Imagine the following scenario:
Sarah, Jimmy, and their friends take magic mushrooms one summer weekend. Jimmy begins experiencing a panic attack that quickly escalates into a severe hallucinogen-induced psychotic episode, putting his safety at serious risk. Sarah wants to call 9-1-1, but hesitates. What if the police come and find drugs? Could she get charged? What should she do?
Fortunately, the law is already on Sarah’s side. Thanks to the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act, individuals involved in medical emergencies caused by drugs are protected. The Act, which was passed in 2017 to address the opioid crisis, added section 4.1 to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) which ensures that anyone who calls the ambulance or police for a ‘medical emergency’ induced by a ‘psychoactive substance’ cannot be charged. Let’s unpack what these two phrases mean from a legal standpoint.
Legally, a ‘medical emergency’ refers to a life-threatening event. It cannot just be a minor scare featuring some mild anxiety and discomfort. The situation must be dire enough that emergency medical or law enforcement assistance is reasonably necessary.
A psychoactive substance is any drug that chemically alters the brain, which includes cocaine, magic mushrooms/psilocybin, heroin, fentanyl, meth, ketamine, molly/MDMA/ecstasy, etc. In other words, section 4.1 casts a wide enough net to encompass virtually any drug.
Back to the scenario above: Sarah should absolutely call 9-1-1. And once emergency medical services arrive (which could include the police), neither the individual experiencing the emergency, nor Sarah or any other individuals present for that matter, can be arrested for drug possession. The law encourages individuals to seek life-saving assistance for themselves or others during emergencies. It removes the hesitancy in calling for help and the fear of prosecution, prioritizing saving lives over criminal penalties.
How does Section 4.1 Apply to Individuals on Bail, Probation, or Parole?
Let’s add a wrinkle to Sarah and Jimmy’s story. Say Sarah has a curfew condition requiring her to be at her parents’ place by 10pm. She stays with Jimmy until the ambulance arrives at 10:30pm. Has she just breached her bail release conditions?
Well, it depends on why Sarah has that curfew in the first place. If Sarah’s curfew exists because she’s out on bail (or probation, or parole) for a drug possession charge under section 4(1) of the CDSA, then her 30-minute-late curfew breach is deemed not to have happened. She’s in the clear.
If Sarah’s curfew exists for something unrelated to drug possession, like shoplifting or assault, then the protection doesn’t apply. She would still technically be in breach of that curfew for staying to help Jimmy, and s.4.1 would not save her.
Basically, sections 4.1(4) and 4.1(5) extend the same life-saving purpose to individuals out on bail, probation, or parole, so long as their conditions trace back to a drug possession charge in the first place. It’s worth noting that this protection does not extend to conditions tied to trafficking, importing, exporting, or production offences. As such, if Sarah’s conditions stem from a trafficking or production charge instead, she’s outside the scope of the exemption entirely, no matter how good her reasons were for staying.
Testing Section 4.1 in Court: The Supreme Court Agrees in R v Wilson
In R v Wilson (2025), Paul Wilson was one of four people who remained at the scene of a fentanyl overdose after calling 911. Police arrived and arrested them for drug possession, then searched the scene, uncovering firearms and identity documents intended for fraud. Wilson was convicted of firearms offences and identity fraud. The Crown argued that section 4.1 only immunizes people from being “charged or convicted,” not from being arrested in the first place, meaning police could still arrest, search, and use whatever else they found. The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that immunity from arrest was implied, since allowing arrests for drug possession would disincentivize people from calling for help, and thus, go against the very purpose the section was designed for. Because Wilson’s arrest was unlawful, he was acquitted.
Ultimately, R v Wilson reveals the full weight and power of section 4.1, showcasing how it can protect good Samaritans from arrest and prosecution. For Sarah, that means one less thing to worry about: when seconds decide outcomes, hesitation is the one thing no one can afford.
These articles are provided for general information purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.