ARCHIVED VIDEO STREAM

This is the archived version of a program presented on November 30, 2011. To order this format please click on the "REGISTER NOW" button.  

The Supreme Court of Canada recently released its decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society ("Insite"). The Insite decision was an opportunity for the Supreme Court to address several major constitutional issues, including: interjurisdictional immunity as between the federal government's criminal law jurisdiction and the provinces' authority to respond to public health crises; the scope of s. 7 of the Charter in the context of both persons accessing healthcare and persons providing healthcare in the face of possible criminal sanctions; and, as a practical matter, issues surrounding evidence-based policy decisions on the part of government.
 
While the Supreme Court addressed these issues in more or less detail, perhaps most significant was the Supreme Court's remedial response. Unlike the the Court's 2010 decision in Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr ("Khadr 2010"), in its Insite decision the Supreme Court ordered the Minister to grant an exemption to permit the continued lawful operation of the Insite safe injection site.  This is in stark contrast to Khadr 2010 in which the Supreme Court deferred to the federal government in fashioning the appropriate remedy. In other words, the case also raises important questions about the appropriate role of the courts and of the government in constitutional cases.

SPEAKERS:
Cheryl Milne, Executive Director, David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights
Zachary Green, Counsel, Ministry of the Attorney General (Ontario), Constitutional Law Branch
Professor Alan Young, Osgoode Hall Law School of York University

PROGRAM CO-CHAIRS:
Ewa Krajewska, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Michael Fenrick, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP