Canada (AG) v PHS Community Services Society

Last updated
Canada (AG) v PHS Community Services Society
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: May 12, 2011
Judgment: September 30, 2011
Full case nameCanada (Attorney General) v PHS Community Services Society
Citations 2011 SCC 44, [2011] 3 SCR 134
Docket No. 33556
Prior historyAPPEAL and CROSS‑APPEAL from PHS Community Services Society v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 BCCA 15 (15 January 2010), affirming PHS Community Services Society v. Attorney General of Canada, 2008 BCSC 661 (27 May 2008) and PHS Community Services Society v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 BCSC 1453 (31 October 2008)
RulingAppeal and cross-appeal dismissed. The Minister of Health is ordered to grant an exemption to Insite under s. 56 of the CDSA forthwith.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Louise Charron, Marshall Rothstein, Thomas Cromwell
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons byMcLachlin CJ

Canada (AG) v PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44 , [2011] 3 SCR 134 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case dealing with the application of the criminal law and healthcare heads of power found in section 91 and section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the principles of fundamental justice in section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Contents

Background

In September 2003, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and the Portland Hotel Society opened Insite, North America's first supervised drug injection site, in Downtown Eastside Vancouver, an area of high drug use. s 4(1) and 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) prohibited the possession and trafficking of controlled substances, and so in order to operate, Insite was obligated to apply for an exemption for medical and scientific purposes from the CDSA. The federal Minister of Health, whose discretionary powers under s 56 of the CDSA permitted the granting of exemptions, allowed Insite's application. Insite received further extensions on their exemption in 2006 and 2007. In 2008, Minister of Health Tony Clement failed to extend the exemption, casting doubt on Insite's ability to operate the facility in the future. In response, Insite launched a court challenge against the federal government.

The courts below

At trial before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Insite argued that s 4(1) and 5(1) of the CDSA were inapplicable to Insite because of the interjurisdictional immunity granted to them as a health facility. Insite argued that applying the CDSA provisions to their facility in the absence of an exemption would violate their s 7 rights upon application. In the alternative, Insite argued that the Minister of Health had violated their s 7 rights by failing to extend the exemption. The trial judge rejected Insite's interjurisdictional immunity argument, noting instead the primacy of double aspect in Canadian constitutional law. However, the trial judge found that s 4(1) and 5(1) of the CDSA violated Insite's s 7 Charter rights because they "arbitrarily prohibited the management of addiction and its associated risks", [1] and they could not be saved by s 1 of the Charter. The trial judge thus granted Insite a constitutional exemption and issued a suspended declaration of invalidity regarding s 4(1) and 5(1) of the CDSA. [2]

Upon appeal by the federal government to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the majority of the court affirmed the trial judge's decision, agreeing with the result of the trial judge's Charter and interjurisdictional immunity analyses. [3]

Decision of the Supreme Court

The court unanimously dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal on the basis of a s 7 argument, although it found no division of powers flaw in the CDSA.

Division of powers

The court found that s 4(1) and 5(1) of the CDSA were valid exercises of the federal law criminal power, per R v Malmo-Levine , where the court held that "protection of public health and safety from the effects of addictive drugs is a valid criminal law purpose". [4] The court rejected the respondents' argument that the provinces could be exempt from the federal criminal law power if they established an activity serving the public interest. [5] The court ruled also that interjurisdictional immunity could not shield the provinces from the federal criminal law power, given the narrowing of that doctrine in the Supreme Court's ruling in Canadian Western Bank v Alberta .

This restraint arises from the SCC's 2010 ruling in Quebec (AG) v Canadian Owners and Pilots Assn , where three related concerns were identified with the doctrine:

  1. it is in tension with the dual aspect doctrine, [6]
  2. it is in tension with the emergent practice of cooperative federalism, [7] and
  3. it may overshoot the federal or provincial power in which it is grounded and create legislative "no go" zones where neither level of government regulates. [8]

The Court further held that the delivery of health care services does not constitute a protected core of the provincial power over health care, [9] because:

  1. the proposed core has never been recognized in the jurisprudence, as courts are reluctant to identify new areas where interjurisdictional immunity applies; [10]
  2. "the sheer size and diversity of provincial health power render daunting the task of drawing a bright line around a protected provincial core of health where federal legislation may not tread;" [11] and
  3. "application of interjurisdictional immunity to a protected core of the provincial health power has the potential to create legal vacuums ... [which are] ... inimical to the very concept of the division of powers." [12]

As McLachlin CJ noted,

[70] In summary, the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity is narrow. Its premise of fixed watertight cores is in tension with the evolution of Canadian constitutional interpretation towards the more flexible concepts of double aspect and cooperative federalism. To apply it here would disturb settled competencies and introduce uncertainties for new ones. Quite simply, the doctrine is neither necessary nor helpful in the resolution of the contest here between the federal government and the provincial government.

