Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Charter implications of clearing encampments from municipal parks, across the individualized records of 14 appellants

• Scope of municipal authority versus constitutional protections, including limits on bylaw enforcement in public spaces

• Appellate review of the application judge’s dismissal and the framework for admitting fresh evidence on appeal

• Management of a voluminous record: extended factum word limits and directed use of appendices to map key evidence

• Participation of multiple public interest intervenors and the Attorney General of Ontario (as of right), shaping the legal context

• Structured timelines governing perfection, responses, fresh-evidence exchanges, intervention motions, and the eventual hearing window

Facts
A group of 14 individuals allege that a municipality violated their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when they were evicted from city parks between August 2021 and August 2023. Their application was dismissed at first instance in 2024, and they have appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. A case management judge (Favreau J.A.) heard a second case conference on August 5, 2025, following an earlier conference on May 5, 2025 and the dismissal of a motion by the respondent to quash certain grounds of appeal on July 22, 2025

Procedural history
After the first case conference, the respondent brought a motion to quash certain grounds of appeal, which was dismissed in July 2025. The second case conference on August 5, 2025 was convened to set the schedule for the appeal, including materials, a potential fresh-evidence motion, and interventions

Case management outcome
The court set firm filing deadlines. The appellants must perfect the appeal by August 29, 2025, and the respondent must serve and file responding materials by October 31, 2025

Factum length
Given the extensive evidentiary record and multiple issues, the court granted leave for each side to file a factum up to 12,000 words (beyond the usual 9,200-word limit) and permitted appendices with concise tables (e.g., chronology and appellant-specific summaries) to assist in locating key evidence. The appendices are excluded from the word count but must be truly useful and concise

Motion for fresh evidence
Following the dismissal of part of the motion to quash, the respondent intends to move to adduce fresh evidence to respond to material the appellants point to that was not admitted below. The fresh-evidence motion will be heard by the appeal panel. The respondent is to serve its motion materials by September 10, 2025, and the appellants are to respond by October 6, 2025. The court encouraged the parties to resolve any cross-examination scope issues themselves but left open the possibility of another case conference if needed

Intervention motions
Multiple organizations have expressed interest in intervening, including civil liberties, housing, poverty, income security, mental health, human rights, and women’s equality groups. The Attorney General for Ontario intends to intervene as of right. The motions for leave to intervene are scheduled for December 12, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. via Zoom. Proposed intervenors must serve and file their materials (including a draft factum for the appeal) by November 14, 2025, and the parties may respond by December 8, 2025 or advise the court of their positions if they do not file materials. If leave is granted, timelines for intervenor filings and any supplementary facta will be set after the motions are decided

Hearing date
The appeal will be scheduled for two days in the new year, preferably in late January or in February; the court has provided potential dates and awaits the parties’ availability to fix the hearing dates

Administrative directions
The parties are to provide the endorsement to counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario and to counsel for the proposed intervenors. Any additional proposed intervenor must notify the court and the parties and adhere to the intervention schedule. The parties may request another case conference if further issues arise. This is a procedural case management endorsement, not a decision on the merits of the appeal. No party “won” substantively.