Health Services Commission (P.E.I.) v. Appeal Board, (1979) 25 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181 (PEISC)

• Judge: MacDonald, J.
• Case Date: January 31, 1979
• Jurisdiction: Prince Edward Island
• Citations: (1979), 25 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181 (PEISC)

Health Serv. v. App. Bd. (1979), 25 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181 (PEISC);

    68 A.P.R. 181

MLB headnote and full text

Health Services Commission of Prince Edward Island v. Appeal Board

(No. GDC-982)

Indexed As: Health Services Commission (P.E.I.) v. Appeal Board

Prince Edward Island Supreme Court

MacDonald, J.

January 31, 1979.

Summary:

This case arose out of an application by the P.E.I. Health Services Commission for an order of certiorari to quash a decision of an appeal board, which allowed a physician's appeal from the Commission's refusal to pay his account under the Health Services Payment Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1974, c. H-2.

The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court dismissed the application and held that, although the Commission had status to bring an application for certiorari against the appeal board, the application was defective, because it did not contain an endorsement on the originating notice requiring the return of the record of the proceedings under attack.

Administrative Law - Topic 553

Hearing and decision - Decision of tribunal - Effect of date of decision - On June 27, a tribunal made a decision and informed the parties of it - Subsequently, a transcript of the proceedings was signed by the chairman of the tribunal - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court held that the date of the tribunal's decision was June 27, when the decision was made and published and not when the transcript was subsequently signed - See paragraph 47.

Administrative Law - Topic 1046

Classification of power or function - Administrative - Fees payable under plan - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court held that the P.E.I. Health Services Commission was performing an administrative function in making decisions on accounts payable to doctors under a Provincial health insurance plan - The Supreme Court set out the considerations in determining whether a function is administrative or quasi-judicial in nature - See paragraphs 6 to 9.

Administrative Law - Topic 5404

Judicial review - Certiorari - Practice - Application - General - Contents of - Rules of Court (P.E.I.), Rule 56.07(1) - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court dismissed an application for certiorari, because the application failed to contain an endorsement requiring the return of the record of proceedings in the tribunal under attack - See paragraphs 49 to 51.

Administrative Law - Topic 5414

Judicial review - Certiorari - Practice - Parties - Interested or aggrieved party - What constitutes - The P.E.I. Health Services Commission applied for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of an appeal board, which allowed an appeal by a physician from the refusal of payment of his account by the Commission - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court held that the Commission had standing to bring the application, because it was an aggrieved person, since the decision of the Appeal Board would render the Commission responsible for similar claims in the future - See paragraphs 10 to 11.

Administrative Law - Topic 8848

Boards and tribunals - Capacity or status to attack in the courts decisions on appeal from its decisions - The P.E.I. Health Services Commission applied for an order of certiorari to quash a decision of an appeal board allowing a physician's appeal from the refusal of the Commission to pay his account - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court held that the Commission had status to bring the application, because it was an administrative body and was aggrieved by the appeal board's decision - See paragraphs 3 to 11.

Crown - Topic 26

Agent of Crown - What constitutes - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court held that the P.E.I. Health Services Commission established under the Health Services Payment Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1974, c. H-2, was an agent of the Crown - See paragraphs 17 to 18.

Crown - Topic 465

Statutes affecting Crown - Limitation periods - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court held that the limitation period for certiorari applications in s. 10 of the Habeas Corpus and Certiorari Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1974, c. H-1 was binding on the Crown, including its agent, the P.E.I. Health Services Commission - See paragraphs 12 to 32.

Statutes - Topic 1741

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Usage or practice - General - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court considered the types of tribunals or bodies which the P.E.I. courts had ruled were subject to certiorari in determining that an appeal board (established under the Health Services Payment Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1974, c. H-2, respecting the payment of physician's accounts) was subject to certiorari under the Habeas Corpus and Certiorari Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1974, c. H-1 - See paragraphs 40 to 45.

Words and Phrases

COURT - Section 10 of the Habeas Corpus and Certiorari Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1974, c. H-1, provided a limitation period for certiorari applications from decisions of the "court below" - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court held that an appeal board under the Health Services Payment Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1974, c. H-2, respecting the payment of a Physician's accounts was a "court below" within the meaning of s. 10 - See paragraphs 33 to 46.

Cases Noticed:

Genaire Ltd. v. International Association of Machinists and Ontario Labour Relations Board, 14 D.L.R.(2d) 201, appld. [para. 5].

R. v. Halifax-Dartmouth Real Estate Board (1965), 44 D.L.R.(2d) 248; 50 M.P.R. 60 (N.S.C.A.), appld. [para. 8].

Ontario Securities Commission v. Dobson (1957), 8 D.L.R.(2d) 604; [1957] O.W.N. 183, appld. [para. 8].

Re The Bell Telephone Co. and the Minister of Agriculture (1885), 7 O.R. 605; 9 O.R. 339, consd. [para. 8].

Pioneer Laundry and Dry Cleaners v. Minister of National Revenue, [1939] 4 D.L.R. 481; [1940] A.C. 127, consd. [para. 8].

R. v. Leschenko, [1949] 4 D.L.R. 334, appld. [para. 8].

Labour Relations Board (Saskatchewan) v. John East Iron Works, [1948] 4 D.L.R. 673, appld. [para. 8].

Re Gardiner, [1948] O.R. 71, appld. [para. 8].

Halifax v. Halifax Harbour Commissioners, [1935] S.C.R. 215, appld. [para. 18].

Montreal v. Montreal Locomotive Works, [1947] 1 D.L.R. 161 (P.C.), appld. [para. 19].

Re W. (1925), 66 O.L.R. 611, consd. [para. 30].

Bourke v. Murphy, 1 Hazard and Warburton 126, consd. [para. 42].

R. v. Carroll and Others, 2 Hazard and Warburton 436, consd. [para. 42].

The Application of Francis Murphy (1930), 2 M.P.R. 440 (P.E.I.C.A.), consd. [para. 43].

Canchip Limited v. Henderson Lumber Company Limited (1978), 18 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 349; 47 A.P.R. 349, appld. [para. 44].

Magistrates of Dunbar v. Duchess of Roxburgh (1835), 31 Cl. & F. 335; 6 E.R. 1462, appld. [para. 44].

Danielson v. Thordarson, [1930] 3 W.W.R. 104; [1931] 1 D.L.R. 199 (Man. C.A.), appld. [para. 47].

Burton v. Burns (1877), 11 N.S.R. 349 (C.A.), appld. [para. 47].

R. v. MacDonald (1902), 35 N.S.R. 323 (N.S.C.A.), appld. [para. 50].

Statutes Noticed:

Habeas Corpus and Certiorari Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1974, c. H-1, sect. 10 [para. 12].

Health Services Payment Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1974, c. H-2.

Interpretation Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1974, c. I-6, sect. 6(1) [para. 31]; sect. 10 [para. 19].

Rules of Court (P.E.I.), rule 1.02 [para. 15]; rule 1.06(1)(u) [para. 24]; rule 56.06 [para. 14]; rule 56.07(1) [para. 49].

Statute of Limitations, R.S.P.E.I. 1974, c. S-7, sect. 1(a) [para. 20]; sect. 2(1)(g) [para. 21]; sect. 2(2) [para. 22].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (3rd Ed.), vol. 1, p. 667 [para. 46].

Counsel:

James MacNutt, for the applicant;

Alan K. Scales, Q.C., for the respondent.

This case was heard at Charlottetown, P.E.I., before MacDONALD, J., of the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on January 31, 1979: