In 2025, Alberta passed the Compassionate Intervention Act, which allows designated individuals to ask the court to admit someone for drug treatment without that person’s consent. Some critics say it violates several Charter rights.
In 2024, 1,414 people died in Alberta from drug poisoning, including 1,182 from opioid overdoses. In 2025, the Government of Alberta estimated that addiction related issues cost the province approximately $7 billion annually in health care, lost productivity and justice-system expenses.
In response, Alberta enacted the Compassionate Intervention Act (CIA), which allows involuntary addiction treatment under what the province calls “compassionate intervention.” Alberta is the first province in Canada to adopt such legislation specifically targeting substance use among adults.
Under the CIA, designated individuals – such as adult family members, guardians, healthcare professionals, or police or peace officers – may ask the court for a treatment order when a person’s substance use presents a danger to themselves or others.
What is Involuntary Drug Treatment?
Involuntary drug treatment refers to admitting individuals with substance use disorders or concurrent mental health conditions to treatment facilities without their consent. This requires a court order or legislative authority.
Treatment often involves short-term hospitalization or psychiatric care, with interventions such as medication, therapy, or stabilization until the individual regains decision-making capacity. Discharge typically occurs when a physician determines the person no longer poses a significant risk to themselves and others.
While the CIA intends to support individuals struggling with addiction, it raises significant concerns when it comes to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter).
Involuntary Drug Treatment and the Charter
The Government of Alberta asserts that involuntary treatment under the CIA should only be a last resort. However, critics warn the legislation potentially violates several Charter rights.
Section 7
Section 7 states: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
Section 7’s right to liberty safeguards individual autonomy and free choice. Government action violates this section when it interferes with a person’s physical freedom or their ability to make fundamental personal decisions.
Critics describe involuntary detention as “the most significant deprivation of liberty without judicial process that is sanctioned by our society.” They argue the CIA allows arbitrary detention and coerced treatment based on vague or speculative predictions of harm, raising serious concerns about compliance with fundamental justice. Decisions from courts across Canada further describe this right.
In Fleming v Reid, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the common law right to bodily integrity and personal autonomy is deeply entrenched in Canadian law “and deserving of the highest order of protection.”
In Rodriguez v British Columbia (Attorney General), the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) held that the right to security of the person includes “a notion of personal autonomy involving, at the very least, control over one’s bodily integrity free from state interference and freedom from state-imposed psychological and emotional stress.”
In Starson v Swayze, the SCC further affirmed that individuals, including those with mental illness, have the right to refuse medical treatment if they have the capacity to understand the relevant information and appreciate the consequences of their decision, even if they do not acknowledge their illness. This ruling confirms the decisive factor is not whether treatment is in the person’s best interest, but whether the individual has the capacity to make an informed choice.
Section 9
Section 9 reads: “Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.”
Section 9’s protection against arbitrary detention may be at risk. The CIA grants broad discretion to police and other non-judicial actors to detain individuals deemed likely to cause substantial harm.
The Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction stated:
InvTx [involuntary treatment] raises ethical concerns, as it may violate individual rights by detaining and treating people without consent. Critics argue that non-emergency SUD [substance use disorder] treatment without explicit consent breaches standards of human rights and medical ethics. While related issues are complex in the specific contexts of SSUDs [severe substance use disorders] as described, there are concerns about infringements on peoples’ autonomy and right to consent as well as privacy, beyond the limited evidence supporting its benefits for patients. The counter argument to this is that InvTx is a process in which autonomy is being returned to individuals through the provision of emergency care.
Section 12
Section 12 states: “Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.”
This includes torture, excessive or abusive use of force by law enforcement officials. Elements of supposed “treatment” and “rehabilitation” may also constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Several decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada further describe what this right protects against.
In Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) v Chiarelli, the SCC noted that the broad dictionary definition of treatment is “a process or manner of behaving towards or dealing with a person or thing…”
In Quebec (Attorney General) v 9147-0732 Québec inc, the SCC stated that the purpose of section 12 is “to prevent the state from inflicting physical or mental pain and suffering through degrading and dehumanizing treatment or punishment. It is meant to protect human dignity and respect the inherent worth of individuals.”
In R v Bissonnette, the SCC cited Quebec (Attorney General) v 9147-0732 Québec inc and elaborated as follows:
Although dignity is not recognized as an independent constitutional right, it is a fundamental value that serves as a guide for the interpretation of all Charter rights … Generally speaking, the concept of dignity evokes the idea that every person has intrinsic worth and is therefore entitled to respect … This respect is owed to every individual, irrespective of their actions (at para 59).
In R v Hills, the SCC, quoting Quebec (Attorney General) v 9147-0732 Québec inc and R v Bissonnette, reaffirmed that “dignity evokes the idea that every person has intrinsic worth and is therefore entitled to respect, irrespective of their actions (at para 32).”
Section 15
Section 15(1) states: “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”
This section guarantees that all individuals in Canada regardless of race, religion, national or ethnic origin, sex, age, or disability must be treated with equal respect, dignity, and consideration. Governments must ensure their laws and programs do not discriminate, either directly or systemically.
However, statistics show severe inequalities in opioid-related harms. In Alberta, the opioid poisoning death rate among First Nations people was 8.4 times higher than among non-Indigenous populations in 2022. Although First Nations people represent only 3.4% of Alberta’s population, they accounted for 20% of all unintentional opioid deaths between 2016 and 2022. These figures reflect systemic inequities and raise significant concerns about how government policies respond to the opioid crisis, especially regarding the CIA.
Legal experts argue the CIA may violate Section 15 of the Charter by imposing discriminatory and dignity-denying treatment on Indigenous and racialized communities already experiencing higher overdose rates. They argue this approach fails to treat all individuals with equal respect, dignity, and protection under the law. Rather than addressing root causes such as colonialism, intergenerational trauma, poverty, and lack of access to healthcare, the CIA risks reinforcing existing systemic injustices.
Involuntary Treatment as a Reasonable and Justified Limit on Charter Rights
The Government of Alberta may attempt to justify the CIA as a reasonable infringement of a person’s Charter rights under section 1. The Government may argue that any limitations on individual rights are reasonable and demonstrably justified in the interest of public health.
However, critics argue that the government has not fully considered less intrusive alternatives, such as harm reduction initiatives, safe-supply programs, and voluntary treatment options. They also contend the infringement on personal freedoms may not be proportional to the goals of the CIA.
Only if someone challenges the CIA will the courts interpret the legislation alongside a person’s Charter rights.
Looking for more information?
Looking for articles like this one to be delivered right to your inbox? SUBSCRIBE NOW!
DISCLAIMER The information in this article was correct at time of publishing. The law may have changed since then. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LawNow or the Centre for Public Legal Education Alberta.
About Myrna El Fakhry Tuttle
