcible entry charges. Don't assume that the police know or don't know anything. Even if you believe that police already know what you did, it is best to remain silent. The only person who gains from you talking is the police.
If you are squatting, the most likely scenario is that police will come to the premise that you are occupying. You do have rights in this situation. The following applies to any 18
premise (building, structure, mobile home, car) that is being used as a "dwelling­house" or permanent residence.
What To Do If the Cops Show Up At Your Place: 1
1.
You do not have to open the door or even come to the door. But, if the police have a warrant, or otherwise are in a legal position to search your house, they can break in, damaging the door in the process, so assess the situation with that in mind. This may be a concern for squatters with children or individuals with mental health issues who are particularly vulnerable to the trauma of forced entry. Always make it clear that you are not consenting to their entering. Say, “I do not give permission for you to enter.”
Later in court, if it is found that the police did not have grounds to enter, a verbal statement that you did not consent, may work in your favour (because evidence obtained during the search may be excluded from trial) and can even result in charges being thrown out. If you do not state your opposition to the police entering, however, you are considered to have consented to the search.
2.
If you have opened the door, ask the police why they are there . Ask to see a search warrant. Under most circumstances, the law requires that police obtain a warrant to conduct a search in a home, car or business property. Because police can now obtain "telewarrants" by fax or phone, the need to search without a warrant is reduced. However, the following exceptions can apply:
a) Narcotics: when there are circumstances in which it is impractical to get a warrant to prosecute drug related offences (i.e. they know you have drugs and they want to prevent you from getting rid of them). b) Weapons: If the police have reason to believe that you have a weapon which will endanger yourself or others, and it is deemed impractical to obtain a warrant, the police may search for and seize a weapon without a warrant.
c) Liquor: The liquor Licence Act of Ontario authorizes the police to search a vehicle without a warrant when they have reasonable grounds to believe that liquor is being kept illegally. Liquor which is sealed or in closed suitcase is lawful, so the police cannot go through your luggage or open your trunk.
d) Looking for a fugitive: If the police have reasonable grounds to believe that a person who has committed an indictable offence is hiding in a house, they do not 1
Excerpted / modified from Part E of the Ontario Law Union's Offence/Defence: Law for Activists
19
need a search warrant. They should, however, knock, identify themselves and explain.
3.
If the police do not have a search warrant, insist that they get one . The police may try to convince you to consent to the search, saying that they can just go and get one anyway but you should insist that they get a warrant. Consenting will hurt your attempts to exclude evidence at trial.
4.
If the police have a search warrant, ask to see it . Check to see that the location on the document is correct and that it is signed by a Justice of the Peace (otherwise it is not valid). If the time of the police entry is after 9pm, check to see that the Justice of the Peace has made a note on the warrant giving permission for a night search. With the exception of Narcotic Control Act warrants, searches at night are illegal without explicit notice of permission. 5.
If you think the search is illegal, tell the officer why you think so . They may back down and leave. If they don't, you must decide whether you want to resist the search or cooperate. To resist the search may get you charged with obstructing police, or, if you use force, assaulting the police may be the charge against you and your health is likely to suffer. It is very unwise to use force in resisting an illegal search. If choose to cooperate, remember to keep insisting that you are not consenting to anything they are doing.
6.
Do not interfere with the search. You will get charged with obstruct police or assault police. In many cases, the police will "freeze" the premises and will not let anyone leave, answer the phone, or make phone calls. While the courts have ruled that this is permitted, you have the right to phone a lawyer when they have the situation under control. Insist on that right.
7. You are not required to assist with the search or answer cop’s questions. 8. Always call a lawyer as soon as possible and insist on your right to do so. When do I have to identify myself to the police? 2
In general a person in Canada has no obligation to identify him or herself to the police or to carry identification or to provide evidence of immigration status. In fact, there is no obligation to do so when arrested or detained, although you may choose to do so for very practical reasons like ensuring you are released from custody. Be aware that if you 2
Excerpted / modified from Part E of the Ontario Law Union's Offence/Defence: Law for Activists
20
are charged with an offence and you choose not to identify yourself, the police can hold you at the police station until they are able to verify your identity. If you do choose to identify yourself, you only need to give your name, your address and your date of birth.
There are three clear exceptions, in which you MUST identify yourself to police: a) If you are the driver of a vehicle (driver, not passenger), you are required to produce ID if a cop requests it. But that's all: you don't have to talk with him/her. The Highway Traffic Act (Ont.) requires that you produce your driver's licence, ownership and insurance. Even if you cannot provide this, if you give reasonable identification the police cannot arrest. If you refuse to identify yourself you may be arrested. b) Where you have committed a provincial offence (not a criminal offence) then the police will have to send you a summons or give you a ticket and you will have to identify yourself for them to do that. If you do not identify yourself, then for certain provincial offences you could be arrested. c) If you go to a place where minors are not allowed (like bars or restricted movies)
Remember that it is much better to say nothing than to lie! Lying to the police (about your identity or other things) can lead to a charge of obstruct police and sometimes obstruct justice. Assert your right to silence. When do I have to remain in the presence of the police? Unless you are under "arrest" or "detained" you have the right to walk away from police. There is no such thing as being taken in for questioning. Either you are arrested or you are not. Either you are detained or you are not. Even if the police are searching the squat, unless they tell you that you are being detained, you can leave at any time.
On the street, in a restaurant or anywhere else, if you wish to remove yourself from the presence of the police you should very clearly assert your right to leave and you should say words to the effect "if you are not arresting me or detaining me then I am going to leave". It is amazing how often the police claim that people have remained in their presence or gone with them voluntarily and that they had no idea that the person had any objections.
21
You have no obligation to remain in the presence of the police or to go anywhere with them unless you are being "detained" or you have been "arrested." Even if you are "arrested" or "detained" you have no obligation to say anything. And as a general rule it is better to assert your right to say nothing. What should I do if I am being arrested?
If you encounter police at a squat, and you are found to be committing an offence, you may be arrested. There are three circumstances where police can lawfully arrest you:
1. There is a warrant for your arrest; or
2. The police have reasonable grounds to believe that you have committed an indictable or hybrid offence; or
3. The police find you committing any offence.
Squatters are most likely to face arrest in the third circumstance ­ namely that you have been charged with trespass and have refused to leave, you have been caught committing mischief to property or that you have been caught breaking into a premise.
If you are arrested, you have the following rights:
If  You have the right to be informed of why you are being held and what offence you are charged with.
 You have the right to speak to a lawyer.
 You have the right to remain silent. Do give your name and address if you chose. And insist on speaking with a lawyer. But, other than that, it is best to remain silent. Do not sign anything presented to you until you speak with a lawyer. you wish to practice the technique of passive non­cooperation, but do not want to get charged with obstruct police, let your body go completely limp, so that the police have to carry you out. As they are doing so, you should state clearly "I am not resisting arrest." This tactic is a classic non­violent strategy used to slow down police process and emphasize the passivity of the protestor. Should you decide to actively resist, be aware that you may be charged with obstruct or assault police, and you may be vulnerable to police violence.
22
NOTE: If you think the police are doing something illegal, write down or try to remember the officer's name or badge number. Police are obligated to identify themselves upon request. If you can identify the misconduct of a specific officer, it may help you later in court.
What do I do if the police search me during the arrest?
Under Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, you have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Upon arrest or detainment, however, the police may conduct a search, if they have reasonable grounds to believe that you are in possession of illegal drugs or weapons. "Pat down" searches (a quick, external­to­the­clothing touching) are fairly routine at the time of arrest. You have the right to be searched by a person of the same sex. Never consent to a search. Note that if you do not cooperate you can be charged with obstruct police. As noted above, however, you may let your body go limp in order to engage in passive non­cooperation. Regardless of how you respond, state clearly that you do not consent to the search.
Strip searches Strip­searching is considered more "intrusive" than regular searches so the grounds for conducting a strip­search are more restricted. You cannot be strip­searched unless you have been arrested, and many police departments have specific policies that outline when a search is appropriate. (The Peterborough­Lakefield Police now have a policy on strip­searching, which requires written statement justifying the search.) Despite these rules, strip­searching is a tactic that has been commonly used by police to harass and intimidate political activists, homeless people, people of colour, women, queer and transgender people. Do not consent to the search and ask to speak to a lawyer. You have a right to be informed why you are being searched and to obtain legal advice. Be assertive about those rights.
Note on the new "Anti­Terrorist Legislation" in Canada
With the introduction of the new "anti­terrorism" laws (Bill C­35, C­36 and C­42), Canadian police now have rights to make "preventative arrests," to detain suspected "terrorists" for longer periods of time and to conduct searches prior to arrest. In theory, these laws are only applicable under specific conditions where a person is a suspected "terrorist." In practice, these powers have been used to harass and intimidate political activists and others. While these new laws generally do not apply to squatting, if you are a known political activist, a person of Middle Eastern descent, or a member of an organization which the state believes has connections to "terrorist" activities, you may be vulnerable to the application of these new laws. The same general rules apply. Do not consent to 23
searches or detainment. Ask to speak to a lawyer. For more on anti­terrorism laws, see the resources by the Collective Opposed to Police Brutality (COBP) listed in the resources section (F3).
B5: Forced Removal by Police:
Assault, Brutality & Chemical Weapons
In some squat situations (particularly those which have been highly politicized or where occupiers have refused to leave) the police may use physical force to remove squatters from the premises. In the past, such force has included the use of tear gas, plastic bullets, pepper spray, taser (electric shock) guns, and physical assault. In some cases, the police did not give warning that they would be using such tactics. It is important to be aware that exposure to these dangers is a risk that you take when squatting, particularly if you refuse to leave when ordered to do so. IMPORTANT NOTE ON CHEMICAL WEAPONS (i.e. tear gas and pepper spray): The long term effects of exposure to tear gas, pepper spray and other chemical weapons have not been adequately studied. However, the 24 immediate effects of these weapons are never pleasant, and some people have experienced prolonged health effects following exposure. Individuals with immune system problems, asthma, and nervous system problems are particularly vulnerable to adverse health effects, as are women and children. For those who are high risk, its is best to avoid HIGH RISK GROUPS FOR CHEMICAL WEAPON EXPOSURE:

Women : Due to the methylene chloride propellant used in tear gas, women may experience spontaneous menstruation as a result of exposure. Pregnant women are also high risk. During the 1999 protests in Seattle, one miscarriage was reported following tear gas exposure. If you are (or might be) pregnant, you should avoid all situations that might lead to chemical exposure. Should such a situation arise, identify yourself as pregnant and leave the area immediately. Usually, there will be an opportunity to leave before such weapons are deployed. In a recent squat in Toronto, for example, when police arrived in riot gear and gas masks, a pregnant woman chose to voluntarily leave the squat. Though she was still arrested on mischief charges, she was protected from the teargas that was later used to remove the other squatters.

Children: Children should not be exposed to chemical weapons. Because of their small bodies that are still developing, chemical weapons can have 10 times the adverse effects as they would on adults. If you are a parent or guardian of a child, you should take action to remove your children from all situations that might expose them to chemical weapons.

People with health issues: Individuals with asthma, immune related disorders or breathing problems should be aware that the effects of chemical weapons might be magnified. Try to avoid situations where you may be exposed. 
People wearing contact lenses: Contact lenses trap chemicals and risk eye damage, so if you are exposed to chemical weapons, remove your contacts immediately. Flush your eyes with water.
Unlike mass protest situations where you can dress for chemical weapon exposure, it may be difficult to be prepared in a place that is your home. However, if you receive warning that police are arriving, you may want to put on protective clothing such as rain gear and/or face coverings. If you wear contact lenses, remove them as soon as possible.
25
For more information on how to prepare for and treat chemical exposure, there are many excellent health and safety guides for activists, available online. See for example: http://medicalmontreal.n3.net or www.a16.org/medicalprevention.html .
B6: Legal Information for High Risk Groups3 "High risk" groups are people who are at risk of being targeted / singled­out / profiled / abused / assaulted / discriminated against by police or other authorities because they are member of a marginalized group, because of their political beliefs or because of how they look. There are many different groups at risk and risk levels vary. Here are some of the groups that are most at risk (in no particular order):

non­Canadian citizens / immigrants / refugees 
people of colour

visibly gay / lesbian / bi / pan / queer people

transsexual / transgendered / genderqueer / intersexed people

people with visible or invisible physical disabilities

Muslims, Sikhs and other people who practice non­western religions

people of Middle Eastern descent

parents

young people / minors

people with criminal records or people out on bail/probation/parole

people with AIDS or HIV

psychiatric survivors and people with mental health issues

people who speak with non­English­Canadian accents

homeless people, visibly poor people, street youth (i.e. punks)

