 |
| John L. Hill |
According to an Aug. 17, 2016, report in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, Wilson pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited firearm with ammunition, unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and breach of recognizance. He also admitted to possessing 6.6 grams of marijuana, 1.8 grams of methamphetamine and two hydromorphone pills.
Wilson had struggled with drug and alcohol addiction since he was 13, according to his lawyer, George Combe. He was mistreated by family members, some of whom introduced Wilson to drugs at a young age, and his father was murdered, Combe said when outlining Gladue factors for the court to consider.
Wilson wanted to stay connected with his two young children and had been working with his sister on
danijelala: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
Wilson was involved in a September 2020 overdose incident in Vanscoy, Sask., when he and three companions sought help after one of his associates became unconscious from fentanyl use. After someone called 911, RCMP officers arrived. During a subsequent search, the police found a firearm and identification documents on Wilson. Although he was not charged with possession under the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act (GSDOA), he was convicted of firearms offences. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned his conviction (R. v. Wilson, 2023 SKCA 106), ruling that the arrest and search were unlawful under the Good Samaritan law. The Crown appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada case underscored an ongoing tension in statutory interpretation. That tension arises because courts must determine both the literal meaning of a law and its intended purpose. The “textualist” approach was prominent in Piekut v. Canada (National Revenue), 2025 SCC 13, where Justice Mahmud Jamal, writing for the majority, examined whether a student loan debt could survive a subsequent bankruptcy by analyzing the wording of the legislation.
However, in R. v. Wilson, 2025 SCC 32, Justice Andromache Karakatsanis, writing for the 6-3 majority, adopted a purposive approach and upheld Wilson’s acquittal. Exposing individuals to the risk of arrest would undermine the Act’s crucial goal of encouraging people to call 911 during overdoses. The court highlighted that police still possess other lawful powers, such as seizing drugs in plain view or conducting limited searches for safety reasons.
The majority focused on Parliament’s purpose in passing the law. They believed that the GSDOA offered immunity from charges and convictions for simple possession, and that this immunity also protected against arrest. Karakatsanis explained that a narrower interpretation would weaken Parliament’s goal of encouraging people to seek emergency medical help without the fear of criminal liability. The majority examined the law’s legislative history. The GSDOA started as a private member’s bill, introduced by Ron McKinnon, member of Parliament for the B.C. riding of Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam. Speaking in the House of Commons, McKinnon said, “Unfortunately, with drug overdoses, many people are afraid to call 911 for fear of getting charged. People die. Saving lives needs to come first.”
In Wilson, Justice Jamal wrote the dissenting opinion. He maintained his textualist approach. In his view, the object of a statute and that of a provision must also be considered carefully, with close attention always being paid to the text of the statute, which specifies the legislature’s chosen means of balancing competing policy objectives to achieve its purposes and remains the anchor of the interpretive exercise. He maintained that the limited exemption under s. 4.1(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act against being charged or convicted of the offence of simple possession does not prevent a lawful arrest for that offence under s. 495(1) of the Criminal Code. In this case, s. 4.1(2) of the CDSA operated exactly as intended: Wilson was never charged with the offence of simple possession. Furthermore, the police did not violate ss. 8 or 9 of the Charter by arresting Wilson for simple possession or by conducting a search incident to arrest.
R. v. Wilson now represents the Supreme Court’s leading interpretation of the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act, confirming that the Act protects individuals not only from prosecution but also from arrest and search for simple possession when seeking or staying to help during an overdose emergency. The ruling bolsters harm-reduction policies and clarifies police responsibilities nationwide. It also sets a precedent for arguing that a law’s purpose should be examined as closely as its wording.
Thanks to Paul Eric Wilson, even people with substantial records need not fear stepping in to assist a friend in need.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books), was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.