Section 7 of the Charter

The court found that s 4(1) of the CDSA engaged s 7 of the Charter but operated in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Although that provision touched upon Insite users' life, liberty and security of the person by prohibiting drug possession at Insite, the s 56 exemption prevents s 4(1) of the CDSA from acting arbitrarily, overbroadly or grossly disproportionately upon Insite users.

However, the court found that the Minister's failure to grant the exemption limited Insite users' s 7 Charter rights and breached the principles of fundamental justice. The failure to exempt Insite was arbitrary because it undermined the CDSA's purpose; namely, the "maintenance and promotion of public health and safety". [13] The failure was also grossly disproportionate in that it denied Insite's services, which had not had any "discernable negative impact on the public safety and health objectives of Canada during its eight years of operation". [14]

While the court did not consider whether the Minister's failure to grant an exemption could be saved by s 1 of the Charter, they found that there would have been no rational connection between the Minister's failure to grant the exemption and the CDSA's stated purpose.

The court exercised its s 24(1) Charter power and ordered via mandamus the Minister to grant Insite the exemption. [15] The court noted that the Minister ought to grant future exemption requests when the injection facility would "decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety". [16]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Canada</span> Highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the judicial system of Canada. It comprises nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. The Supreme Court is bijural, hearing cases from two major legal traditions and bilingual, hearing cases in both official languages of Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of Canada</span>

The legal system of Canada is pluralist: its foundations lie in the English common law system, the French civil law system, and Indigenous law systems developed by the various Indigenous Nations.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quebec law</span> Overview of the law of Quebec

Quebec law is unique in Canada because Quebec is the only province in Canada to have a juridical legal system under which civil matters are regulated by French-heritage civil law. Public law, criminal law and federal law operate according to Canadian common law.

In Canadian constitutional law, the doctrine of paramountcy establishes that where there is a conflict between valid provincial and federal laws, the federal law will prevail and the provincial law will be inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the federal law. Unlike interjurisdictional immunity, which is concerned with the scope of the federal power, paramountcy deals with the way in which that power is exercised.

In Canadian Constitutional law, interjurisdictional immunity is the legal doctrine that determines which legislation arising from one level of jurisdiction may be applicable to matters covered at another level. Interjurisdictional immunity is an exception to the pith and substance doctrine, as it stipulates that there is a core to each federal subject matter that cannot be reached by provincial laws. While a provincial law that imposes a tax on banks may be ruled intra vires, as it is not within the protected core of banking, a provincial law that limits the rights of creditors to enforce their debts would strike at such a core and be ruled inapplicable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Insite</span> Safe drug injection facility in Vancouver, B.C., Canada

Insite is the first legal supervised drug injection site in North America, located at 139 East Hastings Street, in the Downtown Eastside (DTES) neighbourhood of Vancouver, British Columbia. The DTES had 4700 chronic drug users in 2000 and has been considered to be the centre of an "injection drug epidemic". The site provides a supervised and health-focused location for injection drug use, primarily heroin. The clinic does not supply any drugs. Medical staff are present to provide addiction treatment, mental health assistance, and first aid in the event of an overdose or wound. In 2017, the site recorded 175,464 visits by 7,301 unique users; 2,151 overdoses occurred with no fatalities, due to intervention by medical staff. The site also offers a free checking service so clients can check their substances for fentanyl and carfentanil. Health Canada has provided $500,000 per year to operate the site, and the BC Ministry of Health contributed $1,200,000 to renovate the site and cover operating costs. Insite also serves as a resource for those seeking to use a harm reduction approach for people who inject drugs around the world. In recent months and years, delegations from a number of countries are on record touring the facility, including various U.S. states, Colombia and Brazil. 95% of drug users who use Insite also inject on the street according to a British Columbia health official.

