Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson has said he was inspired by the death of homeless man Darrell Mickasko to run for local office. And now that same death could establish whether the federal government has a duty to provide access to emergency shelter, Public Eye has exclusively learned. Mr. Mickasko was killed in an alley alcove on January 31, 2008 after the gas-stove he and his common law partner Pamela Erickson were using to keep warm fell over, engulfing them in flames. But, according to a writ of summons filed with the British Columbia Supreme Court on January 29, 2010, before that happened the two of them were allegedly turned away from the Lookout North emergency shelter because there was no room. Ms. Erickson was treated for burns covering 30 percent of her body and is now suing the federal government.
She claims the government breached its duty of care to her and Mr. Mickasko by allegedly failing to ensure there was emergency shelter space available for both them.
Ms. Erickson further claims that, by doing so, the government violated their constitutional rights under sections seven and 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - specifically the right to life, liberty and security of person, as well as the right not to be subject to cruel and unusual treatment.
As a result, Ms. Erickson - who is being represented by Pivot Legal Society - is looking for damages from the government for her injuries and Mr. Mickasko's death, as well as a declaration that the homeless have a right to emergency shelter and the government has a duty to provide it.
A justice department spokesperson said the government has yet to be served with the writ, declining further comment because the matter is before the courts.
Ms. Erickson's writ comes in the wake of a British Columbia Supreme Court decision that found the City of Victoria violated section seven by denying the homeless the right to "erect temporary overnight shelter in parks when the number of homeless people exceeds the number of available shelter beds."
But that court and the British Columbia Court of Appeal - which upheld the ruling - said it wasn't necessary to determine if section seven included a responsibility by the city to provide shelter.
So Mr. Erickson's case is likely an attempt to push the boundaries of those decisions.
Where do "human rights" end and "human responsibilities" begin ? If this legal case is successful the implications for the taxpayer are horrendous.
The Court of Appeal did not truly uphold the ruling. The stipulation that people only had the right to provide themselves with shelter 'overnight' was added, making the section 7 depriving monopoly on sleep continue to stand during the day.
I am a named defendent and know of a couple others who were not satisfied with the Appeals Court ruling. We would be happy to appeal it to the Supreme Court of Canada if there would be a mindful pro bono lawyer to join up (as the previous lawyers do not feel up to it- they will also suggest probable failure and much cost... the night was won because it was found that there was maximum 300 shelter beds vs. 1500 homeless. That stat. doesn't change during the day).
To lawfully deny this civil liberty the government would need a section 1 allowance (where Martial Law comes from) or gain authority from the Crown's 'Royal Prerogative' (have no doubt the Queen is the most powerful politician in Canada... next to mindful people who've objectified fear). They do not have a section 1 allowance and the Crown has given no indication that they've utilized their supreme power.
The 60 day time limit to appeal ends in the next couple of days. It can be extended in special circumstances. If this is not challenged municipalities across Canada will think they have the right to direct when people without means or opportunity can sleep... so, however much of a victory gaining the right to sleep at night is, until the right is confirmed 24/7 we all being murderously oppressed. If that doesn't work, my friend and I also have an appeal coming of of convictions of having 'temporary shelter' during the day (we've a hearing on WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3RD, at 2:00 PM in the Vic. Law Courts to secure transcripts and every industry that depends on the monopoly on sleep is coming against us... and I'm weird and my friend is erratic- we could use some help).
David Arthur Johnston
Victoria, BC, Canada
Hatrackman@Gmail.com
Journal of the Right to Sleep campaign (since 2004)- http://www.angelfire.com/apes/hatrackman/welcome.htm
The whole rights/responsibility arguement is really tired, and in this case is extremely tired. Consider for a moment that the person in this case who died had money for a place, damage deposit and everything, and was actively looking for a place to live. He and his partner attempted to find shelter and were unsuccessful. What responsibility would you have him exercise at this point?
Furthermore, the impacts of poverty and homelessness on the taxpayer are lessened by ensuring that everyone is housed. Indeed, if we find we have a right to housing, it will be aq multi-billion dollar fix probably, but it's a wise investment that should have been made a long time ago. It is cheaper to house people than to let them remain homeless, and the more people you house, the more people are going to be putting back into the system. Really, there is report after report that proves that there is a solid financial arguement to housing people. But because it's an upfront investment and a long-term return, we get the kind of fear and negativity that is so short-sighted it will likely do great damage to our economy and society. Quite ironic when you consider that all these NIMBYs and naysayers think they are trying to save tax money.