Category: Press Release

  • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Supreme Court Affirms Life-Saving Intent of Good Samaritan Law  

    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: 

    • Background: 
    • Summary of intervener coalition arguments 

    MEDIA CONTACT: 

    To arrange interviews contact Jessica Hannon, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition 


    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 :

    CONTACT MÉDIA :

    Pour organiser des entrevues, veuillez communiquer avec Jessica Hannon, Coalition canadienne des politiques sur les drogues

    Elise Etienne

    Agente aux communications

    [email protected]

    Tel : 514 287-9625, poste 107

  • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Despite Ontario Superior Court Injunction Recognizing Irreparable Harm, Most Remaining Supervised Consumption Sites Still Facing Forced Closure Tomorrow 

    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 

    Logos of the involved organizations.
  • Media Advisory: Organizations Head to Court to Defend Life-Saving Services in Ontario

    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]

    Logos of the involved organizations.

    ___________________________________________________________

    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 1er 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 : 

    Personnes-ressources pour les médias : Jessica Hannon: [email protected]

    Logos of the involved organizations.
  • Media Advisory: Organizations seek to clarify Good Samaritan Law at the Supreme Court of Canada

    Media Advisory: Organizations seek to clarify Good Samaritan Law at the Supreme Court of Canada

    Le français suit

    MEDIA ADVISORY 

    Online | January 9, 2025—On Monday, Jan.13, media are invited to attend a short online briefing with a coalition of organizations who will intervene at the Supreme Court of Canada on Jan.14 in the case of R. v. WilsonThis case considers the application of what is commonly referred to as the “Good Samaritan” law, which provides immunity from prosecution for drug possession and some other offences for people at the scene of a drug-related medical emergency. 

    The Supreme Court of Canada will be 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?

    Speakers: 

    • DJ Larkin, lawyer, executive director, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition
    • Corey Ranger, president, Harm Reduction Nurses Association
    • Louis Letellier de St-Just, lawyer, president, l’Association des Intervenants en Dépendance du Québec
    • Maxime Bédard, lawyer, Daniel Brown Law LLP

    WHAT: Joint online briefing with a coalition of organizations who will intervene in R. v. Wilson at the Supreme Court of Canada on Jan. 14. There will be time for media questions.

    WHEN: Monday, January 13, 2025 | 10:00-10:45 a.m. Pacific | 1:00-1:45 p.m. Eastern

    WHERE: Online – Register Here

    WHY: The Good Samaritan provision was enacted as part of Canada’s public health approach to substance use. It is intended to encourage people to stay at the scene of a drug-related medical emergency, provide first aid, and ultimately, save lives and prevent injuries. Interveners will ask the Supreme Court to ensure this law fulfills its purpose: to prevent the devastating and avoidable consequences of drug-related medical emergencies. To do so, it must prioritize harm reduction, promote clarity in the law’s application, and ensure that any examination of its purpose is devoid of latent bias.

    -30-

    Background:

    Media contact: Jessica Hannon: [email protected]

    ___________________________________________________________

    AVIS AUX MÉDIAS

    Des organisations cherchent à clarifier la législation sur les bons samaritains à la Cour suprême du Canada

    En ligne | Le 8 janvier 2025 – Le lundi 13 janvier, les médias sont invités à assister à une brève séance d’information en ligne présentée par une coalition d’organisations qui interviendra à la Cour suprême du Canada le 14 janvier concernant le jugement R. c. Wilson. Dans ce cas, on considère l’application de ce qu’il est convenu d’appeler la loi sur les « bons samaritains », laquelle accorde aux personnes qui se trouvent sur les lieux d’une urgence liée aux drogues une immunité en matière de poursuites judiciaires relatives à la possession de drogues ou à d’autres infractions. On demandera à la Cour suprême du Canada de répondre à la question suivante :

    Le Code criminel autorise-t-il l’arrestation d’une personne qui se trouve sur les lieux d’une « surdose » pour un délit de possession simple de drogues même si cette personne peut en définitive être à l’abri de toute inculpation ou condamnation liée à cette infraction?

    Les présentateur·trice·s :

    • Maxime Bédard, avocat, Daniel Brown Law LLP
    • DJ Larkin, avocat, directeur général, Coalition canadienne des politiques sur les drogues
    • Corey Ranger, président, Association des infirmiers et infirmières en réduction des méfaits
    • Louis Letellier de St-Just, avocat, president, Association des intervenants en dépendance du Québec

    QUOI : une présentation conjointe en ligne d’une coalition d’organisations qui interviendra à la Cour suprême du Canada le 14 janvier concernant le jugement R. c Wilson. Une période de questions pour les médias est prévue. La présentation sera en anglais et français avec traduction simultanée.

