COUNTRY'S TOP COURT TO RULE ON B.C.'S SAFE-INJECTION SITE

VANCOUVER -- For almost eight years, drug addicts have walked into a
nondescript green building in the heart of Vancouver's troubled
Downtown Eastside, sat down in front of a mirror at one of a dozen
dimly lit, metallic tables and injected drugs such as heroin into
their veins.

And for much of that time, the community group that runs the
supervised-injection facility known as Insite has been fighting a
lengthy, complex -- and so far successful -- court battle to prevent
the federal Conservative government from shutting it down.

This week, both sides head to the Supreme Court of Canada, which will
decide whether Insite is a health-care facility under the provincial
jurisdiction and whether closing the site violates the rights of the
impoverished drug addicts living in this country's poorest
neighbourhood.

Supporters, including the British Columbia government, point to a body
of peer-reviewed studies that have concluded Insite prevents overdose
deaths, reduces the spread of HIV and hepatitis, and curbs crime and
open drug use.

The federal government rejects that evidence, arguing the facility
fosters addiction and runs counter to its tough-on-crime agenda.

The stakes for both sides are high, said Margot Young, a law professor
who notes the high court's decision will affect not only Insite, but
the possibility similar sites could open across the country.

"It's easy to get caught up in the intricacies of arcane
constitutional arguments, but the case is really about real people who
are in need and who are among the most neglected groups in Canadian
society," said Young, of the University of British Columbia.

"Many people are watching this closely to see how well the social
interests of these individuals are going to be acknowledged and
recognized at the Supreme Court of Canada."

Insite, the first supervised-injection site in North America, opened
in 2003 after an epidemic rise in overdose deaths in the Downtown
Eastside. It was allowed to operate after the Liberal government of
the day granted the facility an exemption from federal drug laws.

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives took power, the
government initially refused to say whether it would permanently
extend that exemption.

Worried the Tories were preparing to order the site closed -- an
assumption that later proved correct -- the Portland Hotel Society,
which operates the site with provincial funding, asked a B.C. judge to
allow it to remain open without the blessing of Ottawa.

The B.C. Supreme Court ruled in Insite's favour, and the B.C. Court of
Appeal agreed, ruling Insite is a health-care facility under the
jurisdiction of the provincial, not federal, government.

In the meantime, the site has remained open, but with an uncertain
future.

"To us, it's not a political thing -- it's not a Liberal or an NDP or
a Conservative thing -- it's just the right thing to do, and if it
does shut, people will die," said Mark Townsend of the Portland Hotel
Society.

"Across Canada, in jurisdictions where the public and the local
governments want to do these things, because they think it would make
things a bit better for addicts, that's what isn't happening. We've
been bullied, so no one else is going to want to go through that."

Insite has 12 booths in its injection room and 30 beds in a detox and
treatment centre upstairs, known as Onsite. Up to 800 drug users visit
the site each day, according to statistics provided by the Portland
Hotel Society, with the average user visiting 11 times per month. It
is funded by the provincial government through the local health
authority, with an annual cost of nearly $3 million.

There have been roughly 2,400 overdoses in the facility since it
opened, but no deaths. The group says some of those overdoses would
have been fatal if they had happened outside on the city's streets and
alleys.

Health Canada declined to comment while the case is before the Supreme
Court, but after the first court decision in 2008, then-health
minister Tony Clement made the Conservative government's position clear.

"In this case, we have given it due process, we've looked at all the
evidence, and our position is that the exemption should not be
continued," Clement said at the time, describing the scientific
evidence as "mixed."