Canada: Supreme Court Of Canada Decision A Validation Of Co-Operative Federalism, Harm Reduction And Substantive Judicial Review

Last Updated: November 2 2011
Article by Ralph N. Nero, Gavin Cameron and Jennifer Francis

Introduction

On September 30, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada released an important decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44 (PHS), addressing the authority of the provincial and federal governments to regulate the provision of health care services to individuals who are addicted to narcotics, and the constitutionality of the Minister of Health's decision not to renew an exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 (the "CDSA"), to Insite, a safe injection site located in Vancouver's impoverished Downtown Eastside neighbourhood (the "DTES").

Fasken Martineau represented two of the interveners before the Supreme Court of Canada.  Andrew Nathanson and Brook Greenberg of the firm's Vancouver office (with the assistance of Holly Brinton) appeared for the Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation.  Paul Monahan, Tony Di Domenico and Andrew Berg (who was a student at law at the time) of the firm's Toronto office appeared for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association ("CCLA").  Both the Dr. Peter AIDS Foundation and the CCLA intervened in support of Insite's continued operation.

Background

The DTES is home to some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in Canada.  Its population includes 4,600 intravenous drug users, which is almost half of all Vancouver's intravenous drug users.  In the early 1990s, injection drug use reached crisis levels in the DTES. Open drug use was accompanied by epidemic levels of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C, and a high rate of deaths from overdoses.

After years of research, planning, and intergovernmental cooperation, local, provincial, and federal authorities proposed a scheme of care for drug users that would assist them at all points in the treatment of their disease, not simply when they quit drugs for good.  The proposed plan included supervised drug consumption facilities, which had been used with success to address health issues associated with injection drug use in Europe and Australia.

The different levels of government cooperated in creating a legal framework for a safe injection facility in which clients could inject drugs under medical supervision without fear of arrest and prosecution.  The Supreme Court referred approvingly to Insite as "the product of co-operative federalism".

Insite is a strictly regulated health facility.  It operates under the authority of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority.  Its personnel are guided by strict policies and procedures.  It does not provide drugs to its clients, who must check in, sign a waiver, and are closely monitored during and after injection.  Its clients are provided with health care information, counselling, and referrals to various service providers or an on‑site, on demand detox centre.

Operating a supervised injection site required an exemption from the prohibition of possessing and trafficking controlled substances under s. 56 of the CDSA, which provides for exemption at the discretion of the Minister of Health, for medical and scientific purposes.  Insite received a conditional exemption in September 2003, and opened its doors days later.

As the Supreme Court of Canada recognized, the Insite experiment has proven successful.  Insite has saved lives and improved health without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area.  Insite is supported by the Vancouver police, the city, and the provincial government, who wanted Insite to remain open.

In 2008, a formal application for a new exemption was made to the federal Minister of Health.  By this point, the federal government that had initially approved Insite had changed.  The new federal government had a different policy.  The Minister had granted temporary extensions in 2006 and 2007, but thereafter he indicated that he had decided to deny the application.  When the expiry of the extensions loomed, Insite's operator PHS Community Services Society (PHS), and two of its users, Dean Wilson and Shelly Tomic, commenced an action against the federal government.  The Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) commenced a parallel action.

The issue in PHS was whether Insite is exempt from the CDSA provisions prohibiting drug possession and trafficking because (1) Insite is a health facility under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Province (the "Federalism Issue") or (2) because the application of the criminal law to the activities at Insite would violate s. 7 of the Charter (the "Charter Issue").

The Supreme Court of Canada's Judgment

In a unanimous judgment written by Chief Justice McLachlin, the court decided the Federalism issue in favour of Canada, concluding that Insite is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Province and the CDSA applies to activities there. 

On the Charter Issue, the court held that the CDSA itself is valid and does not offend the Charter because the Minister's ability to grant exemptions under s. 56 of the CDSA acts as a "safety valve":  it relieves against potentially unconstitutional or unjust applications of the prohibitions on possession and trafficking controlled drugs.  If there is a Charter problem, and the court found that there is, it arises from the Minister's exercise of the power to grant exemptions under s. 56.  The Minister was required to exercise his power in a manner that complies with the Charter.  The court decided that the Minister had made a decision to refuse Insite's exemption and that decision was arbitrary and grossly disproportionate and thus not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, violating s. 7 of the Charter.  The Minister's decision was arbitrary because denying an exemption prevents addicts from accessing the health services offered by Insite, threatening their lives and health.  The decision is also grossly disproportionate because the evidence from Insite's eight years of operations proves that it saves lives without any discernible negative impacts on the federal government's health and public safety objectives. 

The court ordered the Minister to forthwith grant Insite a s. 56 exemption.  The court also recognized the possibility that further exemptions will be required in the future for other similar facilities.

