The legality of supervised consumption sites in Toronto is about to be argued in an Ontario courtroom next week. Now the provincial government has enacted the Community Care and Recovery Act. This law mandates the closure of all such facilities, defined as being within 200 metres, by March 31. Opponents say the bill has sparked a firestorm of outrage. Applicants are now seeking an injunction to prevent these closures, arguing that the law violates their right to life, liberty, and security of the person as protected under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter.
CDPC has been awarded intervenor status in this landmark case. Their participation is spearheaded by their new executive director, DJ Larkin. Larkin made the case for keeping the status quo, saying there’s “a good argument” to be made for it. This coalition is standing up in solidarity with the South Riverdale Community Health Centre. Collectively, they are taking on the provincial government’s decision that has hurt their community. As stated on health centre’s website, staffing pressures had already made it impossible for them to stop operations by last Friday.
“Without supervised consumption services, people who use drugs will be exposed to substantially increased risk of death, disease and a variety of other harms, and will be left to face those risks alone,” stated The Neighbourhood Group.
The Community Care and Recovery Act had passed only a week before the launch of these ten new, impacted sites. This timing was an ideal storm on the rollout. This sudden legislative action has led applicants to ask for a temporary injunction right away. They assert that this lawsuit is absolutely necessary to ensure that the sites remain open. Second, it provides the judge with additional time to fully weigh the constitutional issues at stake.
“Irreparable harm means something that you can't reverse, something that can't be compensated with money,” explained Larkin. “Here, the type of harm that would be argued is that people could die if these services shut down.”
The South Riverdale Community Health Centre has already launched a legal challenge to the new law. They claim it infringes upon the very basic rights protected by the Canadian Charter. They ask for a permanent injunction to allow continued operation of the facilities. This would provide sufficient time for an adequate judicial review of the constitutional ramifications.
“There's a presumption that governments are acting in good faith, that they're acting in the best interest when they pass a law,” noted Larkin. “Do not force services to close until we can find a better path and decide if this law is constitutional.”
The Ontario court’s ruling on this issue would set a powerful precedent. It will affect the health and safety of how supervised consumption sites can function in proximity to schools and child care centers. The result will almost certainly affect future policy decisions at all levels of government to invest in harm reduction strategies and community health services.
