Today, we filed an appeal against the decision made by the Court of Queen’s Bench last week denying our injunction to keep the iOAT program operating while our lawsuit is before the courts. The court has acknowledged that we...
Today, we filed an appeal against the decision made by the Court of Queen’s Bench last week denying our injunction to keep the iOAT program operating while our lawsuit is before the courts. The court has acknowledged that we have an appropriate basis in law to file the suit, and could therefore keep program open if we were successful. It is not unreasonable to ask that a life saving program be allowed to continue while its existence is addressed in court.
We’re filing this appeal to correct errors in law and fact in the ruling – including a specific section that rejected the testimony of recognized experts in addictions in favour of anecdotal “common sense.” If anyone knows anything about serious addictions issues, you know that very little of it makes common sense. It is often very difficult to understand why those suffering with addictions make the choices that they do, which was the whole point of bringing a volume of expert testimony to the original filing.
Programs like iOAT exist to provide the most severely addicted patients with a program that works for them outside of other common programs. Keeping this program going is not a matter of comfort or convenience for my clients, it is an attempt to save a treatment-of-last resort, designed by health care professionals, that worked for these clients when everything else failed. To deny them this treatment is to reject the guidance of medical professionals and addictions experts and put the lives of my clients at material risk.
While my clients have instructed me to file the appeal, they are doing so with a significant personal and financial risk. The province has signaled that they will be pursuing recovery of court costs from the injunction. We have been very public about resorting to a fundraising campaign that allows us to pay for the various filing and administrative costs that a case like this requires – these clients are not well-heeled or family-funded, and as counsel, I’m only being compensated from any excess funds after these costs are paid.
That the government is planning recovering costs from this group of the most vulnerable plaintiffs in the province is clear message from this government to any vulnerable population: Don’t challenge us. Don’t take us to court. Don’t shine a light on your own suffering. If you do, we’ll make you pay. My clients are using the courts as a last resort in a fight for their life. After they are made an example of, what group won’t think twice about daring to stand up for their rights if they know that will paint a financial target on their back from a defendant with a seemingly unlimited budget?
In any case, my clients are going to persist, with a hope that the Court of Appeal will review the evidence we have presented and fully consider the impact allowing iOAT closing will have. I applaud my clients for their bravery and willingness to stand up for themselves, but they simply have no other choice or treatment option available to them.
