(rdnewsNOW/Josh Hall)

By Josh Hall | @Vancan19

local man seeking to prevent closure

Judge’s decision pending in overdose prevention site injunction case

Mar 14, 2025 | 6:53 PM

A Constitution-based injunction hearing began at the Red Deer Justice Centre on Friday, seeking to prevent the closure of the local overdose prevention site (OPS).

Opened in October 2018, it was last fall the provincial government announced its funding would not be renewed and therefore it would close by March 31, 2025.

In December, the hours were suddenly reduced to 12 hours per day, down from 24; however, an injunction granted in mid-January forced the government to allow it to go back to that 24/7 model.

That injunction application and the second lawsuit were both brought forward by a local man named Aaron Brown, who has used the OPS to varying levels over the last several years.

Representing Brown is Avnish Nanda, of Edmonton-based Nanda & Company.

election yet to be called

Conservative Party, People's Party choose candidates for new federal Red Deer riding

3h ago

local man seeking to prevent closure

Judge's decision pending in overdose prevention site injunction case

19h ago

JAN. 15 NUMBERS

Pigeon Lake residents pocket $100,050 in lotto win

21h ago

The lawsuit claims that closure of the OPS violates his Constitutional rights.

In Red Deer Court of King’s Bench Friday, Nanda cited sections 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter; respectively, these refer to the right to life, liberty and security, the right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, and the right to be seen as equal under the law as any other individual.

Nanda also told Justice Chris Rickards that the Supreme Court of Canada has deemed supervised consumption services as life-saving in previous legal proceedings.

Nanda, on behalf of Brown as the applicant, is seeking an injunction which would last 15 weeks, into June, which is when a fuller trial would take place on this matter.

Speaking on behalf of the government, lawyer Nathaniel Gartke argued these sections of the Charter don’t apply.

Referring to case law, he stated that the provincial government is not burdened by the Charter to provide health care. Though Nanda rebutted, stating that while he’s right, that would only apply here if the OPS hadn’t already been made readily available by the government.

Because it has, Nanda argues, it can’t be taken away, Constitutionally.

Gartke also pointed out that in this case, the government is not prohibiting the OPS or another SCS-type facility to operate in Red Deer; rather, it’s simply decided to no longer provide the funding.

It’s worth noting Recovery Alberta, one of the government’s new health arms, took over operation of the OPS from Turning Point last year.

An injunction would ‘cross the fundamental divide between legislative and judicial functions,’ Gartke remarked, adding that it would also override the government’s ability to make budgetary decisions.

Gartke said it’s not fair for Nanda to claim they’re wanting a 15-week injunction to keep the OPS open, when after the June trial, it would likely take several more months to receive a decision, based on this being a Charter-related matter. In this, he was inferring that the injunction would ostensibly for that lengthier period of time.

Nanda contended, meantime, that the OPS’ closure on March 31 or at any other time would put hundreds of people at risk, though Gartke refuted the numbers.

What Gartke also refuted was Brown’s actual use of the OPS, noting previous statements by Brown that he’s been using mostly at home in recent months.

Gartke emphasized that because Brown is the applicant, this matter should focus on him, rather than theoretically hundreds of other individuals who aren’t bringing this case forward.

It was also noted that Brown has utilized other locally accessible treatments, namely methadone — an indication, said Gartke, that the OPS is not the be all, end all it’s being made out as.

Gartke noted too the local Narcotics Transition Service (NTS), saying it’s something Brown has not taken advantage of, but Nanda fired back saying there were legitimate reasons for that.

Nanda also stated that Brown’s purported recent lack of use of the OPS does not mean taking the OPS away wouldn’t have an affect on his life and many others. He also noted that between the OPS being closed for some time, and it being very cold over the winter, there are sometimes barriers to Brown and others actually being able to access it.

“Our position is that the alternatives [to the OPS] are inadequate,” said Nanda.

With the March 31 closure date nearing, a decision is anticipated from Justice Rickards sometime next week; at that time is also when a date will be set for the hearing in June.

For local news delivered daily to your email inbox, subscribe for free to the rdnewsNOW newsletter here. You can also download the rdnewsNOW mobile app in the Google Play and the Apple App Stores.