Mital v. Canada (Minister of Health), (2015) 480 F.T.R. 96 (FC)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Judge: LeBlanc, J.
• Citation: (2015), 480 F.T.R. 96 (FC),2015 FC 571
• Date: 31 October 2014
• Subject Matter: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS,COURTS

Mital v. Can. (2015), 480 F.T.R. 96 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.054

Dheeraj Kumar Mital (applicant) v. The Minister of Health (respondent)

(T-1785-13; 2015 FC 571)

Indexed As: Mital v. Canada (Minister of Health)

Federal Court

LeBlanc, J.

May 1, 2015.

Summary:

Health Canada, through its First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, ran the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program which provided eligible First Nations and Inuit with health related goods and services. The applicant was a dentist. In December 2008, his status as a "dental provider" under the Program was terminated on the basis of concerns resulting from an examination of his billing practices. The applicant made unsuccessful attempts to be re-enrolled as a dental provider under the Program, including an application on April 23, 2013. On October 10, 2013, the applicant was informed that his latest request for re-enrolment had been reassessed by Health Canada and that the dismissal of his application had been confirmed. The applicant applied for judicial review of that decision.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 549

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - Sufficiency of - Health Canada, through its First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, ran the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program which provided eligible First Nations and Inuit with health related goods and services - The applicant was a dentist - In December 2008, his status as a "dental provider" under the Program was terminated on the basis of concerns resulting from an examination of his billing practices - The applicant's name was placed on a "Do Not Register" list - The applicant made unsuccessful attempts to be re-enrolled as a dental provider under the Program - On October 10, 2013, the applicant was informed that his latest request for re-enrolment had been reassessed by Health Canada and that the dismissal of his application had been confirmed - The applicant applied for judicial review - The applicant claimed that the decision did not provide the requisite degree of justification, transparency and intelligibility and was not defensible in respect of the facts and law as it failed to address any of the concerns raised and the comments made in the letter that accompanied the re-enrolment application - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The impugned decision was both defensible on the facts and the law and was transparent and intelligible - Re-enrolment in the Program was refused to the applicant based on his billing history and the financial risk it created for the Program - That was supported by the evidence - The decision could have been more explicit with respect to the content of the letter that accompanied the re-enrolment application - However, reasons for decisions need not be perfect or comprehensive as long as they allowed the reviewing court to understand why the decision-maker made its decision - Looking at the record, the court had no difficulty understanding why the decision was made - See paragraphs 48 to 55.

Administrative Law - Topic 1415.1

Finality - General - Health Canada, through its First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, ran the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program which provided eligible First Nations and Inuit with health related goods and services - The applicant was a dentist - In December 2008, his status as a "dental provider" under the Program was terminated on the basis of concerns resulting from an examination of his billing practices - The applicant's name was placed on a "Do Not Register" list - The applicant made unsuccessful attempts to be re-enrolled as a dental provider under the Program - On October 10, 2013, the applicant was informed that his latest request for re-enrolment had been reassessed by Health Canada and that the dismissal of his application had been confirmed - The applicant applied for judicial review, alleging a violation of the principles of procedural fairness - He contended that the initial decision to remove his name from the Program's dental providers list and put it on the "Do-Not-Register List" tainted his subsequent applications to be re-enrolled in the Program with the result that he was "permanently blacklisted" without having been informed of the case he had to meet and given an opportunity to make meaningful representations in response - The Federal Court stated, inter alia, that "The fundamental difficulty with the Applicant's position is his invitation to the Court to look back at the process that led to the decision to terminate his dental provider status in December 2008. ... The problem is that this decision was never judicially challenged. ... The decision being challenged in this case is the Impugned Decision. I fail to see on what basis the Court could also rule on the validity of a decision that was rendered more than six years ago and of which the Applicant was fully aware as evidenced by the letter his counsel at the time wrote to the Program in order to voice his concerns about the decision. This, in my view, would defeat the principle of finality and certainty of decisions" - See paragraphs 36 to 37.

Administrative Law - Topic 2088

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - Apprehension of - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2088.1 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2088.1

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Prejudgment of matter - Health Canada, through its First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, ran the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program which provided eligible First Nations and Inuit with health related goods and services - The applicant was a dentist - In December 2008, his status as a "dental provider" under the Program was terminated on the basis of concerns resulting from an examination of his billing practices - The applicant's name was placed on a "Do Not Register" list - The applicant made unsuccessful attempts to be re-enrolled as a dental provider under the Program - On October 10, 2013, the applicant was informed that his latest request for re-enrolment had been reassessed by Health Canada and that the dismissal of his application had been confirmed - The applicant applied for judicial review of that decision - The applicant claimed that Mr. Hupman, the Regional Dental Officer of the FNIH Manitoba Branch, had demonstrated a closed mind with respect to his status in the Program - The Federal Court held that the applicant had not established that the impugned decision was rendered by a biased decision-maker - Further, deciding whether to re-enrol a dentist in the Program was not a decision of a judicial or adjudicative nature, which called for a less demanding standard of impartiality - Finally, although Hupman was involved in the decision-making process that led to the impugned decision, he was not the ultimate decision-maker - See paragraphs 43 to 47.

Administrative Law - Topic 2272

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Circumstances or powers to which duty applies (incl. extent of duty) - Health Canada, through its First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, ran the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program which provided eligible First Nations and Inuit with health related goods and services - The applicant was a dentist - In December 2008, his status as a "dental provider" under the Program was terminated on the basis of concerns resulting from an examination of his billing practices - The applicant made unsuccessful attempts to be re-enrolled as a dental provider under the Program - On October 10, 2013, the applicant was informed that his latest request for re-enrolment had been reassessed by Health Canada and that the dismissal of his application had been confirmed - The applicant applied for judicial review of that decision, alleging a breach of the principles of procedural fairness - The Federal Court held that the duty of procedural fairness owed in this case was minimal - The applicant had the right to know the case to meet before the impugned decision was made and have the decision made by an impartial decision-maker - See paragraphs 21 to 35.

