Canada's attorney general and minister of health have lost their appeal of a court ruling on Vancouver's controversial supervised injection site, raising proponents' hopes that similar facilities will now open in other cities.
The B.C. Appeal Court rejected Ottawa's appeal in a unanimous ruling announced Friday.
Dr. Julio Montaner, director of the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV-AIDS, said the decision sends a clear message that Prime Minister Stephen Harper should abandon "his draconian, ideologically motivated public health policy-making" and embrace evidence-based research to continue operating the clinic, called Insite.
Montaner said he's had discussions with officials in Montreal, Toronto, Victoria and San Francisco about those cities having their own clinics modelled after Insite.
"There is tremendous interest in a number of cities around the world based on the fact that not only have we piloted this initiative but the supervised injection site is the best studied in the world," he said.
Chief Justice Lance Finch walked into an overflowing courtroom for Friday's announcement. About 50 supporters of the clinic jammed into the room and spilling outside applauded after Finch read the ruling.
"It's a clean sweep," said lawyer Joe Arvay, who represented the Portland Hotel Society, which runs Insite, and helped launch the original court action against the federal government.
"Let's just say that one hopes that they (the government) will accept the decision of the court, which is obviously very well thought out and considered."
Drug users bring their own drugs to the clinic, where can they can inject them under the supervision of a nurse. It opened in 2003 as part of a harm-reduction plan to tackle an epidemic of HIV-AIDS and drug overdose deaths.
Montaner said that since the facility opened, there's been a 30 per cent increase in the number of addicts who enter detox.
The federal government had sought to overturn an earlier B.C. Supreme Court decision that struck down parts of Canada's drug laws, after finding that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was not in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The lower court ruling gave Insite immediate constitutional exemption to stay open without a federal exemption from drug laws. Insite supporters had launched the court action out of fear that the Conservative government was not going to renew the exemption when it expired at the end of June 2008.
Federal lawyers had argued that it's policy issue, not a legal one, but the appeal court disagreed.
Dean Wilson, one of two original plaintiffs in the case, said outside the court that the victory makes it clear that Insite provides a "common-sense approach" to those battling drug addiction.
"It's working, it's working, that's all I can say," said Wilson, who was the first person to use Insite, which he regards as a critical harm-reduction facility that protects people's health.
"Now other provinces can use this as case law and do their thing," said Wilson, who said he's also used Insite's detox facility, called Onsite, and lived in transitional housing.
Well-organizers supporters of Insite placed four large posters outside the court, with photos of babies and young children on bicycles and rocking horses over captions that read: "Before they were junkies they were kids. Support Insite."
No one from the federal Attorney General or the Health Ministry was immediately available for comment.
The federal government could appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, but Arvay said the Conservatives would be wasting more money by doing so.
"Why waste taxpayers with an appeal, especially when that money could be used to help the most vulnerable people in the city, in the Downtown Eastside?" he said.
The appeal court ruled that the federal government must pay the court costs for those who have fought to keep the facility open since it began operating.
Camille Bains reports for the Canadian Press
9
Login or register to post comments
G West
2 years ago
Don't put this file on the shelf Joe Arvay
In all likelihood, Pee Wee will be 'directing' the Attorney General to appeal.
Furthermore, given the 'centralizing' ethos that motivates the 'dear leader' he's likely to be busy finding other ways to shut Insite down even if the Supremes don't grant leave to appeal.
Loathe though I am to post anything from the bankrupt CanWest, this, by John Ivison, is worthwhile recommending:
http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/King+Harper+keeps+ministers+leashed/2444571/story.html
Fiat lux
2 years ago
It is difficult to decide,
It is difficult to decide, with all the evidence staring at us, which is more dangerous: Drug addiction that knocks people's brains out, or ideological/religious addiction that knocks out the brains of politicians who then ruin the lives of billions ?
"Because it is written......"
Ed Deak.
DPL
2 years ago
Pretty hard to appeal to the
Pretty hard to appeal to the big court in Ottawa when all three Provincial Appeals Cout judges are in agreement.
realisticman
2 years ago
Remind me
Where do the junkies get the money for the drugs from?
dunngy
2 years ago
Realisticman
If drug prohibition was ended then your question is moot.
vigilanttory
2 years ago
Not Unanimous
Actually there was 1 dissenting Justice. Madame Justice Smith did NOT agree with the ruling.
Why not give sociopaths weapons to kill? Why not provide the bombs for suicidal religious fanatics to make a "statement"? Let's hold their hands and make it socially acceptable to be a junkie.
I agree that addiction is most definately a health issue but enabling addicts' self-destructive processes is counter-productive.
ReeferMadness
2 years ago
vigilanttory
Or should that be vigilante tory? Comparing addicts to terrorists pretty much tells us what you're about.
You've admitted addiction is a health issue. Good for you. But if you really believe that, then you should look to doctors and scientists for answers. Instead, you're listening to politicians and cops.
Prohibition is a failure. It's failed to stop addiction. It's enriched gangsters. It's helped build alienation between the citizens and the police.
vigilanttory
2 years ago
ReeferMadness?
Really? You're actually going to try to be witty about my tag? Smoke another one, it might all make sense to you then...
Actually I listened to the addiction and harm-reduction researchers that have shown pro-safe injection facility(SIF) studies to be horribly flawed in their methodological and analytical approaches. SIFs don't work either and they have the added detriment of making hard-core drug use socially acceptable. If the goal is to get addicts off the junk then it shouldn't be made acceptable.
If you feel alienated from the police, ReeferMadness, you should spend some high-time in self reflection.
G West
2 years ago
In fact
It is a bit of a stretch to imply that Madame Justice D Smith wrote a thoroughgoing dissenting judgement although it is true, as vigilanttory points out, that the decision was not unanimous.
As I wrote above, it seems quite in keeping with the attitude of the current government that leave to appeal will be sought. Sadly, anything else would be out of character.
A careful and complete reading of the judgement reveals that her reasons for dissent are limited to a couple of aspects of the Sec 7 Charter argument - but, and this is important, Madame Justice Smith has no problem with the trial judge's findings in the original case.
I'll quote from her reasons:
Based on the evidence adduced by PHS, VANDU and Canada, the trial judge made the following findings of fact:
[87] Whatever the shortcomings in the science surrounding the assessment of the outcomes at Insite, and however the disputes may be resolved among those who engage in the assessment of the efficacy of safe injection sites generally, or Insite in particular, all of the evidence adduced by PHS, VANDU and Canada supports some incontrovertible conclusions:
1. Addiction is an illness. One aspect of the illness is the continuing need or craving to consume the substance to which the addiction relates;
2. Controlled substances such as heroin and cocaine that are introduced into the bloodstream by injection do not cause Hepatitis C or HIV/AIDS. Rather, the use of unsanitary equipment, techniques, and procedures for injection permits the transmission of those infections, illnesses or diseases from one individual to another; and
3. The risk of morbidity and mortality associated with addiction and injection is ameliorated by injection in the presence of qualified health professionals.
[251] The trial judge’s three “incontrovertible conclusions” are binding on this Court, absent palpable and overriding error, which is not alleged.