Category: All

Budget 2025 Withdraws Public Money from Canadians’ Health and Well-being, Deposits it in the Pockets of Military and Policing
This week’s federal budget commits billions to US-style policies that will make the unregulated drug market more profitable and less predictable, harming the health and well-being of communities.

In the weeks and months leading up to Budget 2025, Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke of a pivotal national moment, emphasizing how Canadians must be ready to sacrifice for the common good. Budgets are a tangible measurement of what a government values. Reviewing where the Prime Minister is willing to spend and where he sees fit to cut, it is clear what and whom Carney is willing to sacrifice, and for what purpose.

Most notably for drug policy, Budget 2025 contains buckets of new money for U.S.-style investments in border enforcement, military and RCMP. All this despite decades of evidence and widespread recognition demonstrating that even with massive long term public investment, these tactics have not only failed to reduce the demand for or supply of drugs but have driven severe negative consequences that disproportionately harm structurally marginalized communities.¹²³

At the same time, Budget 2025 cuts federal spending by roughly 60 billion over the next five years and eliminates close to 40,000 public service jobs, nearly 10% of the total federal government workforce. The plan is rife with ‘stealth cuts’ through the sunsetting of programs, including action on social determinants of health, mental wellness support and substance use prevention and treatment.⁴

Effectively ignored in this budget are significant investments in our collective well-being: child care, pharmacare, meaningful poverty reduction, climate action, our public health care systems and workers.⁵ What it does include are immigration changes that scapegoat migrants for societal challenges caused by policy choices, including slashing spots and supports for refugees, asylum seekers, and international students.⁶

In looking for the positives, it is worth noting important new funding for Women and Gender Equality Canada, extensions to the school food program, and small investments in the Youth Climate Corps. Similarly, we commend the stated focus on affordable housing maintained through Build Canada Homes, while we await the details of its implementation.⁷

While Canadians scrounging to make ends meet might decide to forgo nonessentials to afford basics, Carney’s government has responded to budget pressures by handing gifts to the tune of $15 billion to military, police and enforcement, while cutting, ignoring and limiting the human services we need.

This budget seems to signal that the federal government will comply with the Trump administration’s approach to drug policy, ramping up criminalization while choosing to leave Canadians without the services and supports we need. This means significant resources directed to the RCMP and Canadian Border Services Agency, with an emphasis on efforts to restrict illicit drugs and the precursor chemicals that can be used in their production. In practice, that means more criminalization of people who use drugs, driving deepening inequities experienced by groups already facing disproportionate harm — including Indigenous peoples, racialized communities, disabled people, low-income workers, people experiencing homelessness, and people targeted by punitive drug enforcement.

Despite persistent “elbows up” rhetoric from Carney’s Liberal government, the drug policy reflected in Budget 2025 is firmly grounded in cooperation with an American regime that appears to hold no regard for human rights or international law.⁸

What is driving the Canadian government’s drug policy shift in Budget 2025?

We can trace this renewed emphasis on border militarization and policing right back to Trump. When Trump took to social media with unsubstantiated claims about drug trafficking from Canada and threats to impose 25 per cent tariffs on Canada and Mexico, he justified these threats through inaccurate claims about the scale of trafficking of fentanyl into the U.S. from Canada. Data from recent years shows less than one per cent of fentanyl entering the United States comes from Canada.⁹

In the name of appeasement, in the past year alone the federal government has thrown an additional 1.3 billion at border security, including for drones, helicopters, canine teams, and surveillance technology. In an attempt to placate the president and avoid an escalating trade war, Canada created a new role, the “Fentanyl Czar.”¹⁰ These wasteful investments in deeply flawed and harmful policies failed to stop U.S. tariffs.

Trump said, “Jump.” Canada said, “How high?” And as evidenced by Budget 2025, we have kept on jumping, shoveling public money toward harmful and ineffective criminalization and betraying our stated values around a public health and human rights approach to drug policy, despite zero indication that it will help people or make any positive impact on U.S. trade negotiations.

When we seek to understand government decisions, we can look to two broad motivations:
- Effective policy; does it accomplish what it is setting out to do from a policy perspective? Namely here, do investments in criminalization reduce the supply of or demand for unregulated drugs?
- Effective politics: does it accomplish what it is setting out to do as a political maneuver? In this case, does it appease a volatile and cruel U.S. administration?
The answer for Budget 2025? No and no.

What do we need from drug policy to save lives and end the unregulated drug crisis?

In our pre-budget submission, the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition outlined a path that could support the well-being of all people.¹¹ To save lives and prevent harm, we need to shift toward the legal regulation of all currently unregulated drugs. Beyond that, we need to invest in proven solutions, including safe and affordable housing, living wages and poverty reduction, universal public healthcare, and a range of substance use supports including harm reduction alongside voluntary, evidence-based treatment.

Our elected leaders are falling in line with the drug policy whims of an American president who has demonstrated his blatant disregard for human rights, international law, and even the most basic elements of reasonable and predictable trade relations. Canadians need our federal government to put the well-being of people and communities first; that means grounding drug policy in evidence and human rights, and ensuring public spending reflects what we truly value.
November 7, 2025
Canada’s Complicity in Illegal U.S. Military Strikes: When “Public Health” Drug Policy Meets Extrajudicial Killings
Since September 2, 2025, the U.S. military has killed at least 57 civilians in international waters, in strikes that international law and human rights authorities have condemned as illegal.¹ Evidence is mounting that demonstrates Canada’s extensive involvement in these U.S.-led military operations.² ³

At a basic level, prohibitionist drug policy has been increasingly discredited for its failure to stop the use of drugs and its success in producing harms and suffering. It undermines both human rights and effective public health responses, at home and abroad.⁴ Instead of stemming the flow of unregulated drugs, prohibition has driven drug production and trade underground, strengthened organized crime, disproportionately harmed already-marginalized communities, accelerated environmental degradation, and contributed to instability, violence and human rights abuses abroad, while fueling a toxic unregulated drug crisis at home.⁵⁶⁷⁸

The United States’ extrajudicial killing campaign is a dangerous escalation of prohibitionist policy, and by falling in line and participating, Canada is abandoning our stated values and risking our international credibility. There is nothing to be gained from attempts to appease the current American president: Canada’s deference to the whims of President Trump and continued complicity in these illegal attacks will only drive harm.