women
This is by no means a complete list. If you identify with a group on this list or consider yourself to be vulnerable in other ways, it is important to think about strategies for protection. Even if you do not identify as being high risk, everyone has a responsibility to consider the risk levels of others and work for collective protection.
This section is modified from the Ontario Common Front’s In the Streets and In the Courts ­ We Fight to Win: A Legal Guide for Activists. This guide is available online: www.ocap.ca/legalguide 3
26
If you are squatting as part of a group, it is a good idea to discuss the risk levels of all group members and to devise strategies to minimize these risks. These risks not only apply to the legal system, but also to the practicalities of squatting. (E.g. If someone in your squat group has difficulty walking, you may need to choose a squat location that does not have lots of stairways to climb.) Some groups may also choose to form squat groups that are based on particular needs (i.e. establishing a women­only squat, or a squat for parents with children). The following sections provide further information for particular high­risk groups.
B7: Legal Information for Young People4
The Young Offenders Act (YOA) sets out how the criminal law applies to people between 12 and 17. The YOA applies to all federal offences (all criminal laws listed above). Young people are charged with the same offences as adults, but the procedures and consequences are different. To be considered a young person under the YOA you must be 18 or under on the day of the alleged offence. (So if you turn 19 after you have been charged, proceedings will still occur under the YOA.) People under the age of 12 cannot be charged with criminal offences at all.
If you are a young person under arrest, the police should inform you:
 that you do not have to answer questions or give a statement  that any statement may be used against you
 that you have the right to contact and get advice from a lawyer and a parent or other adult relative  you have the right to a parent and a lawyer present if you do decide to answer questions. However, you do not have to have your parent(s) there if you don't want to
As a young person if you choose to give up any of these rights, you must do so in writing. When a young person is charges with an offence and taken into custody, the parents will be notified in writing by the police. If your parents cannot be located, another adult relative will be contacted. Although parents do not ordinarily have to This section is excerpted / modified from the Ontario Common Front’s In the Streets and In the Courts ­ We Fight to Win: A Legal Guide for Activists. This guide is available online: www.ocap.ca/legalguide 4
27
come to court, the court can order them to do so if the judge feels that it is in the young person's ‘best interest.'
Note for parents of young persons charged with offences: While you will be notified if your son or daughter is arrested and taken into custody, you do not automatically have a right to be present during questioning unless the young person requests it. Likewise, you do not have the right to instruct your son or daughter's lawyer. The lawyer is to take instructions from the young person.
B8: Legal Information for Squatters with Children
Special considerations apply to parents who squat with children. Aside from general safety and well being concerns (see Section C7 on squatting barriers for women and children), there are laws which allow for state intervention into a child's care if that child is living in a squat which does not meet basic health and safety standards.
State intervention for “child protection”: removal of children from parent(s)
Under the Ontario Family and Children Services Act whose mandate is "to promote the best interests, protection and well being of children," the Children's Aid Society can remove children from parents' care if they believe that the child's well being is at risk. However, it should be noted that children are disproportionately removed low­income families. While there are specific guidelines to determine whether such intervention is necessary, the interpretation of these laws is generally at the discretion of the individual caseworker. Ultimately the courts are responsible for interpreting the law, but judicial reviews usually happen after the fact, which is little help to the parent at the time (i.e. a child is removed from the home, a complaint is laid by the parent, and then the court rules that the removal was not just). Particularly because squatting carries social stigma, parents who squat with children may be especially vulnerable to the scrutiny of child welfare agencies. However, there are certain guidelines that apply specifically to housing conditions, which should be considered by anyone squatting with children.
Section 37(2) of the Ontario Family and Children Services Act states:
A child is in need of protection where,
(a) the child has suffered physical harm, inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person's, 28
(i)
failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or
(ii)
pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child; the child has suffered physical harm, inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by that person's failure to care and provide for or supervise and protect the child adequately.
(b) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from the above
The Child and Family Services Act is the legal basis for state intervention as it relates to housing (for full terms, see Appendix C). However, since the law is highly interpretive, most child welfare agencies have guidelines for removal of children. Child Removal Guidelines: Ontario Child Welfare Eligibility Spectrum
According the Kawartha Haliburton Children's Aid Society, the Eligibility Spectrum "is a tool designed to assist Children's Aid Society staff in making consistent and accurate decisions about eligibility for service at the time of referral. It assists in interpreting the legal requirements for initial and ongoing child welfare intervention." While there are numerous conditions that can prompt the removal of a child (i.e. physical, sexual, emotional abuse), the following examples apply specifically to the child's place of dwelling, and should be considered when squatting. It should also be noted, however, that if the squat location does not include access to adequate bathing facilities, personal hygiene regulations may also apply. Under Section 2 of the Spectrum, which describes "Neglect of Child's Basic Physical Needs” and "Guidelines for Household Sanitation", the following examples are given as "extremely and moderately neglectful conditions" which could warrant child removal:
29
Household sanitation:
 carpet, tiles, walls, doors, bathroom fixtures are layered with encrusted dirt, debris, food wastes
 human or animal waste prominent
 dust and dirt are layered all over and accumulated in corners
 smell in home of urine/feces/spoilage
 trash & junk piled up & layered throughout floor so it is difficult to get around or creates a hazard to the child's safety
 dishes not washed, family eats off dirty dishes or doesn't use dishes
 perishable foods found spoiled, spoiled foods not discarded
 may be rodent infestation, creeping vermin untreated
 family sleeps on dirty mattresses or on linen black with dirt and soil
Physical Living Conditions:
 leaking gas from stove or heating unit, peeling lead­based paint, recent fire in living quarters or building, hot­water/steam leaks from radiators, exposed or broken electrical wires
 dangerous substances (eg. chemicals) or dangerous objects (eg. guns, weapons) stored in unlocked shelves or cabinets are accessible to child
 no guards on open windows, broken or missing windows, unprotected stairways
 child does not have a place of residence or the family is experiencing acute shelter problems (eg no heat in winter). This may include a family living in non­traditional residence (eg. living in tents, cars, underground garages).
The interpretation of these “child welfare” guidelines is highly subjective. Moreover, because of the political nature / social status of squatting, a squat may be more highly scrutinized by child welfare workers than a more permanent dwelling­place. As such, parents who squat with children may choose to maintain higher levels of cleanliness within the squat as a strategy to avoid harassment.
Process of Removal of Children
In most cases, the removal of a child from parental custody requires a warrant. The inspection of a house by a child welfare worker also requires a warrant. Accordingly, similar procedures for search warrants apply as outlined above (in section B4). 30
However, if the authorities have reasonable grounds to believe that a child is in immediate danger, they can remove the child without a warrant. Usually when a child is removed from parents care, more than one worker from the agency (i.e. Children’s Aid Society) will arrive along with one or two police officers. Often the agency workers will arrive unannounced or will arrive under the pretext of an appointment with the parent(s). In this situation, parents are often very vulnerable and the agency workers may try to convince the parent(s) to sign a document that allows to the agency remove the child. If REMEMBER: NEVER sign a child protection order or any other child custody document without first speaking to a lawyer. you know that an agency worker is coming, try to have another person that you trust be present to act as a witness. If you believe that your child is being removed without legal grounds, you can try to plead your case with the authorities, but you may have to take it up in court. For more information, consult a lawyer.
B9: Legal Info for Immigrants, Refugees & Non­Citizens5 People who are not Canadian citizens are especially vulnerable in dealings with the police and the courts, especially if they are also persons of colour or otherwise identifiable (i.e. accents). Consequences of arrest or conviction can also be more serious for non­citizens. Immigration and refugee laws are very tricky. 5
This section is excerpted from the Ontario Common Front's In the Streets and In the Courts . . .A Legal Guide for Activists. Available online: www.ocap.ca/legalguide 31
The following includes some basic information only on how a criminal conviction could affect you. If you are not a citizen and you are convicted of a crime, it is important to talk to an immigration lawyer or a community legal clinic about your particular situation. Seek legal advice immediately. Definitions A landed immigrant is someone who is a legal and permanent resident of Canada, but who is not yet a citizen (although they can apply to become one after a certain amount of time). A Convention refugee is someone who is seeking to become a landed immigrant based on their status as a refugee under the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees, meaning that they have a fear of persecution in their country of nationality for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Other common types of status in Canada are visitors (with or without tourist visas) and people here on student or business visas for a specific purpose. These people have fewer procedural rights under immigration law than refugees or landed immigrants. People who are in Canada on an undocumented or 'illegal' basis are people who entered without authorization or overstayed a legal visit or visa. Sometimes people are in the process of legalizing their status by applying for landed status on 'humanitarian and compassionate grounds'. These folks are Types of criminal convictions that could cause problems with your immigration status: Type of Criminal Problem
Explanation
You are convicted of two or more ­“summary offences” are crimes generally less serious summary offences
and have less serious penalties attached to them
You are convicted of an indictable or hybrid offence that is punishable by a maximum prison terms of less than ten years
­“indictable offences” are more serious and have bigger / longer penalties
­“hybrid offences” can either be tried as “summary” or “indictable” – it is up to the crown (prosecuting) lawyer or judge
You are convicted of an indictable or ­same as above
hybrid offence that is punishable by 32
a maximum prison term of 10 years or more
You are considered a danger to the ­the immigration officials may see your arrest (even if you public
are not convicted) as making you a potential danger to the pubic in Canada
­the immigration officials may also see your political activities (i.e. in community organizing against bad policing) as making you someone likely to commit a “crime”
You are, or police think you are, a ­even if you are not convicted of a crime, the immigration member of a “gang” or criminal officials could see you as dangerous if they decide you organization
are part of a gang or you participate in a criminal organization
How your status might be affected if you have one of the above criminal problems:
If you are a landed immigrant:
­you may have problems sponsoring family members
­you may be deported
­you may have problems with citizenship application
If you are a Convention Refugee
­you may be deported
­you may have problems with your application for landing
If you are neither landed nor a ­you may be arrested and deported and not allowed to re­
Convention Refugee (i.e. visitor, enter Canada
student or “illegal” / undocumented) ­you may have problems with your application for landing
­you may have problems with an application for Convention Refugee Status
For more information, consult a lawyer.
B10: Legal Information for People with Physical Disabilities & Health Issues6
6
This section is excerpted / modified from the Ontario Common Front's In the Streets and In the Courts . . .A Legal Guide for Activists. Available online: www.ocap.ca/legalguide 33
The physical and health needs of everyone should be considered when preparing to squat. Especially in arrest situations, people with physical disabilities and health issues may require additional support. Be prepared prior to arrest: medication These are things you can do to better your chances of getting any medication or medical treatment you need when dealing with police. Even though it is your right, you have no guarantees of getting the medical attention you need, especially in the time immediately after your arrest. If you are taking medication, the best way to ensure that you will get it is to do all of the following:  Have the medication with you (or in an easily accessibly place) in its original bottle. If your medication is over the counter, even if it can save your life, you may not receive it if the bottle does not have your name on it. If you can, go to a clinic or pharmacist and ask them to make up a bottle with the instructions and your name on it for you. If you are being arrested in the squat, you can request someone to get your medication to bring to the police station.
 Keep a copy of your prescription with you. 
Get a letter beforehand from your doctor outlining what your meds are and how often you take them (sample letters are available from the OCAP website: www.ocap.ca/legalguide/healthlegal.htm). If you need to self­administer your medication make sure that it is clearly outlined in the letter. If you have food allergies include that in the letter.
It is also a good idea to have copies of the letter and prescriptions with someone who is not at the squat. If you have a legal support person arranged beforehand, you may choose to sign a release form with your doctor so your legal support worker or lawyer can access your files. You will have to name the person you are giving access to as well as what they can access in the release. Do not put someone on the release who you do not think will act in your best interest. Keep your information private unless it is necessary to give it officials to help you. Also, be aware that you may be targeted based on your medication. If you are taking medication that police will recognize (e.g. AZT, testosterone / estrogen, or anti­psych meds) you could be put at risk, and in the case of anti­psych meds, you could be psychologically profiled. It is your call. If you will not go into immediate or serious 34
withdrawal from not having your meds, and expect to get out quite quickly (i.e. you don't have a criminal record, outstanding charges, are a citizen, have an address and do not anticipate being arrested for serious charges), you may choose not to tell the police about your medication. Do what you think is safest for and best for you.
Arrest, Detention and Jail In many police departments, (including Peterborough and Toronto), police do not have special training to respond to people with disabilities. This can lead to the extremely unjust treatment of people with disabilities as a result of police prejudice, ignorance and inexperience. If you have your medications on you, point them out to the officer when you are being booked. State how often you need them and the dosage. Canes, braces, wheel chairs, hearing aids, and prosthetic limbs will be removed from you when you are booked. Depending on the police division, procedure will vary as to whether or not your personal aid devices are transported with you. If you are forced to do something that is difficult, painful or impossible for you to do without your personal aid device, insist upon having access to it. Don't be belligerent, but make it clear you won't cooperate unless you have what you need. For example, if the cops attempt to make you walk without your cane, insist you be carried rather than experience more pain. If you are sent to court without your hearing aid make it known that you are not being granted your right to participate in your bail hearing. If you are arrested with others, solidarity (i.e. cooperative group pressure tactics) can be used to help you to get access to what you need. You will probably be able to access your personal aid devices if you are sent to jail. You wouldn't be able to use things like canes or crutches in the range (area where they keep a group of prisoners) so you would be put in segregation or, more likely, only have access to them when you leave the range. You probably won't have access to braces if they contain metal that cannot be removed. For more info, speak to a disability rights lawyer.
35
B11: Legal information for Psychiatric Survivors & People with Mental Health Issues7 Psychiatric survivors and people with mental health issues should be aware of Bill­68. Otherwise known as "Brian's Law," this bill is another undemocratic law passed by the Mike Harris government on December 1, 2001. It's based on the myth/stereotype of the violent mental patient and is designed to target and criminalize people who are considered "undesirable", troublesome or dissident by the Harris government. Because squatting frequently results in arrest, squatters will mental health issues need to be aware that such encounters with police may increase their chances of being subjected to Bill­68.
A community treatment order (CTO) is a key part of Bill­68. Any doctor can sign a community treatment order on any person if they have been locked up and treated in a psychiatric facility on at least two occasions for a total of 30 days during the last 3 years. A CTO lasts for 6 months, and can be renewed indefinitely. A CTO is inherently coercive. Once signed by a doctor, it is used to force people to take mind­altering drugs (i.e. antidepressants and neuroleptics) and/or electroshock and to incarcerate them in psychiatric facilities. If a person under a CTO violates its conditions ­ by, for example, refusing to keep a doctor's appointment or refusing to take prescribed drugs ­ they can be locked up again, or forcibly drugged in the community by an Assertive Community Treatment Team (ACTT) ­ psychiatric police consisting of a psychiatrist, nurse, social worker and psychologist. Also under Bill­68, police do not have to see someone conducting themselves in a "disorderly manner;" they only need to be informed by someone else of the occurrence. They can then take the person, using force, to a psychiatric facility. If you are on psych meds, please refer to the section on medication in the physical health part of this guide (section B10). Also, you should be aware that if you are arrested, you will not likely receive your meds right away. You could go into withdrawal, which will have a very serious impact on your mental health and decision­making abilities. Regardless of your mental health history, if you have psych meds with you, you could be targeted by the police and/or psychiatrically evaluated. For more information, see these web sites: 7
This section is excerpted / modified from the Ontario Common Front's In the Streets and In the Courts . . A Legal Guide for Activists. Source cited: Don Weitz and “The No Force Coalition.”) Available online: www.ocap.ca/legalguide 36
People Against Coercive Treatment: www.tao.ca/~pact/index2.html
Queen Street Patients Council (now the Queen Street Outreach Society): www.qsos.ca
MindFreedom: www.mindfreedom.org
B12: Strategies to deal with the law
In the preceding section, the consequences of the law have been outlined. Knowing about the law and having a strategy to deal with the law are not necessarily the same thing. Below are four strategies to consider. Remember that every squat is different and you should strategize according to the specific context you are in.
Avoid the Law: Squat and Don't Get Caught
This strategy is probably the most effective in terms of securing housing for practical needs. For example, the Mad Housers of Atlanta, Georgia have been very successful in covert squatting techniques. Erecting plywood "hut" shelters in discrete locations on private property, the Mad Housers have been able to maintain these squats over lengthy periods (in some cases up to four years) before landowners remove them. For squatting of permanent buildings, keeping a low profile may be more challenging. Since the easiest way to avoid charges is to keep on the move, this strategy may mean that the duration of each squat is very short. The best way to avoid the law is to be discrete about the squat, and to try to obtain advance warning if the police are planning to arrive. If, for example, you get notice from the landowner that they want to evict you, packing up and leaving before he or she arrives with police may be your best bet. Minimizing contact with neighbours will also lessen the chances of being identified and later charged.
On the other hand, if you are squatting a building where it is unlikely that the landowner will find out (e.g. the land owner lives out of town and does not visit the building often), acting as if you have every right to be on the premises can also help to avoid the law. Introducing yourselves to the neighbours as the new tenants next door (without giving them your real name), can create a sense of legitimacy to your possession of the place. Particularly if you fix up the building and demonstrate that you are trying to take care of the place, you may be able to develop good relations with your neighbours such that they will not report you even if they do find out that you are squatting.
Publicly Defy the Law: Politicize the Squat
This strategy involves gaining public support for the squat. This could mean drawing media attention to the squat, making public statements and issuing demands for 37
housing rights. The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty in Toronto, for example, and the Comité des Sans­Emploi (Committee of the Unemployed) in Montreal have both squatted in very public ways ­ announcing to the media that a squat will take place, taking over a building in full media view and then trying to garner wide public support in order to dissuade the police from shutting down the squat. Such public support can sometimes deter the police from intervening ­­ especially if large crowds are present.