    QUAND : le lundi 13 janvier 2025 | de 10 h à 10 h 45 HNP | de 13 h à 13 h 45 HNE

    OÙ : en ligne – cliquez ici pour vous inscrire 

    POURQUOI : La disposition sur les bons samaritains a été adoptée dans le cadre de la démarche de santé publique du Canada à l’égard de l’usage de substances. Elle a pour but d’encourager les personnes à demeurer sur les lieux d’une urgence médicale liée aux drogues, à fournir les premiers soins et, ultimement, à sauver des vies et à prévenir des blessures. Les personnes intervenantes demanderont à la Cour suprême de veiller à ce que cette loi remplisse son objectif, soit de prévenir les conséquences dévastatrices et évitables des urgences médicales liées aux drogues. Pour ce faire, la Cour doit accorder la priorité à la réduction des méfaits, promouvoir la clarté en ce qui a trait à l’application de la loi, et s’assurer que tout examen de l’objectif de la loi est exempt de biais latents. 

    -30-

    Document d’information :

    • Explication du jugement R. c. Wilson
    • Sommaire des arguments de la coalition d’intervenants

    Contact média : Jessica Hannon : [email protected]

  • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Province repeals public use law previously blocked by B.C. Supreme Court for irreparable harm  

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Province repeals public use law previously blocked by B.C. Supreme Court for irreparable harm  

    Joint Statement from the Harm Reduction Nurses Association, the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition and Pivot Legal Society 

    ​​xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, sḵwx̱wú7mesh & səlilwətaɬ landsVancouver, BC |​ December 20, 2024 – Yesterday the B.C. provincial government repealed Bill 34: the Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act. This represents a small but hard-fought victory against politically-driven laws and policies that inflict harm upon those made most vulnerable by oppressive systems. 

    The Act was initially passed last November, but a temporary B.C. Supreme Court injunction filed by the Harm Reduction Nurses Association and supported by the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition and Pivot Legal Society prevented it from coming into force until the court could assess whether it violated Charter rights. Rather than proceed through this process, the province has repealed the legislation.  

    It is important to recognize the harms the Act would have codified into law, and the harm prevented by its repeal. In repealing this legislation, the province has tacitly admitted that the Act would not have withstood the court’s scrutiny of its harmful consequences. We can count this as a victory. But ultimately, until evidence and ethics guide public policy in B.C., we fear we will be forced to continue these fights.       

    In its injunction ruling, the court agreed that in severely restricting public drug consumption, the Act would cause irreparable harm to people at risk of injury and death amid a public health crisis. Chief Justice Hinkson said, “Given the evidence before me, I find that there is a high degree of probability that at least some of the harm set out by the plaintiff will in fact occur. Centrally, but not exclusively, the Act will promote more lone drug use, which carries incumbent risks to [people who use drugs] and also the plaintiff’s members.”  

    This piece of legislation, which was not time-limited to the duration of B.C.’s decriminalization pilot, would also have enabled an increase in policing scope to specifically target unhoused people. The law would have had outsized impacts on Indigenous and racialized people, recreating and intensifying the existing harms of colonization and systemic racism. There was widespread opposition to the Act, including from the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, the Surrey Union of Drug Users, the BC Association of Social Workers and CMHA BC

    Though the BC government has repealed Bill 34 in light of the court injunction and significant community backlash, some of the Act’s insidious elements exist within the province’s Apr. 2024 amendment to the decriminalization pilot. This politically-driven amendment circumvented the injunction against the Act and codified some of its most harmful facets through other means. We stand by our colleagues who have filed a judicial review of this egregious sidestepping of justice.  

    While the end of this harmful legislation represents a win for human rights, we continue to exist within a prolonged public health emergency. Criminalizing drug use is a far downstream intervention that lacks evidentiary support. More than a century of criminalization has demonstrated that enforcement has not decreased drug availability or use, is an ineffective use of public funds, and is clearly linked to an increased risk of overdose and cycles of homelessness. Criminalization drives further toxicity and unpredictability in the unregulated drug supply and signals to a significant portion of B.C.’s population that their deaths are acceptable. Once again, Chief Justice Hinkson reminds us, “I have already set out that British Columbia is in a Public Health Emergency. As part of these circumstances, the plaintiff argued, and I accept, that the unregulated nature of the illegal drug supply is the predominant cause of increasing death rates in British Columbia.” 

    We know the drivers of more than five preventable deaths per day in B.C.: stigma, isolation, and a poisoned drug supply. All three are made worse by criminalization. We implore the B.C. provincial government to stop playing politics in a public health emergency; we want to work together to end this crisis, with a shared understanding that every single death by the unregulated drug supply is preventable. 

    -30- 

    Links and Resources:  

    • Bill 34 – Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act 
    • December 29, 2023 B.C. Supreme Court Ruling on Injunction Application  
    • April 26, 2024 HRNA Press Release in response to B.C.’s decriminalization pilot amendment request 

    To arrange interviews, please contact Jessica Hannon, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition [email protected]

  • Canadian Drug Policy Coalition/ Doalition canadienne des politiques sur les drogues

    Government of Ontario Attempting to Force Through Deadly Drug Policy Bill

    This statement can be attributed to the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, the Drug Strategy Network of Ontario, and the HIV Legal Network.

    November 27, 2024 — Toronto, ON | We are watching with grave concern as the Government of Ontario attempts to force through radical legislation that will eliminate life-saving supervised consumption services (SCS) and prevent access to other evidence-based responses to an unregulated drug crisis that is killing 10 people in Ontario every single day. 

    We appeal to the government to withdraw their time allocation motion. Experts in the care for people with substance use disorder and other people who use drugs are anxious for the opportunity to speak to Committee about this bill and the devastating effects it will have on Ontarians. The opportunity for such expertise to inform the contents of this Bill is an opportunity afforded by our parliamentary democracy for good reason. It ensures that our laws are informed by evidence and lived experience.

    “The government’s attempt on Tuesday to force this devastating bill through the legislature — without debate or committee study — sent a very clear messages to all people in this province: democratic process doesn’t matter, evidence doesn’t matter, and the workload of health, medical, social service and first response workers doesn’t matter,” says Michael Parkinson of the Drug Strategy Network of Ontario. “Most frighteningly, the government is saying that people’s lives in Ontario do not matter.”

    The Premier and Health Minister are well aware of the appalling consequences that will follow if these vital health services are prohibited. “The government has been warned by their own internal counsel of the devastation expected to occur in communities across Ontario, particularly among Black, Indigenous, and low-income people,” says Beeta Senedjani of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition. “This bill would legislate an increase in deaths of our loved ones, public drug use in our neighbourhoods, and healthcare costs that will affect all taxpayers.” In bypassing debate and committee review, the Ontario government would silence elected representatives, community members, and public health and scientific experts who would have provided the evidence that SCS are, unequivocally, in the public interest.

    According to both internal government advice and independent evaluations, it is widely expected that this proposed law will:

    • Kill, injure, or otherwise harm people in Ontario by removing their access to life-saving harm reduction services in the event of an overdose emergency; 
    • Increase drug use in public places such as parks and school yards; 
    • Increase the chances of people, including children, witnessing overdose emergencies; 
    • Increase the amount of discarded drug use equipment in public spaces; 
    • Increase the workload for already overburdened first responders, hospital emergency rooms, and other frontline staff; 
    • Reduce ambulance availability for all members of the public; and 
    • Increase costs to taxpayers.

    There is near-unanimous consensus about the negative impacts these impending closures will have, of which the Government of Ontario is aware and is willfully choosing to ignore. Ample studies, including internal government reports and independent evaluations, consistently demonstrate the public health and safety benefits of SCS. Ontario’s supervised consumption services have recorded 1.12 million visits from 178,000 unique clients since March 2020, according to a recent report, and have successfully reversed 22,000 overdoses and facilitated more than 530,000 service referrals to housing, case management, substance use treatment, and more. Additionally, data from Toronto demonstrate that neighbourhoods with supervised consumption services subsequently experienced 67 per cent reductions in overdose mortality, while other neighbourhoods showed no significant decreases. These services are desperately needed. 

    SCS also reduce public drug use and discarded drug use equipment. Contrary to the Ontario government’s claims that crime has increased in neighbourhoods with SCS relative to other neighbourhoods, a recent study found decreases in rates of homicide, assault, and robbery in the vicinity of an SCS after opening.

