FBB/27/2019/WED 02:22 PM FAX No. P. 002 Feb. 27. 2019 4:04PM CAS: No 1419 P.1/50 ‘acsle Transmit Form / Formulae @athemement pa tdoplear ‘TO/DESTINATAIRES): "Name / Nom Edward. Moltad,Palee MeLawa LLP Yacsine /TAkcopeur 804232870 ‘Teephone/TAéphone «2 Arvequnted qe Somande ark menage alo au nenegs Ye! ‘Rate Wom: Somes Hier Department of artis Cauda Kacsinite /Pbeopeur: 7804958494 ‘Teephoue /TARphonks fo Asrequeted tl que demands ‘oat vice messege te xu mesg veal "Name Wows Nathan Wang, Alcoa, ON, Horley, "Kec Misap Facainile / copa 117904290146 ‘Teeghone /Toéghone= og Anrequcted tl que demand 6 Letelee message aut au mtesge veel ‘Wane Noms Monique Fongrac Speer Fecunile /Teécopewr: LA66S91.0897 “Taephone /Agphone 1 Asvequested/ a qe dona ‘oat vole meamage/ ate a mesmage veal ‘“TWine] Ne Giaite Shane and Va Olen, FrotLep@ieley Pacsnlle /Taeopan + 1.604265652 atepuone/ Tasprone 1 An eequuted / tl que demandé ‘Lettie mentage/ ute mesuage vocal TEREEDITEUR *LceLatance DATE? Febrearya7, 2009 ‘Teephone TAepone — 613-995 5626 ‘TO /HEURR : ocaille/ Tkeopeur ‘otal mer of page alu thc pap) / Nombre de pages (shan cee pags) 30, EET (Cour le nos PAT64AY/EANESINE ATE (Caatavm Area Busnes Attain ¥, AGC etal Plea ed tassned ber he Jeiguent and Reasnsonied February 27,2018, Ra Puro to section 20 of Official Languages Atl fal de cttons, orders epee, nln reason een taf luna bythe Court es used both ffl language. By the evant hat sch dames are lesued theft ates bony one th feel anges, copy ofthe erst toa ell Fergus bx forwarded on requ! when I avallable Conformmon rile 20 de a La sw let angele ls dco, ardommances eogemans dl eve ls mot afr son Gs dana ede langue. A oa ot ces decay na sate nen Petri Ge dan Ta dt ds langues tela ope dF verson dasa Langa afl sera ronan, rr demand ule ea dupontFEB/27/2019/WED 02:22 PU FAL No, ?. 003 Feb 2/2019 4:04PM CAS No. 1419 P 1/50 Federal Court igs Cour fédérale Date: 20190227 Docket: T-1764-17 T-1765-17 ‘T-1766-17 Citation: 2019 FC 236 Ottawa, Ontario, February 27, 2019 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley BETWEEN: CHINATOWN AREA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION Applicant and ‘THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and ACCESS TO MEDICALLY SUPERVISED INJECTION SERVICES EDMONTON Respondents CANADIAN DRUG POLICY COALITION Intervenor JUDGMENT AND REASONS L Introduction [1] The Applicant, Chinatown and Area Business Association (hereafter CABA), seeks judicial review of exemptions to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, 019FRB/27/2019/WED 02:22 PM FAX No, P, O04 Feb. 2h 2019 4:05PM CAS. No. 1419 P, 3/50 Page: 2 [CDS4] issued by Health Canada which allow for the operation of three supervised consumption sites (SCSs) within close proximity in their community, in addition to a separate in-patient facility at a local hospital. (21 The present application in file T-1764-17 is the consolidation of threc applications for judioial zeview, one for each exemption decision: T-1764-17 for the SCS at Boyle Street Community Services (Boyle Street); T-1765-17 for the site atthe premises of the George Spady Society (George Spady); and T-1766-17 for the Boyle McCauley Health Centre (Boyle ‘MoCauley), The recotds filed with respect to each application are essentially the seme, save for particulars that are specific to each site. The applications were heard together and a copy of these reasons and judgment will bo placed on each file, [3] CABA submits that they are not opposed to injection drug users getting help, or to the hospital site, but contend that as representatives of a community directly affected by the decisions, they were not properly consulted of the exemption decisions. They further contend that opening threo sites within six city blocks of each other, in eddition to the nearby in-patient hospital site, will impdse an unfair burden on the community, At the hearing, they suggested that if the applications for judiotal review were granted, the order with respect to Boyle McCauley should be stayed for six months in order for supervised consumption services to continue at that location while the Ministor reconsidered these matters, [4] The Respondents — the Attomey General of Canada and the organization that applied for the exemptions, Access to Medically Supervised Injection Services Edmonton (AMSISE) ~