The Mad Housers, noted above, have also erected their shelters in public places and publicized them to gain support. In some cases, property owners like church congregations have "adopted" the squats, even providing food and support for the squatters (see article by Phillips & Hamilton in Section F5) Public support can also be used for political bargaining power to obtain specific demands. Recently in Montreal, for example, squatters bargained for free building from the city to house homeless people in exchange for leaving another already­squatted building (see case study example in Section F6).
Continual reoccupation can be another component of this strategy. This means that every time you are evicted, forced out or asked to vacate a premise, you leave for a short period of time and then quickly reoccupy. Sometimes the process of removal becomes so frustrating for authorities, eventually they give up and let you stay. The San Francisco branch of Homes Not Jails, for example, has used the strategy of reoccupation very successfully to prevent abandoned buildings from being demolished (see article by Corr in Section F5).
Contest the Law: Argue Your Case in Court
Given that going to court is a costly and time­consuming exercise that requires the expertise of a good lawyer, and since the structure of the courts generally favours property owners, many squatters prefer to avoid court if at all possible. Moreover, since this strategy is employed after charges have been laid and you have been removed from a squat, you will still likely have housing needs to be met, at the same time as you are dealing with court proceedings. However, since many squatters face charges at some point, using legal arguments often becomes a strategy by necessity.
If you can find a lawyer who is willing to take on your case, or you are prepared to argue the case yourself (many activists have been quite successful in this regard), the court option may be worth pursuing, especially if it results in a positive precedent that future cases would have to follow. Sometimes, you can win a case on a technicality (like the police did not follow proper procedures and the evidence against you is thrown out). Other times, there may be insufficient evidence for a conviction. Moreover, just because you were arrested on certain terms doesn’t mean those charges will stick: charges against squatters are often reduced or dismissed. 38
 Human Rights Legal Argument based on “Colour of right" One legal argument to consider is that you squatted out of necessity for survival. This can be tied to what is called a "colour of right" argument – where one argues that you had a legitimate reason to act as you did. Here the squatter would argue “a reasonable belief” that he or she was legally entitled to the land or property squatted. This argument has been used successfully in the past to win Aboriginal land claims. In the case of squatting, the argument can be made that since adequate housing is a basic human right, homeless people are entitled to make homes from unused property. This argument was made in a recent case involving a squat in Toronto by the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP), using section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (for details, see R. vs. Clarke noted in Section E3.) . Canadian Charger of Rights and Freedoms:
Section 7: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
In the OCAP case, the Charter argument failed because the individual who was charged was not actually homeless, so the need for housing was not deemed “acute.” The court also ruled that there was insufficient evidence to argue that section 7 of the charter includes the right to housing. Unfortunately, neither the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights, nor the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
Article 11: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize 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.
Ontario Human Rights Code explicitly identify housing as a basic human right. However, Canada is a signatory to the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights that declares the right to housing: Though there are legal difficulties in using international law at the domestic level, it is possible that this covenant right could be used in future court proceedings. 39
Change the Law: Lobby the Government
Like the court strategy, government lobbying will do little to secure immediate housing needs in the near future. Moreover, most of the necessary legislative changes (e.g. reinstatement of the adverse possession clause in the Land Title Act) are unlikely to be widely supported by the public. However, incorporating a lobbying strategy into your squat may prove an effective tactic. Lobbying the government for publicly funding housing, rent controls and tenant rights is worth pursuing over the long term.
SECTION C: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
C1: How to find a place8 Finding an empty building is generally pretty easy. Most urban areas are full of empty buildings ranging from totally destroyed shells to perfectly liveable places that have nothing wrong with them. Smaller cities and towns may have fewer options, but there are likely still places available. If you want to squat a government building, you can go to city hall and request to see the list of all government­owned buildings in town, and then check to see if any are empty.
If you are working in a group with a large urban area to cover, it can be helpful to take a map and divide it into sections for each person to search. Empty buildings can then be marked on the map and tracked for how long they remain empty.
The best way to find a building is to simply walk around the streets and look for the signs. Is there mail overflowing from the letterbox? An overgrown garden ? Broken and/
or boarded­up windows and doors ? Is the power off ? (check at the electricity meter). If unsure, try placing a match up right in front of the door / entrance. Come back later to see if the match has moved. You also might ask around the neighbourhood if anyone is living in a place that seems empty. Post office staff, letter carriers, local shop owners and neighbours can be good 8
The following is excerpted/modified from the "UK Advisory Service for Squatters" available online: www.squat.freeserve.co.uk and "The Squatter's Handbook" Millenarian Edition: Sydney, Australia. Available online: http://squat.net/shac/handbk.txt
40
sources of information. It may help if you make out that you're looking to rent the place (e.g., for use by a housing co­op, or an artists studio). Or perhaps you can pose a student doing a geography project ­­ ­ be inventive and plausible. Being honest with the neighbours and local residents about your intentions may be just as successful. If you decide to be honest, explain your case. Give the neighbours some figures on how many people are homeless and/or are on the waiting list for public housing and unable to find affordable housing in the private rental market. Tell them how you came to be in the situation you're in. You may also choose not to speak to the neighbours until after you’ve moved in, and then present your case to them to try to get support.
C2: Researching Buildings: Who owns it? 9
Why do this research?
It is important to know who owns the building you want to squat, and what the owner intends to do with it. This research will not only tell you who owns a building, but also it’s history. Through this process you should be able to tell if there are outstanding debts or work orders on the property. You should also be able to tell some of the history of the building, like how long it has been empty or to whom it has been leased. All of this information can help legitimize your claim that the building should be used for housing. Knowledge of who owns that place, and what plans they have for it, is important for a number of reasons : 1) As discussed above (in Section B2) it is only the owner or representative of the owner (or the person apparently in charge) who is actually authorized to ask you to leave the place once you've settled in. So it is good to know who that person is so you can ask the police under whose orders they are acting. Generally speaking, the police cannot just turn up without prior direction from the owner and throw you out. 2) Different owners are likely to respond to squatters in different ways and these differences need to be taken into account if (and when) you negotiate with them to stay. A multi­national corporation or a government department with a fragile public­
image, for example, is much more likely to be vulnerable to the threat of a negative media campaign than a small time property investor. 9
This section is excerpted / modified from the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP)’s “Guide to Researching Buildings: For Squatting and Other Actions.” Available online: www.ocap.ca/property_research.doc
41
3) A knowledge of the history and intended future of the building will help you to realistically evaluate the risks and benefits of squatting there. However, don't make the mistake of assuming that an approved building permit will necessarily translate into any actual development of the building. Property investors (corporate­
governmental or otherwise) indefinitely shelve approved building permits all the time for a variety of reasons. Getting Started
Before you begin you will need to know the exact address of the building you're investigating and the council municipality the building is part of. An easy first step is to check the letterbox and/or debris around the place for signs of the owner. You also might ask the neighbours if they know about the owner. Once you have the address, you can access city records. This investigation process can be confusing and intimidating, especially in larger cities. Don’t let this deter you. Aside from generally being chaotic, the records are in the process of being computerized in many areas. Some properties will be easy to find on a computer, but most will be found using paper records. Be prepared to spend ½ a day to a full day (even more on really complicated properties) when you get started. When you’re first learning the system you’ll have to ask staff lots of questions as so much of the research is about knowing where everything is. Also, be prepared to spend some cash. Photocopies are incredibly expensive in the offices some times they charge you to see the books.
Find out who owns the building
Go to city hall and approach a friendly looking staff member. Tell them what you're looking for (the current owner of a building) and ask them if they have recent computer records about the property.
You should also ask if any building permits have been applied for the premises within the last five years or so. You can also ask if there have been any re­zoning or redevelopment changes in the area. The city staff should be able to give you basic information concerning all of the development applications that have been lodged, and 42
When asking questions, if you are a bit too feisty or are suspected to be wanting this information for illegitimate reasons, that staff may ask you why you are trying to find all this out. Have a story ready ­ perhaps that you are part of a registered housing co­op looking to acquire a building or some property ­ but don't feel obliged to use it. You cannot be denied access to this kind of basic planning information. If the city staff do not have the relevant information, make sure they direct you to someone who does. Be assertive in your consumption of approved or refused, for the building. Make sure that you ask for the details about these permits and whether the building is (partly or wholly) heritage listed or registered as an item of environmental significance. This information could prove very useful later on if you are faced with eviction. If there are computers for this purpose it should be really straightforward: otherwise get on of the nice folks who works there to show you what to do. You can skip this step as you will find out the information later on, but this is the easiest way to eliminate undesirable buildings.
Write down who owns the building, as well as the estimated tax value of the building and its legal designation. The legal designation is how you will later find the book number. It usually is something like: P815 R32 Lt16. If there is no legal designation, don’t sweat it, you can find it later.
Investigate the owner:
If the building is owned by a private person:
You can research them on the internet ­­ canada411.com can get you their phone number, which may be useful. Do more extensive research if this definitely the building you want and information about the individual is really important. If the building is owned by the city:
You can get more information by going to city records or talking to the city planner.
If the building is owned by a corporation:
Unless you recognize the name of the corporation as one that is still operating, do a corporate search on them. Go to the nearest Ministry of Consumer and Community Affairs and type in the name of the corporation into one of the public computer terminals. If the corporation is dissolved, all of its property, technically, goes to the province, or the crown. Confirm this information in the land registry office because it is the most up to date, but there is a chance that the crown owns the property but both it and the city are unaware of this fact.
If the EPL is suspended or withdrawn, the Extra­Provincial License is no longer active and they cannot act as a corporation in Ontario. If the corporation is still active, you can do additional research, such as finding their annual general report.
43
In the case of the Pope Squat in Toronto, the property was owned by a numbered corporation that failed to pay its corporate renewal fee 3 years in a row and was dissolved in 1994. As a result, the property automatically went to the government but the crown never actually recognized its ownership. It was enough legal limbo to keep the squatters from eviction.
If you are still interested in targeting the building, continue on in the guide. Otherwise, scout for other buildings and start the process again.
Find the book number:
In Ontario, building information is kept in large books. City staff write down whenever there is any change to property status. In order to access this information, you have to find out which book it is in.
If you were able to get the legal designation, skip ahead to part (c). In order to find the book, you need the plan number ant the lot number. This is the most confusing part of the process so we recommend that you find a nice person to show you how to do it. Here is an overview though.
(a) Go to the Land Registry building and find a microfiche which has a binder with a bunch of green transparency­like cards in it. In Toronto, there are several binders with green cards in it; one for each municipality. Make sure you are looking at the right binder for whatever municipality you are searching in. This will be on the binder as well as on the card in the upper right hand corner next to MUN:. If your town is small enough, there will probably only be one binder. This is the Street Index, organized alphabetically. There are street names on the tops of the cards. Take the card that corresponds with the street you are looking for. E.g. if your street is Springhurst Street, you would take the card that starts with the letter S.
Put the card in the microfiche and find your street name. The street names are listed alphabetically in the middle of the columns with a bunch of letters to the left of them. Once you have found your street, write down the MAP, SUB, PARCEL, and P/S 44
numbers to the left of your street name. These numbers are called the Assignment Role and will help you find the next card.
(b) Find a binder that has red cards in it. Use the MAP number to find the correct card. The number will be on the top of the card. Put that card into the microfiche and look at the top of the boxes for the SUB number. Once you find the right box using the SUB number, you can either look for the PARCEL number (on the left hand side) or just scan it for your street number and name.
You will now be looking in a section devoted to the property you have been searching, listing the owner and a PLAN number underneath the name. Keep in mind that these are dated, so the owner might not be accurate. Write down this number. This is the number you will use to look up what book of records your property is in. WHAT THE TERMS MEAN:
(c) Now you have the plan number, (also called the map number) and the lot number, you can find the book number. There should be a binder or folder with different plan Registration Number is essentially the file number. All of the instruments are filed in alpha­numeric numbers in numeric order. Find the plan you need and look for the corresponding book. order.
Be sure that you get the current book number, as opposed to older books. Once you know the book number, go find it in the shelves. Instrument Type is essentially the kind of document the instrument or file is.
What does the information in the book mean?
Registration Date is the date that the instrument was filed.
The book looks something like this:
Parties From is whom the transfer or document is coming from. Sometimes this is called Grantor.
Registration
Instrument Registration
Parties
Parties
Parties Is to whom it is going to. Sometimes this is called grantee.
Number
Type
Date
From
To
Consideration is the amount of money that is involved.
CA103986
Order
95/09/03
City of Oz
J.C. Brown
Conside­
ration
Land/
Remarks
Lot 2
CA103987
Lien
95/09/03
City of Oz
5,668.23
CA103986
Land/Remarks is sometimes the lot number, the instrument it is related to, or relevant comments.
The book will give you a general picture of the status and history of the property. However, in order to get a more detailed idea, you need to look up individual instruments. Start at the most recent entry and go backwards, noting all of the instruments of interest to you. For some buildings you will want to get all of the instruments for the last 15 or 20 years. The different instrument types mean:
Order is a demand by the city to repair or alter something on the property. This is usually due to building code violations.
Assignment is when a mortgage, or part of a mortgage, has been bought by a different party than originally held it. This is an investment into the property.
Mort or Mortgage is a loan that has been taken out which uses the property as collateral.
Certificate is usually statement from the city saying that it owes back taxes. It may be used in other ways as well.
Stat Decl is a statutory declaration. The only times we have seen it is when the city is warning a 45
property owner that it will seize the property if the owner doesn’t pay the taxes owed. Lien is put on a property when the owner owes a sum of money to someone. The property cannot be sold unless the lean is paid off.
Notice is a notification that a lease has been granted.
Once you have all of the files, sit down and try to piece all of your information together. The files can be hard to understand at first, but once you have read a bunch of them it gets easier.
Good luck. Once you know how to do this information, you can uncover information that you would not be able to obtain otherwise. Note / Disclaimer: The following is for informational purposes and does not promote or advocate illegal action. C3: Getting in10
Often this will be the easiest part (though the most legally risky). Most of the places that are squattable have been left empty for some time and there will be broken or unlocked 10
The following is excerpted / modified from the “UK Advisory Service for Squatters” available online: www.squat.freeserve.co.uk and “The Squatter’s Handbook” Millenarian Edition: Sydney, Australia. Available online: http://squat.net/shac/handbk.txt
46
windows and doors. Sometimes local kids may be using the place to sleep if they've runaway and/or are homeless. Other times people may have been inside and stripped the place of its fittings for resale. Sometimes the owner has deliberately damaged the house to ward off potential squatters. Check all of the obvious access points ­ doors, windows, skylights, holes covered by board or tin etc ­ to see if they allow you entry into the building. Kids or people looking to find stuff to sell may have already opened one of the windows or doorways and in so doing saved you from a lot of work. The less physical work you have to do to get in, the better your legal chances of not getting charged with forcible entry or mischief to property.
If the place still seems fairly secure after checking it out, then you will need to get a bit more tricky. Slat windows can be easily pulled out of their frames in most cases. Old style windows with rotating latches can often be opened by slipping the latches with a knife. Some of the newer type sliding windows can be pulled out of their frames ­ try pushing the window up in its frame. If all else fails you may be forced to break a window. If you end up having to do this, make sure that you clean up afterwards and repair the window as soon as possible. Ordinary door latches can be overcome with a crowbar and a screwdriver. Deadlocks are a bit more difficult, but not impossible to deal with. You may need 2 or 3 people, a crowbar and/or screwdrivers. Pry the door from the doorway and use screwdrivers to force the lock tongue and the deadlock button back into the lock. Then the door should be able to be opened. It’s also worth being careful of glass panels when prying doors.
Roofs are another access option. Once you are up on the roof, remove a few tiles and enter into the place through a ceiling hatch (most homes have small cubby holes at the ceilings of rooms which connect to the attic and roof). If there is more than one of you then have someone keep lookout while getting in.
If you think that someone might suspect your motives or is intently watching you it is probably best to leave, remove 47
any tools from yourself and the building, and then come back another time. Noisy entry work may attract attention, so go there at inconspicuous times like on a weekday. People are much more wary of noise at night. Stay calm. Dressing in overalls or work uniform (or suits!) may help divert some of the attention of others and keep you focused on the task at hand. Remember that you can be charged with break­and­enter if the police catch you in the process of entering the building ­ especially if you have got tools on you. If you do happen to get arrested and charged with break­and­enter, don't tell the police anything (apart from your name if you choose) until you get legal advice (See above ­­ Section B for more details).
If you are opening a squat as a public action, then you can surround the building with supporters so that the actual squatters who enter the building are not visible. However, this strategy is only appropriate in cases where the squatters are aware of the legal consequences.
C4: Securing your new home
Locks
