Download the English Submission.
Download the French Submission.
Paul Wilson stayed at the scene of an overdose. He and another person performed CPR, called 911 and waited for emergency medical services to arrive. That is what we hope people will do when someone is in need of medical intervention. And, that is the exact behaviour that the Good Samaritan provision in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was designed to support. The Good Samaritan provision protects people from being charged for simple drug possession and other associated crimes like breaching a bail condition if they are experiencing or are at the scene of an overdose. It aims to make sure that people will call for help without thinking twice – without delaying or refusing to call for fear of being arrested for doing the right thing.
The Crown would like this law to be interpreted to allow a person to be arrested and searched for drug possession at the scene – even if they can’t be charged. Crown wants police to continue to use medical emergencies as fishing expeditions to investigate and search for evidence of other crimes such as possession for the purpose of trafficking.
If successful, the Crown in this case will have undone the Good Samaritan protections that our communities fought for. Because the fear of being arrested and searched is just as much of a deterrent to calling 911 as the threat of being charged with a crime. And decades of evidence demonstrate that those harms will be more acutely felt by Indigenous, Black and racialized communities and people who lack housing and are experiencing poverty.
The Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, in coalition with Association Des Intervenants En Dépendance Du Québec, and Harm Reduction Nurses Association have intervened in the appeal of this case to the Supreme Court of Canada to offer a new path – one that protects the health and safety of everyone. It is not enough to say that police should not have arrested and searched Mr. Wilson for saving a life, courts need to adopt a new paradigm for assessing the law as it relates to criminalized drugs.
We are asking the court to adopt public health principles into their analysis – and not rely on criminal law principles that are not based in public health evidence and human rights. We are asking the court to:
- Prevent harm: The Good Samaritan provision isn’t just about saving lives, it is about stopping preventable injuries such as hypoxic brain injury and protecting people from psychological harm. If adopted as a principle of law, this means that all drug laws should be assessed to determine how they can better prevent injury and harm to people most impacted by Canada’s drug policies;
- Be clear: Drug laws shouldn’t – and can’t – be interpreted by the courts in ways that are convoluted or hard to understand. The ability to make life-saving and injury-preventing decisions requires that people know immediately and clearly what their rights are.
- Stick to evidence, not stigma: Latent bias and structural stigma about drug use, addiction, criminality and public safety are pervasive throughout criminal court decisions. Courts need to be be made aware of their unconscious biases and be given the evidentiary and analytical tools to make decisions on evidence, not fear or moral panic.
If these principles are adopted, they will help the Supreme Court interpret the Good Samaritan provision in a way that will protect lives and safety. And, they will help us build a new path for how Canada’s drug laws are understood by courts, lawyers, law enforcement and policy makers.