Take action: demand accountability of our elected leaders. Urge your MP to
- close the arms export loophole
- support Bill C-233, and
- suspend Canada’s role in Operation CARIBBE.
The Situation

On September 2, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. military had carried out an airstrike on a vessel in the Caribbean, claiming the boat was being used by the Tren de Aragua cartel to smuggle drugs from Venezuela.⁹ Since then, at least nine more strikes have targeted civilian boats in international waters in both the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific. The death toll now stands at a minimum of 57 people. The Trump Administration has provided no evidence to support their claims of drug trafficking.¹⁰¹¹¹²

While the Trump administration frames these attacks as part of a military campaign against drug trafficking, Human Rights Watch has categorically labeled them extrajudicial executions in violation of international law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).¹³ Experts note Trump’s flimsy justification may not be about drugs at all, but rather cover for political interference and regime change in Venezuela.¹⁴

To understand why these strikes are illegal, it’s important to understand that according to legal experts, this situation does not constitute the legal use of military force under international law.¹⁵ No armed conflict exists between the United States and states Trump has referenced, like Colombia or Venezuela, nor between the U.S. and the alleged criminal groups involved. The use of lethal force against civilians at sea constitutes a breach of the right to life under Article 6 of the ICCPR.¹⁶

These strikes are the illegal use of military force targeting civilians in international waters, with neither due process nor judicial oversight. According to human rights law, “officials engaging in law enforcement, including military personnel, must seek to minimize injury and preserve human life. They may use lethal force only when strictly unavoidable to protect against an imminent threat of death or serious injury.”¹⁷ Under both international and Canadian law, when someone is accused of breaking the law, they are entitled to be treated according to what in Canada is usually called the principles of fundamental justice, and in some jurisdictions called due process. This includes basic protections like being presumed innocent, facing evidence in a fair trial, and having the chance to appeal.

The American Civil Liberties Union stated plainly: “Trump’s boat strikes are killing potentially innocent civilians. They must be stopped.”¹⁸

Canada’s Involvement

Evidence demonstrating Canada’s complicity in illegal U.S. strikes is mounting. Canada participates in Operation CARIBBE, described by the Department of National Defence as “Canada’s contribution to U.S.-led enhanced counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean.”¹⁹ Under CARIBBE, which began in 2006 and expanded through a 2010 Memorandum of Understanding, Canadian Armed Forces ships and aircraft deploy to provide intelligence, surveillance, logistical support, and equipment that enable U.S. military operations.

The cost? Over $11 million annually in recent fiscal years.²⁰

While Canada’s Department of National Defence insists that its activities are “separate and distinct” from the U.S. air strikes, such distinctions are meaningless without independent oversight. Evidence indicates that Canada’s participation provides the surveillance infrastructure that makes these strikes possible.

More damning still, Canadian technology has been directly linked to the strikes. According to in-depth research by Project Ploughshares and independently verified by CBC, Canadian-made sensors likely helped identify targets for recent U.S. strikes near Venezuela.²¹²² By providing logistical support, intelligence, surveillance, and equipment, Canada is complicit in these extrajudicial killings, regardless of whether it is a Canadian citizen who ultimately fires the weapon.

The Arms Export Loophole: Legal Cover for Illegal Acts

Canada joined the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in 2019, which legally obligates us to ensure that exports of military goods do not contribute to violations of international law.²³ Yet Canada continues to exempt the United States from export controls under the Export and Import Permits Act, allowing Canadian-made weapons components to enter U.S. supply chains largely unchecked.²⁴

According to Project Ploughshares, Canadian components have been found in U.S. weapons systems deployed in Gaza, Yemen—and now in the illegal US military strikes on boats in the Caribbean.²⁵

General Export Permit No. 47 (GEP-47) streamlines shipments of ATT-controlled items to the United States, where parts can be built into weapons and re-exported with far less Canadian visibility and scrutiny.²⁶

While Canada claims to champion human rights and a public health approach to drug policy, our export regime is actively enabling use of military force against civilians and ensuring plausible deniability rather than accountability.

MP Jenny Kwan’s private member’s bill, Bill C-233, would close this loophole by removing country exemptions, requiring end-use certificates, and mandating annual reporting to Parliament on ATT compliance.²⁷ The bill represents a critical step toward ensuring Canada doesn’t enable human rights violations abroad.

Drug Policy Must Uphold Human Rights Law

The international legal framework is unambiguous. The UN Human Rights Council’s Resolution 60/26, adopted by consensus in 2025 establishes human rights—not criminalization—as the core framework for international drug cooperation.²⁸²⁹ The resolution calls on states to integrate harm reduction into public-health policy, respect Indigenous rights, address environmental harms, and protect civil-society actors working on drug reform.

This resolution affirms that drug policy belongs firmly within the human rights system, rather than solely within enforcement bodies like the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. Yet Canada has not fully endorsed or implemented this shift, despite being bound by international human rights treaties including the ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Similarly, the August 2023 report by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Human rights challenges in addressing and countering all aspects of the world drug problem,” calls on member states to consider responsible regulation of drug markets—a stark departure from the militarized international approach Canada is currently supporting.³⁰

The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health has been equally clear: harm reduction must be central to drug policy, and punitive enforcement approaches that violate the right to health are incompatible with international law.³¹

The Hypocrisy at Home

The contradiction is stark. At home, the federal government touts a public health approach to drugs. In practice, law enforcement and militarization dominate spending.³² In 2025, in failed attempts to appease Trump, Ottawa rolled out a $1.3-billion border plan, appointed a federal “Fentanyl Czar,” and advanced aggressive border laws—moves that significantly increase spending toward enforcement, all while communities still lack stable funding for housing, harm-reduction services, and treatment.³³

Meanwhile, the toxic unregulated drug crisis continues to kill thousands of Canadians each year.³⁴ Every dollar spent on law enforcement and illegal military strikes is a dollar not spent on the things communities need: overdose prevention, responsible regulation, voluntary treatment on demand, and housing—proven interventions explicitly recommended by UN human rights guidance.

This reflects the global pattern: prohibition fails to reduce drug use but succeeds in driving production underground, strengthening organized crime, and contributing to instability, violence, and human rights abuses abroad while fueling a toxic drug crisis at home.

What Canada Must Do Now

To align our policies with our stated values, international law and human rights, Canada must:

1. Close the arms-export loophole. Pass Bill C-233 to end the U.S. exemption, mandate end-use certificates, and report annually to Parliament on ATT compliance. Implementation should include a just transition plan for workers in defence manufacturing.

2. Suspend participation in Operation CARIBBE pending an independent legal review of compliance with international law and human rights standards. The review must examine intelligence-sharing, command authority, and safeguards against Canadian-produced equipment, software, and data enabling lethal strikes.

3. Formally endorse and implement UN HRC Resolution 60/26 within Canada’s national drug strategy. This includes integrating harm-reduction principles, Indigenous rights, and environmental protection into domestic law.

4. Redirect military and law enforcement funding toward proven community supports. Reallocate wasted and harmful enforcement dollars into supportive, effective measures: overdose prevention, voluntary treatment on demand, housing, responsible regulation, liveable wages, and community-led services. This is exactly what UN human rights guidance recommends.

5. Support OHCHR reporting on drug policy impacts. Contribute Canadian funding for studies on poverty, race, gender, Indigenous rights, and environmental harms related to drug policy.

Canada must choose: assert our values or support Trump-ordered murder

True safety comes from evidence, health, and human rights—not fear and force. Every dollar, every policy choice, and every diplomatic decision should reflect a core principle: the right to life, dignity, and health is non-negotiable.

Killing civilians at sea breaks international law and perpetuates cycles of harm and violence.