Significant Findings and Future Implications

PHS is a bold judgment by the Supreme Court.  It recognises in strong terms the health benefits of Insite, and supervised injection services more generally.  It anticipates and paves the way for further supervised injection sites and pre-emptively addresses and seeks to confine the Minister's discretion in respect of future applications.  Beyond the immediate issues in the case, PHS reflects a willingness by the Supreme Court to engage in substantive review of policy decisions, and to require policymakers to have careful regard for the evidence on which their decisions are based.

Several significant points emerge from the judgment.

First, PHS was not the triumph for provincial powers that it might have been.  PHS and the Province of B.C. argued that the creation of Insite was part of the "core" exercise of provincial jurisdiction over the delivery of health services and Insite was therefore immune from the application of federal laws like the CDSA.  The B.C. Court of Appeal decided the Federalism Issue in favour of the Province.  If the Supreme Court of Canada had agreed, this would have been the first time an argument for what is known as "interjurisdictional immunity" was applied in favour of provincial power.  More importantly, this would have resulted in expanded provincial powers and, depending on one's point of view, a desirable increase in local innovation or a catastrophic loss of national uniformity.  Consistent with its recent decisions in this area, the Supreme Court refused to apply interjurisdictional immunity, preferring an approach that would allow each level of government the maximum flexibility to legislate, at the cost of overlap and the occasional resort to the paramountcy of federal legislation.  The court pointed to the impossibility of defining a protected core of the province's power over health given its size and diversity, and to the federal government's historic role in prohibiting medical treatments it deems dangerous or socially undesirable.

The court also made it clear that the route to offering supervised injections lies through a s. 56 exemption. This means the federal government retains a central role in the application of the CDSA and is not sidelined in favour of provincial power, as would be the case if the Federalism Issue had been decided in favour of the Plaintiffs. 

Second, the Supreme Court's conclusion that the Minister's decision was arbitrary and grossly disproportionate and therefore violated the Charter is an extraordinary exercise in substantive judicial review in at least two respects.  While the current federal government has adopted a policy that prefers enforcement to harm reduction, the Court said that policy alone was not a basis to refuse the exemption.  In other words, the Minister could not base a decision on policy or pure principle, without regard to the evidence.  The Court essentially found that on the basis of the evidence before the Minister, the only available conclusion was to grant Insite an exemption. 

It is also very unusual for the Court to command the exercise of Ministerial discretion, which it did by ordering the Minister to grant the exemption.  Ordinarily, the Court will set out guiding principles that are intended to inform a decision, and remit the matter to the Minister to exercise their statutory power to decide.  This is so because when it fashions a remedy for a Charter violation, the Court is engaged in a "constitutional dialogue" with the other branches of government, in which it must be respectful of their role and importance.1 In effect, in PHS, the Court ended the dialogue on an issue that was politically controversial, but easily resolved on the facts.

The Supreme Court clearly saw the case in scientific terms.  The Court was impressed by the evidence of Insite's health benefits.  The Court noted that the trial judge found that drug addiction is an illness and the federal government did not challenge this. 

Third, the court explicitly referred to the possibility of future applications for exemptions for safe injection sites.  The Court was careful to say that its decision is not to be interpreted as a licence to break the law or as an invitation for anyone who so chooses to open a facility for drug use under the banner of a safe injection facility.  The Court identified the factors the Minister should take into account in evaluating future applications, and concluded that where "the evidence indicates that a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption".  This is much stronger guidance and language than is customary from the Supreme Court.  Courts usually prefer to decide cases on the facts presented, allow the law to develop incrementally, and leave questions that do not immediately arise for future cases. 

A number of groups have indicated their desire to operate supervised injection facilities in other parts of the country.  It will be interesting to see the approach the federal government takes to such applications.  Since Insite is the first of its kind in Canada, the research into its operations forms the principal available medical evidence for the health benefits of supervised injection facilities.  One of the other factors cited by the Court as relevant to future applications is expressions of community support or opposition.  However, it is difficult to see how, if the evidence of an applicant's health benefits is similar to that of Insite, public opinion could be a factor weighing against a person's s. 7 Charter right to life or liberty.

Conclusion

PHS can be seen as a high water mark in the Supreme Court's substantive judicial review jurisprudence.  The Court found that the Minister's decision was so flawed and contrary to the evidence that it was appropriate to terminate the constitutional dialogue, and dictate what the Minister was required to do in this case, and in similar cases that are expected to arise in the future.  PHS is an encouraging development for proponents of supervised injection and harm reduction policies, as well as for those who argue for a rational and evidence-based approach to health care policy-making.

Footnotes

1 Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 at paras. 137-38.

www.fasken.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions