Ottawa-Carleton Dialysis Services et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Health) et al., (1996) 93 O.A.C. 82 (DC)

• Judge: Chadwick, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: August 06, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1996), 93 O.A.C. 82 (DC)

Ottawa-Carleton Dialysis v. Ont. (1996), 93 O.A.C. 82 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Ottawa-Carleton Dialysis Services and Eastern Ontario Dialysis Services (applicants) v. The Minister of Health of the Province of Ontario, The Director of Independent Health Facilities of the Province of Ontario and The Ministry of Health of the Province of Ontario (respondents)

(1131/96)

Indexed As: Ottawa-Carleton Dialysis Services et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Health) et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Divisional Court

Chadwick, J.

August 6, 1996.

Summary:

The Minister of Health issued a request for proposal (RFP) for a dialysis services centre in Eastern Ontario under the Independent Health Facilities Act. The Eastern Ontario Dialysis Services and Ottawa-Carleton Dialysis Services (the applicants) responded to the RFP, were selected as short-list bid­ders and were invited to begin negotiations with the Ministry. The Minister cancelled the RFP and issued a new RFP. The applicants applied for certiorari to quash the cancella­tion of the first RFP, mandamus directing the Ministry to negotiate in good faith with the applicants, certiorari to quash the second RFP and prohibition to prevent the Minister from issuing a license on the second RFP.

The Ontario Divisional Court, per Chad­wick, J., quashed the cancellation of the first RFP and ordered the Ministry to negotiate with the applicants. The court declined to quash the second RFP on condition that the Ministry suspended its operation during negotiations with the applicants.

Administrative Law - Topic 1010

Classification of power or function - General principles - Statutory powers - The Minister of Health issued a request for proposal (RFP) for a dialysis services centre under the Independent Health Facil­ities Act - The applicant bidders were invited to negotiate - The applicants were affiliated with an American company whose practices were suspect - The Min­ister was hounded by the opposition and press - The Minister cancelled the RFP and issued a new RFP designed to exclude the applicants - The Ontario Divisional Court, per Chadwick, J., held that the Minister was exercising his statutory powers under the Act - The Minister's decision was based upon extraneous grounds rather than proper considerations - The Ministry acted arbitrarily and in bad faith - The applicants were not accorded fairness - The court quashed the cancella­tion of the first RFP and ordered the Min­istry to negotiate with the applicants.

Administrative Law - Topic 2264

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - When required - [See Administrative Law - Topic 1010 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3214

Judicial review - General - Remedies - [See Administrative Law - Topic 1010 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 5013

Judicial review - Certiorari - Grounds for granting certiorari - Disregard of a statute - [See Administrative Law - Topic 1010 ].

Crown - Topic 1012

Contracts with Crown - General principles - Tenders - Duty of Crown - [See Ad­ministrative Law - Topic 1010 ].

Health - Topic 1061

Services - Health care facilities - [See Administrative Law - Topic 1010 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hamilton-Wentworth (Regional Munici­pality) v. Ontario (Minister of Transpor­tation) (1991), 46 O.A.C. 246; 2 O.R.(3d) 716 (Div. Ct.), dist. [para. 53].

Toronto Birth Centre Inc. v. Ontario (Min­ister of Health) (1996), 92 O.A.C. 74 (Div. Ct.), dist. [para. 53].

R. v. Liverpool Corp., [1972] 2 Q.B. 299; [1972] 2 All E.R. 589; [1972] 2 W.L.R. 1262 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Homex Realty and Development Co. v. Wyoming (Village), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1011; 33 N.R. 475; 116 D.L.R.(3d) 1; 13 M.P.L.R. 234, refd to. [para. 55].

Doctors Hospital v. Ontario (Minister of Health) (1976), 12 O.R.(2d) 164; 1 C.P.C. 232; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 220 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 55].

Multi-Malls Inc. v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation and Communications) (1976), 14 O.R.(2d) 49; 73 D.L.R.(3d) 18 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Metropolitan General Hospital v. Ontario (Minister of Health) (1979), 25 O.R.(2d) 699 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

Padfield et al. v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food et al., [1968] A.C. 997 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 67].

Congreve v. Home Office, [1976] 2 W.L.R. 291 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 67].

Webb v. Ontario Housing Corp. (1978), 22 O.R.(2d) 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].

Prysiaznuk v. Hamilton-Wentworth (Regional Municipality) (1985), 10 O.A.C. 208; 51 O.R.(2d) 339 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 81].

Bernardi v. Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Co., [1979] I.L.R. 1-1143 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].

Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minis­ter of Civil Service, [1984] 3 All E.R. 935; 62 N.R. 336 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 84].

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; 75 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 84].

Statutes Noticed:

Independent Health Facilities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I-3, sect. 5 [para. 47]; sect. 9 [para. 42].

Ministry of Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-26, sect. 6(1) [para. 50].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (1983), vol. IA, p. 1048 [para. 77].

Counsel:

David W. Scott, Q.C., Peter K. Doody and David Sheriff-Scott, for the applicants;

Leslie M. McIntosh, for the respondents.

This application was heard by Chad­wick, J., of the Ontario Divisional Court, who released the following decision on August 6, 1996.