Canada’s participation in U.S.-led military strikes seems to demonstrate that our sovereignty and values remain conditional on American priorities. To live up to the principles we claim to hold, our elected leaders must take a stand: support the UN’s human rights framework, close export loopholes, and end Canada’s complicity in extrajudicial murder.

Take Action

Contact your MP to support Bill C-233, demand Canada withdraw from Operation CARIBBE until an independent legal review is completed, and insist federal dollars go to health and community supports—not warships and airstrikes that kill civilians.
1. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/10/u-s-airstrikes-in-latin-america-and-the-caribbean-are-murder-congress-must-stop-them-now/ ↩︎
2. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/us-airstrikes-caribbean-drug-smugglers-9.6932751 ↩︎
3. https://ploughshares.ca/targeted-from-above-canadian-sensors-facilitating-unlawful-u-s-airstrikes-in-the-caribbean/ ↩︎
4. Prohibitionist drug policy, also frequently referred to as criminalization-based approaches, or the ‘war on drugs’, broadly refers to a series of policies, practices, and laws introduced throughout the 20th century that criminalize drug consumption and activities associated with it. While its stated aim is generally to reduce or eliminate drug use and availability, it is now widely recognized not only to have failed to achieve this despite massive, sustained public investment, but also to have driven severe negative consequences, disproportionately felt by marginalized communities. ↩︎
5. There is a lack of data demonstrating the efficacy of enforcement efforts in Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/transparency/corporate-management-reporting/evaluation/canadian-drugs-substances-strategy.html ↩︎
6. A 2020 report from the Global Commission on Drug Policy found that there is “no solid evidence that increasing the intensity of enforcement raises the actual costs for drug traffickers” ↩︎
7. https://www.healthpovertyaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/REPORT-Revealing-the-Missing-Link-to-Climate-Justice-Drug-Policy.pdf ↩︎
8. A 2024 scoping review published in the International Journal of Drug Policy found “consistent evidence that fentanyl-related seizure measures” were associated with higher overdose mortality https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104321 ↩︎
9. https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1962955342523879613 ↩︎
10. Guardian, “Colombia urges US to halt strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats: ‘It is murder’” (Oct 23, 2025) ↩︎
11. ABC News, “Trump administration conducts military strikes on suspected drug-courier boats in the Pacific” (Oct 23, 2025) ↩︎
12. WOLA, “Lethal U.S. military strike on alleged drug traffickers sets a dangerous precedent in the ‘war on drugs’” ↩︎
13. https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/09/18/us-maritime-strikes-amount-to-extrajudicial-killings ↩︎
14. https://www.npr.org/2025/10/24/nx-s1-5584173/trump-drug-boats-venezuela-maduro ↩︎
15. https://www.justsecurity.org/119985/labels-ustify-lethal-force-venezuelan-boat-strike/ ↩︎
16. Human Rights Watch, “US: Maritime Strikes Amount to Extrajudicial Killings” (Sept 18, 2025) ↩︎
17. https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/09/18/us-maritime-strikes-amount-to-extrajudicial-killings ↩︎
18. ACLU/MSNBC Opinion, “Trump’s boat strikes are killing potentially innocent civilians. They must be stopped” (Oct 15, 2025) ↩︎
19. Government of Canada, Department of National Defence, “Operation CARIBBE” ↩︎
20. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/departmental-plans/departmental-plan-2025-26/planned-costs-major-caf-operations.html ↩︎
21. https://ploughshares.ca/targeted-from-above-canadian-sensors-facilitating-unlawful-u-s-airstrikes-in-the-caribbean/ ↩︎
22. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadian-miliary-technology-1.7650129 ↩︎
23. https://www.thearmstradetreaty.org/hyper-images/file/TheArmsTradeTreaty1/TheArmsTradeTreaty.pdf ↩︎
24. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-19/ ↩︎
25. https://ploughshares.ca/targeted-from-above-canadian-sensors-facilitating-unlawful-u-s-airstrikes-in-the-caribbean/ ↩︎
26. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2019-230/index.html ↩︎
27. https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-233 ↩︎
28. https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/RES/60/26 ↩︎
29. https://idpc.net/blog/2025/10/the-human-rights-council-asserts-its-role-in-drug-policy-at-a-time-of-global-change ↩︎
30. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5453-human-rights-challenges-addressing-and-countering-all-aspects ↩︎
31. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5652-drug-use-harm-reduction-and-right-health-report-special ↩︎
32. The 2023 Horizontal Evaluation of the Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy (CDSS) found that even before recent funding announcements, enforcement already consumed 58% of federal funding, compared with only 18% for prevention, 13% for treatment, 8% for harm reduction, and 3% for research. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/transparency/corporate-management-reporting/evaluation/canadian-drugs-substances-strategy.html ↩︎
33. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2024/12/the-government-of-canadas-border-plan-significant-investments-to-strengthen-border-security-and-our-immigration-system.html ↩︎
34. https://health-infobase.canada.ca/substance-related-harms/opioids-stimulants/ ↩︎
October 30, 2025
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Supreme Court Affirms Life-Saving Intent of Good Samaritan Law
Le français suit

Canada | October 24, 2025 – With reasoning that will have implications nationwide amid an ongoing public health crisis, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered a landmark judgement today, affirming that the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act must be interpreted to fulfill its life-saving purpose. In a majority decision, the Court recognized the importance of clarity and ruled that the Act must ensure that people who call 9-1-1 during an overdose will not face arrest for simple drug possession. Advocates argue this decision represents a critical victory for public health and evidence-based approaches to the unregulated drug crisis in Canada.

“We are relieved and happy,” says Corey Ranger, president of the Harm Reduction Nurses Association, one of three organizations who intervened together in the case. “As health care providers, we see the consequences when people delay calling 9-1-1—brain injuries, trauma, and deaths that could have been prevented. The Court has recognized these harms, and the importance of preventing them. The Court has also recognized that harm reduction saves lives, and that protecting public health must be prioritized over punishment.”

At issue in R v Wilson was application of the Good Samaritan law, which protects people who call 9-1-1 or remain at the scene of an overdose from criminal charges and convictions for simple drug possession. The purpose of the law is clear: prevent injuries, save lives, encourage people to not use alone and to call 9-1-1 in case of emergency.

The case centered on events in Saskatchewan in 2020: Paul Wilson and others called 9-1-1, performed CPR, and stayed on scene to save a woman’s life in a drug-related medical emergency. Despite their life-saving actions, police arrested Mr. Wilson, the woman herself and others at the scene for drug possession, then used those arrests as grounds to search them and charge them with trafficking and other offenses. The court was asked to consider: does the Criminal Code authorize the arrest of an individual at the scene of a “drug overdose” for the offence of simple drug possession, even if the individual may ultimately be immune from being charged or convicted for that offence?

The Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, Harm Reduction Nurses Association, and l’Association des intervenants en dépendance du Québec intervened as a coalition to offer the Supreme Court an analytical path grounded in public health principles and ask it to ensure this law fulfills its purpose: to prevent the devastating and avoidable consequences of drug-related medical emergencies. The coalition argued that to do so, it must prevent harm, be clear enough to be understood by the public, and ensure that any examination of its purpose is devoid of latent bias.

