Edmonton man challenges city’s disposal of his belongings during 2024 encampment cleanup

Dwayne Cardinal, 55, is seeking summary judgment in his lawsuit against the city, arguing the evidence establishes that city workers unlawfully took his tent, tarps, sleeping bag, bicycle, stoves, clothing and other belongings and sent them to a landfill.

The city disputes that claim, arguing its workers were authorized to remove the property under Alberta’s Municipal Government Act and that the items posed health and safety risks.

The arguments were heard as part of a summary judgment application on Aug. 18, a process that allows a court to resolve a case without a full trial when there is sufficient evidence to do so.

Cardinal argues a trial would be prohibitively expensive for him.

Disposed property

At the centre of the dispute is Section 610(1) of the Municipal Government Act.

The provision says lost or unclaimed property that comes into a municipality’s possession must generally be kept for at least 30 days. Property can be disposed of sooner if it is unsafe, unsanitary or perishable.

Cardinal argues the law does not apply because his belongings were neither lost nor unclaimed.

He argues he was in the process of packing up his belongings when he was separated from them because he was detained by police, not because he had abandoned or misplaced them.

Cardinal also argues city workers knew the belongings belonged to him and saw police detaining him nearby.

The city argues “lost” can include property that is simply out of an owner’s possession. Because Cardinal was arrested and removed from the site, his belongings were no longer in his possession.

The city also argues the property was unclaimed from the perspective of its workers, who did not communicate directly with Cardinal and were told by police the site was ready to be cleared.

The city says requiring workers to determine why every item was left behind would create an impractical standard for municipal cleanup crews.

City says belongings were unsafe

Cardinal also argues the city failed to establish that his specific belongings were unsafe or unsanitary enough to justify immediate disposal.

His lawyer, Chris Wiebe, said city workers relied on a general clean-up procedure that presumed materials at encampments were contaminated rather than inspecting his individual belongings.

The city argues the conditions at Cardinal’s encampment justified immediate disposal with  clean-up crews finding used drug paraphernalia, including methamphetamine pipes and burnt tin foil, as well as 48 needles at the site.

The city also points to a police report documenting another person defecating near the tent and that there was an active Shigella outbreak among Edmonton’s unhoused population at the time.

The city filed court documents saying materials from encampments can be contaminated, creating risks if they are stored and potentially exposing municipal workers and the public to cross-contamination.

Cardinal argues seizure violated his rights

Cardinal is also arguing the disposal of his belongings amounted to an unreasonable seizure under Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He says he received no notice before the cleanup and was actively packing his belongings when police detained him and was handcuffed while city workers subsequently removed and disposed of his possessions.

The city disputes that Section 8 applies, arguing the Charter provision protects reasonable expectations of privacy rather than an absolute right to property.

Cardinal’s encampment was located on a public, multi-use LRT pathway, the city says, and was visible to pedestrians and cyclists.

Even if Section 8 is engaged, the city argues, the seizure was authorized by law and carried out to protect public health and safety.

Cardinal is seeking $7,000 from the city: $1,000 for the value of his belongings, $1,000 in general damages for the hardship he experienced after losing his shelter, and $5,000 in Charter damages.

Cardinal’s lawsuit also names former Edmonton police chief Dale McFee and constables Mathew Bruno and Levi Clarke.

However, his claims against those police defendants — including allegations of battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, negligence and violations of his Charter rights during his arrest — are not part of the current summary judgment application.

The judge has yet to rule on Cardinal’s application. — Jesmeen Gill