Vancouver's Downtown Eastside neighbourhood has had issues with opioids such as fentanyl. Data show that opioid overdoses have killed more than 50,000 people in Canada since 2016.Isabella Falsetti/The Globe and Mail
The Supreme Court of Canada in a ruling on Friday broadly supported legal protections for people who call for emergency help during an overdose.
The 6-3 decision offers an expansive reading of a 2017 law passed by the federal Liberal government under former prime minister Justin Trudeau. The Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act aimed to help reduce overdose deaths by providing some legal immunity during an overdose.
The case in front of the Supreme Court involved Paul Eric Wilson. On a September morning in 2020, Mr. Wilson and three other people were driving in a truck in the village of Vanscoy, near Saskatoon, when one person overdosed on fentanyl. The group called 911. Police arrested Mr. Wilson for drug possession and after a search, he was charged with offences including possession of firearms but not drugs.
Mr. Wilson was denied bail and, in 2022, convicted in provincial court and sentenced to eight years imprisonment. In 2023, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned the previous ruling. In a judgment written by Justice Robert Leurer, shortly before he became the province’s chief justice, Mr. Wilson was acquitted and freed.
Deaths from opioid overdoses fell last year, but worsened in some provinces
On Friday, the Supreme Court also sided with Mr. Wilson.
The case revolved around how to interpret the 2017 Good Samaritan law, which speaks of immunity from charge and conviction for drug possession during a drug overdose, but arrest is not mentioned. The scope of police powers in such situations was also at issue at the top court.
Justice Andromache Karakatsanis, writing for the majority that included Chief Justice Richard Wagner, said Parliament’s goal “was to save lives by encouraging individuals at the scene of an overdose to call 911.”
That goal, she wrote, “requires a clear rule that can be broadly communicated to and understood by those affected by drug overdoses.”
Opioid overdoses have killed more than 50,000 people in Canada since 2016, according to federal data. In Saskatchewan, opioid overdoses have killed close to 2,000 people since 2016.
Opinion: How the ‘discovery’ of fentanyl changed North America
Mr. Wilson’s lawyer, Thomas Hynes of Pfefferle Law in Saskatoon, said it is important that the intent of the Good Samaritan law is clear to the people it is meant to help.
“We don’t want people to be doing a risk calculus at an overdose,” Mr. Hynes said. “You want people to make a snap decision to call for help.”
Pivot Legal Society, an advocacy organization located in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, was an intervener in the case. Staff lawyer Caitlin Shane has worked for years in the middle of the overdose crisis. In recent weeks, she has revived two people from overdoses with the life-saving drug naloxone.
“Overdoses are a medical emergency,” Ms. Shane said. “They’re not a policing opportunity.”
She said some drug users, particularly in rural areas, worry about calling for help because of potential arrest. Ms. Shane noted a 2021 research study of police in British Columbia that found many officers were either unaware of the Good Samaritan law or could not correctly explain how it is supposed to work.
While the 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court favoured people who use drugs, the ruling noted police continue to have powers to ensure public safety at the scene of an overdose.
But in Mr. Wilson’s case, the Supreme Court ruled that his arrest was unlawful, and thus his Charter rights against arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure had been violated.
The dissenting reasons, written by Justice Mahmud Jamal with Justices Suzanne Côté and Malcolm Rowe concurring, focused on police powers and broader public safety.
André Picard: We need to better equip young people to deal with toxic-drug overdoses
Justice Jamal highlighted the limited Good Samaritan exemption to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and noted it does not specifically include arrest.
Justice Jamal said it was an expansion of this law to effectively include protection against arrest for drug possession alongside the explicit prohibition against being charged or convicted of such an offence. He said this exposes the police and the public to safety risks.
“Parliament sought to balance both public health and public safety, not to pursue public health at all costs – and certainly not at the expense of public safety,” Justice Jamal wrote.
Matthew Gourlay, counsel for Ontario’s Criminal Lawyers Association, another intervener in the case, said the court took a measured approach to the police power of arrest and said if Parliament disagrees, legislators in Ottawa can clarify the scope of immunity in the law.