    If passed as drafted, Ontario would soon see the dire impact of government officials determining health policy based on opinions, ideology, and political calculations instead of public interest. “Our loved ones will die. Our communities will suffer. The Government of Ontario knows this, and is proceeding with reckless abandon,” says Sandra Ka Hon Chu of HIV Legal Network. “Our organizations — and many others across the province, country, and globally — will continue to advocate for SCS to remain open.” 

    -30-

    Media Contacts: 

    For more information about SCS and the current state of the law in Canada, see this recent report from the HIV Legal Network: https://www.hivlegalnetwork.ca/site/scaling-up-supervised-consumption-services-what-has-changed-in-canada/?lang=en

  • Canadian Drug Policy Coalition/ Doalition canadienne des politiques sur les drogues

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Province of Ontario Preventing Efforts to Reduce Deaths and Harms for People Who Use Drugs

    Ontario stonewalls health and human rights groups seeking support for evidence-based supervised consumption services

    Ontario, Canada | Aug 7, 2024  

    A coalition of more than fifty organizations continue to await a response from the provincial government about Ontario’s alarming unregulated drug poisoning fatalities and the forced closure of three supervised consumption sites. In their most recent letter, released today, the coalition is once again calling on the Government of Ontario to immediately support communities desperate for these life-saving services; written communications to Ontario have thus far been met with silence despite the fact that one person in Ontario dies every 2.5 hours due to toxic unregulated drugs. 

    More than 21,000 people in Ontario have died from unregulated drug poisoning since the current government was elected in 2018, many of whom did not have a diagnosis for substance use disorder. Applications to the province for funding for community-based supervised consumption services have languished for years in an opaque process that has left site operators and local municipalities frustrated and dangerously under-resourced. The province has frozen all new funding for supervised consumption services across Ontario since 2023, placing the blame on a critical incident that occurred near a Toronto site more than one year ago.  

    Today, the coalition again requested emergency funding to re-open sites in Sudbury and Timmins, two areas hard-hit by the drug poisoning crisis. Until March and June of this year, these sites offered witnessed consumption of pre-obtained drugs so that trained staff could respond to overdose emergencies and connect people to health and social supports, including treatment. These closures highlight a significant inequity in care in the North, with a gap in supervised consumption service access spanning over 1,400 kilometers between Thunder Bay and Toronto. The group is also calling for funds to re-open the site in Windsor, which was forced to shut down services in December. 

    “The provincial government has stonewalled us,” says Amber Fritz, Manager of Outreach and Education at Réseau Access Network in Sudbury. “We heard months ago from the Opposition that funds were available in the provincial budget to run our supervised consumption site, so this silence is a deliberate, deadly choice. Bureaucracy and stigma have no place in a public health crisis.” 

    “It’s evident that our community is in dire need of additional resources to support people who use substances. During the almost two years of having the Safe Health Site Timmins, our community saw a reduction in EMS calls for opioid-related injuries and a significant reduction in opioid-related mortality rates,” says Dr. Julie Samson, physician at Timmins and District Hospital. We are trained to save lives. If we want to keep people alive during the ongoing and worsening drug poisoning crisis, supervised consumption sites are an essential part of the equation.” 

    The Drug Strategy Network of Ontario and numerous other organizations have been calling for on-demand evidence-based addiction treatment for many years, alongside other harm reduction solutions that benefit both people managing addiction and those who consume unregulated drugs episodically. 

    Supervised consumption sites offer a space where people who use drugs are treated with acceptance, empathy and respect, which is even more important in an increasingly hostile public and political environment that targets people who use drugs and those who care for them.  

    “It is heartbreaking that the Ministry of Health is dragging its feet when so many lives are at stake,” says Christine Nayler, advocate of Ryan’s Hope and Moms Stop the Harm in Barrie, where a supervised consumption site application was withdrawn due to a lack of response and clear timelines from the Government of Ontario. “Harm reduction is healthcare. It is about respect, dignity, and saving lives. Our beloved son Ryan may still be alive today if he had been able to access a supervised consumption site. How can our political leaders ignore our suffering?”  

    The coalition’s joint letter urges officials to introduce transparency and expedited timelines in the application process, and immediately scale up and re-open supervised consumption services across the province.  

    “This crisis requires a full range of supports to save lives, including harm reduction, withdrawal management and evidence-based, voluntary treatment,” says Nicholas Boyce, policy director with the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition. “We have seen emergency services become overwhelmed due to overdoses and poisonings from the unregulated drug supply. We have seen communities declare states of emergency. We desperately need to get in front of this, and supervised consumption services are a key part of a humane and fiscally responsible response.” 

