Lawyers representing the City of Nanaimo in an ongoing case to shut down an illegally formed downtown homeless camp will be back in court next month.
The city’s legal counsel has filed an application in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in an effort to enfoce conditions set out in a fire safety order against occupants at Discontent City, according to a press release. A hearing date for the enforcement order has been scheduled for Aug. 13.
On July 18, Justice Ronald A. Skolrood ruled that Discontent City must comply with a provincial fire safety order within one week of the ruling. The order lays out a numerous conditions that must be met by Discontent City occupants, such as ensuring all tents are at least one metre apart, storing propane tanks properly, removing all open flame lighting and heating from all tents, removing all tarps placed on all structures and removing all combustible materials.
RELATED: City plans to take tent city back to court over fire safety order
RELATED: Final arguments made at tent city hearing, court won’t rule immediately
RELATED: Discontent City argues that it’s keeping occupants safe
RELATED: Hearing begins to determine fate of Nanaimo’s Discontent City
Karen Fry, Nanaimo Fire Rescue chief and city director of public safety, previously told the News Bulletin that that Discontent City occupants were still failing to meet a number of the requirements as of July 30.
According to the press release, should the enforcement order be approved, the city will have the authority to “remove any structures, vehicles and objects” that violate the fire safety order. It will also give the city the ability to seek the assistance of the RCMP to “ensure compliance” of the order.
Jarrett Plonka, one of the lawyers working on the case for the city, said even though Discontent City hasn’t complied with the fire safety order, the city can’t simply walk in and enforce the order itself.
“Even though it is the city trying to enforce a law, the process is brought using the civl court process. So that is the proper process to seek this sort of relief, but because it is a civil process, it is like a private dispute … as opposed to like a criminal process where there is a Crown and an accused,” Plonka said.
The enforcement order that the city is seeking includes a “police enforcement clause” according to Plonka, who said another reason for going to court is because the RCMP has “complicated policy” when it comes to enforcement and doesn’t want to be seen as “taking a side,” particularly when it comes to highly publicized cases such as tent cities, labour strikes or the Kinder Morgan protest.
“That makes sense if you think about it,” he said. “The police want to be specifically told that this is an appropriate case for the police to be getting involved because they don’t want to be seen as taking a side in what is formally a private dispute. That’s basically why we have to apply for a police enforcement clause.”
Plonka said Justice Skolrood will be the judge who hears the city’s case for an enforcement order on Aug. 13. He said he doesn’t anticipate the enforcement order hearing to impact or delay Skolrood’s ruling on the city’s request for a statutory injunction.
“I understand that he is on vacation, but just because he is on vacation doesn’t mean he is not working,” Plonka said. “I think he is probably using his vacation time to consider [the city’s injunction case] carefully.”
When asked whether the enforcement order could result in Discontent City being shut down entirely, Plonka said “a lot of things could happen” as a result of the order.
“It could be that if we get the enforcement order that everyone complies,” Plonka said.
Fry, along with Nanaimo Mayor Bill McKay and Jake Rudolph, the city’s interim chief administrative officer, were not available for comment.
nicholas.pescod@nanaimobulletin.com
Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter