Halvorson v. Medical Services Commission (B.C.) et al., (2003) 182 B.C.A.C. 108 (CA)

• Judge: Donald, Huddart and Mackenzie, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: May 07, 2003
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2003), 182 B.C.A.C. 108 (CA);2003 BCCA 264

Halvorson v. Medical Services Comm. (2003), 182 B.C.A.C. 108 (CA);

    300 W.A.C. 108

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.027

James Peter Halvorson, as representative petitioner (appellant/petitioner) v. Medical Services Commission of British Columbia and the Minister of Health as represented by the Attorney General of British Columbia (respondents/respondents)

(CA028506)

James Peter Halvorson, as representative plaintiff (appellant/plaintiff) v. Medical Services Commission of British Columbia and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of British Columbia and the Minister of Health, represented by the Attorney General of British Columbia (respondents/defendants)

(CA028507)

(2003 BCCA 264)

Indexed As: Halvorson v. Medical Services Commission (B.C.) et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Donald, Huddart and Mackenzie, JJ.A.

May 7, 2003.

Summary:

The plaintiff/petitioner was an emergency room physician who practised on a fee-for-service basis in several hospitals in B.C. Typically, patients treated in hospital pre­sented proof of their enrolment in the B.C. Medical Services Plan. The treating physi­cian submitted claims to the Plan for such treatment. If the patient's status as a benefi­ciary of the plan was cancelled, the physi­cian's claim for payment was rejected. The physician contended that the Medical Ser­vices Commission acted unlawfully in cancelling the enrolment of B.C. resident beneficiaries of the Plan who did not pay their premiums. He sought to recover the amount of his rejected claims. The physician initiated two separate proceedings: a petition for judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act and a civil action claiming damages for breach of statutory duty or compensation for unjust enrichment. The physician applied in both proceedings to certify the claims as a class action on behalf of other physicians who were similarly refused payment. The certification applica­tions were heard together.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2001] B.C.T.C. 632, dismissed the applications for certification on the ground that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act. Alter­natively, the court ruled that class proceed­ings would not be the preferable procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of any common issues. The physician appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Supreme Court to define the class and common issues and to determine other aspects of the certification orders.

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Class actions - Certification - Con­siderations (incl. when class action appro­priate) - B.C. physicians submitted claims to the Medical Services Plan for patient services - If the patient's status as a bene­ficiary of the Plan was cancelled, the physician's claim for payment was rejected - A physician contended that the Medical Services Commission acted unlawfully in cancelling the enrolment of B.C. resident beneficiaries of the Plan who did not pay their premiums or were deemed to be no longer residents - The British Columbia Court of Appeal certified the claim as a class action - It was not bound to fail, nor was it plain and obvious that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action - See paragraphs 26 to 30.

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Class actions - Certification - Con­siderations (incl. when class action appro­priate) - B.C. physicians submitted claims to the Medical Services Plan for patient services - If the patient's status as a bene­ficiary of the Plan was cancelled, the physician's claim for payment was rejected - A physician contended that the Medical Services Commission acted unlawfully in cancelling the enrolment of B.C. resident beneficiaries of the Plan who did not pay their premiums or were deemed to be no longer residents - The British Columbia Court of Appeal certified the claim as a class action - Class proceedings were the preferable procedure for the fair and effec­tive resolution of the common issues - See paragraphs 31 to 35.

Cases Noticed:

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 10].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Endean v. Canadian Red Cross Society et al. (1998), 106 B.C.A.C. 73; 172 W.A.C. 73; 157 D.L.R.(4th) 465 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Waldman v. Medical Services Commission (B.C.) et al. (1999), 128 B.C.A.C. 218; 208 W.A.C. 218; 67 B.C.L.R.(3d) 21 (C.A.), consd. [para. 28].

Collett v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1995), 81 O.A.C. 85; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 426 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29].

Statutes Noticed:

Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50, sect. 4(1)(a), sect. 4(1)(d) [para. 8].

Counsel:

A.M. Grant and S.J. Kovacs, for the ap­pellant;

S. Macdonald and J.M. Walters, for the respondents (Appeal No. CA028506);

T.H. MacLachlan, Q.C., and J.L. Maxwell, for the respondents (Appeal No. CA028507).

This appeal was heard before Donald, Huddart and Mackenzie, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, at Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 31 and April 1-3, 2003. The decision of the court was delivered by Mackenzie, J.A., on May 7, 2003.