The first thing you should do to secure your new home, is change all the locks on the building. It is best if you can change the locks yourself (home improvement books at the library can assist you with this) since some suspicions may arise from locksmiths, depending on the situation. Particularly in small towns were there may only be a few locksmiths in the vicinity, and where rumours spread rapidly, having the locks changed professionally might blow your cover. While changing the locks can constitute mischief to property charges, it is generally worth the risk. Not only do locks create a physical barrier, which can delay police encounters, it is a safety precaution for those in the household, especially if you are squatting with children. Depending on how public you make the squat, other people who need housing may want to join the squat, and you will need to decide how open your new home will be. This is an issue to carefully consider before you undertake the project of squatting: Will the squat be open to others? Is the squat restricted to a particular group of people (e.g. Is it a "safe space" for children?) Are there certain rules that you want members of the 48
household to abide by? These are issues that should be decided prior to the squat and will depend largely on whether you are seeking a place for yourself, you and your family or friends, or for the community at large.
Mail
Send a letter addressed to yourself in your new home (or better, get someone else to send you mail). This can go a long way in asserting your legitimacy to live there. Sometimes an addressed letter can be sufficient proof for officials (police, city bureaucrats, telephone service providers, heat and gas companies etc) that you live there. Make sure that there is someone staying at the squat as much as possible, especially during the first few weeks, when suspicions may arise. If you are not around, the owner may simply remove all your belongings and change the locks. If you are continually on the premises, however, and you refuse to leave, the process for removal is more difficult. If you don't want anyone to know that you live there, try to be discrete. Otherwise, make the place as liveable as possibly. Making improvements to the building can help garner support from the community for you to stay there.
C5: Setting up services: water, electricity, gas & telephone
Services such as electricity, water and gas cannot be legally denied to you as long as the wiring and plumbing etc is still intact. To get them connected, all that is usually required is a phone call to the appropriate company and sometimes a work or estate agent number as a character reference. Corporate service providers sometimes make it difficult for squatters to have access to these services so, again, be assertive and demand access if need be. Try not to tell the corporate service providers that you are squatting and always check (and where possible, repair) plumbing and wiring before applying for connection. If they are making it difficult for you to have access to services, an assertive reminder of department policy will often help. Always check and where possible, repair the plumbing and wiring before applying for a connection (check out home repair books at the library) . If parts are damaged beyond what you are capable of learning to repair, and services are unavailable until repairs are made, then you may need the services of a tradesperson. Try not to let trades people 49
know that you are squatting because they may assume that you aren't going to pay them and refuse you service.
Water
The water is usually connected. If it isn't, find the mains/water meter tap (usually at the front or back of the building) and turn the tap on. This is usually all that is needed to restore the water to the building. If not, call up the corporate water provider in your area, open an account and get the water turned back on. This means that every month you will have to pay for a bill for water consumption. The owner should be paying water rates on the premises. However, some owners who leave buildings empty also neglect to pay rates. Failure to pay rates will often result in the water being turned off at the mains. If this is the case, the corporate water provider will usually reconnect it if you agree to pay off some of the outstanding bill. Alternatively, you may be able to negotiate to pay the rates for the amount of time that you are there. This will probably mean explaining that you are squatting and have no contact with the owner. If you are in contact with the owner and they won't pay the rates, then you may be able to negotiate an arrangement to pay it, perhaps on the assurance that you can stay there for a certain period of time. If an agreement to stay and pay some rates is made between you and the owner, get it confirmed in writing as it could be used as evidence of an implied license for you to stay until the end of the agreed period. Electricity If the wiring is okay then you have a legal right to electricity. Sometimes you will have to provide ID and something to prove that you are a legitimate resident (such as a lease). Here, a good story (e.g., busy moving in and need to warm the baby's bottle and need electricity TODAY!) will often go a long way and get you connected without ID. The situation with getting the electricity connected will vary from corporate provider to corporate provider. Call them up anonymously with a hypothetical example (I'm about to move in to a place that needs the power to be put on. What will I need to do and what kind of ID will I need to provide etc ? ) to see what is required. If it turns out that the electricity cannot be turned on for example, due to an irreparable damaged main fuse box then don't despair. Solar cells, car batteries, candles and kerosene heaters (used responsibly) can all making life easier without main electricity. Be creative! 50
Gas
Just as renters usually do not have to provide proof of a rental agreement to obtain gas, squatters should also be able to obtain gas without proof. As with electricity providers, if the gas pipes and furnace are in good shape, then the company should be obliged to connect you at your request. Telephone
If all of the lines are still intact, an account can be organized by phone. If there has been damage, then a time can be made for some company employees to come and reinstall the line. Costs vary according to the extent of the damage and the amount of work that they have to do. Usually, however, it is quite expensive. Setting up a new phone account usually costs about $60. It helps to make a hypothetical call in order to sound out what the particular corporate provider will require in terms of ID, address details and deposit etc. In some cases, especially if you are likely to change squat locations, a cell phone may be less expensive.
C6: Maintaining your place
While there are exceptions, most empty houses are old and sometimes their essential facilities are in need of repair. In most cases, however, the problems aren't very big and you will find that you can do them yourself without having to pay tradesperson to do it for you. If the squat is part of a public action, try asking local trade unions to assist with repairs and renovation costs. Other supporters may be willing to donate their time, labour and skills. For do­it­yourself plumbing and general maintenance work, check out the local library for a guide to home repairs. C7: Barriers to Women, Children & "High Risk" Groups
Many social, physical and practical barriers can prevent people from choosing squatting as a means to secure housing. If a squat is largely inhabited by drug users, for example, children may not be safe in the squat. Or if the building that is squatted does not have adequate ventilation, a person with asthma may not be able to live there. Women, parents with children, people with physical disabilities and those with mental health issues are some people who have historically faced barriers to squatting. For some people, squatting is not a good idea, but for others, it is possible to remove barriers in order to make the squat more accessible. In some cased, certain groups of people may 51
want to set up squats based on group needs (like a squat for families or a squat for women). Some issues to consider: Safety: Squats are not always safe places. There are many physical and emotional issues to consider, ranging from the physical structure of the house (e.g. broken stairways) protection of the squat from unwanted intruders (including police), protection inside from other squatters and safety from abuse. Safety and security mean different things to different people and the needs of everyone should be considered. Those who have experienced physical or sexual abuse may have additional safety needs. For example, if a woman is squatting because she has left an abusive relationship, it may be necessary to keep the location of the squat a secret to protect her from being stalked. When planning the squat, try to consider the following:  What are the specific safety needs of everyone who is squatting?  What can be done to improve safety and comfort levels?
Stability: Some people (especially children and individuals with certain mental health issues) require greater consistency of housing than others. The more temporary a squat, the less likely that some individuals will be able to live there. Make plans to provide back­
up housing for those who are especially vulnerable. Using a buddy system for emotional needs (pairing up with another person to provide help to each other) can also create a more supportive living environment.
Children's needs: To avoid “child protection” intervention, squatters with children will have to be careful to ensure that the squat is clean, safe and well maintained. Plans should also be in place to deal with children in the event of a police or child­welfare intervention. Agreed sharing of child­care can also help make squats more kid­friendly.
52
Protection of privacy / individual's belongings: Respect for other peoples' space and privacy may be an issue, particularly if the squatters do not know each other. Collective ground rules and designated personal space may help reduce interpersonal tensions.
Drugs and Alcohol
Deciding about rules (or no rules) with respect to drug and alcohol use at the squat can be a contentious issue. Some people will feel very strongly that there should be no substance use/abuse at the squat whereas other may feel equally as strong that such rules are oppressive. It is important to talk through these issues and consider everyone’s needs in the situation. Sometimes it can be helpful to designate areas of the squat that are “drug­free zones” or conversely, set aside a “rule­free” room
Arrest / Police Brutality / Chemical Weapons: The impact of arrest situations on high­risk groups should also be considered. As noted above (in Section B5), squatting often results in police intervention, and sometimes this includes exposure to violence and chemical weapons. As a result some individuals may not want to squat for fear of exposure to chemical weapons. Although these factors should be carefully considered before squatting, legal and medical training for all squatters can help prepare people for these situations and increase comfort levels. Finding legal observers, photographers and video recorders to monitor the police can also reduce the likelihood of police misconduct. Call the media when the police arrive. If police know that their actions are being recorded, they may be less aggressive.
It is also important to think about who is most vulnerable to arrest. If there are people who will face more severe consequences if arrested (i.e. non­citizens and those with criminal records) you may want to devise a plan to minimize their chances of arrest. There are many factors to consider when organizing a squat so that it is widely accessible and meets to the needs of everyone. Do not assume that everyone else's needs are the same as yours. Collective planning and open discussion of these issues can help improve squat accessibility. 53
SECTION D: THREE SQUAT STORIES
The following stories are three examples of squats that were organized as public actions for affordable housing. Though most squatters take buildings quietly and covertly, these cases demonstrate the political effectiveness of publicly organized squatting. The stories are excerpted from independent news sources (listed below) – and it is worth checking out the full stories for more details.
D1: The Overdale Squat in Montreal, 2001
The following story is excerpted / modified from reports by Jaggi Singh. The full reports are published on the Indymedia Montreal website through the Quebec Alternative Media Center (CMAQ). For the full story, see: http://montreal.indymedia.org
Housing Action Re­Appropriates Empty Building in Downtown Montreal Saturday, July 28, 2001 ­­­ Report by Jaggi Singh
Over 500 people marched through downtown Montreal to kick of the squatting action organized by le Comité des sans­emploi (the Committee of the Unemployed), an anti­
poverty group based in the low­income Centre­Sud neighbourhood.
Arriving at the squat location, several people started ripping off the wooden boarding, while other tools ­­ ladders, hammers, crowbars ­­ were used to enter and secure the space. Very quickly, as hundreds gathered around, the building was occupied, and many began to attach banners, placards, as well as spray­paint slogans and images, onto the re­appropriated building. Two local groups, Food Not Bombs and the People’s Potato, organized an outdoor kitchen, and a collective meal was soon prepared, including lots of boiled corn­on­the­
cob (which was husked on the spot). During the demo and squat opening, there was a constant police presence, but at a distance. There were several police vans nearby, as well as uniformed bike cops, but compared to other similar protests, the police intervention was low­key. The late­night news has reported one arrest, but none was observed at the squat itself. At the end of the day, at least 100 people still remain at the three­story historic building in downtown Montreal. Squat participants continue to clean and re­decorate the newly re­appropriated building, located just south of Rene­Levesque Boulevard, on Overdale Street, near an upscale shopping and hotel district. 54
Squat Enters Third Night
Monday, July 30 – Report by Jaggi Singh
The squatters, who’ve indicated that they’re staying for the long haul, have slowly transformed what some mainstream media outlets have called a “former mansion” that has remained abandoned for over 10 years. All three floors of the squatted building, as well as the basement, have been cleaned and claimed by the dozens of people who are sleeping there each night. A generator, donated by a local student group for the week, is providing electricity, while several pieces of furniture have been moved in. The outdoor facade of the building has been transformed into a colourful mélange of graffiti, images and slogans, while the roof of the building has a constant presence of squatters casually keeping watch. A sturdy homemade ladder acts as a stairwell between floors. Building and fire inspectors were allowed to enter the premises, and their sole recommendation was to create a second exit in case of fire. Otherwise, by all appearances, the building is structurally sound.
Hanging out at the site, which includes a large parking lot, there is the occasional sound of hammering and sawing, low­volume music in the background, as well as a constant stream of visitors bringing food and water, or transporting furniture, wood and other useful items. There are dozens of small groups of people at the site, conversing about all kinds of topics, planning together aspects of the squat, eating and drinking, playing soccer and frisbee, or trying to sneak in a quick nap. The squatters are mainly teens and twenty­somethings, but there are also a few kids, as well as several older folks. In particular, the squat enjoys the presence of local activist Jacqueline, a seventy­something who has slept each night at the squat so far.
The squat has organized volunteer squads to deal with security, food and clean up, and there are contingency plans being discussed at large assemblies in case the police decide to move in, as well as to collectively decide other issues. To date, the police have indicated through the media that they will not make a move unless demanded by the building’s landlord, although they’ve maintained a constant presence near the squat. At times, there are as many as five or six police watching from a distance in the parking lot. Last night, a video on the Battle of Overdale (the struggle in the late 1980s to protect a block of housing surrounding the current squat) was shown on a large outdoor screen, and some squatters and supporters are talking about an ongoing Cinema Squat film series. 55
Squat Continues under Threat of Police Eviction
Wednesday, August 1, 2001 – Report by Jaggi Singh
After remaining silent since Friday, the building’s landowner, Robert Landau and his company Grinch Realities (no joke!), officially applied for a notice of eviction with the City of Montreal. In 1988, Landau, along with his then­partner Douglas Cohen, razed over 100 low­income units on the site where the squat is now located (known as Overdale Street). The current squatted building was only saved due to its historical significance, while the rest of the property became what is still today a large parking lot. The squat building has been abandoned and unused for almost 13 years until last Friday's housing action. A meeting was held at the YWCA across from the squat between a delegation of squatters and city officials ­­ including a police representative, and mayor Pierre Bourque himself. The squatters had decided to accept the meeting with the Mayor after a long discussion within a general assembly, but insisted on a site away from City Hall or the squat itself (to avoid a media spectacle), and also clearly insisted that all decisions would be made within future assemblies rather than by any small group of individuals. At the meeting, the mayor verbally informed the squat delegation of a possible eviction by police. Eventually, the mayor did make an offer of re­housing all squatters who needed lodging within social housing, as well as considering creating a housing coop with squat participants at another building owned by the city. The mayor's offer to the squatters was immediately criticized by housing activists and squat participants. Some noted that the offer of housing in existing units does not create new housing, and insidiously displaces other people who have been waiting for those same units. According to statistics cited by the Comité des sans­emploi and the housing group FRAPRU, there are least 8500 households on the waiting list for social housing in Montreal. Other housing groups estimate that there are 15,000 homeless in the city. The coop offer was also problematic for many, with many squatters seeing the proposal as a way of avoiding the main issue of squatter's rights. The mayor's offer, while reported positively by some mainstream sources, did not interest most of the squatters. In a general assembly held in the evening, which included a long discussion of various of options, the decision was eventually made to ask for more details about the mayor's proposal, including specifics about the actual future coop building. 56
In it's five days of existence, the Overdale squat has essentially become a community gathering space: lots of punk youth, lots of local organizers and activists, lots of supporters from all kinds of backgrounds, several kids, many dogs, and many, many curious visitors, including the media. “Historic” Victory for Squatters Amidst Police Intervention
Thursday, August 2, 2001 – Report by Jaggi Singh
Another large city­owned building offered by the Mayor's office was accepted by the squatters under their own conditions ­­ which includes an amnesty from criminal charges, the assumption of all costs by the City, as well as collective self­management. The new proposal met all key particulars of the squatters' struggle, including a rent­free space, allowed to be collectively self­managed by squatters. As well, the new building ­­ a large, former youth rehabilitation centre ­­ had much more possibilities as a space. Though some squatters remained at the original location, the overwhelming majority began moving their belongings out of the squat and into trucks that the City had provided. There were also three red buses to transport the squatters.
While people began moving at around 5pm, a group of between 12­15 squatters began preparing to stay, and organized to barricade themselves inside. Many supporters stayed on site, in anticipation of the police intervention, as well as to offer solidarity. By about 8pm, a few hours after a bulk of squatters had departed for their new location, the Montreal police arrived in force. There were three public transit buses full of police, as well as several other police vans with the riot squat. The police surrounded the area, and contingent of riot police, with little warning, charged into the crowd, banging their shields and indiscriminately hitting with batons anyone that did not move fast enough
There were close to one hundred police surrounding the lot, and at least three dozen riot police on hand, including a special tactics team. Some time after 9pm, a police commandant, this time with a megaphone, asked that the remaining squatters vacate the building. In total, there were five arrests at the scene, although some mainstream media reports refer to six. At about 9:30pm, the commandant mentioned that the remaining squatters would be allowed to go without charges if they left immediately. At this point, there was movement inside, and eventually, after waving a squatters flag (a red flag with the international squatting symbol), six people slowly climbed down from the second floor. They raised their fists, while the supporters on rooftops and on the street clapped and again chanted 57
"solidarity". The six remaining squatters walked towards the Lucien L'Allier metro station, watched and filmed by the police. By all reports, they were not arrested, and some of them traveled to the new building. * * * The new building obtained by the squatters straddles the Rosemont and Hochelaga­
Maisonneuve neighbourhoods of Montreal in the East End. It's located at 3100 Rachel Street East, at the corner of Prefontaine, minutes from the Prefontaine metro on the green line. The building, known formerly as the "Centre d'Accueil Rachel", is a former youth rehabilitation centre. It's three­stories (four in one section) and about five times the size of the Overdale squat. There are several balconies and outdoor stairwells, many large and small rooms, closets, washrooms, showers, as well as a kitchen and freezer room. The building is surrounded by a grass lot, trees, and beside a community garden. The mayor's willingness to cede the building is undoubtedly related to the upcoming city election in early November. There has been much public sympathy for the squatters, and the mayor was clearly avoiding any major public confrontation between police and squatters. As well, the mayor was also involved in damage control for his remarks on Monday that there wasn't really a homeless problem in Montreal. Election or not, the squatters and activists who were lounging at the new site late on Wednesday night were euphoric, if dead tired. Their site is rent and tax­free, with heating and electrical costs incurred by the city. Crucially, the building is to be self­
managed by the squatters themselves, with no city intervention. The building is theirs indefinitely, although the mayor has indicated through the media that he hopes in about two years, an official city­approved cooperative will be set up. Looking at the building and the surrounding area, squatters were talking about creating office spaces for radical activist groups, a kitchen for Food Not Bombs, a garden project, library, free school, meeting spaces, media room and, of course, accessible social housing. Transforming the new building, which is yet­to­be­named, will be a huge challenge, but talking to the squatters on the scene yesterday, they're ready to get to work. An assembly is scheduled for tomorrow morning, as well as a block party on Friday night to introduce themselves to their new neighbours. Already, there are small signs that the transformation has begun; the old sign leading to the building has been replaced with a large simple banner: a black and white fist raised in resistance. Police Violently Evict Montreal Squatters October 4, 2001 – Report by Jaggi Singh
