Lexogest Inc. et al. v. Manitoba (Attorney General) et al., (1993) 85 Man.R.(2d) 8 (CA)

• Judge: Scott, C.J.M., Huband, Philp, Lyon and Helper, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: March 02, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 8 (CA);1993 CanLII 3365 (MB CA);101 DLR (4th) 523;[1993] MJ No 54 (QL);85 Man R (2d) 8

Lexogest Inc. v. Man. (A.G.) (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 8 (CA);

    41 W.A.C. 8

MLB headnote and full text

Lexogest Inc., Karen Hossack and Robbie Mahood (applicants/respondents) v. The Attorney General of Manitoba and Manitoba Health Services Commission (respondents/appellants) and The Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(Suit No. AI 92-30-00841)

Indexed As: Lexogest Inc. et al. v. Manitoba (Attorney General) et al.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Scott, C.J.M., Huband, Philp, Lyon and Helper, JJ.A.

March 2, 1993.

Summary:

Pursuant to Regulations under the Health Services Insurance Act, the Manitoba Health Services Commission refused to pay for abortions performed at a clinic. The clinic applied for a declaration that the regulation was invalid on several grounds.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 82 Man.R.(2d) 64, declared the regulation invalid. The Manito­ba Government and the Health Services Commission appealed. The clinic cross-appealed, raising again the other grounds of attack not dealt with by the trial judge.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, Scott, C.J.M., and Lyon, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Government Programs - Topic 1988

Medicare - Claims by doctors - Insured services - What constitute - Therapeutic abortions - Schedule H, s. 26, of Regula­tion 506/88R under the Health Services Act provided for payment of physicians' fees for performing therapeutic abortions only when performed in a hospital - Man­itoba Health Services Commission refused to pay for abortions performed at the Morgentaler Clinic - The Clinic was an approved facility by the College of Physi­cians and Surgeons - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the provision was invalid on the basis that it was not ancil­lary to or consistent with the Act - See paragraphs 85 to 144.

Cases Noticed:

Baldwin v. Pouliot, [1969] S.C.R. 577; 7 D.L.R.(3d) 367, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. CKOY Ltd., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 2; 24 N.R. 254; 43 C.C.C.(2d) 1; 90 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 18, 121].

Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Duquesne Light Co. (1977), 16 O.R.(2d) 273; 78 D.L.R.(3d) 3 (H.C.), refd to. [paras. 19, 120].

Telecommunication Workers Union et al. v. British Columbia Telephone et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 840; 59 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 20].

Thorne's Hardware Ltd. et al. v. The Queen - see Irving Oil Ltd. et al. v. National Harbours Board.

Irving Oil Ltd. et al. v. National Harbours Board, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 106; 46 N.R. 91; 143 D.L.R.(3d) 577, refd to. [paras. 21, 132].

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada v. Canada (At­torney General) et al., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 21].

Civil Liberties Association v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1988), 24 B.C.L.R.(2d) 189; 49 D.L.R.(4th) 493 (S.C.), refd to. [paras. 24, 112, 132].

Mia v. British Columbia (Medical Services Commission) (1985), 61 B.C.L.R. 273; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 385 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Doctors Hospital v. Ontario (Minister of Health) (1976), 12 O.R.(2d) 164; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 220 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121; 16 D.L.R.(2d) 689, refd to. [para. 30].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Hallet and Carey Ltd., [1952] A.C. 427 (J.C.P.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

Gach v. Director of Welfare (Brandon), [1973] 3 W.W.R. 558 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Morgentaler (1991), 104 N.S.R.(2d) 361; 283 A.P.R. 361; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 8; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 288 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Silk, Re, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 335; 47 N.R. 57, affirming [1982] F.C. 795; 39 N.R. 523 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Oakwood Development Ltd. v. St. François Xavier (Rural Municipality), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 164; 61 N.R. 321; 36 Man.R.(2d) 215; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 40].

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesday Corp., [1947] 2 All E.R. 680; [1948] 1 K.B. 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Hammersmith and Fulham London Bo­rough Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment, [1990] 3 All E.R. 589; 125 N.R. 193 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 42].

Collins and Batchelor et al. v. Pension Commission (Ont.) and Dominion Stores Ltd. (1986), 16 O.A.C. 24; 56 O.R.(2d) 274 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 47].

Multiple Access Ltd. et al. v. McCutcheon et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181; 138 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 62].