    -30- 

    Documents and links available: 

    • [Recording] March 5 2024 Online Briefing on Open Letter RE: Ontario Supervised Consumption Services with speakers from the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, Pozitive Pathways in Windsor, Reseau ACCESS in Sudbury, Safe Health Site in Timmins and the Drug Strategy Network of Ontario. 
    • Reseau Access the Spot – Key Messaging (includes visit data) 

    Media Contacts: 

    Ryan Do

    Social Media Specialist, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition

    [email protected]

    About the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition:  

    Founded in 2010, the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition works in partnership with more than 60 organizations and 7,000 individuals working to support the development of a drug policy for Canada that is based in science, guided by public health principles, respectful of the human rights of all, and seeks to include people who use drugs and those harmed by the war on drugs in moving towards a healthier society. Learn more at www.drugpolicy.ca  

    About Moms Stop the Harm    

    Moms Stop the Harm challenges laws and policies that cause harm, including those laws that continue to drive the unregulated drug poisoning emergency in Canada. We call for an end to the failed war on drugs through evidence-based prevention, treatment and policy change.  Learn more at www.momsstoptheharm.com  

  • Canadian Drug Policy Coalition/ Doalition canadienne des politiques sur les drogues

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Grieving mother urges honesty and action at federal toxic drug crisis committee  

    Ottawa, ON | April 29, 2024 – On the eve of the tenth anniversary of her son Danny’s death from unregulated drugs, Petra Schulz, co-founder of Moms Stop the Harm (MSTH), will testify before the federal Standing Committee on Health (HESA) today on the “Opioid Epidemic and Toxic Drug Crisis.” 

    Since MSTH’s founding in 2016, drug toxicity deaths have skyrocketed and show no signs of abating. In a tragic reflection of the human toll of the crisis, MSTH has grown to almost 4,000 members in that time, emerging as a national leader advocating for evidence-based drug policy intervention. Danny Schulz’s story is one of too many painful losses, and an important point of reflection today.  

    Moms Stop the Harm urges the federal government to implement a full and equitable spectrum of harm reduction and recovery supports to save lives and give hope to families across the country. The HESA Committee has caught attention and news headlines in previous weeks as elected officials have heard from policy experts, healthcare workers, law enforcement, service providers, and more. MSTH, alongside the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition (CDPC) and the HIV Legal Network, has criticized the Committee’s exclusion of organizations representing people who use drugs, a decision seen as hindering a holistic understanding of the crisis. It is only through the experience and expertise of those with lived experience that we can truly end this lethal crisis.   

    “It is so upsetting and infuriating to see the deaths of our loved ones politicized with misinformation and outright lies,” says Schulz, “I urge members of Parliament to stop the angry, harmful and polarizing rhetoric and social media posts, and to listen to people who use drugs when developing drug policy. Like my son, people who use drugs are valuable and loved. I miss Danny every day, and I do this work to prevent families across Canada from feeling this same devastation.”   

    MSTH asserts that Canada’s criminal-legal approach to drugs and the significant gaps in available supports and services have created a flawed and dangerous system, driving the mounting death toll. “Tens of thousands of Canadian families are bereft, with empty seats at their tables,” says Schulz. “We are in this terrible situation because of policy choices. I am asking our elected officials to make different choices, choices that will save lives.”   

    “We tried everything in our power but, ultimately, the system failed my son,” says Traci Letts, also of Moms Stop the Harm, whose son died in February of this year. “Our loved ones need autonomy and choice in their lives and in their healthcare decisions. We need harm reduction, regulated alternatives to the toxic drug supply, and evidence-based, voluntary, and accountable treatment, as well as significant investment into healthcare, education, food security, and other social determinants of health.”   

    “All levels of government need to work together. The HESA study is an opportunity for Members of Parliament to better understand these issues and implement fundamental changes that are desperately needed,” says Nick Boyce of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition.   

    “While some governments are moving backwards in their support of progressive drug policy, we need leadership grounded in science, evidence, and compassion to end these needless deaths,” says Sandra Ka Hon Chu of the HIV Legal Network.  

    Schulz will testify before the HESA Committee this afternoon. While this Committee is meeting, an estimated 22 people in Canada will die today from the toxic, unregulated drug supply in this country, underscoring the urgent need for sound policy decisions and political courage.  

