In December 2021, a group of unhoused persons began setting up tents on a vacant piece of municipally-owned property in downtown Kitchener. Over the next ten months, the encampment grew to over fifty persons, and in October 2022, the Region of Waterloo filed an application to injunct the residents from camping on the land for breaching its bylaws. In the ordinary course of events, this would have been the end of the encampment. Instead, the court found the bylaw violated s. 7 of the Charter. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo v Persons Unknown and to be Ascertained, 2023 ONSC 670 Waterloo Region (the “decision”) represents a win for encampment residents across Ontario, and a dramatic expansion of s. 7 Charter rights within an encampment context. This was the first time in Ontario’s history that a s. 7 challenge was litigated in an encampment context, and the first time since 2015 across the country. In finding a s. 7 violation, Justice Valente held not only that Waterloo Region did not have enough shelter spaces to accommodate its homeless population, but that the spaces themselves were inadequate to serve the individual needs of encampment residents—for instance, those who were sheltering with partners. This shifts the analysis from a simple numbers game to ensuring the dignity of those who rely on these shelters. Municipalities who move their shelter beds closer together and call this an increase in capacity should take notice. Moreover, Justice Valente held that in the absence of such adequate shelter spaces, the right to shelter extends to all hours of the day. This is an expansion of the previous right to shelter at nighttime, as established by previous courts in British Columbia (notably, in Victoria (City) v Adams, 2009 BCCA 563). Municipalities may try to distinguish these rights on the basis that the encampment was on vacant land, and not in a public park, however, this may inadvertently push future encampments to more remote non-park spaces with fewer services. Lastly, Justice Valente held in the alternative that there was no Charter breach, that the injunction should be refused on “exceptional circumstances” (here, that the encampment eviction would violate the Region’s policy, which specified that eviction should only be done after all reasonable accommodation efforts have been attempted). This finding may be a mixed blessing. Whether other municipalities choose to not pass or even revoke their own encampment policies in response to this decision remains to be seen.