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

The Alberta government is facing another legal challenge over closing supervised consumption services.

Calgary resident Travis Peddie filed legal action last week against the provincial government, arguing its decision to close the supervised consumption sites (SCS) in Calgary and Lethbridge at the end of June breaches his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Peddie, a former user of both sites, is seeking an injunction preventing the province from closing the sites and ensuring it still offers supervised consumption services in the two cities.

A Court of King’s Bench ruling on the same argument made last year in Red Deer found closing that city’s site did not breach its users’ Charter rights.

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

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

He hopes sharing his story can demonstrate that supervised consumption sites are a life-saving service, and that his case can leave them intact for someone else who will need the same supports.

“I wouldn’t be standing here today if it wasn’t for those places,” Peddie told CBC News.

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

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

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

Closing the sites, Peddie argues, will lead to more deaths. He said the number of overdoses in Alberta is larger than what the province’s statistics shows — 1,138 opioid drug poisoning deaths last year — because many go unreported.

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

The current Lethbridge site has been open since 2020, after another larger site that was once the busiest of its kind in North America, was closed.

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, instead of harm reduction.

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

The ministry said it will not comment further because the case is before the courts.

Lawyer worried about precedent in Red Deer

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

“The Alberta government’s argument in that case is that they don’t have to continue to provide life-saving medical services for anybody for any condition,” said Nanda.

Nanda is appealing the court’s ruling, which could have a significant effect on Peddie’s case.

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

“It’s not as if this government has to choose one or the other,” said Nanda.

“We can keep them all available so that people can access whatever form of treatment they need, given their medical condition.”

‘More compelling’ facts in Calgary case

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

Kennedy said while it could be argued a government should be obligated to continue to offer the life-saving services it already provides, a court may be skeptical of ruling it’s required to do so.

“The government cannot do something that jeopardizes your life. It does not mean the government needs to provide a service that could save you,” said Kennedy.

He said a court might also be reluctant to interfere in the competing policy concerns and trade-offs within Alberta’s approach to addiction services and to revisit a ruling from the same level of court that’s only a year old.

But Peddie’s filing cannot be dismissed out of hand, Kennedy said, because Nanda makes a compelling argument that closing the sites will endanger lives, especially in a larger urban centre with a busy SCS. Calgary’s, for instance, got more than 45,000 visits last year, according to provincial data.

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

A challenge citing the same sections of the Charter is playing out in Ontario in response to a provincial law banning 10 SCS locations that operate within 200 metres of schools or daycares. A judge granted an injunction to keep the sites open while the Charter case is considered.

Kennedy said a ruling in Ontario would be persuasive, but not necessarily binding, for the case in Calgary and Lethbridge.

But if a judge comes to a different decision on Peddie’s case compared to the one in Red Deer, Kennedy said a Court of Appeal would eventually have to lay down what the law is on whether province is obligated to offer this service.