<i>Canadian Western Bank v Alberta</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian Western Bank v Alberta [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3 is a landmark decision in Canadian constitutional law by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) relating to the division of powers between Federal and Provincial legislative bodies.

<i>Paul v British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Paul v British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission), 2003 SCC 55, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision in administrative law and aboriginal law. The case stands for the proposition that a provincial administrative actor granted the power to determine questions of law may adjudicate matters within federal legislative competence, including s. 35 aboriginal rights matters.

<i>Quebec (AG) v Canadian Owners and Pilots Assn</i> 2010 ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada (2010 SCC 39)

Quebec v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, 2010 SCC 39, [2010] 2 SCR 536, also referred to as Quebec v. COPA, is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada on determining the applicability of the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy in Canadian constitutional law.

<i>Marine Services International Ltd v Ryan Estate</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Marine Services International Ltd v Ryan Estate, 2013 SCC 44 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the coexistence of Canadian maritime law with provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights, and it marks a further restriction upon the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence.

Portland Hotel Society (PHS) is a Canadian non-profit society created in 1993 to provide advocacy, housing, services, and opportunities, for Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. Its 451 staff support 1,153 rooms, North America's first legal supervised-injection site, known as Insite, a Downtown Eastside credit union branch, a food service that feeds people in Single-Room Occupancy residences and a pest control service.

<i>Bank of Montreal v Marcotte</i> Ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada

Bank of Montreal v Marcotte, 2014 SCC 55 is a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. Together with Amex Bank of Canada v. Adams, 2014 SCC 56 and Marcotte v. Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, 2014 SCC 57, it represents a further development in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence on the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and paramountcy, together with significant clarifications on the law concerning class actions in the Province of Quebec, which is similar to that in operation in the common law provinces.

<i>Carter v Canada (AG)</i> Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

Carter v Canada (AG), 2015 SCC 5 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision where the prohibition of assisted suicide was challenged as contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") by several parties, including the family of Kay Carter, a woman suffering from degenerative spinal stenosis, and Gloria Taylor, a woman suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ("ALS"). In a unanimous decision on February 6, 2015, the Court struck down the provision in the Criminal Code, thereby giving Canadian adults who are mentally competent and suffering intolerably and enduringly the right to a doctor's assistance in dying. This ruling overturned the Supreme Court's 1993 ruling in Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG), which had denied a right to assisted suicide.

<i>NIL/TU,O Child and Family Services Society v BC Government and Service Employees Union</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

NIL/TU,O Child and Family Services Society v BC Government and Service Employees' Union is a leading Supreme Court of Canada constitutional law case dealing with jurisdiction over labour relations in the context of federalism and Aboriginal rights.

<i>Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc v Canada, 2008 SCC 15 is a Canadian constitutional law case, dealing with the language standards imposed by section 20(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pursuant to their duties as New Brunswick's police force.

<i>Quebec (AG) v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Quebec (AG) v Canada (AG), 2015 SCC 14 is a Canadian constitutional law case concerning the federal government's ability to destroy information related to the Canadian long-gun registry pursuant to the federal criminal law power.

<i>Guindon v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Guindon v Canada, 2015 SCC 41 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the distinction between criminal and regulatory penalties, for the purposes of s.11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also provides guidance on when the Court will consider constitutional issues when such had not been argued in the lower courts.

<i>Murray‑Hall v Quebec (Attorney General)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Murray‑Hall v Quebec , 2023 SCC 10 is a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in the area of Canadian constitutional law, specifically concerning the extent of the double aspect doctrine in the federal-provincial division of powers.

References

  1. ↑ SCC, par. 31
  2. ↑ SCC, par. 31
  3. ↑ SCC, par. 32–35
  4. ↑ SCC, par. 52
  5. ↑ SCC, par. 53–56
  6. ↑ SCC, par. 61
  7. ↑ SCC, par. 62
  8. ↑ SCC, par. 63
  9. ↑ SCC, par. 66
  10. ↑ SCC, par. 67
  11. ↑ SCC, par. 68
  12. ↑ SCC, par. 69
  13. ↑ SCC, par. 137
  14. ↑ SCC, par. 133
  15. ↑ SCC, par. 150
  16. ↑ SCC, par. 152
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.