“We are heartened by this decision, and the court’s affirmation of the importance of following evidence and avoiding speculation,” says DJ Larkin, lawyer and executive director of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition. “Importantly, this decision emphasized the need to focus on actual harms – possible injury or death, rather than remote or hypothetical assumptions that arrests increase public safety in these situations.”

[48] …In the narrow circumstances attracting the application of s. 4.1(2), where a life must necessarily be threatened by a medical emergency, Parliament prioritized saving that life over the more remote public safety benefits of arresting persons at the scene for simple possession…

“This distinction is key, and we commend the Court for its thoughtful assessment of what constitutes harm and safety. Courts are a place of thoughtful analysis and rigorous evidence. Judicial decisions need to interrogate assumptions made about people who use drugs and the impacts of drug law enforcement. The decision demonstrates grounding in the importance of evidence-based, public-health-first approaches to drug policy and public safety.”

“This represents an important victory for public health and community overdose response,” says Louis Letellier de St-Just, board president of l’Association des intervenants en dépendance du Québec. “We know that to effectively prevent deaths and devastating injuries from overdose, the law must remove the fear of arrest that stops people from calling for help. It must be clear and easily understood. We work with frontline service providers every day who need to be able share clear information with people about how the law will affect them: this ruling offers that clarity. You shouldn’t need a law degree to understand what will happen if you call 9-1-1. The Court has demonstrated that it understands the need for clarity, the realities of substance use and the critical importance of evidence-based approaches.”

“Achieving Parliament’s goal requires a clear rule that can be broadly communicated to and understood by those affected by drug overdoses.”

This decision provides desperately needed clarity at a time when Canada has lost more than 50,000 lives to the toxic drug crisis since 2016. This ruling will encourage people to call 9-1-1 without fear, leading to fewer deaths, fewer devastating brain injuries, and less trauma. It also sets a precedent for interpreting the entire Controlled Drugs and Substances Act through an evidence-informed public health lens, potentially influencing future policy and legal developments.

Moving forward, these organizations argue it is critical that law enforcement, policymakers, and the public understand and implement this decision consistently. Interveners will continue to monitor the application of the Good Samaritan law and advocate for comprehensive, evidence-based responses to the toxic drug crisis, including expanded access to safer supply, harm reduction supports, and voluntary treatment options.

“This decision is a necessary step forward that will have immediate impacts,” says Larkin. “Ultimately, it does not change the fundamental issue that is driving this crisis: the unregulated nature of the drug supply. We know we need profound shifts in how we approach drug policy to support communities where all people can thrive. But in the meantime, this clarity will save lives.”

-30-

RESOURCES:
- Supreme Court of Canada decision: R. v. Wilson, 2025 SCC 32
- Background:
- Explanation of R. v. Wilson Case
- Summary of intervener coalition arguments
MEDIA CONTACT:

To arrange interviews contact Jessica Hannon, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition
- [email protected]
COMMUNIQUÉ DE PRESSE : La Cour suprême confirme l’objectif de sauver des vies déjà prévu par la Loi du bon samaritain

Canada | 24 octobre 2025. Dans un jugement historique aux répercussions nationales, rendu en pleine crise de santé publique, la Cour suprême du Canada a confirmé aujourd’hui que la Loi du bon samaritain visant à aider les victimes de surdose doit être interprétée de manière à réaliser pleinement son objectif premier : sauver des vies.

Dans une décision majoritaire, la Cour a reconnu l’importance que cette Loi doit garantir que les personnes qui composent le 9-1-1 lors d’une surdose ne seront pas arrêtées pour possession simple de substances.

Les défenseur·euse·s de cette cause y voient une victoire majeure pour la santé publique et pour les approches fondées sur les données probantes face à la crise des substances non réglementées au Canada.

« Nous sommes soulagé·e·s et heureux·euses », déclare Corey Ranger, président de l’Association des infirmiers et infirmières en réduction des méfaits, l’une des trois organisations intervenues conjointement dans cette affaire.

« En tant que professionnel·le·s de la santé, nous voyons les conséquences quand des personnes hésitent à appeler le 9-1-1 : lésions cérébrales, traumatismes et décès évitables.
La Cour a reconnu ces préjudices et l’importance de les prévenir.
Elle a également reconnu que la réduction des méfaits sauve des vies, et que la protection de la santé publique doit être priorisée avant la punition. »

L’affaire R. c. Wilson portait sur l’application de la Loi du bon samaritain, laquelle protège les personnes qui composent le 9-1-1 et qui demeurent sur les lieux d’une surdose, contre les accusations criminelles et les condamnations pour possession simple de drogues. L’objectif de la Loi est clair : prévenir des surdoses, sauver des vies, encourager à ne pas consommer seul·e et à appeler le 9-1-1 en cas d’urgence.

L’affaire découlait d’événements survenus en Saskatchewan en 2020, lorsque Paul Wilson et d’autres personnes ont composé le 9-1-1, pratiqué la réanimation cardiorespiratoire (RCR) et sont resté·e·s sur place pour sauver la vie d’une femme lors d’une surdose liée à la consommation de substances.
Malgré ces gestes héroïques, la police a arrêté M. Wilson, la victime de la surdose et d’autres personnes présentes pour possession simple, tirant avantage des ces arrestations afin de justifier les fouilles et par la suite déposer des accusations de trafic et d’autres infractions.

La Cour devait répondre à la question suivante :

Le Code criminel autorise-t-il l’arrestation d’une personne présente sur les lieux d’une surdose pour possession simple de substances, même si cette personne bénéficie ultimement d’une immunité contre toute accusation ou condamnation liée à cette infraction ?

La Coalition canadienne des politiques sur les drogues, l’Association des infirmiers et infirmières en réduction des méfaits et l’Association des intervenants en dépendance du Québec sont intervenues ensemble, dans ce procès, pour offrir à la Cour suprême une perspective guidée par une approche de santé publique et pour demander que la Loi remplisse pleinement son objectif : prévenir les conséquences dévastatrices et évitables des surdoses liées aux substances.

La coalition a soutenu que pour ce faire, la Loi doit :
- prévenir les préjudices ;
- être suffisamment claire pour être comprise par le public ;
- et être interprétée sans biais latent ni préjugé.
« Cette décision nous donne espoir et souligne l’importance de s’appuyer sur les faits plutôt que sur les suppositions », explique DJ Larkin, avocat·e et directeur·rice général·e de la Coalition canadienne des politiques sur les drogues.

« Cette décision souligne la nécessité de se concentrer sur les préjudices réels, les blessures et les décès évitables, plutôt que sur des hypothèses abstraites selon lesquelles les arrestations renforceraient la sécurité publique. »

« Dans les circonstances limitées visées par le paragraphe 4.1(2), où la vie d’une personne est menacée par une urgence médicale, le Parlement a choisi de prioriser le sauvetage de cette vie plutôt que les avantages plus éloignés que représenterait l’arrestation pour possession simple de substance. »

« Cette distinction est essentielle, et nous félicitons la Cour pour son évaluation rigoureuse de ce qui constitue un préjudice et ce qui constitue la sécurité. Les tribunaux sont des lieux d’analyse réfléchie et d’évaluation fondée sur les faits.

