Mittal v. Canada (Minister of Health)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Judge: Dawson, Ryer and de Montigny, JJ.A.
• Citation: (2016), 481 N.R. 117 (FCA),2016 FCA 70
• Date: 02 March 2016
• Subject Matter: GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS,ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Mittal v. Can. (2016), 481 N.R. 117 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] N.R. TBEd. MR.023

Dheeraj Kumar Mittal (appellant) v. The Minister of Health (respondent)

(A-255-15; 2016 FCA 70)

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

Federal Court of Appeal

Dawson, Ryer and de Montigny, JJ.A.

March 2, 2016.

Summary:

The appellant was a dentist. His status as a dental service provider under the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program was terminated in 2008. The appellant made unsuccessful attempts to be re-enrolled as a dental service provider under the Program. His most recent request was denied by letter dated October 10, 2013. The appellant applied for judicial review of that decision.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at (2015), 480 F.T.R. 96, dismissed the application. The appellant appealed and re-argued the issues raised before the Federal Court. Specifically, he argued that he was denied procedural fairness in that he was not provided with notice of the case to be met, he was not provided with a meaningful opportunity to make submissions and the decision was made by a biased decision-maker. He also argued that the decision was unreasonable.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court saw no reviewable error on the part of the Federal Court. The court reached that conclusion substantially for the reasons given by the Federal Court.

Administrative Law - Topic 549

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - Sufficiency of - The appellant was a dentist - In 2008, his status as a dental service provider under the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program was terminated on the basis of concerns resulting from an examination of his billing practices - The appellant made unsuccessful attempts to be re-enrolled as a dental service provider under the Program - His most recent request was denied by letter dated October 10, 2013 - The appellant applied for judicial review of that decision - The appellant 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 appellant 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 - The appellant appealed - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

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 - The appellant was a dentist - In 2008, his status as a dental service provider under the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program was terminated on the basis of concerns resulting from an examination of his billing practices - The appellant made unsuccessful attempts to be re-enrolled as a dental service provider under the Program - His most recent request was denied by letter dated October 10, 2013 - The appellant applied for judicial review of that decision - The appellant claimed that 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 appellant 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 - The appellant appealed - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 2405

Natural justice - Procedure - General - Notice of subject matter to be considered - The appellant was a dentist - In 2008, his status as a dental service provider under the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program was terminated on the basis of concerns resulting from an examination of his billing practices - The appellant's name was placed on a "Do Not Register" list - The appellant made unsuccessful attempts to be re-enrolled as a dental service provider under the Program - His most recent request was denied by letter dated October 10, 2013 - The appellant 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 appellant 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 - The appellant appealed - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Government Programs - Topic 5324

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

Counsel:

J.A. Kagan and Andrew Sain, for the appellant;

Dhara Drew, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Thompson Dorfman Sweatman LLP, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 2, 2016, at Winnipeg, Manitoba, before Dawson, Ryer and de Montigny, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally by Dawson, J.A., on the same date.