The Saskatchewan government undermined its own case for narrowing Good Samaritan legislation
The province suggested that lawmakers distinguished between "arrest" and "charge" in debating the law, but their example does the opposite.
The Saskatchewan government’s argument to narrow the scope of the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act (GSDOA) is undermined by its own evidence.
The Supreme Court of Canada was set to hear arguments on Tuesday on the case R v. Wilson, in which a Saskatchewan man and his companions were arrested for simple drug possession after calling 911 to report an overdose.
After Cheryl Delorme was stabilized by paramedics, RCMP const. Heidi Jo Marshall arrested Delorme, Paul Wilson and two others under suspicion of simple drug possession.
After the arrest, police searched their vehicle and allegedly found firearms, ammunition, drugs and “drug-trafficking tools,” and while simple possession charges were not laid, Wilson was charged with firearms offences and illegal possession of another person’s ID.
The case before the Supreme Court Tuesday hinges on the judges’ interpretation of the GSDOA, and particularly the absence of one word.
The law, which amended the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, prohibits the charge or conviction of a person for simple possession of drugs in the event of an overdose being called in to 911 — notably, the law did not explicitly state that it also bans arrest for simple possession.
Because the evidence of firearms and trafficking tools were discovered while the group was arrested due to simple possession, the defence argues the search was illegal — that arrest is implied by the legislation, and that arresting someone for simple possession during a 911 call for an overdose violates the spirit of the law.
(While I’m not reporting on the hearing, I did report on a briefing on the issue by three intervenors, including the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition and the Harm Reduction Nurses Association, and you can find more about their arguments in Filter Magazine here.)
However, the prosecutors, along with the Saskatchewan government, argue otherwise.
In written filings the Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice and Attorney General argued that “arrest” and “charge” are distinct legal terms, and that one can’t infer that the law prohibits arrest on the basis that it prohibits the law bars charge and conviction.
However, the example the ministry invoked to illustrate this distinction contradicts its point.
“Even the MPs respected this legal distinction during the debates [over the law] and did not use these two terms interchangeably,” the submission states.
In a footnote, the bill refers to comments by Conservative Party MP Todd Doherty, representing the riding of Cariboo-Prince George in British Columbia, in May 2016.
In his comments, Doherty does use these two terms separately, saying fears of charges “ultimately force the witness to choose between saving a person’s life or being arrested and charged.”
It appears to be this excerpt the ministry is referring to in its submission to the court.
That the MPs, in discussing the legislation, distinguished between arrest and charges would seem to bolster the prosecution’s argument — it suggests an acknowledgment by lawmakers that there is a distinction, and that they knowingly didn’t include it in the law.
However, it appears the ministry didn’t read much further into the Hansard transcript they cited.
Just a few lines down, Doherty conflates the two words, saying, “Good Samaritan laws do not protect people from arrest for other offences, such as selling or trafficking drugs, or driving under the influence of drugs. These policies protect only the caller and overdose victim from arrest, prosecution for simple drug possession, possession of paraphernalia, or being under the influence.”
If the legislators themselves blurred the lines between arrest and charges, should a regular person not be expected to do the same?
Part of the argument being made by the CDPC and HRNA in intervening in the case is that the law is necessary for life and death, and people shouldn’t have to spend time thinking about whether or not they should call police — that an arbitrary line shouldn’t be drawn between arrest and charges that would lead people to question whether they should call for help.