The Supreme Court of Canada is framed between tulips in Ottawa on May 6.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Saskatchewan will argue that its top court wrongly interpreted federal legislation designed to legally protect people who seek emergency help for a drug overdose at a coming case in the Supreme Court of Canada.
The case will clarify the scope of the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act, which has also been examined in the provincial courts of Quebec and New Brunswick. The legislation, which came into force in 2017, protects people who witness or experience an overdose from being charged or convicted of simple drug possession if evidence is found at the scene.
Immunity extends to the person under medical distress and anyone who is present when an ambulance or police arrive, including from violations of pretrial release, probation, conditional sentence or parole orders. The intent of the legislation is to save lives and encourage people to call for help without fear of being charged.
Paul Eric Wilson is the central figure in the case heading to Canada’s highest court.
Legal counsel representing the Saskatchewan government, in a factum filed earlier this month, assert that the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal erred in its judgment to overturn the eight-year sentence of Mr. Wilson, who was arrested with others at the scene of a fentanyl overdose in September, 2020, in the small community of Vanscoy, Sask.
Police then searched the group’s vehicle and found a backpack with modified firearms and ammunition, in addition to evidence of drug trafficking. Mr. Wilson was arrested a second time and later charged with firearms-related offences. An appeal court judge last September ruled that the Good Samaritan law invalidated the weapons charges because they stemmed from the “unlawful” first arrest that breached his Charter-protected rights.
Saskatchewan disagrees, arguing individuals can still be arrested and investigated on reasonable grounds if they are thought to be in possession of a controlled substance, despite the Good Samaritan law.
“Eligible individuals are shielded only from a charge or conviction for the offence of simple drug possession and nothing more than that,” reads the appellant factum. “It was not open to the [Saskatchewan Court of Appeal] to ignore the precise wording enacted by Parliament and expand the scope of the immunity delineated by Parliament.”
Former federal health minister Jane Philpott, who was in office when the law was introduced, said in an interview on Wednesday that Saskatchewan is “completely missing the point” of the act, which was implemented to reduce barriers in accessing assistance for people at high risk of dying. She said it should be obvious that arresting someone at the scene of an overdose defeats this purpose.
“One could argue that the bill could be amended to put ‘arrest’ in but I would say the spirit of the legislation is clear. The purpose of saving people’s lives and not putting barriers in the way of getting help is the part that should be understood,” said Dr. Philpott, who is now dean of the faculty of health sciences at Queen’s University.
“My worry about this particular court case is that, if the appeal is not upheld and the Supreme Court argues that they are going to be specific about the words that are in the act, then it will put a chill on the community and people will be afraid to make those calls and die as a result,” she said.
The number of people dying from drug overdoses across Canada has skyrocketed since the bill was introduced. In Saskatchewan alone, unintentional overdose fatalities more than quadrupled to nearly 450 in 2023 from roughly 100 in 2017, according to data from the Saskatchewan Coroners Service.
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Justice Robert Leurer, in his written decision concurred by Justice Lian Schwann and Justice Jillyne Drennan, said it is likely the woman who overdosed in the presence of Mr. Wilson is only alive because one of her companions called 911. He cautioned that others in her position “may well not survive” if people are fearful of the consequences of calling for help.
The province had argued that the Good Samaritan law should not apply because Mr. Wilson, although arrested for drug possession, was never charged with it. Justice Leurer concluded the arrest was contrary to the purpose of the act.
Saskatchewan plans to argue in the Supreme Court that the immunity provision does not nullify the power of arrest granted to police under Section 495 of the Criminal Code.
“On one hand, there is the public interest in preserving life. On the other hand, there is the public interest in effective police investigations that keep communities safe,” Saskatchewan’s factum says.
“It is the role of Parliament to craft laws [that] strike a balance between competing social policy objectives according to the will of the democracy. It is the role of the courts to ensure those laws are constitutionally compliant.”
A date has not yet been set for the Supreme Court case.