British Columbia’s Supreme Court Justice Catherine Murray’s decision to throw out the charges against Jeremy Kalicum and Eris Nyx, the leaders of the Drug User Liberation Front (DULF), warmed the courthouse on a rainy Vancouver morning. Murray decided that the Canadian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), which criminalised DULF’s drug compassion club is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.
Her decision (which can be read in full here) brought tears to a courtroom populated with black hoodies and naloxone kits dangling from belts.
“A non-medicalised safer supply programme is urgently needed to save lives,” said Murray, adding that “DULF’s compassion club reduced the harms associated with the toxic drug crisis and did not negatively impact the community or public safety.”
She further noted that “there is no licit source of drugs available for a non-medicalised safer supply programme.”
Saving lives in a crisis
In the midst of what Murrary called “one of the worst public health emergencies in recent memory,” DULF’s answer had been to buy heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine on the dark web, test it, and sell the drugs at cost as safe supply.
The decision is a landmark moment for a multi-year legal battle that began when Vancouver police raided DULF’s store front on Vancouver’s downtown eastside in October 2023. The resulting charges initially stuck, with DULF being found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking in November 2025.
Since then, DULF’s counsel Tim and Stephanie Dickinson have spent weeks in court arguing DULF’s actions are protected by Canada’s constitution, specifically the sections giving the right to life and liberty of members of DULF’s compassion club.
Expert witnesses carefully unpacked the effectiveness of compassion clubs, testifying DULF helped people who use drugs navigate the dangers of a constantly shifting drug supply, and the court agrees, save lives.
No life saving measures in place
“I want to stress for all of you that the court’s judgment was based on a very deep body of evidence that was put before her,” said Tim Dickinson to press outside the courthouse, adding that DULF had become politicised following a now infamous Economist article.
Shortly after the article’s publication and outcry from politicians, police raided DULF, ignoring the recommendations and endorsements of experts supporting their actions and calls for a safe supply of drugs to combat drug market toxicity.
“This case is about the federal and provincial government’s refusal to implement that life saving measure. And it is also about how the federal legislation effectively blocks any effort to implement that measure,” Murray added.
“And that is why the court found the legislation to be unconstitutional today.”
A new law is needed
In the end, Justice Murray agreed that DULF’s compassion club saved lives, did not negatively impact public health, reduced people’s hospital use, and that the state refusing to provide safe supply is subjecting people who use drugs to a dangerous, unregulated drug supply. This also means that DULF can no longer be convicted for any compassion club activities.
Murray’s decision also makes the section of Canada’s Controlled Drugs and Substances Act relating to possession for the purpose of trafficking unconstitutional. The decision gives the government six months to make changes to the existing law to enable the existence of spaces for non-medicalised safe supply to occur.
“It puts pressure on the government, and conveys the message about just how urgent the crisis is,” Margot Young from University of British Columbia Allard School of Law told TalkingDrugs.
Young isn’t sure exactly what the new law will look like. She says in the ruling that allowed Insite, North America’s first legal safe injection site to operate, could hint at next steps. For Insite, extra provisions were added to existing laws for safe injection sites which could happen for compassion clubs like DULF, too.
“The big difference between Insite and this circumstance is that at Insite, they weren’t distributing drugs,” says Young. “This is very different in that there’s provision and sale of prohibited substances. So it takes the safe injection, the supervised injection site model, one step further.”
“Selflessly put yourself to the side”
For the harm reduction camp, the decision is definitely progress. Young says the abundance of expert testimony is shifting stigma in courts and is shifting drug use away from a moral failure and into a health issue.
The shift was evident in Justice Murray’s closing statements:
“I want to thank the council very much. You’re all extremely skilled, and the passion that you admit to this case is something you have to be very honest. So I want to thank you for your very valuable assistance,” said Murray. “You selflessly put yourself to the side for this cause and it’s something most people wouldn’t do and for that I applaud you should be very proud of yourselves.”
“This very lengthy court process has taken the toll and put your lives on hold for many valuable years. And this court process, I can see you as well as you can. I applaud you for what you’ve done. I think you should be very proud of yourself. And it’s people like you who make a difference. And you just did.”
“DULF provided life-saving services when no legal alternative was available. This put them on the wrong side of the law: their lawyers argued that given these facts, it is the law, not DULF’s co-founders, that is wrong,” said DJ Larkin, Executive Director of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition.
While this is a momentous victory, it’s likely not the end. The controversial ruling is likely to be challenged by the court of appeal, and the Crown has 30 days to appeal the decision. It’s likely that this case may even head all the way to Canada’s Supreme Court again, just as Insite had to do to secure its future existence and funding.
As the courtroom began to flock around DULF, Nyx quipped a characteristically edgy joke: “Who wants to do it again?”
