Ticketing Poverty: An Analysis of The Discriminatory Impacts of Public Intoxication By-Laws on People Experiencing Homelessness in Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Municipalities like Montreal penalize what they consider public disturbances through by-law infraction citations, or “tickets,” that are issued to people experiencing visible homelessness at a disproportionate rate. This is a pattern we observed over the course of two years during our time at a legal clinic providing legal information to people in precarious housing situations. In this article, we propose that Montreal’s by-laws prohibiting public drinking and public intoxication adversely impact unhoused people and are discriminatory under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, a quasi-constitutional human rights instrument unique to Quebec. Drawing from research by criminologists and legal geographers, we explore how these by-laws and the judicialization of homelessness violate equality rights, specifically the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of social condition. We develop arguments that can be adopted by legal practitioners advocating for people experiencing various forms of homelessness. Although the Quebec Charter is our analytical starting point, we engage in a comparative discussion of other provincial and territorial human rights legislation—with an eye on developing case law regarding encampments and the use of public spaces across Canada. Moreover, a successful human rights claim using the Quebec Charter may contribute to interpretations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that are inclusive of economic and social rights. Indeed, we suggest that judicial recognition in Quebec that people experiencing homelessness are an equity-seeking group may be persuasive in Section 15 claims under the Canadian Charter, which to date does not recognize poverty or homelessness as analogous grounds of discrimination. Les municipalités comme Montréal pénalisent ce qu'elles considèrent comme des troubles à l'ordre public par l’émission de constats d'infractions, ou contraventions, à des règlements municipaux, qui sont remis à un taux disproportionné aux personnes en situation d'itinérance visible. C'est une tendance que nous avons observée pendant deux ans, alors que nous travaillions dans une clinique juridique fournissant de l'information juridique à cette population. Dans cet article, nous proposons que les règlements de Montréal interdisant la consommation d'alcool et l'intoxication en public ont un impact négatif sur les personnes non logées et sont discriminatoires en vertu de la Charte québécoise des droits et libertés de la personne, un instrument quasi-constitutionnel de protection des droits de la personne unique au Québec. En s'appuyant sur la littérature développée par des criminologues et géographes juridiques, nous explorons comment ces règlements et la judiciarisation de l'itinérance violent les droits à l'égalité, en particulier le droit de ne pas être victime de discrimination fondée sur la condition sociale. Nous développons des arguments qui peuvent être adoptés par des juristes qui défendent les personnes vivant diverses formes d'itinérance. Bien que la Charte québécoise soit notre point de départ analytique, nous incorporons une discussion comparative des autres législations provinciales et territoriales en matière de droits de la personne, avec un regard sur le développement de la jurisprudence concernant les campements et l'utilisation des espaces publics à travers le Canada. De plus, nous suggérons qu’une demande fondée sur la Charte québécoise peut contribuer à étayer des interprétations de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés qui englobent des droits économiques et sociaux. En effet, la reconnaissance judiciaire au Québec du fait que les personnes en situation d’itinérance constituent un groupe protégé pourrait être convaincante dans les demandes déposées en vertu de l'article 15 de la Charte canadienne, qui à ce jour, ne reconnaît pas la pauvreté ou l'itinérance comme des motifs analogues de discrimination.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".