Bank of Montreal v. Hall, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 121; 104 N.R. 110; 82 Sask.R. 120; 65 D.L.R.(4th) 361, refd to. [para. 62].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380; 105 D.L.R.(3d) 745; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 495, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,203; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 65].

Finlay v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 603, refd to. [para. 66].

McInerney v. MacDonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138; 137 N.R. 35; 126 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 317 A.P.R. 271; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 415, refd to. [para. 67].

Norberg v. Wynrib, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226; 138 N.R. 81; 9 B.C.A.C. 1; 19 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 67].

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 49 F.T.R. 160; 8 C.R.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 68].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 72].

Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 65; 77 C.R.(3d) 1; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 76].

Fernandes v. Director of Social Services (Winnipeg Central) (1992), 78 Man.R.(2d) 172; 16 W.A.C. 172; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 402 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

Whitbread v. Walley, [1988] 5 W.W.R. 313; 26 B.C.L.R.(2d) 203 (C.A.), affd. [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1273; 120 N.R. 109; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 25; 52 B.C.L.R.(2d) 187, refd to. [para. 79].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; [1989] 2 W.W.R. 289; 56 D.L.R. (4th) 1; 34 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 36 C.R.R. 193; 25 C.C.E.L. 255, refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 65, 89, 128].

R. v. Belanger (1916), 54 S.C.R. 265, refd to. [para. 118].

R. v. National Fish Co., [1931] Ex. C.R. 75, refd to. [para. 118].

R. v. Wold (1956), 64 Man. R. 177; 19 W.W.R.(N.S.) 75 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 119].

Clark v. Canada (Attorney General) (1977), 17 O.R.(2d) 273; 81 D.L.R.(3d) 33 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 120].

Geisha Garden Ltd., Re (1960), 30 W.W.R.(N.S.) 617; 127 C.C.C. 30 (B.C.), refd to. [para. 135].

Fisher et al. v. Minister of National Rev­enue, [1980] 3 W.W.R. 60 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 136].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Health Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-6, generally [paras. 4, 54, 88, 116]; sect. 4 [para. 60]; sect. 7 [para. 55]; sect. 9 [para. 56]; sect. 14, sect. 15 [para. 63].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [paras. 4, 71, 87, 116]; sect. 15 [paras. 4, 81, 87, 116].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91, sect. 92 [para. 64].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 251 [paras. 73, 89].

Health Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H-6, sect. 1 [para. 139]; sect. 45(q) [para. 140].

Health Services Insurance Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. H-35; C.C.S.M., c. H-35, sect. 2(1) [paras. 11, 125]; sect. 21, sect. 22 [paras. 9, 109, 126]; sect. 23 [paras. 109, 126]; sect. 33 [para. 9]; sect. 71 [para. 135]; sect. 74, sect. 90, sect. 95 [para. 16]; sect. 113(1)(e) [para. 133]; sect. 113(1)(h), sect. 113(1)(k) [paras. 9, 88, 127]; sect. 113(1)(r), sect. 113(1)(s), sect. 113(1)(t), sect. 113(1)(v) [para. 133].

Health Services Insurance Act Regulations (Man.), Reg. 506/88 R, schedule H, sect. 6, sect. 14 [para. 49]; sect. 26 [paras. 2, 128].

Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 [para. 68].

Medical Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. M-90, sect. 40, generally [para. 3].

Medical Services Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 255, generally [para. 112].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Dussault and Borgeat, Administrative Law: A Treatise (2nd Ed. 1985), vol. 1, p. 435 [para. 40].

Holland, Denys C., and McGowan, John P., Delegated Legislation in Canada (1989), pp. 195, 196 [para. 122]; 203 [para. 48]; 211 [paras. 27, 34]; 214 [paras. 28, 35]; 218 [para. 31].

Counsel:

S. Greenberg, for the Attorney General of Manitoba;

W.G. McFetridge, for Manitoba Health Services Commission;

G.G. Brodsky, Q.C., and A.H. Dalmyn, for Lexogest Inc. et al.;

H. Glinter, for the Attorney General of Canada.

This case was heard on December 1 and 2, 1992, before Scott, C.J.M., Huband, Philp, Lyon and Helper, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. On March 2, 1993, the decision of the court was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Scott, C.J.M., dissenting (Lyon, J.A., con­curring) - see paragraphs 1 to 84;

Huband, J.A. - see paragraphs 85 to 115;

Helper, J.A. (Philp, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 116 to 144.