58
Dozens of riot police violently evicted at least 40 individuals who have been squatting for two months at a former youth centre in the Rosemont neighbourhood of east end Montreal. The police arrived without notice after 8am yesterday, forcibly entering the building, and violently compelling the residents to leave. Many squatters were not even able to obtain their belongings, including their shoes and clothes. Arthur Sandborn ­­the President of the CSN union in the Montreal region and a squat supporter ­­ reported that he personally witnessed at least one woman who was removed naked by riot police, with just a blanket for cover. According to squatters and their spokespersons, many people inside the building were beaten with batons and police fists. One young man was shot with a taser (electric) gun at least twice and lost consciousness. According to eyewitnesses, he was trying to grab his backpack. Other people reportedly suffered concussions as a result of police blows, and there are at least two reported hospitalizations. At least six people, five men and one woman, were arrested in the eviction, and detained at the East Detention Center (at Jean Talon and Langelier streets) on charges of "resisting police" and "obstruction". At the evicted squat site, workers have boarded up the building, and about 20 private security guards have replaced the police and are maintaining a constant presence. According to Radio­Canada, the security guards are being paid $22 per hour. The police justified their actions today by saying that they were asked to intervene by the fire department. Members of the fire department, who had visited the squat site the evening before yesterday's eviction, claim that squatters have re­occupied the fourth floor of the building that the fire department had recently boarded up. The presence of people on the fourth floor of the people was suddenly deemed a "security threat". For the last two months, at least 50 squatters and their supporters have been making the Prefontaine Center their home, as well as a meeting space for street youth and local activists. The Prefontaine Center quickly became a laboratory for communal living, as well as a launching pad for alternative projects such as a community garden and compost, free school, communal kitchen and proposed printing press. It was also a convergence point for many street youth in Montreal, and a strategizing centre on the issue of homelessness and social housing. In addition to youth, the squat also was home to a few families, including several small children.
Originally, Mayor Pierre Bourque's office had promised, in writing, to allow the new squat to be run by the squatters, without police interference. Heat, water and rent were to be free­of­cost, and the site was to be self­managed. However, the Mayor's attitude changed a month ago, and for at least the last three weeks, the City has been looking for ways to evict the squatters. 59
Until yesterday morning, the City had not been able to find a legal pretext for eviction. And, in the case of building problems, the building's landlord ­­ the City of Montreal ­­ was ultimately responsible for improvements. Squatters viewed the fire department's pretext for eviction today with suspicion. Meanwhile, the Mayor continued to dismiss the actual issues that the squatters have presented for over two months, all while trying to claim that the forced police eviction today was undertaken "peacefully". Ultimately, the Mayor rejected any sort of compromise with the squatters, and wanted to put this affair behind as he prepares for the municipal elections in early November. In the dismissive words of the Mayor yesterday, "[The squatters'] aim was anti­globalization and they were against our system . . . and capitalism." D2: The Pope Squat in Toronto
In July 2003, the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty among other anti­poverty activists organized the takeover of a building in downtown Toronto. The building was occupied for three months before police evicted the squatters. The following chronology of events is taken from OCAP’s website:
www.ocap.ca/ocapnews/pope_squat.html
Pope Squat Lifeline: July 25TH ­ October 25TH, 2002
July 25, 2002
During Pope John Paul II's visit to Toronto, 1000 anti­poverty activists, homeless people and allies march on 1510 King St. West, successfully occupying and holding the building, in order to turn it into affordable housing and to illuminate the growing crisis of homelessness in the city. The building is renamed the Pope Squat. July 26, 2002
Toronto Police Emergency Task Force raids 1510 under the guise that there is a gun inside the building. They find nothing, and allow people back inside. July 26­30, 2002
60
The Pope Squat becomes a rallying point in Parkdale, as community members help with early renovations of the building and attend film and music events in an outpouring of support. Holes in the roof are patched up, rotting carpets and drywall are removed, doors are replaced and lights and smoke detectors are installed throughout the house. A beautiful garden is planted in front of the building, replacing the overgrown weeds that had been thriving for over two years. July 31, 2002
The Canadian Auto Workers pledge $50,000 towards the renovation of the Pope Squat, conditional on municipal and provincial governments moving to legitimize and finance the project. July 30­August 1, 2002
City council, requiring a 2/3 majority to address the matter of the Pope Squat, fails to do so by a single vote. Yet on the following day, motion J(40) is put forward, requesting the Province of Ontario, alleged owner of 1510 King St. W., transfer the landtitle to the City of Toronto for the purpose of creating affordable housing units. This motion does not pass. However, on amendment, councillor Chris Korwin­Kuczynski attaches a precondition calling for the "current occupants [to] vacate the premises immediately." The motion passes easily, yet the city makes no move towards eviction. August 2, 2002
150­200 union members march to the Pope Squat in a show of solidarity with the occupants. August 7, 2002
100 squat supporters rally at City Hall, attempting to push the city into action around conversion of the Pope Squat into affordable housing. August 17, 19, 2002
City and Fire inspectors inspect both the interior and exterior of the building, citing minor problems such as debris around the perimeter, but leave without making mention of any major health or safety violations. August 24, 2002
Bar­B­Q and celebration of the Pope Squat's one­month anniversary. Many rooms have been made habitable at this point and roughly 15 people are living in 1510. Water and electricity are in use throughout much of the building. September 7, 2002
Community meal held at the Pope Squat to discuss its current political situation. Despite the City Council resolution attributing ownership of the building to the Province, the 61
Attorney General maintains it has no legal attachment to the property, thus leaving the building and its residents in legal limbo. Residents and supporters decide to continue the occupation and renovations in the face of provincial and municipal neglect. September­October, 2002
Weekly renovation days bring skilled tradespeople and allies into the Pope Squat, continuing its transformation from a derelict building into a permanent home for now upwards of 25 people. Rooms previously suffering from "black mould" are gutted and completely rebuilt, allowing those sleeping in a ti­pi and tents in the backyard to acquire warm rooms indoors. A "model­suite"/social room comes close to completion and serves as a weekly venue for resident meetings. Common kitchen space is set up, complete with a working stove, fridge and sink. Residents initiate friendships and working relationships, contributing to the sentiment that the Pope Squat is becoming a sustainable home for many people previously without one. Occasional visits from police are good­natured, and both fire and health officials rarely make calls, if only to commend people on the progress they are making. CRACKDOWN : The Attack on 1510 King ­­ October 25th, 2002 ­ Present On October 25th, on the pretext of responding to an altercation, masses of cops (including the Emergency Task Force) launched a huge raid on the building. Doors of peoples' rooms were broken down and the building ransacked.
Three days later, the Fire Marshall placed security guards in the building around the clock to conduct a 'fire watch'. He made clear that this measure had to be accepted or the residents would all be immediately evicted. He informed OCAP that certain modifications were required to bring the place up to acceptable standards but refused to specify what was actually needed to make the building safe, on the grounds that OCAP didn't own the property and therefore wasn't entitled to the information.
The same week, the water supply to 1510 King was turned off. This move happened in the midst of negotiations with City officials to settle money owed since the building's re­
opening in July. This bargaining was an effort to counter the City's attempt to force Pope Squat residents into paying for debts that had been accumulating for years.
On November 1st, with the first snowfall of the season, residents of 1510 King were thrown out onto the street by the City of Toronto. The city and the province had refused to put a single cent into the Pope Squat, but managed to find the money to send a dozen 62
fire marshals and 100 cops to remove the residents from the building. After 1510 King had been emptied, police tossing aside or arresting anyone that stood in their way, the authorities also immediately provided plywood and workers to board the building up.
Not even half an hour's notice was given to the residents of 1510 King Street.
When pressed for answers, the District Fire Chief, Jack Collins, claimed that he had asked the province ­ as owners ­ if they wanted to bring the building up to code, and received no answer. Thus, as he deemed 1510 King to pose "an immediate threat to life," Collins had been "left with no choice but to remove the people from the building." The list of fire code violations was still undisclosed. Lurking behind Collins at the scene was Sean Goetz­Gadon, a special advisor to the city's Social Housing and Support Initiatives. And while this city official has the power to ensure 'social housing and support' be made available to the now homeless residents whose eviction he saw fit to eyewitness, all the people living at 1510 King were offered was a night in the already overcrowded shelter system and $5 food vouchers and socks.
By mid­November, the city of Toronto spent more than $12,000 on private security guards parked 24 hours a day outside 1510 King. And one week after the eviction, another private security firm, as well as Metro Toronto police, were stationed at the building. Massive 'No Trespass' signs have replaced windows lit by life inside 1510. The costs incurred to fortify an uninhabited home number in the tens of thousands of dollars.
At the time of printing, OCAP is still struggling to win 1510 King West as a self­managed social housing project for those who reclaimed it. D3: The Woodwards Squat in Vancouver
In September, 2002, after many years of community struggle, squatters took over the Woodwards Building in Vancouver. The reports excerpted / modified below are sources from the Victoria and Vancouver IndyMedia web­sites: http://vancouver.indymedia.org and http://victoria.indymedia.org For more information see, www.woodsquat.net
The Struggle Continues ­ The Woodwards Squat in Vancouver, Canada
Report by the Insurrectionary Anarchists of the Coast Salish Territories (Vancouver)
On Saturday, September 14, 2002, a group of homeless people and community members 63
occupied a huge department building in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside that has been vacant for 9 years. The old “Woodwards building” takes up an entire city block (656,000 square feet of space, and 6­7 floors). The Downtown Eastside is the poorest neighbourhood in Canada, and with the current Liberal government's cuts to social services, social housing, welfare, and the lowering of the minimum wage, poverty and homelessness are growing; class contradictions are deepening. The Woodwards building is owned by the B.C. Housing Corporation, the segment of government specifically designated to build social housing. Over the past 9 years various different community groups and agitators have fought to have the building converted into social housing, only to have the government agree, and then go back on their promise. Out of this desperate situation, a small group of people cracked open the building, and held a short demonstration and march to the new squat. Many people set up camp outside the building and donations of food, mattresses and other essentials poured in. Banners were hung from the windows, the sides of the building, and the large “W” on the rooftop. Over the first few days, 15­30 people moved into the building. On Monday, September 16, 2002, a court injunction against occupation of the Woodwards building was presented to the squatters. As the days went on the resolve of the squatters to not abandon their new home grew stronger. To counter the threatened eviction, a demonstration was called for Thursday, September 19, 2002. Hundreds of supporters showed up, including rank­and­file union workers, and many entered the building to see the operations of the squat themselves. Many more people moved in, and the police called off the eviction until the next day. Word then came that the police intended to evict at dawn. Some squatters decided to construct barricades. Almost 100 people were counted inside the squat that night. At 6am on Saturday morning more than 100 riot police broke through the barricades and stormed the building. The barricades allowed time for those who wanted to leave to do so. The majority of the group linked arms in a circle. Media was forced to leave. Two people who were attempting to leave were pepper­sprayed while on the ladder and then arrested. A Vancouver Independent Media Centre reporter outside was also arrested outside. Squatters inside were choked, beaten and dragged away one by one, to then be taken through an underground tunnel to jail. 64
The University of British Columbia student newspaper “the Ubyssey” reported on the eviction. “...It's a far cry from the promise of a peaceful eviction that floated through the news last week. The 58 squatters arrested appeared in court in the afternoon of Saturday, September 21, 2002, and all but one were released after signing an undertaking that they would not re­
enter the building. By the time of everyone's release tensions between the squatters had eased, as the eviction had unified them in rebellion to the forces of the State. A defiant group of homeless squatters returned to the building Sunday night, only to have a public meeting be attacked by the police. Cops rushed in without warning and immediately began clubbing people and pushing them out of the area. About 40 squatters were surrounded and then forced to leave the area and 12, including the squatters’ lawyer, were arrested for “obstructing the sidewalk.” A garbage truck immediately disposed of all the squatters’ belongings. An all­night demonstration took place outside the courthouse where those arrested were held, but they were not released until the next day. On the morning of Monday, September 23, 2002, an angry and defiant demonstration and march made its way to the Woodwards building. Two police officers walked into the crowd only to be shouted at and denounced and forced to leave. The group then marched a block over to where more police had gathered. The crowd screamed and yelled at them and chanted “No more pigs in our communities!” and “Get the fuck out of our neighbourhood” until the cops left the area in shame. The next day, Tuesday, September 24, 2002, about 600 people rallied outside the Woodwards building to support the squatters, blocking off the surrounding streets for several hours. As of Sunday, September 29, 2002, all charges against the squatters have been dropped and the squatters’ tent city outside the Woodwards building continues and grows each day. More than a hundred people are now squatting the sidewalk outside of the building. A Woodwards Squatters Coalition meets regularly to plan further actions. The squat has emboldened the community and strengthened its spirit. The police repression has outraged the squatters and the greater community, and has only served to increase the determination to fight. The squat served as catalyst, bringing class tensions to the foreground, and showing that simple direct actions can accomplish what endless rhetoric and “long­term strategic planning” consistently fail to. For anarchists the squat provided another living example of the necessity of decentralized organization and a confrontational attitude towards the State. 65
For more and more people of the exploited and excluded classes, squatting is becoming a dire necessity. The Take Down of the Woodward's Squat – February 2003
Reprinted from Anti­Poverty Committee News #10 ­­ [email protected]
After 92 days of struggle to defend the Woodward's Squat against the threat of police, engineers, social workers, the legal system and poverty pimps, the tent city ended quietly. By the end people were demoralized and hungry because the Woodward's Social Housing Coalition had taken control of the squat money and distribution of food. There was no option but to leave.
The city decided not to enforce the injunction and instead paid the Portland Hotel Society $10,000 to take down the squat, clean the sidewalks, and put up a fence on December 14th. Fifty members of VANDU were hired for $50 each to help out but only a few participated in the eviction. Many people lost their stuff in the dumpsters because they were gone from the squat for the day.
The city also paid the Portland $93,000 to manage 50 squatters for 4 months in the Dominion Hotel, above the Lamplighter bar, at Water and Abbott streets. Nassar Nahabat, the owner or leaser or the Dominion and Ivanhoe Hotels, received $80,000 from the city for rent. 12 people from the squat are at the Ivanhoe but receive none of the Portland Hotel services that are supposed to be given to the people at the Dominion, such as food, counselling, and medical attention. Even though the city has already paid for the rent, squatters at the Dominion are being forced to pay $325 rent to the Portland. Twenty­five or more squatters did not get any rooms and are still on the street. Some people have moved to Crab Park and Stanley Park.
Residents at the Dominion have been subject to constant police harassment including unlawful entry of rooms. The Portland Hotel Society has evicted at least four squatters and the kitchen, which was promised to the squatters, is now being renovated for a commercial restaurant instead. Lack of a common meeting and eating area has made it almost impossible for the resident's council to organize. Squatters in the building feel isolated from the community and look forward to leaving for longer­term housing.
The Woodward's Legal Defense Committee is going ahead with civil claims against the police and city for brutality and destruction of property on September 21st and 22nd when the police, with the help of the city engineering staff, evicted the squatters from Woodwards and the sidewalk.
66
BC Housing Corporation ordered to pay costs after dropping contempt proceedings against Woodwards Protestors
Pivot Legal Society Press Release ­­ November 7, 2002 Justice Janice Dillon of the B.C. Supreme Court today ordered the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation, which owns the historic Woodwards building, to pay legal costs to counsel for the Woodwards protestors and the protestors themselves after the Housing Corporation abruptly decided to discontinue contempt proceedings against the 54 defendants. The "Woodwards 54" had been charged with contempt of court after occupying the vacant Woodwards building, as part of a protest for housing for the many homeless people in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. The Woodwards defendants cheered when Justice Dillon handed down her judgment, which ordered the Housing Corporation pay $100 to each person who appeared in court as well as the legal costs of the three pro bono lawyers that appeared on their behalf. The discontinuance ended seven weeks of anxiety and uncertainty on the part of the protestors, whose legal defence committee has been desperately raising money to pay for lawyers after the Legal Services Society refused to provide funding for legal counsel. “This is a victory for social housing, and a victory for poor and marginalized people” said Calvin Woida, an organizer with the Woodwards Legal Defence Committee and one on of the 54 defendants, “But we cannot be complacent. We will not stop fighting until everyone has a home.” * * * * * * Though the City of Vancouver recently purchased the Woodward's building from the Province, it is undecided about its future use. City Council will make a final decision about the building in 2004. The community struggle continues.
SECTION E: CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
67
In the vast majority of cases, the act of squatting will not secure long­term or permanent housing. However, squatting is both an effective strategy to obtain temporary or transitional shelter. Squatting is a particularly viable shelter option for individuals who are not able to access public shelters or for those who do not wish to be subjected to rules and regulations of traditional shelters.
Squatting is also a great do­it­yourself direct action that can create community spaces and foster alternative cultures.
If politicized, squatting can be a highly effective strategy to bring public attention to housing issues. Squatting can also be used as a bargaining tool against government officials for housing demands.
Because squatting is generally illegal, squatters face considerable legal risks (including arrest and criminal charges), which should be carefully considered prior to squatting.
Squatting risks are frequently magnified for women, children, people of colour, people with disabilities, psychiatric survivors, non­Canadian citizens and individuals with special needs. These risks should be carefully considered prior to squatting and efforts to minimize these risks should be enacted.
Though not for everyone, squatting is a shelter strategy that is workable in many situations. The more people squat, the easier it becomes for future squatters.
So until there is affordable, accessible housing for all…..HAPPY SQUATTING!
68
SECTION F: RESOURCES
The following list of resources has been gathered to assist with further research. Resources have been arranged by topic and include brief descriptions. Topics include:
F1: Why Squat? Social & Political Commentary on Squatting F2: Canadian Property Law
F3: Legal Resources for Squatters
F4: Practical Information for Squatters
F5: International Squatting ­ Recent & Historical Case Studies
F6: Squatting in Canada ­ Recent & Historical Case Studies
Where possible, the following location for each resource is listed in brackets:
 The Trent University Library (on Symons Campus) 1600 West Bank Drive, Peterborough Tel: 748­1011 ext.1539 www.trentu.ca/library
 OPIRG­Stratton House Library: 740 Water Street North, Peterborough ON, Tel: (705) 748­1767

