Translate aswanidatt.com
    Translate from:

    Translate to:

Political Decisions now reviewable by the Courts – What happened to Parliamentary Supremacy?

The discretion vested in the Minister of Health is not absolute:  as with all exercises of discretion, the Minister’s decisions must conform to theCharter.  If the Minister’s decision results in an application of the CDSA that limits the s. 7 rights of individuals in a manner that is not in accordance with the Charter, then the Minister’s discretion has been exercised unconstitutionally.  In the special circumstances of this case, the Court should go on to consider whether the Minister’s decision violated the clamaints’ Charter rights.

There is no reason to conclude that the deprivation the claimants would suffer was due to personal choice rather than government action.  The ability to make some choices does not negate the trial judge’s findings that addiction is a disease in which the central feature is impaired control over the use of the addictive substance.  Additionally, the morality of the activity the law regulates is irrelevant at the initial stage of determining whether the law engages a s. 7 right.  Finally, the issue of illegal drug use and addiction is a complex one which attracts a variety of social, political, scientific and moral reactions.  While 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 Charter.  The issue is not whether harm reduction or abstinence‑based programmes are the best approach to resolving illegal drug use, but whether Canada has limited the rights of the claimants in a manner that does not comply with Charter.

The Minister’s failure to grant a s. 56 exemption to Insite engaged the claimants’ s. 7 rights and contravened the principles of fundamental justice.  The Minister of Health must be regarded as having made a decision whether to grant an exemption, since he considered the application before him and decided not to grant it.  The Minister’s decision, but for the trial judge’s interim order, would have prevented injection drug users from accessing the health services offered by Insite, threatening their health and indeed their lives.  It thus engages the claimants’ s. 7 interests and constitutes a limit on their s. 7 rights.  Based on the information available to the Minister, this limit is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.  It is arbitrary regardless of which test for arbitrariness is used because it undermines the very purposes of the CDSA — the protection of health and public safety.  It is also grossly disproportionate: during its eight years of operation, Insite has been proven to save lives with no discernable negative impact on the public safety and health objectives of Canada.  The effect of denying the services of Insite to the population it serves and the correlative increase in the risk of death and disease to injection drug users is grossly disproportionate to any benefit that Canada might derive from presenting a uniform stance on the possession of narcotics.

If a s. 1 analysis were required, a point not argued, no s. 1 justification could succeed.  The goals of the CDSA are the maintenance and promotion of public health and safety.  The Minister’s decision to refuse the exemption bears no relation to these objectives, therefore they cannot justify the infringement of the complainants’ s. 7 rights.

As the infringement is ongoing, and the concern is a governmental decision, s. 24(1) allows the court to fashion an appropriate remedy.  In the special circumstances of this case, an order in the nature of mandamus is warranted.  The Minister is ordered to grant an exemption to Insite under s. 56 of the CDSA forthwith.  A declaration that the Minister erred in refusing the exemption would be inadequate, given the seriousness of the infringement and the grave consequences that might result from a lapse in Insite’s current constitutional exemption, and for various reasons, granting a permanent constitutional exemption would be inappropriate.

On future applications, the Minister must exercise that discretion within the constraints imposed by the law and the Charter, aiming to strike the appropriate balance between achieving public health and public safety.  In accordance with the Charter, the Minister must consider whether denying an exemption would cause deprivations of life and security of the person that are not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.  Where, as here, a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

Source: Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44

Contact
Contact Us
905-755-0104

Toll Free: 1844DATTLAW (1-844-328-8529)

295 Matheson Blvd. East
Mississauga, Ontario
L4Z 1X8
map it
Nathan Forbes
Nathan Forbes
15:23 05 Jul 19
Aswani was introduced through a family friend and I was very pleased with his service. He was able to provide a better outcome then I had initially envisioned. Communication was great throughout the process. He is knowledgeable, professional and delivers. I would highly recommend him as legal counsel.read more
D Parmar
D Parmar
22:24 23 Jun 19
Aswani is a very professional and knowledgeable lawyer and has handled our case with utmost care and taking care of all minute details. Made us feel comfortable and kept us well informed. Highly recommend his service as a lawyer.read more
IRIS Consulting
IRIS Consulting
16:43 04 May 19
I strongly recommend Aswani to people who need legal consulting. He is extremely competent and familiar with the system. He has handled some complex matters efficiently that I’d give him 5 stars. Keep up the amazing work Aswani. BR/Anandread more
Ryan Wolf
Ryan Wolf
23:24 21 Apr 19
Aswani k. Datt was randomly selected to represent me in a legal matter. He was professional, efficient, kind, caring, accommodating and very patient. He promised a quick and speedy resolve on my matter. He delivered as promise. He is highly recommended, and i want to thank him for everything that he has done for me. He is a brilliant and wonderful lawyer!read more
Sharanbir Khudal
Sharanbir Khudal
23:01 18 Apr 19
An Absolutely intelligent officer of the law, and an even better human being. He makes you feel comfortable and confident in your situation and will find ways to get you to your hopeful results in manners which you will not expect. I recommend him to everyone and anyone who needs legal help, not once, but as many times as necessary. If you’ve run across him for your legal needs, don’t look further.read more
Zulfiqar Shah
Zulfiqar Shah
14:10 10 Apr 19
I am trying to find words to describe our experience with Mr. Aswani, I find myself pondering how to describe him. I find myself lost for words and a short precise description would be Brilliant and Professional Lawyer, Friendly person to deal with and whenever we met him there was always a warm friendly smile telling you to not to worry. Ones walks out with confidence that he has your back. These words are the minimum to describe him, at least from my experience. If for any reason anyone out there needs a Lawyer, I would extremely highly recommend Aswani K Dutt.read more
Ankur Gandhi
Ankur Gandhi
20:40 05 Mar 19
Best lawyer in town. Needed someone to represent me with my divorce case involving a child. He went above and beyond. Trust me you won't go wrong if he's your lawyer. And when he gives you an advise please take it because he's only thinking in best interest of his client.read more
Next Reviews