Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2012 ONCA ... - York University

Page: 51[114] We find support for our analysis in the Supreme Court‟s treatment of thecontention that the claimants‟ right to security of the person was infringed in PHS.In that case, the applicants brought a proceeding for a declaration that s. 4(1) ofthe Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 (“CDSA”), prohibitingpossession of narcotics, was unconstitutional as it applied to possession by theapplicants at Insite, a supervised injection site located in downtown Vancouver.At Insite, addicts could inject themselves using clean equipment and undermedical supervision. Insite had been established by provincial health authoritiesand had operated lawfully for a number of years under a federal ministerialexemption from the prohibition against possession of narcotics. That exemptionwas about to expire and the applicants had been advised that it would not berenewed.[115] The applicants maintained that Insite provided a safe venue at which theycould inject themselves with the narcotics they needed to feed their drugaddictions.The applicants further claimed that if the prohibition againstpossession of narcotics applied to possession at Insite, it would close and theapplicants would be forced to move from that safe venue to other venues, likealleyways and street corners, where the health and safety risks associated withself-injection are substantially increased. The Supreme Court unanimously heldthat the criminal prohibition against possession at the supervised injection siteinterfered with the applicants‟ right to security of the person because that criminal