Doug Ford Mulls Notwithstanding Clause to Overturn Waterloo Region Encampment Ruling

When you hear the words “notwithstanding clause,” you probably picture a constitutional hammer that can smash a court’s decision in an instant. That’s exactly the image Premier Doug Ford is now tossing around in the wake of a recent Ontario Superior Court ruling that told Waterloo Region it must halt the removal of a makeshift encampment housing some of the province’s most vulnerable citizens.

The judgment, handed down in early May, basically said the region’s plan to clear the tents without first guaranteeing safe, affordable housing violated the residents’ rights under the Charter. The court ordered the municipality to pause any further evictions until a proper housing solution was on the table.

For Ford, that decision landed like a cold splash of water on an already heated political summer. The Premier, who has repeatedly framed homelessness as a “crisis” that needs swift action, told reporters he’s exploring every legal avenue – including the rarely‑used Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, better known as the notwithstanding clause.

“We have a responsibility to keep our streets safe and to make sure our communities aren’t overrun by unsanctioned encampments,” Ford said, his tone mixing resolve with a hint of frustration. “If the courts are blocking a practical solution, then we have to ask ourselves whether we can invoke the constitutional tool that allows us to move forward.”

What makes this potential move so striking is the rarity with which Ontario’s governments have ever invoked the clause. Historically, it’s been a political flashpoint, used sparingly and usually on issues like religious symbols on public school boards or certain aspects of health care. Deploying it on a homelessness‑related matter could spark a fresh round of debate about the balance between judicial oversight and elected authority.

Legal experts are already weighing in. Professor Margaret O’Leary of the University of Toronto points out that invoking the clause would not erase the court’s reasoning – it would simply override the legal effect for up to five years, unless the province chooses to renew it. “It’s a blunt instrument,” she warned, “and it carries political baggage. Voters might see it as a disregard for civil liberties, especially when dealing with a population already marginalized.”

On the ground, the encampment in question – a cluster of tarps and makeshift shelters tucked beside a riverbank in Waterloo – has become a micro‑cosm of the broader housing squeeze sweeping Ontario. Residents, many of whom have been displaced by the pandemic‑era rent hikes, have faced repeated threats of eviction, and the court’s order was hailed by advocates as a victory for their basic rights.

But the province’s housing ministry says the encampment poses health and safety risks that cannot be ignored. “We’re not trying to be heartless,” a ministry spokesperson told CTV News. “We’re looking for a rapid, coordinated response that gets people into proper housing, not into a limbo where they’re stuck on the street with no support.”

In the meantime, the municipal council of Waterloo has stuck to the court’s directive, postponing any further clean‑up operations. That pause has drawn criticism from local business owners who complain about the visual impact and perceived rise in petty crime. Some argue that the council’s compliance signals a slippery slope, where any municipal decision could be halted by a court if a vocal minority steps forward.

Mayor Dave Jaworsky, who’s been navigating between the two sides, said, “We’re listening to the court, we’re listening to the residents, and we’re listening to our constituents. The solution isn’t a simple ‘clear it’ or ‘leave it’ – it’s about finding housing, services, and a pathway out of homelessness.”

If Ford decides to move forward with a notwithstanding declaration, the next step would be for his government to introduce legislation that explicitly states the province’s intent to override the specific provision of the Charter that the court relied on. That bill would then need to survive a vote in the Legislative Assembly – a process that, while technically straightforward given the PCs’ majority, could become a political fireworks display.

Opposition parties, along with civil‑rights groups, have already signaled they would challenge such a move in the courts again, arguing that even the notwithstanding clause should not be used to sidestep fundamental housing rights. “This is about dignity,” said Alex Deslatte, a spokesperson for the Ontario Homelessness Coalition. “If we start allowing a Premier to sweep away court protections whenever it’s inconvenient, we risk eroding the very safeguards that keep our democracy alive.”

As the debate unfolds, the people who call the encampment home remain the quiet, uneasy center of the storm. For many, the legal back‑and‑forth feels like a distant drama, while they continue to hunt for a stable place to lay their heads.

Whether the notwithstanding clause will become a tool in this particular fight – or remain a theoretical threat – remains to be seen. What’s clear, however, is that Ontario’s housing crisis is forcing politicians, judges, and citizens alike to wrestle with uncomfortable questions about rights, responsibilities, and the limits of governmental power.