Mount Sinai Hospital Center et al. v. Quebec (Minister of Health and Social Services), 2001 SCC 41

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 29, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2001 SCC 41;(2001), 271 N.R. 104 (SCC);[2001] SCJ No 43 (QL);[2001] 2 SCR 281;[2001] ACS no 43;106 ACWS (3d) 182;271 NR 104;200 DLR (4th) 193;[2001] CarswellQue 1272;36 Admin LR (3d) 71;JE 2001-1280

Mount Sinai Hospital v. Que. (2001), 271 N.R. 104 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.R. TBEd. JN.045

Minister of Health and Social Services (appellant) v. Mount Sinai Hospital Center (respondent) and Elliot L. Bier, Howard Blatt, Peter Erenyi, Ruth Kovac, Mary Likoudis, Avrum P. Orenstein and Charles Roth (in their capacity as directors of the Mount Sinai Hospital Center) (respondents) and Maimonides Hospital Geriatric Centre (respondent)

(27022; 2001 SCC 41)

Indexed As: Mount Sinai Hospital Center et al. v. Quebec (Minister of Health and Social Services)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.

June 29, 2001.

Summary:

A hospital center had a permit for long-term care of tuberculosis patients. As medi­cal treatment evolved over the years, the center's vocation changed. Short-term care was provided alongside long-term care. The center also faced a move from its rural location in Ste-Agathe to Montreal, where most of its clientele came from. The center told the Minister of Health and Social Ser­vices (Que.) that it wanted its permit altered to reflect its new vocation. The Minister promised the center that it would formally alter the permit once the center moved. The center moved, but the Minister refused to grant a new permit. The center applied for mandamus. The center also asked for the invalidation of the election of the unified board of directors in order to be able to elect its own board.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported J.E. 92-1815, allowed the applica­tion in part. The court ordered the Minister to hear the center's representations before making his decision whether or not the alteration of the permit was in the public interest. The court also held that determina­tion of the status of the unified board of directors was premature given the fact that the Minister had not yet given the center a classification that would determine this issue, either by way of a renewal of the former permit or a valid decision with respect to the modification. The center appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [1998] R.J.Q. 2707, allowed the appeal and ordered the Minister to issue the permit. The court also cancelled the election of the unified board of directors in light of the center's right to elect its own board. The Minister appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 2267

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Reasonable expectation or legitimate ex­pectation - In 1984, negotiations between a hospital center and the Minister of Health and Social Services to move the center from Ste-Agathe to Montreal began in earnest - The center told the Minister that it wanted its permit altered to reflect its new vocation of providing short-term and long-term care to respiratory disease patients rather than long-term care to tuberculosis patients - The Minister prom­ised the center that it would formally alter the permit once the center moved - The center moved, but, on October 3, 1991, the Minister refused to grant a new permit - The center sought mandamus, arguing that the doctrine of legitimate expectations could be used to compel not only pro­cedural protection but also a substantive result - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Binnie, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., concurring) stated that the Minister's decision would be set aside through the application of the ordinary rules of procedural fairness - There was no need to resort to the doctrine of legitimate expectations to achieve pro­cedural relief and substantive relief was not available under this doctrine - See paragraphs 22 to 38.

Administrative Law - Topic 2272

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Circumstances or powers to which duty applies (incl. extent of duty) - [See second Hospitals - Topic 201 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3503

Judicial review - Mandamus - When available - [See first Hospitals - Topic 201 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3705

Judicial review - Mandamus - Mandamus to government and executive - Ministers of the Crown - [See first Hospitals - Topic 201 ].

Crown - Topic 676

Authority of ministers - Exercise of - Discretionary power - Limitations - [See first and second Hospitals - Topic 201 ].

Crown - Topic 685

Authority of ministers - Exercise of - Administrative decisions - Judicial review -The Supreme Court of Canada, per Binnie, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., concurring) stated: "Decisions of Ministers of the Crown in the exercise of discretion­ary powers in the administrative context should generally receive the highest stan­dard of deference, namely patent unreas­onableness" - See paragraphs 52 to 65.

Crown - Topic 685

Authority of ministers - Exercise of - Administrative decisions - Judicial review -[See second Hospitals - Topic 201 ].

Estoppel - Topic 1004

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - General - Against Crown - In 1984, negotiations between a hospital center and the Minister of Health and Social Services to move the center from Ste-Agathe to Montreal began in earnest - The center told the Minister that it wanted its permit altered to reflect its new vocation of providing short-term and long-term care to respiratory disease patients rather than long-term care to tuberculosis patients - The Minister prom­ised the center that it would formally alter the permit once the center moved - The center moved, but, on October 3, 1991, the Minister refused to grant a new permit - The center successfully sought mandamus -The Quebec Court of Appeal concluded that the Minister was estopped by his earlier representations and conduct from refusing to issue the new permit - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Binnie, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., concurring), stated however, that estoppel was not available here - There was a public law dimension to the law of estoppel which had to be sensitive to the factual and legal context - Here, the primary considerations were the wording of the relevant legislation and the status of the decision maker - See para­graphs 39 to 51.

Hospitals - Topic 201

Operation - Accreditation - Permit - In 1984, negotiations between a hospital center and the Minister of Health and Social Services to move the center from Ste-Agathe to Montreal began in earnest - The center told the Minister that it wanted its permit altered to reflect its new voca­tion of providing short-term and long-term care to respiratory disease patients rather than long-term care to tuberculosis patients - The Minister promised the center that it would formally alter the permit once the center moved - The center moved, but, on October 3, 1991, the Min­ister refused to grant a new permit - The center successful­ly sought mandamus - A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Minister was bound to issue the new per­mit where he had previously exercised his discretion that the issuance of the new permit was in the public interest - The court added that the Minister had not validly reversed his original exercise of discretion given the absence of discussion about funding and the Minister's behaviour being inconsistent with a genuine reversal -See paragraphs 90 to 118.

Hospitals - Topic 201

Operation - Accreditation - Permit - In 1984, negotiations between a hospital center and the Minister of Health and Social Services to move the center from Ste-Agathe to Montreal began in earnest - The center told the Minister that it wanted its permit altered to reflect its new voca­tion of providing short-term and long-term care to respiratory disease patients rather than long-term care to tuberculosis patients - The Minister promised the center that it would formally alter the permit once the center moved - The center moved, but, on October 3, 1991, the Min­ister refused to grant a new permit - The center successful­ly sought mandamus - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Binnie, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., concurring) stated that it was pre­sented with a patently un­reasonable deci­sion reached by a process that was demon­strably unfair - The web of representation, conduct, reliance and detri­ment, coupled by the Minister's failure to take the cen­ter's interests into account on October 3, 1991, precluded the Minister from repu­diating the concept of the public interest consistently espoused by Ministers over the seven-year period prior to that date - See paragraphs 1 to 69.

Hospitals - Topic 201

Operation - Accreditation - Permit - Section 138 of the Health Services and Social Services Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. S-4, provided that the Minister "shall" issue a permit if he considered that it was in the public interest - Section 139.1 provided that a permanent permit was renewed for two years if its holder fulfilled the condi­tions prescribed by regulation - A hospital center applied for a permit that would reflect the change of its vocation from a long-term care facility for tuberculosis patients to a facility that provided both short-term and long-term care to respira­tory disease patients - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the center's application was governed by s. 138 rather than s. 139.1 where the documentation exchanged between the center and the Minister reflected the parties' understanding that this was a request for changing the center's permit rather than renewing it - See para­graphs 91 to 96.

Hospitals - Topic 201

Operation - Accreditation - Permit - In 1984, negotiations between a hospital center and the Minister of Health and Social Services to move the center from Ste-Agathe to Montreal began in earnest - The center told the Minister that it wanted its permit altered to reflect its new voca­tion of providing short-term and long-term care to respiratory disease patients rather than long-term care to tuberculosis patients - The Minister promised the center that it would formally alter the permit once the center moved - The center moved, but, on October 3, 1991, the Min­ister refused to grant a new permit - The center sought mandamus, claiming that it already pos­sessed the modified permit when it moved to Montreal and that all that remained was to bring the wording of the permit into line with the legal reality - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the center's claim while affirming for other reasons the granting of mandamus - See paragraphs 1, 97 to 100.

Cases Noticed:

Calgary Power Ltd. v. Copithorne, [1959] S.C.R. 24, refd to. [para. 9].

Nenn v. Canada, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 631; 36 N.R. 487, refd to. [para. 9].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Purcell, [1996] 1 F.C. 644; 192 N.R. 148 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Canadian Superior Oil Ltd. et al. v. Pad­don-Hughes Development Co. Ltd. et al., [1970] S.C.R. 932; 12 D.L.R.(3d) 247; 74 W.W.R.(N.S.) 356, refd to. [para. 9].

Gilbert Steel Ltd. v. University Construc­tion Ltd. (1976), 12 O.R.(2d) 19 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Hill v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 69; 206 N.R. 299; 157 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 462 A.P.R. 81, consd. [para. 13].

Cleveland Board of Education v. Louder­mill (1985), 470 U.S. 532, refd to. [para. 15].

Perry v. Sindermann (1972), 408 U.S. 593, refd to. [para. 15].

Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), 424 U.S. 319, refd to. [para. 15].

Barry v. Barchi (1979), 443 U.S. 55, refd to. [para. 15].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 16].

Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fish­eries and Food, [1968] A.C. 997 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 16].

Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution (Director), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N.R. 353, consd. [para. 16].

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police and Ontario (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410, consd. [para. 16].

Old St. Boniface Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170; 116 N.R. 46; 69 Man.R.(2d) 134, refd to. [para. 16].

Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan Act - see Reference Re Constitutional Ques­tion Act (B.C.).

Reference Re Constitutional Question Act (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525; 127 N.R. 161; 1 B.C.A.C. 241; 1 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 16].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [paras. 16, 106].

Bendahmane v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1989] 3 F.C. 16; 95 N.R. 385 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 16].

Québec (Sous-ministre du Revenu) v. Transport Lessard (1976) Ltée, [1985] R.D.J. 502 (Que. C.A.), consd. [para. 16].

Aurchem Exploration Ltd. v. Whitehorse Mining District (Mining Recorder) (1992), 54 F.T.R. 134; 91 D.L.R.(4th) 710 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. and Merck Frosst Canada Inc.

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. and Merck Frosst Canada Inc., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1100; 176 N.R. 1, affing. [1994] 1 F.C. 742; 162 N.R. 177 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 16, 117].

Webb v. Ontario Housing Corp. (1978), 22 O.R.(2d) 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Hutfield v. Fort Saskatchewan General Hospital District No. 98 (1986), 74 A.R. 180; 49 Alta. L.R.(2d) 256 (Q.B.), affd. (1988), 89 A.R. 274; 52 D.L.R.(4th) 562 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Knight v. Board of Education of Indian Head School Division No. 19, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653; 106 N.R. 17; 83 Sask.R. 81, refd to. [para. 20].

Gingras v. Canada, [1990] 2 F.C. 68 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

Bloomfield v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Health), [1986] S.J. No. 675 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Khan, [1984] 1 W.L.R. 1337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Ruddock, [1987] 1 All E.R. 518 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Ex parte Hamble (Offshore) Fish­eries Ltd., [1995] 2 All E.R. 714 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. North and East Devon Health Au­thority; Ex parte Coughlan, [2000] 3 All E.R. 850 (C.A.), consd. [para. 22].

Webb v. Ireland, [1988] I.R. 353 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

New South Wales (Attorney General) v. Quin (1990), 64 A.L.J.R. 327 (Aust. H.C.), consd. [para. 23].

Transvaal (Administrator) v. Traub (1989), 4 SA 731 (South Africa S.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners; Ex parte M.F.K. Underwriting Agents Ltd., [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1545 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 24].

Haoucher v. Minister of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1990), 19 A.L.D. 577 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teoh (1995), 183 C.L.R. 273 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Discipli­nary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119, consd. [para. 33].

Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2000] 4 F.C. 264; 255 N.R. 319 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada et al., [1996] 3 F.C. 259; 115 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 35].

Bawolak v. Exroy Resources Ltd., [1993] R.D.J. 192 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Comeau's Sea Foods Ltd. v. Canada (Min­ister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 12; 206 N.R. 363, refd to. [para. 39]; dist. [para. 112].

Multi-Malls Inc. v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation and Communications) (1976), 14 O.R.(2d) 49 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Hydro Electric Commission of Kenora (Town) v. Vacationland Dairy Co-opera­tive Ltd., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 80; 162 N.R. 241; 68 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 40].

Robertson v. Minister of Pensions, [1949] 1 K.B. 227, refd to. [para. 40].

Lever Finance Ltd. v. Westminster London Borough Council, [1971] 1 Q.B. 222 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

North Western Gas Board v. Manchester Corp., [1963] 3 All E.R. 442 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Office of Personnel Management v. Rich­mond (1990), 496 U.S. 414 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 44].

United States v. Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Corp. (1973), 411 U.S. 655 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 44].

United States v. Asmar (1987), 827 F.2d 907 (3rd Cir.), refd to. [para. 44].

Maracle v. Travellers Indemnity Co. of Canada, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 50; 125 N.R. 294; 47 O.A.C. 333, consd. [para. 45].

St. Ann's Island Shooting and Fishing Club Ltd. v. R., [1950] S.C.R. 211, consd. [para. 47].

R. v. Dominion of Canada Postage Stamp Vending Co., [1930] S.C.R. 500, refd to. [para. 47].

Granger v. Canada Employment and Immi­gration Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 141; 91 N.R. 63, affing. [1986] 3 F.C. 70; 69 N.R. 212 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesday Corp., [1948] 1 K.B. 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. British Colum­bia (Minister of Forests), [1984] 3 W.W.R. 270 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Lazarov v. Secretary of State, [1973] F.C. 927 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags Aktiebolag v. Nova Scotia Woodlot Owners' Associ­ation - see Nova Scotia Forest Industries v. Pulpwood Marketing Board (N.S.).

Nova Scotia Forest Industries v. Pulpwood Marketing Board (N.S.) (1975), 12 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 6 A.P.R. 91; 61 D.L.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Fraser-Fort George (Regional District) (1996), 83 B.C.A.C. 153; 136 W.A.C. 153; 140 D.L.R.(4th) 23 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Canada and Canada (Minister of Economic Develop­ment), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2; 44 N.R. 354, refd to. [para. 56].

Sheehan v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (1975), 52 D.L.R.(3d) 728 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Communications and Electrical Workers of Canada et al. v. Canada (Attorney Gen­eral) (No. 2), [1989] 1 F.C. 643; 21 F.T.R. 56 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 114].

Morin v. Driscoll College Inc., [1979] R.P. 198 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

Québec (Procureur général) v. Laurendeau, [1985] R.D.J. 513 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

Bentley (Charles) Nursing Home Inc. v. Québec (Ministre des Affaires sociales), [1978] C.S. 30 (Que.), refd to. [para. 117].

Statutes Noticed:

Health Services and Social Services, Act respecting, R.S.Q. 1977, c. S-5, sect. 136, sect. 137, sect. 138, sect. 139, sect. 139.1 [para. 76]; sect. 140, sect. 141 [para. 98].

Health Services and Social Services, Act respecting, R.S.Q. 1977, c. S-4.2, sect. 81, sect. 83, sect. 119, sect. 126 [para. 77]; sect. 444 [para. 98].

Heath Services and Social Services, Act respecting, Regulations (Que.), Permits for Establishments (Issue and Renewal Regulation) (1984) 116 G.O.Q. II 2370, generally [para. 91].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Donald J.M., and Evans, John M., Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (Looseleaf) (1998, updated 2001), vol. 1, pp. 7-13 et seq. [para. 29]; 7-31 [para. 19].

Davis, Kenneth Culp, and Pierce, Richard J., Jr., Administrative Law Treatise (3rd Ed. 1994), vol. 2, pp. 229, 230 [para. 43]; 231 [para. 44].

de Smith, Stanley A., Woolf, H., and Jowell, J.L., Judicial Review of Admin­istrative Action, (5th Ed. 1995), pp. 417, 426 [para. 30].

Ferland, Denis, and Emery, Benoît, Précis de procédure civile du Québec (3rd Ed. 1997), vol. 1, pp. 162, 163 [para. 117].

Forsyth, Christopher, Wednesbury Protec­tion of Substantive Legitimate Expecta­tions, [1997] Pub. L. 375, generally [para. 23].

Gendreau, Paul-Arthur, et al., L'in­jonction (1998), pp. 194, 195 [para. 117].

MacLauchlan, H. Wade, Transforming Administrative Law: The Didactic Role of the Supreme Court of Canada (2001), 80 Can. Bar Rev. (sp. ed.) 281, p. 285 et seq. [para. 53].

McDonald, Patrick, Contradictory Govern­ment Action: Estoppel of Statutory Au­thorities (1979), 17 Osgoode Hall L.J. 160, pp. 180, 181 [para. 39].

Mullan, David J., Administrative Law (2001), pp. 108 [para. 54]; 380 [para. 23].

Mullan, David J., Canada Assistance Plan -Denying Legitimate Expectation a Fair Start? (1993), 7 Admin. L.R.(2d) 269, p. 290 [para. 39].

Mullan, David J., Confining the Reach of Legitimate Expectations, Case Comment: Sunshine Coast Parents for French v. School District No. 46 (Sunshine Coast) (1991), 44 Admin. L.R. 245, p. 248 [para. 29].

Roy, Claudine, La théorie de l'expectative légitime en droit administratif (1993), generally [para. 16].

Santé et services sociaux, Collection Lois et Règlements JUDICO (7th Ed. 1990-91), p. 133 [para. 96].

Schonberg, Soren J., Legitimate Expecta­tions in Administrative Law (2000), c. 4 [para. 22].

Stewart, Cameron, Substantive Unfairness: A New Species of Abuse of Power (2000), 28 Fed. L. Rev. 617, p. 634 [para. 23].

Wright, David, Rethinking the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations in Canadian Administrative Law (1997), 35 Osgoode Hall L.J. 139, generally [para. 28].

Counsel:

Patrice Claude, Anne-Marie Brunet and Jean-François Jobin, for the appellant;

Gilles Poulin and Elliot L. Bier, for the respondents Mount Sinai Hospital Center and Elliot L. Bier et al.;

No one appeared for the respondent Mai­monides Hospital Geriatric Centre.

Solicitors of Record:

Bernard, Roy & Associés, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Adessky Poulin, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondents Mount Sinai Hospital Center and Elliot L. Bier et al.;

Mendelsohn, Rosentzveig, Shacter, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent Maimonides Hospital Geriatric Centre.

This appeal was heard on December 12, 2000, by McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastara­che and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on June 29, 2001, and the following reasons were filed:

Binnie, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 1 to 69;

Bastarache, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, Gon­thier, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., con­curring) - see paragraphs 70 to 118.