In-Med Laboratories Ltd. et al. v. Director of Laboratory Services (Ont.) et al., (1991) 45 O.A.C. 241 (DC)

• Judge: Callaghan, C.J.O.C., Montgomery and Chilcott, JJ.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: February 13, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1991), 45 O.A.C. 241 (DC)

In-Med Lab. v. Lab. Services Director (1991), 45 O.A.C. 241 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of a hearing under the Laboratory and Specimen Collection Centre Licensing Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 409, as amended In-Med Laboratories Ltd., H.Y.S. Laboratories Ltd. and 460617 Ontario Ltd. (appellants/appellants) v. Director, Laboratory Services Branch and Director, Laboratory and Specimen Collection Centre Licensing (respondents/appellants by cross-appeal)

(466/89)

Indexed As: In-Med Laboratories Ltd. et al. v. Director of Laboratory Services (Ont.) et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Divisional Court

Callaghan, C.J.O.C., Montgomery and Chilcott, JJ.

February 15, 1991 and February 19, 1991.

Summary:

In-Med Laboratories Ltd. was a licensed medical testing laboratory under the Laboratory and Specimen Collection Centre Licensing Act. The Laboratory Review Board revoked In-Med's licence. In-Med appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal. In a supplementary decision, the Ontario Divisional Court dealt with the matter of costs.

Administrative Law - Topic 9118

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Curial deference to decisions of tribunals - The Ontario Divisional Court held that it would not extend curial deference to the Laboratory Review Board - See paragraph 14.

Health - Topic 1095

Services - Licensing - Revocation of licence - Grounds - In-Med was a licensed medical testing laboratory - Each licensed laboratory was required to participate in a provincially-administered proficiency testing program (LPTP) for quality control purposes - During renovations to In-Med's premises, its LPTP samples were sent to another lab for processing, along with regular patient samples - In-Med acted openly and bona fide - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the Laboratory Review Board erred in revoking In-Med's licence for submitting false information to LPTP - Other grounds for revocation alleging In-Med's nonproficiency in clinical chemistry and collaboration on LPTP testing the court also found unsupported by the evidence.

Practice - Topic 7433

Costs - Solicitor and client costs - Measure of - Evidence and proof - The Ontario Divisional Court, on a costs motion, opined that when a large number of hours is claimed by counsel, it should be supported by an affidavit of counsel confirming the hours and disbursements - See paragraphs 61 to 62.

Practice - Topic 7454

Costs - Solicitor and client costs - Entitlement to - Improper, irresponsible or unconscionable conduct - The Ontario Divisional Court held that in order to award solicitor and client costs to a successful applicant, it must be satisfied that the respondent's conduct was aggressive, oppressive, high-handed, arrogant or scandalous - See paragraph 60.

Statutes Noticed:

Laboratory and Specimen Collection Centre Licensing Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 409, sect. 66(2) [para. 12].

Laboratory and Specimen Collection Centre Licensing Act Regulations, Reg. 845 [para. 25].

Counsel:

John I. Laskin and Jeremy M. Freedman, for the appellants;

Dennis W. Brown, Q.C., for the respondents and cross-appellants.

This appeal was heard before Callaghan, C.J.O.C., Montgomery and Chilcott, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court on February 11, 1991. The decision of the Divisional Court was delivered by Montgomery, J., and released on February 15, 1991 (see paragraphs 1 to 58).

The court's decision respecting costs was heard on February 13, 1991, delivered orally by Callaghan, C.J.O.C., and released on February 19, 1991 (see paragraphs 59 to 63).