{"id":24624,"date":"2025-01-15T14:49:08","date_gmt":"2025-01-15T19:49:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.hivlegalnetwork.ca\/site\/?post_type=blog22&p=24624"},"modified":"2025-01-15T14:49:08","modified_gmt":"2025-01-15T19:49:08","slug":"sites-save-lives-remarks-from-hiv-legal-network-co-executive-director-sandra-ka-hon-chu","status":"publish","type":"blog22","link":"https:\/\/www.hivlegalnetwork.ca\/site\/sites-save-lives-remarks-from-hiv-legal-network-co-executive-director-sandra-ka-hon-chu\/","title":{"rendered":"Sites Save Lives – Remarks from HIV Legal Network Co-Executive Director Sandra Ka Hon Chu"},"content":{"rendered":"\"\"On Monday, January 13, 2025, former Toronto mayors David Crombie and John Sewell hosted an event in support of supervised consumption sites at Trinity St. Paul\u2019s Centre in downtown Toronto.<\/em><\/p>\n

Moderated by former Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne, speakers included former Toronto mayor Barbara Hall, researcher and epidemiologist Dr. Mohammad Karamouzian, Rev. Katherine McCloskey, Toronto councillor Chris Moise. People also had the opportunity to hear from Bill Sinclair of The Neighbourhood Group Community Services, Angela Robertson of Parkdale\u00a0Queen West Community Health Centre, and Lin Sallay of Street Health, each of which operate supervised consumption sites in Toronto.<\/em><\/p>\n

HIV Legal Network Co-Executive Director Sandra Ka Hon Chu spoke at the event and presented the following remarks:<\/em><\/p>\n

Thirteen years ago, my organization, the HIV Legal Network, intervened in the first and only case before the Supreme Court of Canada about the constitutionality of SCS in Canada, Canada (Attorney General) v PHS Community Services Society<\/em> 2011 SCC 44. In its historic decision, the Court said, \u201cWhile it is for the relevant governments to make criminal and health policy, when a policy is translated into law or state action, those laws and actions are subject to scrutiny under the\u00a0Charter<\/em><\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

As the Court noted then, \u201cInsite saves lives. Its benefits have been proven. There has been no discernable negative impact on the public safety and health objectives of Canada during its eight years of operation.\u201d The Court thus concluded that the Health Minister\u2019s decision not to authorize Insite to continue operating was a breach of section 7 of the Charter: the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.<\/p>\n

\"\"We know Ford\u2019s lawyers took note when drafting the Community Care and Recovery Act<\/em>. As media reported at the time the legislation was announced, the government \u201creceived legal advice that the prohibition of supervised consumption sites within 200 metres of a school or childcare centre creates a \u2018high risk\u2019 of infringing the Charter\u201d and that in order to defend itself against a Charter challenge, the government would need to demonstrate that their operation is \u201calways unsafe or harmful, even when operated under reasonable conditions.\u201d\u00a0 As was the case 13 years ago, Ford\u2019s lawyers said that \u201cCounsel is unaware of such evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n

There is simply no evidence that a supervised consumption service near our children\u2019s schools or daycares will hamper public safety. Community safety is upheld when all people have access to life-saving healthcare, when people are not vilified for their drug use, and when human rights are upheld.<\/p>\n

But the Community Care and Recovery Act<\/em> does the opposite: it will effectively prevent supervised consumption services from operating and expanding in this province at a time when more than 10 Ontarians die every day from the toxic, unregulated drug market, breaching the Charter rights of people who use drugs.<\/p>\n

That is why The Neighbourhood Group Community Services and two individuals, Katie Resendes and Jean-Pierre Aubry Forgues, backed by a pro bono<\/em> legal team, brought an application last month, seeking an order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that the Act violates sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter, or, in the alternative, that it is otherwise unconstitutional because it encroaches on Canada\u2019s exclusive jurisdiction over criminal law. As the Applicants argue in their notice of application:<\/p>\n