Alberta government faces another legal battle to keep supervised consumption sites open

The Alberta government is facing another legal challenge over its shutdown of supervised consumption services.

Calgary resident Travis Peddie filed legal action against the provincial government last week, arguing its decision Shut down supervised consumption sites (SCS) violated their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Calgary and Lethbridge in late June.

Peddie, a former user of both sites, is seeking an injunction to stop the province from closing the sites and ensure it still provides supervised consumption services in both cities.

A court of King’s Bench ruled on this logic last year Red Deer found that the city’s site did not violate the Charter rights of its users.

Both filings argue that the removal of supervised consumption services violates the Charter rights of its users under sections 7 (life, liberty and security of the person), 12 (cruel and unusual treatment or punishment) and 15 (equality rights).

Peddie relied on supervised consumption sites in Calgary and Lethbridge before recovering from stimulant use disorder and opioid use disorder. His filing details that when he relapsed after four years of sobriety, he could access SCS before entering recovery again.

She hopes that sharing her story can demonstrate that supervised consumption sites are a life-saving service, and that her case can keep them intact for anyone else who might need similar support.

“If it weren’t for these places I wouldn’t be standing here today,” Peddie told CBC News.

“My concern is that one day, if they close, other people won’t have the opportunities I had.”

Peddie said his experience shows that balancing harm reduction and recovery services is more effective than a “one-size-fits-all” approach.

“It’s about meeting them where they are, not saying it should be this or that,” Peddie said.

Peddie argues that closing the sites would lead to more deaths. He said the number of overdoses in Alberta is much higher. Provincial statistics show — 1,138 Deaths due to opioid drug poisoning Last year – because many people go unreported.

Calgary’s SCS at the Sheldon M. Chumir Health Center first opened in 2017. It was the first of its kind in Alberta and was praised by public health experts as a life-saving service, but it was also the target of criticism from those who blamed it for increasing public drug use and calls to police in its surrounding area.

The current Lethbridge site has been open since 2020, following another larger site that was once the busiest of its kind In North America, was discontinued.

Now, the province plans to expand other treatment and recovery options in place of these sites, as it shifts its addiction services to focus on recovery, rather than harm reduction.

“The Government of Alberta will vigorously defend its position in court. We are committed to the Alberta Recovery Model, which focuses on helping people recover and rebuild their lives,” Alberta’s Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions said in an emailed statement.

The ministry said it would not comment further as the matter is before the courts.

Lawyers concerned about precedent in Red Deer

Peddie’s lawyer Avneesh Nanda had also represented the applicant in last year’s Red Deer case. He said the decision sets a precedent that governments do not have to provide life-saving services, dismantling decades of Charter law.

“The Alberta government’s argument in that case is that they do not have to continue to provide life-saving medical services to anyone under any circumstances,” Nanda said.

Nanda is appealing the court’s decision, which could have a significant impact on Pedi’s case.

The province’s move to expand recovery services is not a suitable replacement for SCS, Nanda said, because unless its clients are ready for treatment or recovery, they are not as effective at saving lives.

“It is not that this government will have to choose one,” Nanda said.

“We can have them all available so people can access whatever type of treatment they need given their medical condition.”

‘More compelling’ facts in Calgary case

Gerard Kennedy, associate professor at the University of Alberta’s Faculty of Law, said Nanda has presented an argument that will face challenges in court.

Kennedy said that although it could be argued that the government should be obliged to continue life-saving services already provided, the court might be skeptical of its decision to require it to do so.

Kennedy said, “The government can’t do anything that puts your life in danger. That doesn’t mean the government needs to provide a service that can save you.”

He said a court may also be reluctant to interfere with competing policy concerns and trade-offs within Alberta’s approach to addiction services and to revisit a decision at the same level by a court that is only a year old.

But Peddie’s filing can’t be dismissed outright, Kennedy said, because Nanda has made a solid argument that closing the sites would put lives at risk, especially in a large urban center with a busy SCS. For example, Calgary had more than 45,000 visits last year, according to provincial data.

“The facts put forward in this case are more compelling than those put forward in the Red Deer case,” Kennedy said.

There is an ongoing challenge citing the same sections of the Charter. in ontario 10 SCS locations have been banned from operating within 200 meters of schools or daycares in response to a provincial law. A judge granted an injunction to keep the sites open while the charter case was considered.

Kennedy said the decision in Ontario would be motivating for the Calgary and Lethbridge cases, but not necessarily binding.

But if a judge comes to a different decision on Peddie’s case than Red Deer’s case, Kennedy said the Court of Appeal would ultimately have to decide what the law says about whether the province is obligated to offer this service.