Cooper v. Hospital Privileges Appeal Board (Alta.) et al., (1999) 241 A.R. 297 (QB)

• Judge: Bielby, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: Tuesday March 09, 1999
• Citations: (1999), 241 A.R. 297 (QB)

Cooper v. Hospital Privileges Appeal Bd. (1999), 241 A.R. 297 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] A.R. TBEd. MR.060

Dr. Abraham Cooper (appellant/applicant) v. The Hospital Privileges Appeal Board and the Mistahia Regional Health Authority (respondents)

(Action No. 9803-09851)

Indexed As: Cooper v. Hospital Privileges Appeal Board (Alta.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Bielby, J.

March 9, 1999.

Summary:

A Hospital Board terminated Dr. Cooper's hospital privileges. Cooper appealed. The Alberta Hospital Privileges Appeal Board, on an appeal de novo, confirmed the Hospital Board's decision. Cooper appealed the Appeal Board's decision.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 2087

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - General - [See Hospitals - Topic 356].

Hospitals - Topic 343

Operation - Doctors - Restriction or revo­cation of hospital privileges - Grounds for - [See Hospitals - Topic 347].

Hospitals - Topic 347

Operation - Doctors - Restriction or revo­cation of hospital privileges - Consider­ations - A Hospital Board terminated Dr. Cooper's hospital privileges - The Alberta Hospital Privileges Appeal Board con­firmed the Hospital Board's decision - The Appeal Board found that Cooper was a disruptive influence in the hospital and was unable to work in harmony with other staff - Cooper appealed, arguing that the Appeal Board failed to consider his defence that other physicians caused or contributed to the problems at the hospital - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - The Appeal Board made some findings in favour of Cooper's position, but concluded for other solution based considerations that his privileges should be terminated - It was proper for the Appeal Board to consider whether Cooper's rein­statement would benefit the hospital and community - The Appeal Board found that the medical staff could operate without Cooper but not with him - It did not err in its resulting decision - See paragraphs 31 to 53.

Hospitals - Topic 356

Operation - Doctors - Restriction or revo­cation of hospital privileges - Appeals - A Hospital Board terminated Dr. Cooper's hospital privileges - The Alberta Hospital Privileges Appeal Board, on an appeal de novo, confirmed the Hospital Board's decision - Cooper appealed the Appeal Board's decision, alleging bias by the Hospital Board and that the Hospital Board improperly considered his medical compet­ency - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - There was no allegation of bias present in the de novo hearing of the Appeal Board and the Appeal Board found that Cooper's medical competency was not an issue - The de novo hearing before the Appeal Board corrected any possible problems arising from bias or consideration of irrelevant matters by the Hospital Board - See para­graphs 17 to 30.

Cases Noticed:

Schiller v. Scarborough General Hospital (1975), 61 D.L.R.(3d) 416 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Calgary General Hospital v. Williams (1982), 42 A.R. 1; 26 Alta. L.R.(2d) 220 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Hicks v. West Coast General Hospital, [1993] B.C.J. No. 107 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

Aucoin v. Sacred Heart Hospital (1991), 106 N.S.R.(2d) 389; 288 A.P.R. 389 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Innisfil v. Barrie (City) (1977), 17 O.R.(2d) 277 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

Securicor Investigations and Security Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.), United Steelworkers of America and United Steelworkers of America, Local 7105 (1985), 8 O.A.C. 372; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 151 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Harper, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 2; 40 N.R. 255; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Griep, [1993] A.J. No. 450 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 33].

Logozar v. Golder (1994), 157 A.R. 102; 77 W.A.C. 102; 23 Alta. L.R.(3d) 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Minister of National Revenue v. Schwartz, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 254; 193 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Carriere (A.J.) (1996), 181 A.R. 284; 116 W.A.C. 284 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Alberta (Labour Relations Board) (1983), 47 A.R. 274; 27 Alta. L.R.(2d) 338 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Foothills Provincial General Hospital v. United Nurses of Alberta, Local 115 et al. (1993), 140 A.R. 321; 10 Alta. L.R.(3d) 254 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. W.B.B. (1996), 187 A.R. 179; 127 W.A.C. 179; 43 Alta. L.R.(3d) 394 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Abouna v. Foothills Provincial General Hospital Board, [1978] 2 W.W.R. 130, refd to. [para. 51].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Jones and de Villars, Principles of Admin­istrative Law (2nd Ed.), pp. 378-380 [para. 33].

Counsel:

Walter S. McKall, for the appel­lant/applicant;

D. Sean Day, for the respondent, Mistahia Regional Health Authority.

This appeal was heard before Bielby, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on March 9, 1999.