Peterborough Coalition Against Poverty: Unit #17 ­ 393 Water St., Peterborough, ON Tel: 749­9694
 Bora Laskin Law Library in Toronto 78 Queen's Park Cres., Toronto, Tel: 416­978­0944 www.law­lib.utoronto.ca
 Robarts Library at the University of Toronto 130 St .George St., Toronto, Tel: (416)978­2294 www.library.utoronto.ca/robarts
Note on Library/Resource Accessibility:
Most of the resources listed below were found at Trent University or through Trent's search facilities. For individuals who are not Trent students or staff, library cards are available for a fee ($10 for three months or $25 for a year.) Cards are also available free of charge to students from other universities, seniors and individuals with a Peterborough Public Library Gold Card. The library itself is open to the public and anyone may look at resources in the library without a card. Most materials not found in Peterborough (i.e. 69
those listed at Bora and Robarts Libraries) can be ordered through interlibrary loan at Trent University. Internet access is available free of charge at most libraries.
E1: Why Squat? Social & Political Commentary on Squatting
Corr, Anders. "Introduction" and "Philosophy to Squat By." No Trespassing!: Squatting, Rent Strikes and Land Struggles Worldwide. Cambridge, Mass.: South End Press, 1999. Pages 1­16, 51­76. [OPIRG­Stratton House Library]. Excellent overview of the philosophy and benefits of squatting. Although mostly an academic text, it is written in an accessible style by an author who is also a squatter. Integrates history and political analysis and includes considerable discussion on effectiveness of various strategies. Includes many case examples. Highly recommended to squatters looking for inspirational history.
Sayegh, Kamal S. "Social Area Housing." Housing: A Canadian Perspective. Ottawa: ABCD Academy: 1987: 301­315. [Trent]. This sociological analysis of squatting is based on the assumption that squatting is a problem to be eradicated rather than a political or social strategy by those who are without shelter. It does not include a gender analysis and comes primarily form the view of an academic outsider looking in on subjects for study. However, because there are few books on squatting in Canada, this chapter is useful for its contextualized description of legal issues, historic trends and public responses.
Wates, Nick. "Introducing Squatting." Squatting: The Real Story. UK, 1980 (now out of print). Available online: www.squat.freeserve.co.uk/ An excellent introduction to the benefits of squatting. Although focused on the British context, the advantages highlighted have relevance in the Canadian context. Easy to read, accessible format.
"Squatnet!" (Internet magazine) Available online: http://squat.net This web­site provides lots of commentary on the social and political benefits of squatting. Includes numerous squatter anecdotes, discussions on squatting as a life philosophy and general thoughts on past and future squats.
70
E2: Canadian Property Law
Government of Ontario. "Ontario Trespass to Property Act." Ontario E­Laws Homepage. Available online: www.e­laws.gov.on.ca This act outlines provincial laws that apply to property rights, possession and occupation of land in Ontario.
Government of Ontario. "Ontario Land Titles Act." Ontario E­Laws Homepage. Available online: www.e­laws.gov.on.ca This act outlines the laws that apply to title, registration and transferral of land ownership in Ontario. Section 51 prohibits property ownership through "adverse possession" (squatters title).
Hodder, Samantha and Betsy Trumpener. "Forgive our trespasses." ThisMagazine. Nov­Dec 1997, Vol 31. No. 3: 41
This short (one page) article outlines Canadian property law in basic terms, explaining the difference between Land Registry and Land Titles as well as the application of "adverse possession" (otherwise known as squatters law).
Petersson, Sandra. "Something for Nothing: The Law of Adverse Possession in Alberta."
Alberta Law Review
(1992) 30 Alta. L. Rev. No. 4: 1291­?. [Bora Laskin Law Library in Toronto]
This essay traces the origin and evolution of the law of adverse possession ("squatters title") in Canada. Using the land law in Alberta as a key example, the author demonstrates that Land Titles System is not incompatible with adverse possession. Outlines justifications for adverse possession in Alberta. Phillips, J. Property Law: 2000­2001. Toronto: University of Toronto Faculty of Law. Course Text. [Bora Laskin Law Library in Toronto]. 71
This textbook supplement introduces key theoretical issues in property law. It examines the concept of property, the history of property rights and methods of possession. More theoretical and less practical.
Ziff, Bruce. Principles of Property Law. 3rd edition. Toronto: Thompson Canada Ltd, 2000. [Bora Laskin Law Library in Toronto]. This book introduces key concepts in property law, with specific attention to the principle of adverse possession (squatters title). Although an academic text, this introductory framework is fairly accessible for those unfamiliar with legal issues.
E3: Legal Resources for Squatters
Collective Opposed to Police Brutality (COBP). "The Impact of Bill C­36, the "Anti­
Terrorist Legislation", Bill C­35 & C­42, "The Public Safety Act" with a special feature on New Money and Powers for Enforcement." Pamphlet, 2001. [Available from: COBP c/o Librairie Alternative 2035 St­Laurent 2nd Floor, Montreal, Quebec, H2X 2T3, Tel. 514. 859­9065] Also available online: www.tao.ca/~cobp/index.html This booklet provides a detailed analysis of the new "Anti­Terrorism" Legislation in Canada. It explains changes to the criminal code, the freedom of information act, the privacy act. It also examines increased powers for surveillance, preventative arrests and investigative hearings. Not specific to squatting, but useful for its analysis of police power and legal changes that may target some individuals.
COBP. "Guess What! We've Got Rights?! ­ Building strength in relation to the police." Pamphlet, Montreal, March 1999. [Available from COBP: see above] This pocket­sized booklet outlines legal rights when dealing with police. Covers rights on the street, arrest situations, search and seizure. Very accessible, humourous style, easy to follow. Highly recommended for all squatters.
Corr, Anders. "Tell it to the Judge." No Trespassing!: Squatting, Rent Strikes and Land Struggles Worldwide. Cambridge, Mass.: South End Press, 1999. Pages 77­95. [OPIRG­Stratton House Library]. Though focusing primarily on the United States, this chapter outlines historical tactics used by various squatters to evade /defy /contest the law. Includes many case examples. 72
Government of Canada. Department of Justice. Canadian Criminal Code. Available online: www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c­46/ [Paper copies also available at most public libraries] The Canadian Criminal Code outlines all the criminal offences in Canada as well as their penalties. Sections on mischief to property, forcible entry, break and enter and obstruct police are of particular relevance to squatters.
Government of Canada. Department of Justice. "Charter of Rights and Freedoms." Online: http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Loireg/charte/const_en.html The Charter is the primary legal basis for civil and political rights in Canada. Does not include specific reference to economic, social or cultural rights. Useful in legal proceedings if your rights have been violated by the police or others. Government of Ontario. "Ontario Building Code Act: Part Three." Ontario E­Laws Homepage. Available online: www.e­laws.gov.on.ca Part Three of the Building Code outlines safety regulations for buildings in Ontario. While it is very long and detailed, the information is useful for squatters who want to ensure that a squatted premise meets safety codes. Government of Ontario. "Ontario Family and Children Services Act: Part Three" Ontario E­Laws Homepage. Available online: www.e­laws.gov.on.ca Part Three of the Family and Children Services Act outlines the circumstances where the state (or child welfare agencies like the Children's Aid Society) can intervene into the care of a child and or remove the child from parents care. This information is important for squatters who have children.
Government of Ontario. "Ontario Fire Code" Ontario E­Laws Homepage. Available online: www.e­laws.gov.on.ca The Fire Code outlines the regulations that apply to buildings in order to prevent fire. This information is relevant to squatters in order to ensure that a squat will not be shut down for fire code violations.
Kawartha Haliburton Children's Aid Society. Excerpts from the Ontario Child Welfare Eligibility Spectrum. [Available from the Children's Aid Society, 1100 Chemong Road, Peterborough, K9H 7S2. Tel: (705) 743­9751] 73
The Eligibility Spectrum provides detailed guidelines on where it is appropriate for the Children's Aid Society to intervene into the care of a child. The section on housing requirements is relevant to squatters with children.
National Anti­Poverty Organization. "A Human Rights Meltdown in Canada: Submission of the National Anti­Poverty Organization to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights." Geneva: November 16, 1998. 73pages. [Available from NAPO: 440­325 rue Dalhousie Street, Ottawa, K1N 7G2 Tel: (613) 789­0096 www.napo­onap.ca ] While not focused on squatting issues per se, this report provides demonstrates how international law can be used to argue for the rights of people who are poor. Arguments can be drawn from this report to support squatting. Ontario Common Front: In the Streets and in the Courts ­ We Fight to Win: A Legal Guide for Activists available online: www.ocap.ca/legalguide An essential guide for squatters and activists. Includes information on police and state; legal rights in theory and practice; solidarity; sureties and bail; indymedia and the law; high­risk groups; post­traumatic stress syndrome; and support.
Ontario Law Union: "Offence/Defence: Law for Activists." 1996 Edition (new edition forthcoming) Toronto. Web­Site Available: www.lawunion.ca
An important resource for squatters and activists. Includes information on: public meetings; demonstrations, rallies and marches; strikes and strike support; objects and weapons; police encounters; immigration; security; media; organizations; fighting back.
Phillips, D.W. & D.J. Manning. The Child and Family Services Act: A Guide to Part III. Toronto and Vancouver: Butterworths,1986. 177pages. [Bora]
Though somewhat outdated, this annotated guide interprets the Child and Family Services Act. Includes general commentary, relation to other laws and references to specific case law. This guide is most useful in conjunction with an updated copy of the Child and Family Services Act.
Prichard, A. M. Squatting. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1981. 177pages. [Bora] Overview of British legal statutes relevant to squatting. Divided into three main parts ­ Civil judicial remedies; Criminal Offences, Extra­Judicial Remedies ­ this volume examines English common law and formal statutes with references to 74
specific case law that has been applied to various squat cases. Though this legal framework does not apply to Canada, it provides a useful model for comparison. No gender analysis.
R. vs. Clarke, Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division), Toronto,1998. [This case was found through the assistance of a lawyer who subscribes to the QuickLaw search engine. As this service is very costly and not available to the general public, copies of the case can be obtained through the Peterborough Coalition Against Poverty] This case provides an important example of legal arguments used to justify a squat. Here the "colour of right" argument was used in conjunction with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to establish housing as a basic human right, which takes precedent over conventional property law. Although the squatters lost the case, it provides a useful framework for future casework. United Nations. "International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights." Available through Government of Canada Web­Site: www.pch.gc.ca/ddp­hrd/docs/cesc/cn_e.shtm
This covenant, to which Canada is a signatory, outlines the basic human rights most relevant to housing issues. Canada's responsibility to fulfill its commitments to this convention, may be used in legal proceedings to justify squatting or other housing strategies.
E4: Practical Information for Squatters
Luksic, Nicola. "How to live when you don't have squat." ThisMagazine. Jan­Feb 2001, Vol 34, No 3, page 9.
This short (one page) article offers basic practical advise on how to squat in Canada, including how to find a place, how to take it over. "Squatnet!" (Internet magazine) Available online: http://squat.net This web­site is an invaluable tool for squatters. With hundreds of links to squatter networks worldwide, this is probably the best site on the net for squatters. Includes squatters' guides, legal information, historic examples, news articles, discussion groups, photos and analysis.
75
"UK Advisory Service for Squatters." (Legal and practical information.) Available online: www.squat.freeserve.co.uk Though focused on the UK context, this website provides practical information for squatters and also serves as an example of legal rights which are much more friendly to squatters. Also includes links to historical information about squatting, case studies and other web­sites. E5: International Squatting ­ Recent & Historical Cases
Corr, Anders. "Homes not Jails: The Secret Success of a Squatting Movement to house the Homeless." and "Battling the Banana Baron: Rural Hondurans Bloody Chiquita Brands International." No Trespassing!: Squatting, Rent Strikes and Land Struggles worldwide. Cambridge, Mass.: South End Press, 1999. Pages 1­16, 51­76. [OPIRG­Stratton House Library] Describes successful squatting techniques of Homes Not Jails in San Francisco and land occupations in the Honduras. Historical and strategic analysis.
Gimson, Mark. "Everybody's Doing it: Squatting in the Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Portugal, Italy, Hong Kong and Other Places." Squatting: The Real Story. UK, 1980. Available online: www.squat.freeserve.co.uk/ This chapter examines a number of squats in countries around the world, in easy­
to­read format. Though focused on squats in the 1960s and 70s, it includes a variety of strategies and approaches relevant for contemporary squatting.
Maxwell, Andrew. "A Home by Any Means Necessary: Government Policy on Squatting in the Public Housing of a Large Mid­Atlantic City." There's No Place like Home: Anthropological Perspectives on Housing and Homelessness in the United States. Ed. Anna Lou Dehavenon, Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey, 1999: pages 67­ 79 [Trent] This article examines government responses to squatting in a large mid­Atlantic city in the United States. It outlines the federal and municipal policies which create homelessness, especially inadequate public housing conditions ­ examines different types of squatters, and describes the forced eviction of squatters by the state. The chapter concludes with recommendations specific to the case, but the overall analysis is relevant to Canadian cities.
76
Phillips, Amy and Susan Hamilton. "Huts for the Homeless: A Low Technology Approach for Squatters in Atlanta Georgia." There's No Place like Home: Anthropological Perspectives on Housing and Homelessness in the United States. Ed. Anna Lou Dehavenon. Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey, 1999: pages 81­103. [Trent] This article describes the housing strategy of the Mad Housers of Atlanta, Georgia, who build low­cost "huts" and erect them on property throughout the city in order to provide shelter for the homeless. Sometimes placed in discrete locations to avoid removal and other times located in visible places (like public spaces or Church property) where they have been publicly "adopted," this strategy has been remarkably successful. Written by a member of the Mad Housers, the chapter includes detailed analysis and "insider" insights. Includes information on the hut structure and design, strategies for location, profiles of squat dwellers, and reasons for removal of huts. As a strategy that has maintained squat locations up to four years before removal, the tactic is worth considering.
"Purple Earth 2001 Oddyzee" Web­page on Christiania Squat in Amsterdam. Available online: http://purplearth.net/Europe2001/week7/pt8.html Documenting a traveler's experience visiting the Christiania community, this web­
site provides a brief history and current information about one of the largest, longstanding squat communities in the world. Also includes photographs. Roy, D. Francis. "Hooverville: A Community of Homeless Men." Trialog 36. (1993): pages 53­55 [Available at Robarts Library in Toronto] Provides a short history of the Hooverville, an all­men squatter community of Seattle that existed in the 1930s. As a historical example, the description of this community provides a point of comparison to the current situation of urban poverty and public responses to squatting.
"Squatnet!" (Internet magazine.) Available online: http://squat.net This web­site is a virtually unlimited source of information on squats throughout the world. Incorporates hundreds of links to international squat case studies, diaries by squatters, photos, analysis and commentary. Prospective squatters can spend hours on this web­site!
77
Steinberg, Florian. "Informal Housing in ‘First' World: Transferring the ‘Third' World Experiences?" Trialog 36. (1993): pages 5­13. [Robarts Library in Toronto]. This short article surveys squatting in the European context. Case examples in England, France, Italy, Greece, Spain and Russia, are compared to similar housing initiatives in southern countries. Argues that squatting has been relatively successful in the south, and that knowledge from the south should be transferred to the north to increase the success informal housing in Europe.
Wright, Talmadge. Out of Place: Homeless Mobilizations, Subcities, and Contested Landscapes. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1997. 408pages.[Robarts Library in Toronto] This chapter provides two examples of homeless mobilizations ­ the Student­
Homeless Alliance in San Jose and Tranquility City in Chicago ­ where squatting was employed as housing strategy and political tactic. The Student­Homeless Alliance was not able to secure housing through squatting but managed to build awareness and support for homeless action. The Chicago example ­ which involved the Mad Housers' construction of huts which were erected around the city ­ maintained homes for 50 people over a period of six months. Good mix of historical information and political/tactical analysis.
E6: Squatting in Canada ­ Recent & Historical Case Studies
78
Baxter, Sheila. "The Squatters". Under the Viaduct: Homeless in Beautiful B.C. Vancouver: New Star Books, 1991: 72­88. [Robarts Library] This chapter describes the author's encounter with squatter communities in Vancouver. Compiling conversation and commentary among various squatters, as well as a first­person account of the Frances Street squats, emphasis is placed on the lived experience of squatting. Highlights the success of drawing media attention and gaining public support for squatting.
Cummings, Leigh. "No way out: When fifty street kids were evicted from their squat on Carlton, they launched a sit­in at Nathan Phillips Square." Toronto Life. March 1998. Vol 32, No 3: pages 68­80. [Trent]. An investigative report on a youth squat in downtown Toronto. Profiles a number of young squatters, outlining their life histories and street experiences. Describes "Second Chance Ranch" in Orangeville where some of the youth relocated. Primarily a social commentary but does reveal some details on squatting.
Lazier, Kate. "Out of the Kitchen, into the Squats." Women and Environments. Fall 1987 Vol 10, No 1; page 20. [Trent] This brief (one page) article argues the benefits of squatting for women. Citing the history of all­women squats in European countries where many grassroots women's services have been established, the article suggests that squats have considerable community building potential in Canada. Lotz, Jim. The People Outside: Studies of Squatters, Shack Town and Shanty Residents, and Others Dwelling on the Fringe in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Research Centre for Anthropology/Canadian Council on Urban and Regional Research, 1971. 186pages. [Robarts]. This report is very out­dated and its format is not very reader friendly, but it provides a preliminary study of squatting in Canada in the 1960s. The research focuses mostly on squats in Northern Canada, with attention to social and cultural aspects of squatting, and governmental responses. The author also questions research methodologies ­ particularly those which are intrusive or harmful to squat communities ­ and argues that eviction is not an adequate response to squatting.
79
OCAP Executive. "Resistance and Retreat ­ Overview of March 22/23 OCF Protests." Available online: www.ocap.ca/dispatch.cgi/ocf/M2223 Provides description and analysis of a squat attempt of the Mission Press Building in downtown Toronto on March 22, 2002. Police in riot gear used tear gas to force the squatters out of the building and 58 people were arrested at gunpoint, facing charges of criminal mischief under $5000. One squatter was hit four times with a taser gun.
Payton, Brian. "Living on the edge; squatters carve out a place for themselves on the wide side of Vancouver Island." Canadian Geographic. 1999: pages 23­31. A descriptive article about the lifestyle of squatting on Vancouver Island, this article sidesteps many of the legal and political issues of squatting. It notes that the continued presence of squatters has arisen from a neglect of law enforcement by authorities. It also profiles a number of individuals who have squatted successfully for many years. Philp, Margaret. "Homes of their own: the residents of Tent City would rather endure a long cold winter in their meagre makeshift community than avail themselves of the meagre comforts of Toronto's homeless shelters." Globe and Mail. December 16, 2000. page 1. This article discusses the Tent City community of homeless people that was established on Toronto waterfront land in the fall of 2000. Contaminated by dangerous levels of mercury, lead and cadmium, the land (owned by Home Depot) posed "unacceptable carcinogenic risks" but with the mass publicity drawn to the squat by the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee, eviction was not immediate. "Squatting in Vancouver." Available online through the squatnet! network: http://squat.net or at: www.geocities.com/emithsilas/vansquat.html This web­site provides a brief history of a number of squats in Vancouver. Includes older historical examples as well as: the Expo 86 squats; Frances Street Squats of 1990 (outlined in Baxter's chapter above); and the Broadway squats of 1993.
80
Sources on THE OVERDALE SQUAT IN MONTREAL:
Singh, Jaggi. "Housing Action Re­Appropriates Empty Buildings in Downtown Montreal." Quebec Alternative Media Centre (CMAQ). July 28, 2001.Available online: http://
montreal.indymedia.org ­­."Montreal Squat Enters Third Night." Quebec Alternative Media Centre (CMAQ). July 30, 2001. Available online: http://montreal.indymedia.org ­­."Squat Continues Under Threat of Police Eviction ." Quebec Alternative Media Centre (CMAQ). August 1, 2001. Available online: http://montreal.indymedia.org ­­. "‘Historic' Victory for Squatters Amidst Police Intervention."Quebec Alternative Media Centre (CMAQ). August 2, 2001. Available online: http://montreal.indymedia.org ­­. "Police Violently Evict Montreal Squatters." Quebec Alternative Media Centre (CMAQ). October 4, 2001. Available online: http://montreal.indymedia.org Thanh Ha, Tu. "Montreal gives squatters new home and an amnesty." Globe and Mail. August 2, 2001. Peritz, Ingrid. "Montreal police evict squatters: stun guns used against one of seven facing charges after confrontation." Globe and Mail. October 4, 2001. Sources on: THE POPE SQUAT IN TORONTO:
http://www.ocap.ca/ocapnews/pope_squat.html
www.ocap.ca
81
Sources on: THE WOODWARDS SQUAT IN VANCOUVER:
www.woodsquat.net
http://vancouver.indymedia.org
http://victoria.indymedia.org
APPENDIX A: RELEVANT SECTIONS
THE
FROM
CANADIAN CRIMINAL CODE
Note: The following is for general informational purposes and cannot be guaranteed for accuracy. For up­to­date laws, check online at: www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c­46/ For legal advice, consult a lawyer.
CRIMINAL CODE PART I : GENERAL ­­ Defence of Property
Defence of personal property
38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified
(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or
(b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,
if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.
Assault by trespasser
2) Where a person who is in peaceable possession of personal property lays hands on it, a trespasser who persists in attempting to keep it or take it from him or from any one lawfully assisting him shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.
R.S., c. C­34, s. 38.
Defence with claim 39. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and of right
every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
Defence without claim of right
(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as of right or does not act under the authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justified or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.
R.S., c. C­34, s. 39.
82
Defence of dwelling
40. Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling­house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling­house without lawful authority.
R.S., c. C­34, s. 40.
Defence of house 41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling­house or real property, and every or real property
one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling­house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
Assault by trespasser
(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling­
house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.
R.S., c. C­34, s. 41.
CRIMINAL CODE PART II: OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER Forcible entry
72. (1) A person commits forcible entry when that person enters real property that is in the actual and peaceable possession of another in a manner that is likely to cause a breach of the peace or reasonable apprehension of a breach of the peace.
Matters not material
(1.1) For the purposes of subsection (1), it is immaterial whether or not a person is entitled to enter the real property or whether or not that person has any intention of taking possession of the real property.
Forcible detainer
(2) A person commits forcible detainer when, being in actual possession of real property without colour of right, he detains it in a manner that is likely to cause a breach of the peace or reasonable apprehension of a breach of the peace, against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.
Questions of law
(3) The questions whether a person is in actual and peaceable possession or is in actual possession without colour of right are questions of law.
R.S., 1985, c. C­46, s. 72; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 10; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).
Punishment
73. Every person who commits forcible entry or forcible detainer is guilty of
(a) an offence punishable on summary conviction; or
(b) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two 83
years.
R.S., 1985, c. C­46, s. 73; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 11; 1992, c. 1, s. 58.
CRIMINAL CODE PART IX: OFFENCES AGAINST RIGHTS OF PROPERTY Theft
322. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent
(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;
(b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;
(c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or
(d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.
Time when theft completed
(2) A person commits theft when, with intent to steal anything, he moves it or causes it to move or to be moved, or begins to cause it to become movable.
Secrecy
(3) A taking or conversion of anything may be fraudulent notwithstanding that it is effected without secrecy or attempt at concealment.
Purpose of taking
(4) For the purposes of this Act, the question whether anything that is converted is taken for the purpose of conversion, or whether it is, at the time it is converted, in the lawful possession of the person who converts it is not material.
Wild living creature
(5) For the purposes of this section, a person who has a wild living creature in captivity shall be deemed to have a special property or interest in it while it is in captivity and after it has escaped from captivity.
R.S., c. C­34, s. 283.
Punishment for theft
334. Except where otherwise provided by law, every one who commits theft
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, where the property stolen is a testamentary instrument or the value of what is stolen exceeds five thousand dollars; or
(b) is guilty
(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,
84
where the value of what is stolen does not exceed five thousand dollars.
R.S., 1985, c. C­46, s. 334; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 43; 1994, c. 44, s. 20.
CRIMINAL CODE PART IX: OFFENCES AGAINST RIGHTS OF PROPERTY
85
Aggravating circumstance ­­ home invasion
348.1 If a person is convicted of an offence under any of subsection 279(2) or sections 343, 346 and 348 in relation to a dwelling­house, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the dwelling­house was occupied at the time of the commission of the offence and that the person, in committing the offence,
(a) knew that or was reckless as to whether the dwelling­house was occupied; and
(b) used violence or threats of violence to a person or property.
2002, c. 13, s. 15.
Being unlawfully in 349. (1) Every person who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on that person, enters or dwelling­house
is in a dwelling­house with intent to commit an indictable offence in it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Presumption
(2) For the purposes of proceedings under this section, evidence that an accused, without lawful excuse, entered or was in a dwelling­house is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that he entered or was in the dwelling­house with intent to commit an indictable offence therein.
R.S., 1985, c. C­46, s. 349; 1997, c. 18, s. 21.
Entrance
350. For the purposes of sections 348 and 349,
(a) a person enters as soon as any part of his body or any part of an instrument that he uses is within any thing that is being entered; and
(b) a person shall be deemed to have broken and entered if
(i) he obtained entrance by a threat or an artifice or by collusion with a person within, or
(ii) he entered without lawful justification or excuse, the proof of which lies on him, by a permanent or temporary opening.
R.S., c. C­34, s. 308.
Possession of 351. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him, has in his break­in instrument possession any instrument suitable for the purpose of breaking into any place, motor vehicle, vault or safe under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument has been used or is or was intended to be used for any such purpose, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Disguise with intent
(2) Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
R.S., 1985, c. C­46, s. 351; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 48.
86
CRIMINAL CODE PART XI: WILFUL AND FORBIDDEN ACTS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY Definition of "property"
428. In this Part, "property" means real or personal corporeal property.
R.S., c. C­34, s. 385.
Wilfully causing event to occur
429. (1) Every one who causes the occurrence of an event by doing an act or by omitting to do an act that it is his duty to do, knowing that the act or omission will probably cause the occurrence of the event and being reckless whether the event occurs or not, shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Part, wilfully to have caused the occurrence of the event.
Colour of right
(2) No person shall be convicted of an offence under sections 430 to 446 where he proves that he acted with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.
Interest
(3) Where it is an offence to destroy or to damage anything,
(a) the fact that a person has a partial interest in what is destroyed or damaged does not prevent him from being guilty of the offence if he caused the destruction or damage; and
(b) the fact that a person has a total interest in what is destroyed or damaged does not prevent him from being guilty of the offence if he caused the destruction or damage with intent to defraud.
R.S., c. C­34, s. 386.
Mischief
430. (1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully
(a) destroys or damages property;
(b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;
(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or
(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.
Punishment
(2) Every one who commits mischief that causes actual danger to life is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
Punishment
(3) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property that is a testamentary instrument or the value of which exceeds five thousand dollars
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Idem
(4) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property, other than property described in subsection (3),
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
87
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Mischief relating to (4.1) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property that is a building, structure or part religious property thereof that is primarily used for religious worship, including a church, mosque, synagogue or temple, or an object associated with religious worship located in or on the grounds of such a building or structure, or a cemetery, if the commission of the mischief is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.
Idem
(5) Every one who commits mischief in relation to data
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Offence
(5.1) Every one who wilfully does an act or wilfully omits to do an act that it is his duty to do, if that act or omission is likely to constitute mischief causing actual danger to life, or to constitute mischief in relation to property or data,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Saving
(6) No person commits mischief within the meaning of this section by reason only that
(a) he stops work as a result of the failure of his employer and himself to agree on any matter relating to his employment;
(b) he stops work as a result of the failure of his employer and a bargaining agent acting on his behalf to agree on any matter relating to his employment; or
(c) he stops work as a result of his taking part in a combination of workmen or employees for their own reasonable protection as workmen or employees.
Idem
(7) No person commits mischief within the meaning of this section by reason only that he attends at or near or approaches a dwelling­house or place for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information.
Definition of "data" (8) In this section, "data" has the same meaning as in section 342.1.
R.S., 1985, c. C­46, s. 430; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 57; 1994, c. 44, s. 28; 2001, c. 41, s. 12.
88
APPENDIX B:
ONTARIO TRESPASS
TO
PROPERTY ACT
Note: The following is for general informational purposes and cannot be guaranteed for accuracy. For up­to­date laws, check www.e­
laws.gov.on.ca For legal advice, consult a lawyer.
Trespass to Property Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER T.21 ­­ Amended by: 2000, c. 30, s. 11.
Definitions
1. (1) In this Act,
"occupier" includes,
(a) a person who is in physical possession of premises, or
(b) a person who has responsibility for and control over the condition of premises or the activities there carried on, or control over persons allowed to enter the premises,
even if there is more than one occupier of the same premises; ("occupant")
"premises" means lands and structures, or either of them, and includes,
(a) water,
(b) ships and vessels,
(c) trailers and portable structures designed or used for residence, business or shelter,
(d) trains, railway cars, vehicles and aircraft, except while in operation. ("lieux") R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 1 (1).
School boards
(2) A school board has all the rights and duties of an occupier in respect of its school sites as defined in the Education Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 1 (2).
Trespass an offence
2. (1) Every person who is not acting under a right or authority conferred by law and who,
(a) without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant,
89
(i) enters on premises when entry is prohibited under this Act, or
(ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or
(b) does not leave the premises immediately after he or she is directed to do so by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier,
is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $2,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 2 (1).
Colour of right as a defence
(2) It is a defence to a charge under subsection (1) in respect of premises that is land that the person charged reasonably believed that he or she had title to or an interest in the land that entitled him or her to do the act complained of. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 2 (2).
Prohibition of entry
3. (1) Entry on premises may be prohibited by notice to that effect and entry is prohibited without any notice on premises,
(a) that is a garden, field or other land that is under cultivation, including a lawn, orchard, vineyard and premises on which trees have been planted and have not attained an average height of more than two metres and woodlots on land used primarily for agricultural purposes; or
(b) that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier's intention to keep persons off the premises or to keep animals on the premises. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 3 (1).
Implied permission to use approach to door
(2) There is a presumption that access for lawful purposes to the door of a building on premises by a means apparently provided and used for the purpose of access is not prohibited. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 3 (2).
Limited permission
4. (1) Where notice is given that one or more particular activities are permitted, all other activities and entry for the purpose are prohibited and any additional notice that entry is prohibited or a particular activity is prohibited on the same premises shall be construed to be for greater certainty only. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 4 (1).
Limited prohibition
(2) Where entry on premises is not prohibited under section 3 or by notice that one or more particular activities are permitted under subsection (1), and notice is given that a particular activity is prohibited, that activity and entry for the purpose is prohibited and all other activities and entry for the purpose are not prohibited. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 4 (2).
Method of giving notice
5. (1) A notice under this Act may be given,
(a) orally or in writing;
(b) by means of signs posted so that a sign is clearly visible in daylight under normal conditions from the approach to each ordinary point of access to the premises to which it applies; or
(c) by means of the marking system set out in section 7. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 5 (1).
90
Substantial compliance
(2) Substantial compliance with clause (1) (b) or (c) is sufficient notice. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 5 (2).
Form of sign
6. (1) A sign naming an activity or showing a graphic representation of an activity is sufficient for the purpose of giving notice that the activity is permitted. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 6 (1).
Idem
(2) A sign naming an activity with an oblique line drawn through the name or showing a graphic representation of an activity with an oblique line drawn through the representation is sufficient for the purpose of giving notice that the activity is prohibited. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 6 (2).
Red markings
7. (1) Red markings made and posted in accordance with subsections (3) and (4) are sufficient for the purpose of giving notice that entry on the premises is prohibited. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 7 (1).
Yellow markings
(2) Yellow markings made and posted in accordance with subsections (3) and (4) are sufficient for the purpose of giving notice that entry is prohibited except for the purpose of certain activities and shall be deemed to be notice of the activities permitted. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 7 (2).
Size
(3) A marking under this section shall be of such a size that a circle ten centimetres in diameter can be contained wholly within it. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 7 (3).
Posting
(4) Markings under this section shall be so placed that a marking is clearly visible in daylight under normal conditions from the approach to each ordinary point of access to the premises to which it applies. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 7 (4).
Notice applicable to part of premises
8. A notice or permission under this Act may be given in respect of any part of the premises of an occupier. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 8.
Arrest without warrant on premises
9. (1) A police officer, or the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of section 2. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 9 (1).
Delivery to police officer
(2) Where the person who makes an arrest under subsection (1) is not a police officer, he or she shall promptly call for the assistance of a police officer and give the person arrested into the custody of the police officer. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 9 (2).
Deemed arrest
(3) A police officer to whom the custody of a person is given under subsection (2) shall be deemed to have arrested the person for the purposes of the provisions of the Provincial Offences Act applying to his or her release or continued detention and bail. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 9 (3).
91
Arrest without warrant off premises
10. Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person has been in contravention of section 2 and has made fresh departure from the premises, and the person refuses to give his or her name and address, or there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the name or address given is false, the police officer may arrest the person without warrant. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 10
Motor vehicles and motorized snow vehicles
11. Where an offence under this Act is committed by means of a motor vehicle, as defined in the Highway Traffic Act, or by means of a motorized snow vehicle, as defined in the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, the driver of the motor vehicle or motorized snow vehicle is liable to the fine provided under this Act and, where the driver is not the owner, the owner of the motor vehicle or motorized snow vehicle is liable to the fine provided under this Act unless the driver is convicted of the offence or, at the time the offence was committed, the motor vehicle or motorized snow vehicle was in the possession of a person other than the owner without the owner's consent. 2000, c. 30, s. 11.
Damage award
12. (1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 2, and a person has suffered damage caused by the person convicted during the commission of the offence, the court shall, on the request of the prosecutor and with the consent of the person who suffered the damage, determine the damages and shall make a judgment for damages against the person convicted in favour of the person who suffered the damage, but no judgment shall be for an amount in excess of $1,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 12 (1).
Costs of prosecution
(2) Where a prosecution under section 2 is conducted by a private prosecutor, and the defendant is convicted, unless the court is of the opinion that the prosecution was not necessary for the protection of the occupier or the occupier's interests, the court shall determine the actual costs reasonably incurred in conducting the prosecution and, despite section 60 of the Provincial Offences Act, shall order those costs to be paid by the defendant to the prosecutor. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 12 (2).
Damages and costs in addition to fine
(3) A judgment for damages under subsection (1), or an award of costs under subsection (2), shall be in addition to any fine that is imposed under this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 12 (3).
Civil action
(4) A judgment for damages under subsection (1) extinguishes the right of the person in whose favour the judgment is made to bring a civil action for damages against the person convicted arising out of the same facts. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 12 (4).
Idem (5) The failure to request or refusal to grant a judgment for damages under subsection (1) does not affect a right to bring a civil action for damages arising out of the same facts. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 12 (5).
Enforcement
(6) The judgment for damages under subsection (1), and the award for costs under subsection (2), may be filed in the Small Claims Court and shall be deemed to be a judgment or order of that court for the purposes of enforcement. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 12 (6).
92
APPENDIX C: RELEVANT SECTIONS
THE
ONTARIO FAMILY
AND
FROM
CHILDREN SERVICES ACT
PART III ­­ CHILD PROTECTION
Interpretation
37. (1) In this Part,
"child" does not include a child as defined in subsection 3 (1) who is actually or apparently sixteen years of age or older, unless the child is the subject of an order under this Part; ("enfant")
"child protection worker" means a Director, a local director or a person authorized by a Director or local director for the purposes of section 40 (commencing child protection proceedings); ("préposé à la protection de l'enfance")
"extended family", when used in reference to a child, means the persons to whom the child is related by blood, marriage or adoption; ("famille élargie")
"parent", when used in reference to a child, means each of,
(a) the child's mother,
(b) an individual described in one of paragraphs 1 to 6 of subsection 8 (1) of the Children's Law Reform Act, unless it is proved on a balance of probabilities that he is not the child's natural father,
93
(c) the individual having lawful custody of the child,
(d) an individual who, during the twelve months before intervention under this Part, has demonstrated a settled intention to treat the child as a child of his or her family, or has acknowledged parentage of the child and provided for the child's support,
(e) an individual who, under a written agreement or a court order, is required to provide for the child, has custody of the child or has a right of access to the child, and
(f) an individual who has acknowledged parentage of the child in writing under section 12 of the Children's Law Reform Act,
but does not include a foster parent; ("père ou mère")
"place of safety" means a foster home, a hospital, and a place or one of a class of places designated as such by a Director under subsection 17 (2) of Part I (Flexible Services), but does not include,
(a) a place of secure custody as defined in Part IV (Young Offenders), or
(b) a place of secure temporary detention as defined in Part IV. ("lieu sûr") R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 37 (1).
Child in need of protection
(2) A child is in need of protection where,
(a) the child has suffered physical harm, inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person's, (i) failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or (ii) pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child;
(b) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person's, (i) failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or (ii) pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child;
(c) the child has been sexually molested or sexually exploited, by the person having charge of the child or by another person where the person having charge of the child knows or should know of the possibility of sexual molestation or sexual exploitation and fails to protect the child;
(d) there is a risk that the child is likely to be sexually molested or sexually exploited as described in clause (c);
94
(e) the child requires medical treatment to cure, prevent or alleviate physical harm or suffering and the child's parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, the treatment;
(f) the child has suffered emotional harm, demonstrated by serious,
(i) anxiety,
(ii) depression,
(iii) withdrawal,
(iv) self­destructive or aggressive behaviour, or
(v) delayed development,
and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the emotional harm suffered by the child results from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child's parent or the person having charge of the child;
(f.1) the child has suffered emotional harm of the kind described in subclause (f) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) and the child's parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, services or treatment to remedy or alleviate the harm;
(g) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm of the kind described in subclause (f) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) resulting from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child's parent or the person having charge of the child;
(g.1) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm of the kind described in subclause (f) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) and that the child's parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, services or treatment to prevent the harm;
(h) the child suffers from a mental, emotional or developmental condition that, if not remedied, could seriously impair the child's development and the child's parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, treatment to remedy or alleviate the condition;
(i) the child has been abandoned, the child's parent has died or is unavailable to exercise his or her custodial rights over the child and has not made adequate provision for the child's care and custody, or the child is in a residential placement and the parent refuses or is unable or unwilling to resume the child's care and custody;
(j) the child is less than twelve years old and has killed or seriously injured another person or caused serious damage to another person's property, services or treatment are necessary to prevent a recurrence and the child's parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, those services or treatment;
95
(k) the child is less than twelve years old and has on more than one occasion injured another person or caused loss or damage to another person's property, with the encouragement of the person having charge of the child or because of that person's failure or inability to supervise the child adequately; or
(l) the child's parent is unable to care for the child and the child is brought before the court with the parent's consent and, where the child is twelve years of age or older, with the child's consent, to be dealt with under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 37 (2); 1999, c. 2, s. 9.
Best interests of child
(3) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall take into consideration those of the following circumstances of the case that he or she considers relevant:
1. The child's physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs.
2. The child's physical, mental and emotional level of development.
3. The child's cultural background.
4. The religious faith, if any, in which the child is being raised.
5. The importance for the child's development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family.
6. The child's relationships by blood or through an adoption order.
7. The importance of continuity in the child's care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity.
8. The merits of a plan for the child's care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent.
9. The child's views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained.
10. The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case.
11. The risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent.
12. The degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.
13. Any other relevant circumstance.
96
Where child an Indian or native person
(4) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child and the child is an Indian or native person, the person shall take into consideration the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of Indian and native culture, heritage and traditions, of preserving the child's cultural identity. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 37 (3, 4).
Note: Despite the proclamation of the Statutes of Ontario, 1999, chapter 2, section 9, section 37 of this Act, as it read before March 31, 2000, continues to apply with respect to any proceeding under Part III, including a status review proceeding, that was commenced before March 31, 2000. See: 1999, c. 2, ss. 37 (5), 38.
Commencing Child Protection Proceedings
Warrants, orders, apprehension, etc.
Application
40. (1) A society may apply to the court to determine whether a child is in need of protection.
Warrant to apprehend child
(2) A justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorizing a child protection worker to bring a child to a place of safety if the justice of the peace is satisfied on the basis of a child protection worker's sworn information that there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that,
(a) the child is in need of protection; and
(b) a less restrictive course of action is not available or will not protect the child adequately. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 40 (1, 2).
Idem
(3) A justice of the peace shall not refuse to issue a warrant under subsection (2) by reason only that the child protection worker may bring the child to a place of safety under subsection (7). R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 40 (3); 1993, c. 27, Sched.
Order to produce or apprehend child
(4) Where the court is satisfied, on a person's application upon notice to a society, that there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that,
(a) a child is in need of protection, the matter has been reported to the society, the society has not made an application under subsection (1), and no child protection worker has sought a warrant under subsection (2) or apprehended the child under subsection (7); and
97
(b) the child cannot be protected adequately otherwise than by being brought before the court,
the court may order,
(c) that the person having charge of the child produce him or her before the court at the time and place named in the order for a hearing under subsection 47 (1) to determine whether he or she is in need of protection; or
(d) where the court is satisfied that an order under clause (c) would not protect the child adequately, that a child protection worker employed by the society bring the child to a place of safety. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 40 (4); 1993, c. 27, Sched.
Child's name, location not required
(5) It is not necessary, in an application under subsection (1), a warrant under subsection (2) or an order made under subsection (4), to describe the child by name or to specify the premises where the child is located.
Authority to enter, etc.
(6) A child protection worker authorized to bring a child to a place of safety by a warrant issued under subsection (2) or an order made under clause (4) (d) may at any time enter any premises specified in the warrant or order, by force if necessary, and may search for and remove the child.
Apprehension without warrant
(7) A child protection worker who believes on reasonable and probable grounds that,
(a) a child is in need of protection; and
(b) there would be a substantial risk to the child's health or safety during the time necessary to bring the matter on for a hearing under subsection 47 (1) or obtain a warrant under subsection (2),
may without a warrant bring the child to a place of safety.
Police assistance
(8) A child protection worker acting under this section may call for the assistance of a peace officer.
Consent to examine child
(9) A child protection worker acting under subsection (7) or under a warrant issued under subsection (2) or an order made under clause (4) (d) may authorize the child's medical examination where a parent's consent would otherwise be required.
Place of open temporary detention
98
(10) Where a child protection worker who brings a child to a place of safety under this section believes on reasonable and probable grounds that no less restrictive course of action is feasible, the child may be detained in a place of safety that is a place of open temporary detention as defined in Part IV (Young Offenders).
Right of entry, etc.
(11) A child protection worker who believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a child referred to in subsection (7) is on any premises may without a warrant enter the premises, by force, if necessary, and search for and remove the child.
Regulations re power of entry
(12) A child protection worker authorized to enter premises under subsection (6) or (11) shall exercise the power of entry in accordance with the regulations.
Peace officer has powers of child protection worker
(13) Subsections (2), (6), (7), (10), (11) and (12) apply to a peace officer as if the peace officer were a child protection worker.
Protection from personal liability
(14) No action shall be instituted against a peace officer or child protection worker for any act done in good faith in the execution or intended execution of that person's duty under this section or for an alleged neglect or default in the execution in good faith of that duty. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 40 (5­14).
99