Administrative Law - Topic 2405

Natural justice - Procedure - General - Notice of subject matter to be considered - Health Canada, through its First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, ran the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program which provided eligible First Nations and Inuit with health related goods and services - The applicant was a dentist - In December 2008, his status as a "dental provider" under the Program was terminated on the basis of concerns resulting from an examination of his billing practices - The applicant's name was placed on a "Do Not Register" list - The applicant made unsuccessful attempts to be re-enrolled as a dental provider under the Program - On October 10, 2013, the applicant was informed that his latest request for re-enrolment had been reassessed by Health Canada and that the dismissal of his application had been confirmed - The applicant applied for judicial review of that decision, alleging a violation of procedural fairness - He contended that the initial decision to remove his name from the Program's dental providers list and put it on the "Do-Not-Register List" tainted his subsequent applications to be re-enrolled in the Program with the result that he was "permanently blacklisted" without having been informed of the case he had to meet and given an opportunity to make meaningful representations in response - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The court was satisfied that when the applicant applied for re-enrolment in April 2013, he knew fully well the case he had to meet in order to be re-instated in the Program - His status of dental provider had been terminated on the basis of ongoing concerns regarding his billing practices; he had subsequently pled guilty to charges of professional misconduct in relation to those practices; and he had already been refused re-instatement on the basis of his billing history with the Program - See paragraphs 41 to 42.

Administrative Law - Topic 3347

Judicial review - General - Practice - Parties (incl. standing) - [See Courts - Topic 4071.2 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 8268

Administrative powers - Discretionary powers - Judicial review - Health Canada, through its First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, ran the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program which provided eligible First Nations and Inuit with health related goods and services - The applicant was a dentist - In December 2008, his status as a "dental provider" under the Program was terminated on the basis of concerns resulting from an examination of his billing practices - The applicant's name was placed on a "Do Not Register" list - The applicant made unsuccessful attempts to be re-enrolled as a dental provider under the Program - On October 10, 2013, the applicant was informed that his latest request for re-enrolment had been reassessed by Health Canada and that the dismissal of his application had been confirmed - The applicant applied for judicial review of that decision - The Federal Court stated that "There is no right to a dental provider status under the Program and no right to re-enrolment once that status has been terminated. The Program is a publicly funded program which has been established under general ministerial powers and which is run by a specialized unit of a government department. As for any other government programs, the protection of the public interest in ensuring proper spending of public funds is - and must be - a paramount consideration in the administration of the Program. All these considerations are factors showing that decisions taken under the Program are discretionary in nature and are owed significant deference ... As long as they are not based on irrelevant considerations or on a perverse or capricious finding of fact, they must be allowed to stand" - See paragraph 51.

Courts - Topic 4071.2

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Practice - Judicial review applications - Parties - Health Canada, through its First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, ran the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program which provided eligible First Nations and Inuit with health related goods and services - The applicant was a dentist - In December 2008, his status as a "dental provider" under the Program was terminated - The applicant made unsuccessful attempts to be re-enrolled as a dental provider under the Program - On October 10, 2013, the applicant was informed that his latest request for re-enrolment had been reassessed by Health Canada and that the dismissal of his application had been confirmed - The applicant applied for judicial review of that decision - The respondent claimed that the proper respondent was the Attorney General of Canada, not the Minister of Health, as the Minister, pursuant to rule 303 of the Federal Courts Rules, was neither directly affected by the relief sought in the proceedings nor required to be named as a party under an Act of Parliament under which the proceedings were brought - The Federal Court stated that while the Minister of Health was not required to be named as a party to these proceedings by virtue of an Act of Parliament, it was not satisfied that the Minister was not a person directly affected by the relief sought by the applicant - It was common ground to name the responsible Minister in judicial review applications taken against decisions of Ministers in matters where there was but one party - That was the case here - See paragraphs 19 to 20.

Government Programs - Topic 5324

Health and social services - First Nations and Inuit Non-Insured Health Benefits Program - Dental providers - [See Administrative Law - Topic 549 , Administrative Law - Topic 2272 and Administrative Law - Topic 8268 ].

Cases Noticed:

Khela v. Mission Institution (Warden) et al., [2014] 1 S.C.R. 502; 455 N.R. 279; 351 B.C.A.C. 91; 599 W.A.C. 91; 2014 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 18].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 18].

Greenpeace Canada et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2014), 455 F.T.R. 1; 2014 FC 463, refd to. [para. 18].

Sketchley v. Canada (Attorney General), [2006] 3 F.C.R. 392; 344 N.R. 257; 2005 FCA 404, refd to. [para. 18].

1018025 Alberta Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Health) (2004), 262 F.T.R. 314; 2004 FC 1107, refd to. [para. 20].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, appld. [para. 21].

Koulatchenko v. Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (2014), 449 F.T.R. 66; 2014 FC 206, refd to. [para. 29].

Larkman v. Canada (Attorney General), [2012] 4 C.N.L.R. 87; 433 N.R. 184; 2012 FCA 204, refd to. [para. 38].

Newfoundland Telephone Co. Ltd. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623; 134 N.R. 241; 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 301 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 44].

Anderson v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (2003), 234 F.T.R. 227; 2003 FCT 667, refd to [para. 45].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 53].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Courts Rules, rule 303 [para. 19].

Counsel:

J.A. Kagan, for the applicant;

Dhara Drew, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, LLP, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent.

This application was heard on October 31, 2014, at Winnipeg, Manitoba, before LeBlanc, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on May 1, 2015.