Court grants U of T injunction against pro-Palestinian encampment

Open this photo in gallery:

The University of Toronto has been granted an injunction against a pro-Palestinian encampment, clearing the way for what the university hopes is an orderly end to a two-month long demonstration that has occupied part of its campus.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Markus Koehnen said in a decision issued Tuesday that protesters will have until 6 p.m. on Wednesday to clear the encampment. He also authorized police to arrest and remove anyone believed to be contravening the order.

The court’s decision will be closely watched at other universities, including McGill University and the University of British Columbia, where encampments are still in place.

The U of T encampment began on May 2, when protesters broke through a fence the university had erected around the green space at the heart of King’s College Circle. It was part of a wave of pro-Palestinian encampments that swept across university campuses in the U.S. and other parts of Canada in late April.

Open this photo in gallery:

University of Toronto president Meric Gertler said in a note to campus Tuesday that a letter has been sent to Toronto police requesting their assistance if the encampment is not cleared by the deadline.

“We expect those in the encampment to abide by the court order and vacate the encampment before the court-imposed deadline. Anyone who chooses to remain in the encampment after the deadline is subject to consequences under university policy and the law,” Dr. Gertler wrote.

He added that the university welcomes protest and vigorous debate.

“Today’s court order returns Front Campus to the entire university community and prevents any one group from asserting control of a shared space at the university in order to promote a particular view and deprive others of the freedom to express opposing viewpoints.”

Leaders of the encampment said that despite the legal setback, they would continue to push their demands. They declined to say whether they intend to abide by the court order, but after the decision was issued more than 100 protesters gathered to discuss its implications and their course of action.

“This encampment is just one tactic and we are prepared to employ as many as necessary to achieve our demands,” said Sara Rasikh, a graduate student and encampment organizer.

In its application, the university argued that the protesters are trespassing and that they’ve infringed on the rights of others to use Front Campus. The protesters countered that they have a right to protest and that a university campus should not be viewed simply as private property but as a space where debate can occur.

Justice Koehnen sided with the rights of the university as a property owner.

“In our society we have decided that the owner of property generally gets to decide what happens on the property. If the protesters can take that power for themselves by seizing Front Campus, there is nothing to stop a stronger group from coming and taking the space over from the current protesters. That leads to chaos,” Justice Koehnen wrote.

There were about 50 tents in the U of T camp initially, but the number of protesters grew over several weeks to more than 175 tents by late May.

The protesters made three demands: that the university disclose where its money is invested; that it divest from weapons manufacturers connected to the Israeli military and that sustain what they describe as Israeli apartheid; and that it break ties with Israeli universities that operate in the occupied territories. The university administration engaged in several negotiations with encampment representatives but they were unable to reach a resolution.

Open this photo in gallery:

Justice Koehnen wrote that the injunction will still preserve the right to protest on campus but will not allow camping overnight. He said the university had not made a strong prima facie case that the encampment is violent or antisemitic, but he said there was a strong prima facie case that protesters had taken over university property.

He said the protesters were unable to point to a case where a court has allowed someone to take over a public space for an extended period of time. He said a 50-day occupation is significant, and although there have been signs of progress in negotiations, the protesters have said they will not leave until their demands are met.

“If unchecked, this in effect means that the protesters can hold the university to ransom,” he wrote. “As passionate as the protesters may be about their cause, they do not have the unilateral right to decide how Front Campus can be used by their exercise of force, occupation or intimidation.”

In his ruling, the judge referred to a moment in the court hearings in June when a lawyer for the university argued for the right to eat breakfast on Front Campus, which gave rise to some derisive laughter in the public gallery. But that example gets to a central issue about who gets to make decisions about conflicting claims to the use of a space, he wrote.

“The university’s approach here is to make Front Campus available to everyone, including to those who just want to eat breakfast, while at the same time making the entire campus available to protesters provided they do not appropriate or block access to university property,” he wrote. “This is consistent with the underlying foundation of liberal democracies: as much liberty as possible so long as one person’s liberty does not unreasonably infringe on the liberty of others.”

Rabbi Seth Goren, chief executive of Hillel Ontario, said on behalf of a broad coalition of Jewish advocacy groups that he was relieved the university could finally remove the encampment, which he characterized as hateful and disruptive.

With a report from Fatima Raza