A judge in Saskatoon has reserved a decision on whether to grant an interlocutory injunction that would halt the City of Saskatoon from dismantling a large homeless encampment in the Pleasant Hill neighbourhood.
Hearing focused on urgency, evidence and potential harms
Justice Richard Danyliuk heard arguments Monday in Court of King’s Bench from lawyers representing the applicant, the city and Saskatchewan’s attorney general. He said he hoped to issue a ruling within 24 hours, but acknowledged the decision could take a few days because of other matters on his docket.
The injunction was sought by lawyer Crystal Fafard, who told the court the application was prepared quickly and centred on a claim that removing the encampment would cause irreparable harm to dozens of people who live there. Fafard framed her argument around the Charter protection for “life, liberty and security of the person,” saying the number of people at the site exceeds available shelter capacity in the city.
City lawyer Alan Rankine and Noah Wernikowski, who appeared by phone for the provincial attorney general, countered that Fafard’s affidavit lacked necessary evidence. Throughout the hearing, Danyliuk cautioned the applicant to stick to what was in her affidavit and not introduce new material, noting the court’s rules for interlocutory applications.
Advocate at centre of case fears displacement and death
Outside court, homeless advocate David Fineday — who is visually impaired and used a white cane while speaking — said the consequences of a dismantling would be devastating. He told reporters there are roughly 100 to 150 people living at the encampment on the eastern edge of Pleasant Hill at 20th Street and Avenue K, and that the site has been growing.
“I had to start crying halfway through [the hearing],” Fineday said. “Where’s their heart? How many people are they going to let die this year?”
Fineday said five to 10 new people have been arriving at the site each day. He told reporters he was prepared to be arrested if Saskatoon Fire Department personnel moved in to clear the tents.
What the court was told, and what was challenged
Fafard described the application as narrow, temporary and proportionate — a measure designed to prevent displacement until sufficient shelter is available. She told the court that removing people without where-to-go options would place further strain on emergency services, hospitals and police.
But the court repeatedly returned to gaps in the sworn evidence. Danyliuk warned Fafard she could not introduce new figures or assertions that were not in her affidavit. At one point, the judge pointed to the procedural limits of an interlocutory hearing and emphasised the need for admissible evidence supporting claims about the scale of homelessness or immediate threats at the site.
- Decision timeline: Judge reserved decision; hoped to rule within 24 hours but it may take longer.
- People at site: Applicant and an advocate estimated 100–150 people live at the encampment.
- Immediate concerns: Arguments hinged on alleged lack of shelter capacity and potential irreparable harm if people are forced from the site.
Local implications and next steps
The judge’s forthcoming decision will determine whether the city may proceed with plans to clear the encampment or whether removal must be delayed while housing options are arranged. The case places local policy choices under legal scrutiny: if an injunction is refused, the city could move forward with enforcement and any associated safety or sanitation measures. If an injunction is granted, municipal authorities would need to consider alternatives for the people living on municipal property.
The dispute highlights broader tensions in Saskatoon over shelter capacity, public safety, and the rights of people experiencing homelessness. Advocates say the city’s shelter network cannot meet current demand; city officials have argued enforcement is necessary where safety or property concerns arise. The court’s ruling, expected in the coming days, will give temporary legal clarity but is unlikely to resolve the deeper policy questions that brought dozens of people to the encampment.
| Item | Reported figure |
|---|---|
| Estimated people at encampment | 100–150 |
| Estimated new arrivals per day | 5–10 |
| Judge’s expected timing for ruling | Within 24 hours (but could take a few days) |
The hearing drew attention from community organisations and neighbours in Pleasant Hill, and will remain a focal point as advocates, city staff and the courts navigate immediate safety concerns alongside longer-term housing needs.
