By Andrew Bates, Local Journalism Initiative
Neighbours of an emergency shelter in St. Stephen are asking a judge to overturn a council vote and order the facility’s removal.
The lawsuit, filed in January by residents Jason Rideout, Peter Fitch, Mary Ellen Fitch and Stacy Arseneault against the Municipal District of St. Stephen and Neighbourhood Works Inc., is a request for judicial review of a council vote in October, which defeated a motion that would have moved the Lighthouse Lodge shelter out of town limits.
The shelter opened in December 2024 in the former Masonic hall on Main Street in the community of 8,730. That was the latest step in a series of efforts to establish a winter shelter in the town for the unhoused.
In 2022 an out of the cold shelter was opened in a rented space on King Street, a drop-in centre opened in December 2023 at Neighbourhood Works’ King Street space and then in February 2024 it began to stay open overnight when plans for transitional housing near the highway were shelved by the province.
The new Main Street location, operated by Neighbourhood Works on behalf of the province, opened after the land became available in October 2024 and the non-profit purchased the property. The municipal zoning of the time permitted the use, but a new zoning bylaw also approved in October created a category for emergency shelters, currently limited to two properties located elsewhere.
On Oct. 15, 2025, a group led by Peter Fitch and Arseneault came to a council committee meeting raising concerns, asking for a task force to be established and for council to pass a motion calling for the shelter to be moved. On Oct. 29, council voted in favour of a motion to set up a community wellness task force that is considering possible new locations, but voted against a motion that would have resolved to “take all necessary steps … to seek the relocation and removal of the existing homeless shelter from within the municipality’s boundaries.”
The lawsuit asks a judge to overturn the vote against that motion and order the municipality to remove the shelter from its borders. It argues the vote ran contrary to the purposes of the municipality in the Local Governance Act to provide “necessary or desirable” services, to maintain a “safe and viable community” and to foster its “economic and social well-being.”
Filed along with the lawsuit are affidavits from seven residents, including Rideout, who wrote that he is the owner of a building and accounting firm on nearby Milltown Boulevard.
Rideout alleged that he has found people who he says are shelter users doing drugs and selling drugs in the building’s parking lot. He alleged that a tenant moved in June due to the activity, and that he’s had to call the police to remove people from the treed area nearby, saying the shelter “has had a serious impact on my business.”
Arseneault, from Sainte-Croix Street, which runs adjacent to the shelter, said the neighbourhood has become “unsafe and chaotic,” and wrote that he has called police to remove people he alleges are shelter users from the back deck of his house and to break up a fight behind his garage.
He wrote that he was “not opposed” to a homeless shelter, but said it should be “relocated to a more appropriate location” away from residential and commercial properties.
Peter Fitch and Mary Ellen Fitch wrote that they live on Main Street and are employees at St. Stephen’s University, a private Christian university located next to the shelter. They write that they have heard “aggressive screaming and shouting” in the streets at all hours that “have caused us to feel unsafe on our own property and in our community.”
The Fitches wrote that there was “no opportunity to voice our opinion” prior to the shelter opening.
In a letter to the court delivered March 25, Meghan Beers, lawyer for the municipality, argued the residents have not established standing, or right to sue, noting that in December, the Court of Kings Bench ruled against a request for an injunction against a transitional housing project in Fredericton for that reason.
She wrote that their proximity to the shelter doesn’t give them a direct interest given that the lawsuit would seek to prevent the shelter from operating anywhere in the municipality. She added that the affidavits contained “new evidence,” generally not part of a judicial review.
The parties met for a case management conference on March 26, when Jennifer Donovan, lawyer for Neighbourhood Works, said they shared the municipality’s concerns.
Michel Boudreau, lawyer for the applicants, noted that while the detailed grounds for the lawsuit are not in the notice of application, they understood that they could add them as part of their written arguments. He said the applicants “clearly” have private interest standing, and may also apply for public interest standing.
He said the applicants are seeking a production order for what council used in its decision-making process, and took issue with the concerns raised around admissibility.
Beers told the court that the issues they had are not around affidavits, but around the inclusion of letters from the applicants sent to third parties such as cabinet ministers.
Justice Kathryn Gregory asked if the applicants would need time to file more materials, including an amended notice of motion, and Boudreau asked for three weeks.
Gregory, who said she would be handing off the case to another judge due to a conflict, told the applicants to put their production requests in writing. Another conference was set for April 10.
Reached by email Wednesday, Rideout said the applicants filed because the municipality “had serious, documented safety concerns brought before council and chose not to act.” He confirmed the lawsuit and declined comment on the specifics, citing that the case is before the court.
Donovan declined comment on behalf of Neighbourhood Works, and Beers declined comment on behalf of the municipality.
