An individual in Edmonton without a permanent residence is seeking legal action against the City of Edmonton for confiscating and discarding his personal possessions during a cleanup of an encampment two years ago.
Dwayne Cardinal, aged 55, is pursuing summary judgment in his lawsuit against the city, claiming that city personnel unlawfully removed his tent, tarps, sleeping bag, bicycle, stoves, clothing, and other items, sending them to a landfill.
The city refutes this assertion, contending that its workers were authorized to clear the property under Alberta’s Municipal Government Act, citing health and safety concerns related to the items.
The arguments were presented during a summary judgment hearing on August 18, a legal procedure that enables a court to reach a decision without a full trial if there is adequate evidence to do so.
Cardinal argues that a trial would be financially burdensome for him.
Central to the disagreement is Section 610(1) of the Municipal Government Act, which outlines procedures for lost or unclaimed property in a municipality’s possession.
Cardinal asserts that this law is not applicable as his belongings were not lost or unclaimed, explaining that he was in the process of packing when police detained him, leading to the separation from his possessions.
Additionally, Cardinal claims that city workers were aware of his ownership of the items and witnessed his detainment by the police.
The city, on the other hand, argues that property out of an owner’s possession can be deemed “lost,” especially in Cardinal’s case where he was detained and removed from the location.
Furthermore, the city states that its workers considered the property unclaimed since they did not directly interact with Cardinal and were informed by the police that the site needed clearing.
Cardinal further contends that the city failed to prove that his belongings were hazardous enough to warrant immediate disposal.
His legal representative, Chris Wiebe, asserts that city workers followed a general cleanup protocol assuming items at encampments were contaminated, rather than inspecting Cardinal’s possessions individually.
The city argues that the conditions at Cardinal’s encampment justified immediate disposal due to the discovery of drug paraphernalia, including methamphetamine pipes and needles, as well as reports of a Shigella outbreak among the homeless population at that time.
The city emphasizes that materials from encampments can pose contamination risks, potentially endangering municipal workers and the public through cross-contamination.
Cardinal also argues that the disposal of his belongings violated his rights under Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that he was not given notice before the cleanup and was actively packing when the city workers removed his possessions.
The city disputes the application of Section 8, stating that the Charter protects privacy expectations rather than an absolute right to property. They argue that even if Section 8 applies, the seizure was lawful and done to safeguard public health and safety.
Cardinal is seeking $7,000 in damages from the city, including $1,000 for the value of his belongings, $1,000 for general damages, and $5,000 in Charter damages due to the hardship he endured after losing his shelter.
His lawsuit also involves former Edmonton police chief Dale McFee and constables Mathew Bruno and Levi Clarke, but the claims against the police defendants are not part of the current summary judgment application.
The ruling on Cardinal’s application is pending.
