Alberta Medical Association v. Alberta et al., 2012 ABCA 391

• Judge: Bielby, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: December 06, 2012
• Citations: 2012 ABCA 391;(2012), 542 A.R. 27

Alta. Medical Assoc. v. Alta. (2012), 542 A.R. 27; 566 W.A.C. 27 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. DE.085

Alberta Medical Association (applicant/appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta as represented by the Minister of Health and Wellness and Alberta Health Services (respondents/respondents)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta as represented by the Minister of Health and Wellness (applicant/respondent) v. Alberta Medical Association (respondent/appellant) and Alberta Health Services (respondent/respondent)

(1203-0068-AC; 2012 ABCA 391)

Indexed As: Alberta Medical Association v. Alberta et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Bielby, J.A.

December 19, 2012.

Summary:

The Alberta Medical Association (AMA), the Government of Alberta as represented by the Minister of Health and Wellness (AHW) and Regional Health Authorities entered into a Trilateral Master Agreement (TMA) on April 1, 2003. The TMA dealt directly with the delivery of health care services in the Province of Alberta, including the implementation and continuation of a number of policies and programs. The AMA sought to reopen the TMA for renegotiation. Negotiations proceeded but were not concluded. The AMA advised AHW and AHS that it "wishes to submit to arbitration the matter of renegotiation of all matters or issues of any kind as contemplated by Article 11.2 of the TMA." AHW took the position that the matters raised by the AMA were not subject to arbitration. The AMA applied for the appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to the TMA. AHW sought a declaration that under the TMA there was no agreement to arbitrate a new Master Agreement and that the AMA was therefore not entitled to proceed with its proposed arbitration.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 537 A.R. 75, denied the AMA's application for the appointment of an arbitrator and granted the AHW's application for a declaration that the AMA was not entitled to proceed with the proposed arbitration. The AMA sought leave to appeal and a declaration that the leave application was brought within time (or alternately, an extension of time as required).

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Bielby, J.A., dismissed the application.

Arbitration - Topic 102

Right to arbitration - What matters arbitrable - The Alberta Medical Association (AMA), the Government of Alberta as represented by the Minister of Health and Wellness (AHW) and Regional Health Authorities entered into a Trilateral Master Agreement (TMA) on April 1, 2003 - The TMA dealt directly with the delivery of health care services in the Province of Alberta, including the implementation and continuation of a number of policies and programs - The AMA sought to reopen the TMA for renegotiation - Negotiations proceeded but were not concluded - The AMA advised AHW and AHS that it "wishes to submit to arbitration the matter of renegotiation of all matters or issues of any kind as contemplated by Article 11.2 of the TMA." - AHW objected, arguing that the matters raised by the AMA were not subject to arbitration - The AMA applied for the appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to the TMA - AHW sought a declaration that under the TMA there was no agreement to arbitrate a new Master Agreement and that the AMA was therefore not entitled to proceed with its proposed arbitration - The application judge held that art. 10.2 of the TMA was paramount and applied to any arbitration proceedings arising under the TMA - Article 11 did not give rise to an independent right to an interest arbitration - The arbitration would require the arbitrator to consider a number of issues that were expressly non-arbitrable under art. 10.2 - Therefore, the application judge denied the AMA's application for the appointment of an arbitrator and granted the AHW's application for a declaration that the AMA was not entitled to proceed with the proposed arbitration - The AMA sought leave to appeal - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Bielby, J.A., dismissed the application - The AMA failed to establish that its appeal was reasonably arguable - See paragraphs 21 to 37.

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 271; 87 N.R. 333, refd to. [para. 16].

Frost v. Suffesick and Kudryk (1998), 212 A.R. 148; 168 W.A.C. 148; 61 Alta. L.R.(3d) 261; 1998 ABCA 214, refd to. [para. 16].

Alberta v. Nilsson (1999), 250 A.R. 85; 213 W.A.C. 85; 1999 ABCA 340, refd to. [para. 21].

Bai et al. v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Edmonton (City), [2005] A.R. Uned. 740; 2006 ABCA 31, refd to. [para. 21].

Dreco Energy Services Ltd. et al. v. Wenzel Downhole Tools Ltd. (2008), 446 A.R. 93;  442 W.A.C. 93; 2008 ABCA 434, refd to. [para. 21].

Verette v. Sainsbury et al., [1928] S.C.R. 72, refd to. [para. 27].

Counsel:

M.D. McGown, Q.C., for the applicant;

W.C. Olthuis and S.P. McDonough, no appearance for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen;

K.H. Davidson, Q.C., and J.W. Wilkie, for the respondent, Alberta Health Services.

This application was heard on December 6, 2012, before Bielby, J.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who released the following reasons for decision on December 19, 2012.