    -30-  

    Links and Resources:   

    About Moms Stop the Harm   

    Moms Stop the Harm challenges laws and policies that cause harm, including those laws that continue to drive the unregulated drug poisoning emergency in Canada. We call for an end to the failed war on drugs through evidence-based prevention, treatment and policy change.  

    About the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition  

    About the HIV Legal Network  

      

    Media Contact:  

    Jessica Hannon   

    [email protected]  

  • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Province moves to circumvent B.C. Supreme Court, harm reduction nurses slam “recipe for preventable death”

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Province moves to circumvent B.C. Supreme Court, harm reduction nurses slam “recipe for preventable death”

    Victoria, B.C. | April 26, 2024 — The Harm Reduction Nurses Association is profoundly frustrated and disappointed to hear the British Columbia provincial government’s announcement that they have sought permission from the Federal government to recriminalize all people who are at risk of dying from the unregulated drug crisis who lack access to housing or 24/7 safer use spaces in their communities.

    “The B.C. government’s actions today will put people who use drugs and people who rely on public space at further risk of harm and death,” says Corey Ranger of the Harm Reduction Nurses Association. “We all want and deserve communities where all people, whether they use drugs or not, can access safety and well-being. By imposing these restrictions on the decriminalization pilot without offering real solutions like expanding overdose prevention services and access to housing, the province has declared some lives unworthy of saving.” 

    The BC Supreme Court injunction to prevent Bill 34, the Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act, from coming into force found that the province’s proposed restrictions on decriminalization would lead to irreparable harm. The Harm Reduction Nurses Association has previously reached out to the Province with an offer to collaborate to address concerns without causing further harm, through a range of legal and policy changes that would better protect the lives of people currently at risk of overdose and increase public safety. 

    “Rather than focus on solutions appropriate to the eight-year emergency we are in and thousands of lives lost, the Province has chosen to do an end-run around that court decision,” says DJ Larkin, co-counsel for HRNA and executive director of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition

    “This pushes people who use drugs out of sight, to covert and isolated use. Combined with a toxic and unpredictable drug supply, that is a recipe for preventable drug poisoning death. We don’t want people to die hidden in alleyways,” says Ranger. “We don’t want any more families to have to grieve their loved ones. We want effective solutions. And we know that criminalization is no solution. This is a step back.” 

    HRNA members say B.C.’s actions directing healthcare workers in hospitals to follow policies that “prohibit drug possession, use and purchasing of illicit drugs,” will further impede nurses’ ability to ethically provide compassionate and life-saving care to people who use drugs. 

    “Principles of equity, autonomy and justice are embedded within nursing regulatory professional practice requirements,” says Michelle Danda of HRNA. “These policy directives will further marginalize and stigmatize people who use drugs and create division between nurses and patients as opposed to a community to support care. We need nurses to unite around compassionate, evidence-informed care.” 

    “To keep everyone safer – including nurses and all healthcare workers – we need widespread access to safer use spaces, including inhalation services,” says Ranger. “We can achieve safety without resorting to punitive measures.”

    HRNA has outlined a number of actions the Province could take that would help, not harm, including: 

    • Rapid scaling-up of supervised consumption sites wherever they are needed 
    • Exploring options to responsibly regulate the drug supply for safety 
    • Scaling up access to regulated, evidence-based voluntary non-profit treatment 
    • Investing heavily in affordable housing and poverty reduction 

    More than a century of prohibition has demonstrated that enforcement has not decreased drug availability or use, is extremely expensive, and is clearly linked to an increased risk of overdose and cycles of homelessness

    “The decriminalization pilot has its drawbacks, and ultimately does not address the unregulated toxic drug supply that continues to drive this crisis,” says Larkin. “Even so, it is an important part of a broader shift. To be effective in reducing harm and supporting healthy communities, it must be accompanied by additional actions. Blaming the decriminalization pilot for systemic issues of rising homelessness and visible poverty scapegoats those already suffering. When we see public drug use, it is because people do not have housing, services or safe places to go – and because people want to stay alive, not die alone and out of sight.”

    Today’s announcement is a direct circumvention of the Bill 34 injunction and poses the very same risk for irreparable harm. 

    -30- 

    Links and Resources: 

    • B.C. Supreme Court Ruling on Injunction Application 
    • Bill 34 – Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act
    • April 16, 2024 HRNA Press Release
    • December 30, 2023 HRNA Press Release 

    Media Contact:

    [email protected]