Use this case as a reference,

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7960/index.do.

Insite opened in 2003 in response to increasing drug use in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. Although the federal Controlled Drugs and Substance Act (CDSA) prohibits the possession of narcotics, the then-Liberal government in Ottawa agreed not to enforce the law against drug possession against the facility's clients an staff.

In 2008, under a minority Conservative government, the federal Health Minister effectively decided to shut down Insite by refusing to extend its immunity from criminal prosecution. Two of Insite's clients, along with the BC government and other interested parties, went to court to overturn the federal government's decision.

Questions.

1. Questions concerning policy objectives:

what was the most important 'extrinsic' evidence (expert/non-legal matters-of-fact) presented to support Insite'scontinued immunity? (5 marks) Provide reasons for your response.

2. Questions for Lower Court Decisions:

a) For our purposes, what were the main legal issues concerning jurisdiction and/or federalism advanced by the PHS in the Lower Courts? (5 marks)

b) How did the trial and appellant judges adjudicate on those arguments raised (regarding constitutional jurisdiction?) (you must be as specific as possible.) (5 marks)

3. Questions regarding the Supreme Court of Canada's decision:

a.) How did the SCC deal with the lower courts decisions regarding 'division of powers' issues? Summarize your findings in your own words (5 marks)

b., why didMcLachlin CJ argue that the doctrine of 'interjurisdictional immunity' is 'neither necessary nor helpful in the resolution of the contest here between the federal government and the provincial government?' Do you find McLaughin's arguments persuasive? Qualify your response and remember to define all key concepts in your response including the SCC's understanding of the 'pith and substance' of the laws in question. (10)

c.) What remedydid the SCC fashion in this case? What possible alternative remedies were available to the SCC? Do you believe that the SCC made an appropriate decision in this case? Substantiate and qualify your response. (10)