Ontario’s recent legislation regarding supervised consumption sites was discussed in court on Tuesday. The government’s legal team argued that the law does not outright ban these sites but allows for their relocation if they are considered too close to schools and daycares. This stance contradicts statements made by Health Minister Sylvia Jones, who previously indicated that no new supervised consumption sites would be permitted following the closure of 10 sites within 200 meters of educational facilities.
A lawsuit was filed by The Neighbourhood Group, operators of the Kensington Market Overdose Prevention Site in downtown Toronto, along with two individuals who utilize the services. They claim that the new law infringes on their rights as outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right to life, liberty, and security. The lawsuit argues that shutting down these sites forces users into unsafe drug consumption practices, increasing the risk of overdose and potential criminal consequences.
The legislation is also challenged on the grounds of jurisdiction, with concerns raised about the division of powers between the federal government and provinces regarding criminal law. The government’s move towards an abstinence-based treatment model will result in the closure of ten consumption sites by April 1, with the new rules prohibiting their operation within 200 meters of schools and daycares under the Community Care and Recovery Act.
The province clarified that the intention of the legislation is not to ban supervised consumption sites but to regulate their locations. The Health Minister’s statement in 2024 emphasized the government’s shift away from supporting safe injection sites in Ontario. The law mandates that municipalities and local boards must obtain approval from the provincial health minister before establishing a safe consumption site.
During the court proceedings, Justice John Callaghan raised questions about the discrepancy between the legislation and the minister’s public statements. The government’s lawyers argued that political speeches should not be considered as evidence and suggested that alternative service delivery models, such as mobile consumption sites, could be explored. The province defended the new law as a measure to safeguard public safety, particularly children, from the disturbances associated with consumption sites.
The province presented evidence of community impacts near existing consumption sites, including drug-related activities and public disturbances. Private investigators were hired to monitor these sites, gathering data to support the government’s case. The applicants are seeking an injunction to delay the site closures and ultimately challenge the validity of the law.
Site operators expressed surprise at the possibility of relocation and found the government’s statements perplexing. Despite the uncertainties, some operators saw potential in exploring new service delivery approaches, such as mobile units. The province’s plan includes significant investments in abstinence-based programs and the conversion of consumption sites into homelessness and addiction recovery treatment hubs (HART hubs) to address the ongoing challenges.