Les décisions judiciaires doivent remettre en question les présupposés entourant les personnes qui consomment des substances et les effets de l’application des lois sur elles.

Cette décision illustre un ancrage solide dans les approches fondées sur les preuves et axées sur la santé publique en matière de politiques sur les substances et de sécurité collective. »

« Cette décision constitue une victoire importante pour la santé publique et les interventions communautaires en cas de surdose », ajoute Louis Letellier de St-Just, avocat en droit de la santé et président du conseil d’administration de l’Association des intervenants en dépendance du Québec.

« Nous savons que pour prévenir efficacement les décès et les conséquences liés aux surdoses, la Loi doit éliminer la crainte d’arrestation qui empêche les personnes d’appeler à l’aide.
Elle doit être claire et facile à comprendre.

Nous travaillons chaque jour avec des fournisseur·euse·s de services de première ligne qui doivent pouvoir donner aux personnes concerné·e·s des informations précises sur l’application de la Loi : cette décision leur offre enfin cette clarté.
Personne ne devrait avoir besoin d’un diplôme en droit pour comprendre ce qui se passera en appelant le 9-1-1.

La Cour a démontré qu’elle comprend les besoins de clarté, les réalités de la consommation de substances et l’importance cruciale d’approches fondées sur les données probantes. »

« Pour que la Loi remplisse vraiment son rôle, il faut une règle claire, pouvant être largement communiquée et comprise par toutes les personnes concernées par les surdoses. »

Cette décision apporte une clarté essentielle à un moment où le Canada a perdu plus de 50 000 vies en raison de la crise des substances toxiques depuis 2016.

Elle encouragera désormais les personnes à appeler le 9-1-1 sans crainte, entraînant ainsi moins de décès, moins de conséquences graves et moins de traumatismes.

Elle établit aussi un précédent en matière d’interprétation des lois à travers un prisme de santé publique fondé sur les données probantes, susceptible d’influencer les politiques et décisions futures.

À l’avenir, ces organisations insistent sur l’importance que les forces de l’ordre, les décideur·euse·s politiques et le public comprennent et appliquent cette décision de façon cohérente.

Les intervenant·e·s continueront de suivre l’application de la Loi du bon samaritain et de plaider pour des réponses globales et fondées sur les données probantes à la crise des substances toxiques, incluant :
- un accès élargi à un approvisionnement plus sécuritaire,
- des approches plus variées et accessibles en réduction des méfaits,
- et des options de traitement volontaire.
« Cette décision constitue une étape essentielle qui aura des impacts immédiats », conclut DJ Larkin.

« Elle ne règle toutefois pas la cause profonde de la crise : la nature non réglementée de l’approvisionnement en substances.

Nous savons que des changements profonds sont nécessaires pour bâtir des communautés où toutes les personnes peuvent s’épanouir.

Mais d’ici là, cette clarté sauvera des vies. »

RESSOURCES :
- Décision de la Cour suprême du Canada : R. c. Wilson, 2025 CSC 32
- Documents d’information :
  - Explication du jugement R. c. Wilson
  - Sommaire des arguments de la coalition d’intervenants
CONTACT MÉDIA :

Pour organiser des entrevues, veuillez communiquer avec Jessica Hannon, Coalition canadienne des politiques sur les drogues
- [email protected]
Elise Etienne

Agente aux communications

[email protected]

Tel : 514 287-9625, poste 107
October 29, 2025
IT IS NOT A CRIME TO SAVE A LIFE

Supervised Consumption Sites (SCS) and Overdose Prevention Sites (OPS) are critical, evidence-based interventions that save lives. In Ontario, an estimated 6 to 7 people die every day due to the toxic, unregulated drug supply.

Despite this, the provincial government has increasingly restricted access to these essential services through funding cuts and stricter regulations. In response, communities are taking action. Grassroots organizations, volunteers, and harm reduction advocates are stepping in to operate OPS independently and meet urgent local needs.

This document provides an overview of key legal considerations for individuals and groups involved in supporting or running an OPS in Ontario.

June 27, 2025
68th Session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND68)
Addressing the Human Rights Impact of Synthetic Drugs: Challenges for Vulnerable Groups in the Americas

Side Event organized by the Cross-Border Working Group on Synthetic Drugs

The Cross-Border Working Group on Synthetic Drugs is a civil society initiative convened by the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) with the purpose of bringing evidence-based information and policy proposals grounded in science, health, compassion, and human rights to decision-makers in response to the synthetic drug overdose crisis, decision makers and other stakeholders champion key strategies and avoid failed and harmful paradigms.

Watch highlights from the session here.

When: Tuesday, March 11^th, 2025

Participants
- John Walsh, Washington Office on Latin America (moderator)
- Steve Rolles, Transform Drug Policy Foundation
- Theshia Naidoo, Drug Policy Alliance
- Lisa Sánchez, México Unido Contra la Delincuencia
- Renata Demichelis, Elementa DDHH
- Nick Boyce, Canadian Drug Policy  (view presentation slides)
Drug Decriminalization: Separating Fact from Fiction

Side Event organized by Dejusticia, Drug Policy Alliance, Release

The harms caused and exacerbated by drug policies that rely on criminalization and punishment are well documented. In response, jurisdictions around the world have turned toward alternative strategies that center health and human rights, including over 70 national or subnational regions that have adopted various forms of drug decriminalization. While some of these policies have been operational for decades, other, more recent, reforms have faced backlash and setbacks. This side event will discuss the harms of criminalization, provide facts to counter misinformation about health centered drug policies, and discuss strategies employed by and lessons learned from recent decriminalization efforts.

Watch the session here.

When: Wednesday, March 12^th, 2025

Chair: Global Commission on Drug Policy

Speakers:
- Theshia Naidoo Drug Policy Alliance, U.S
- Nick Boyce, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition
- Isabel Pereira-Arana, Dejusticia, Colombia
- Michael Kessler, Michael Kessler Media
- Daniel Joloy, Amnesty International
- Niamh Eastwood, Release, UK
NGO co-sponsors:
- Amnesty International
- Canadian Drug Policy Coalition
- Dejusticia
- Disentir
- Drug Policy Alliance
- International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy
- International Drug Policy Consortium
- INPUD
- LANPUD
- Release
May 12, 2025
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Despite Ontario Superior Court Injunction Recognizing Irreparable Harm, Most Remaining Supervised Consumption Sites Still Facing Forced Closure Tomorrow

Toronto, ON | March 31, 2025—In a small victory for those advocating for evidence-informed services, one Toronto supervised consumption site facing forced closure April 1, 2025 will keep its doors open as that deadline passes tomorrow. But the reprieve—granted via a temporary injunction from the Ontario Superior Court – brings no relief for additional sites across Ontario who will still be required to close.

The Court’s decision, released Friday, suspends the application of location restrictions within Ontario’s Community Care and Recovery Act until 30 days after the case has been decided. The Court granted the injunction on the grounds that sites’ closure and resulting increased risk of unsupervised drug use risks irreparable harm, threatening the health and lives of people who use drugs.

Despite this recognition, the injunction does not cover the Act’s requirement for municipally operated or supported sites to obtain provincial approval. Given this, at least one site in Peel Region must still close. Further, the injunction has no impact on Ontario’s denial of funding to all sites. Without such funding, most sites will be unable to sustain their vital work, even if technically permitted to operate.

“In one sense, we are relieved. The Court has recognized the evidence that the Ontario government chooses to ignore: closing supervised consumption sites will drive deaths and harms,” says DJ Larkin of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition. “But it is deeply upsetting that despite this recognition, thousands of people at risk of harm will still lose this lifeline. Our response to harm as a caring, inclusive community should always be to provide the support and choices people need to stay healthy and well. We must chart a path that is rigorously grounded in public health principles, upholds Charter rights, and protects against the perpetuation of stigma.”

This temporary injunction provides time for the Court to assess whether the Act violates Charter rights and is outside of Ontario’s constitutional jurisdiction, a decision that may take several months. Though the injunction allows all sites impacted by the Act’s location restriction to continue operations, its limited scope, combined with the province’s decision to withdraw or reject funding for existing sites, means it is too little, too late for many communities.

“Most people believe everyone deserves access to healthcare and well-being, whether they use drugs or not,” says Michael Parkinson of Waterloo Region Drug Action Team. “Supervised consumption sites are one proven way to improve everyone’s health and safety. While the injunction is intended as a temporary reprieve, the deadly reality is its scope is limited and the province remains openly hostile. We are extremely distressed for the Kitchener applicant who sought relief in the Court and has not found it, despite the injunction, and the thousands of others across Ontario who depend on consumption sites. We urge the Ford government to respect the injunction and expedite the continuance of these services.”

Nearly all sites slated to close have accepted funding to transition to the new HART Hub model, which the province promised would be operational by April 1. Ontario explicitly forbids the provision of supervised consumption services through HART Hubs and has threatened to withdraw funding from organizations that offer these services. Some sites transitioning to HART Hub locations have confirmed that they will be unable to open in time due to delays from the province.

“It is shameful: Ontario has put service providers in an impossible position,” says Zoë Dodd of Toronto Overdose Prevention Society. “We are in a toxic drug crisis and the court agrees that people could die from these closures. Providing lifesaving overdose prevention services is essential. Preventing disease transmission is essential. Through this process the Ford government has ignored its own evidence. They are using funding as a weapon.”

Interveners in the case spoke to the increasing toxicity of the unregulated drug supply and described the harms to come to people should sites close. Others noted that Indigenous and Black communities, women, and people experiencing homelessness will bear disproportionate harm.

“We have been working together to keep people safe from preventable harms amid devastating loss,” says Colin Johnson of the Toronto Harm Reduction Alliance. “Why anyone who cares about their fellow Ontarians could agree to the closing of these sites knowing the good they do is beyond me.”

Ontario passed the Act in December 2024, bypassing committee study and limiting debate. The Act’s location restrictions were intended to come into force on April 1, 2025, which would have required at least ten sites within 200 metres of a school or childcare centre to close: five in Toronto and one each in Kitchener, Hamilton, Guelph, Thunder Bay, and Ottawa. In its application to the Ontario Superior Court, The Neighbourhood Group argued that people at severe risk of harm would lose access to a range of services and any closure would result in suffering.

The Ontario Superior Court agreed, concluding it “is foreseeable that many more will overdose, and some of those will die…that there will be an increase in the spread of bloodborne diseases. Death and disease that would have been prevented will now not be prevented, because those who would have used an SCS will now consume drugs in less safe settings. The other health and social services provided by SCSs and for which SCSs are a gateway will no longer be accessed at the same rate. Given the number of users that are affected by substance use disorder, homelessness, and other marginalized characteristics, the impact will be felt by the most vulnerable.”

“This injunction, though limited and temporary, is a recognition that evidence matters in legislation, and the evidence tells us these sites keep our communities safer,” says Sandra Ka Hon Chu of HIV Legal Network. “At a time when at least seven people die each day in Ontario due to the toxic unregulated drug supply, at a bare minimum we must ensure our laws are guided by the evidence available. Now, we need the province to respect the spirit of the injunction, fund these sites, and authorize municipalities who wish to do the same.”

-30-

Media Contact: Jessica Hannon: [email protected]

Background:

Injunction Decision, March 28, 2025

Media Advisory: Organizations Head to Court to Defend Life-Saving Services in Ontario

Backgrounder: Charter challenge to the Community Care and Recovery Act, 2024

Online Briefing: Going to Court to Defend Lifesaving Services – March 20, 2025

March 31, 2025
Online Briefing: Going to Court to Defend Life-Saving Services in Ontario
Le français suit

Join the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition and partners on March 20th for a short online briefing to learn about key legal arguments as we intervene in the upcoming Charter challenge to Ontario’s harmful Community Care and Recovery Act. As a result of the Act, 10 supervised consumption sites have received notice from the province to shut down operations as of April 1, 2025. If left unchallenged, the Act will severely curtail harm reduction service delivery in Ontario, putting more people at risk of drug poisoning, reducing community safety, and eliminating proven lifesaving services amid a public health crisis.

Register Now

When? Mar 20, 2025 at 12pm EST / 9am PST

Where? Online registration.

Learn more:
- Overview of the Charter challenge of Ontario’s Community Care and Recovery Act
- Bringing a Public Health Perspective to Restrictions on Supervised Consumption Services at the Superior Court of Ontario
___________________________________________________________

Joignez-vous à la Coalition canadienne des politiques sur les drogues et à ses partenaires le 20 mars pour une courte séance d’information en ligne dans laquelle seront présentés les principaux arguments juridiques utilisés pour contester la pernicieuse Loi sur les soins et le rétablissement en milieu communautaire de l’Ontario. En vertu de cette loi, 10 sites de consommation supervisée ont reçu du gouvernement provincial un avis de fermeture qui prendra effet le 1er avril 2025. Si rien n’est fait, cette loi entravera gravement la fourniture de services de réduction des méfaits dans la province, ce qui aura pour effet d’augmenter les risques de décès par intoxication aux drogues, de réduire le sentiment de sécurité dans la population et d’éliminer des services éprouvés qui sauvent des vies, en pleine crise de santé publique.

Inscrivez-Vous Maintenant

Quand? 20 mars 2025 à 12h00 HNE / 9h00 PS

Où? Inscription en ligne.

Apprendre Encore Plus:
- La contestation judiciaire de la Loi sur les soins et le rétablissement en milieu communautaire de l’Ontario en bref
- Faire valoir une perspective de santé publique à la Cour supérieure de justice de l’Ontario quant à la restriction des services de consommation supervisée
March 18, 2025
Media Advisory: Organizations Head to Court to Defend Life-Saving Services in Ontario
Le français suit

Online | March 14, 2025—On Thursday, March 20, media are invited to attend a short online briefing with a coalition of organizations who will intervene at the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario on March 24-25 in the Charter challenge of Ontario’s dangerous Community Care and Recovery Act. The court will be asked to consider whether the Act unduly violates the Charter rights of people who use drugs – as part of this, the court will be asked to consider whether closing and restricting the availability of supervised consumption services will actually further the Act’s stated purpose to “protect children, families and people struggling with addiction by restricting supervised consumption sites, in line with its belief that addictions treatment is the best way to achieve lasting recovery.”

Together with the Toronto Harm Reduction Alliance, Toronto Overdose Prevention Society and Waterloo Region Drug Action Team, the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition is intervening to offer policy expertise to the court.

In this informational briefing, we will share what is covered by the Charter challenge, the arguments the intervenor coalition will present, and how the ruling could impact our communities.

Speakers: 
- DJ Larkin, lawyer, executive director, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition 
- Colin Johnson, Co-Chair, Toronto Harm Reduction Alliance
- Zoë Dodd, Co-organizer, Toronto Overdose Prevention Society
- Michael Parkinson, Drugs Strategies Specialist, Waterloo Region Drug Action Team
WHAT: Joint online briefing with a coalition of organizations who will intervene in the Charter challenge of Ontario’s Community Care and Recovery Act on Mar.24-25. There will be time for media questions.  

WHEN: Thursday, March 20, 2025 | 12:00-12:45 p.m. Eastern | 9:00-9:45 a.m. Pacific

WHERE: Online – Register Here

WHY: As a result of the Act, 10 supervised consumption sites in Ontario have received notice from the province to shut down operations as of April 1, 2025. Left unchallenged, the Act will severely curtail lifesaving service delivery in the province, increasing strain on first responders and emergency rooms, reducing community safety, and eliminating proven supports amid a public health crisis.

Backgrounders:
Media Contact: Jessica Hannon: [email protected]

___________________________________________________________

AVIS AUX MÉDIAS: Des organismes s’adressent aux tribunaux pour défendre des services vitaux en Ontario

En ligne | Le 14 mars 2025. – Nous invitons les médias à assister à une courte séance d’information tenue en ligne le jeudi 20 mars, avec une coalition d’organismes qui se présenteront devant la Cour supérieure de justice de l’Ontario les 24 et 25 mars pour contester la dangereuse Loi sur les soins et le rétablissement en milieu communautaire de l’Ontario. La Cour aura à déterminer si cette loi enfreint indûment les droits des personnes qui consomment des drogues. Dans le cadre de la contestation, il sera demandé à la Cour d’établir si la fermeture des services de consommation supervisée et les restrictions d’accès à ces services répondent réellement à l’objectif de la Loi, à savoir « protéger les enfants, les familles ainsi que les personnes qui luttent contre la toxicomanie en limitant les sites de consommation supervisée, conformément à [la] conviction que le traitement de la toxicomanie est le meilleur moyen de parvenir à un rétablissement durable ».

Accompagnée de la Toronto Harm Reduction Alliance, de la Toronto Overdose Prevention Society et de la Waterloo Region Drug Action Team, la Coalition canadienne des politiques sur les drogues interviendra devant les tribunaux pour offrir son expertise en matière de politiques.

Dans cette séance d’information, nous présenterons les thèmes couverts par la contestation fondée sur la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, les arguments qui seront invoqués par la coalition d’intervenants ainsi que les conséquences possibles de la décision sur nos collectivités.

Présentation par :
- DJ Larkin, avocat·e, direction générale, Coalition canadienne des politiques sur les drogues
- Colin Johnson, coprésident, Toronto Harm Reduction Alliance
- Zoë Dodd, co-organisatrice, Toronto Overdose Prevention Society
- Michael Parkinson, spécialiste des stratégies sur les drogues, Waterloo Region Drug Action Team
ÉVÉNEMENT : Séance d’information conjointe, en ligne, avec une coalition d’organismes qui participeront à la contestation judiciaire de la Loi sur les soins et le rétablissement en milieu communautaire de l’Ontario les 24 et 25 mars. Une période est réservée aux questions des médias.

DATE ET HEURE : Le jeudi 20 mars 2025 | 12 h à 12 h 45 (HE) | 9 h à 9 h 45 (HP)

LIEU : En ligne – Inscription ici

RAISON D’ÊTRE : En vertu de la Loi, 10 sites de consommation supervisée ont reçu du gouvernement provincial un avis de fermeture qui prendra effet le 1^er avril 2025. Si rien n’est fait, cette loi entravera gravement la fourniture de services qui sauvent des vies, ce qui aura pour effet d’accroître la pression sur les premiers répondants et sur les services d’urgence, de miner la sécurité de la population et d’éliminer une aide dont l’efficacité a été démontrée, en pleine crise de santé publique.

Documents d’information :
- Explication de la contestation judiciaire
- Résumé des arguments de la coalition d’intervenants
Personnes-ressources pour les médias : Jessica Hannon: [email protected]
March 14, 2025
Bringing a Public Health Perspective to Restrictions on Supervised Consumption Services at the Superior Court of Ontario

Le français suit

The Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, Toronto Harm Reduction Alliance, Toronto Overdose Prevention Society, and Waterloo Region Drug Action Team (together, the “Intervenor Coalition”) are intervening before the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario to advocate for a path forward that is grounded in public health principles, upholds Charter rights, and protects against the perpetuation of stigma about people who use drugs as not worthy of the care needed for their survival.

The Intervenor Coalition will ask the Superior Court to use a public health framework with four key principles in its analysis. This guidance will assist the court to identify stigma against people who use drugs in both the legislation and evidence before the court and ensure stigma and prejudice are not reinforced in the court’s assessment of the claim.

The first principle in the public health framework is harm prevention, which is a fundamental aspect of public health policy and reflected in the stated purpose of Ontario’s Health Protection and Promotion Act. The prevention of harm must be prioritized, particularly when not doing so would result in death. Previous case law has affirmed that even one potential death is enough to establish that harmful effects resulting from a law are severe in relation to that law’s purpose.

The second principle addresses clarity and certainty, which are required from the state’s actions and the legislative environment to uphold public health objectives. The Act’s geographic restrictions on supervised consumption sites are both immediate and future-facing. This means that if a childcare centre or school were to be established within 200 metres of a site, or if another type of premise within 200 metres was prescribed under the Act as a designated premise, the site would be required to shut down. In this environment of uncertainty, site operators cannot be confident in the operational viability of a site. This runs counter to a public health framework, impacts services everywhere, and must be considered in the court’s assessment of the law.

The third principle requires that policy be grounded in evidence, not stigma. Legislation and decision-making are impacted by widely entrenched stigma against people who use drugs, requiring more careful consideration when assessing whether a law is discriminatory. It is essential to rely upon evidence rather than feelings of fear or discomfort, however common or previously uninterrogated, when drafting and assessing laws. Ontario’s submissions appear to contain instances of stigma not supported by evidence, for instance, conflating visible poverty or drug use with safety risks to the public, suggesting a causal relationship between supervised consumption sites and neighbourhood poverty levels where none exists, or failing to recognize how supervised consumption sites can support abstinence-based recovery.

The fourth principle in the public health framework is the need for alignment between public health and public safety goals. Public safety laws must not undermine public health goals. If the law increases public health risks, it fails to create conditions of safety for the benefit of entire communities and cannot be justified as an appropriate public health measure.

A public health approach to legislation is essential to chart a path out of a years-long national public health crisis that has claimed the lives and impacted the wellness of hundreds of thousands of people across the country. The Intervenor Coalition hopes that their contributions will support the courts in recognizing the benefits of public-health-first measures, and the importance of grounding legislation in evidence. Such recognition is especially important given the recent push by some politicians for a return to a criminal-law-centric approach to drug use, even absent any discernable benefits to this approach from either a public health or public safety perspective.¹

_{¹ See e.g. Health Canada’s Expert Task Force on Substance Use. Report 1: Recommendations on alternatives to criminal penalties for simple possession of controlled substances, Health Canada. 2021 May 6 and Report 2: Recommendations on the federal government’s drug policy as articulated in a draft Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy (CDSS). Health Canada. 2021 Jun 6; Cano M, Timmons P, Hooten M, Sweeney K, Oh S. A scoping review of law enforcement drug seizures and overdose mortality in the United States. Int J Drug Policy.}

___________________________________________________________

Faire valoir une perspective de santé publique à la Cour supérieure de justice de l’Ontario quant à la restriction des services de consommation supervisée

La Coalition canadienne des politiques sur les drogues (CCPD), la Toronto Harm Reduction Alliance, la Toronto Overdose Prevention Society et la Waterloo Region Drug Action Team (collectivement la « coalition d’intervenants ») ont introduit un recours devant la Cour supérieure de justice de l’Ontario pour faire valoir un cadre à suivre fondé sur les principes de la santé publique, qui assure le respect des droits garantis par la Charte et qui protège les personnes qui consomment des drogues de la perpétuation des préjugés selon lesquels elles ne méritent pas les soins nécessaires à leur survie.

La coalition d’intervenants demandera à la Cour d’adopter pour son analyse un cadre de santé publique basé sur quatre principes clés. Cette orientation permettra de faire ressortir les préjugés véhiculés sur les personnes qui consomment des drogues, tant dans les lois que dans les faits présentés à la Cour, pour que celle-ci veille à éviter de les renforcer dans son analyse du dossier.

Le premier principe du cadre est celui de la prévention, aspect fondamental des politiques en matière de santé publique qui est par ailleurs mentionné dans l’objectif de la Loi sur la protection et la promotion de la santé de l’Ontario. La prévention doit être une priorité, en particulier lorsque le non-respect de ce principe risque d’entraîner la mort. La jurisprudence antérieure a établi que même un seul décès potentiel suffit à établir que les effets préjudiciables d’une loi sont graves au regard de l’objectif de la loi.

Le deuxième principe porte sur la clarté et la certitude exigées des actes de l’État et du cadre législatif pour l’atteinte des objectifs de santé publique. Les restrictions géographiques imposées aux sites de consommation supervisée dans la Loi s’appliquent à la fois dans l’immédiat et dans l’avenir. Autrement dit, si un centre de garde ou une école ouvre à moins de 200 mètres d’un site ou si un autre type d’établissement se trouvant dans ce rayon devient un « lieu prescrit » en vertu de la Loi, le site sera dans l’obligation de fermer. Cette incertitude empêche les gestionnaires de sites de consommation supervisée d’évaluer avec confiance la viabilité de leurs projets. Cette disposition va à l’encontre du cadre de santé publique, elle touche tous les services, où qu’ils se trouvent, et doit être prise en compte dans l’analyse de la Loi par la Cour.

Le troisième principe veut que les politiques se fondent sur les faits plutôt que sur des préjugés. Les lois et les décisions juridiques sont influencées par des préjugés profondément enracinés à l’endroit des personnes qui consomment des drogues, ce qui appelle un examen particulièrement rigoureux pour statuer sur le caractère discriminatoire ou non d’une loi. Il est essentiel de se fier, lors de l’élaboration ou de l’examen de textes législatifs, à des éléments factuels plutôt qu’à des sentiments de peur ou d’inconfort, même si ceux-ci sont très répandus ou n’ont jamais auparavant été remis en question. Les textes proposés par l’Ontario semblent contenir des traces de préjugés qui ne sont pas corroborés par les faits, nommément l’amalgame entre pauvreté apparente ou consommation de drogues et risques pour la sécurité de la population, la supposition d’une relation de cause à effet entre la présence de sites de consommation supervisée et le niveau de pauvreté d’un quartier, bien qu’aucun lien du genre n’ait été prouvé, ou encore la non-reconnaissance du rôle que peuvent jouer les sites de consommation supervisée dans le rétablissement fondé sur l’abstinence.

Le quatrième principe est celui de l’harmonisation nécessaire entre les objectifs de santé publique et de sécurité publique. En effet, les lois traitant de la sécurité publique ne doivent pas compromettre les objectifs de santé publique. Une loi ayant pour effet d’accroître les risques de santé publique ne met pas en place les conditions nécessaires à la sécurité de toute la population et n’est donc pas justifiée comme mesure de santé publique adéquate.

Il est essentiel d’adopter une approche législative tenant compte de la santé publique afin de tracer une voie susceptible de nous sortir de la crise de santé publique nationale qui dure depuis plusieurs années et qui a volé la vie ou miné le bien-être de centaines de milliers de personnes à l’échelle du pays. La coalition d’intervenants espère que son apport aidera les tribunaux à reconnaître les bienfaits des mesures mettant la santé publique au premier plan et l’importance de fonder les lois sur des faits. Cette reconnaissance est particulièrement importante dans le contexte où des membres de la classe politique ont récemment encouragé un retour à une approche pénale en matière de consommation de drogues, malgré l’absence de tout bienfait observable de cette approche, que ce soit du point de vue de la santé publique ou de la sécurité publique¹.

_{¹ Voir par exemple les travaux du Groupe d’experts sur la consommation de substances de Santé Canada :Rapport 1 : Recommandations de solutions de rechange aux sanctions pénales pour possession simple de substances contrôlées (Santé Canada, 6 mai 2021) et Rapport 2 : Recommandations relatives à la politique du gouvernement du Canada en matière de drogues, telle qu’elle est énoncée dans le projet de Stratégie canadienne sur les drogues et autres substances (SCDAS) (Santé Canada, 6 juin 2021); Cano, M., Timmons P., Hooten, M., Sweeney, K. et Oh, S. A scoping review of law enforcement drug seizures and overdose mortality in the United States. International Journal on Drug Policy.}

March 14, 2025