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


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.


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.


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.


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

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

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

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.