Pacific Centre for Reproductive Medicine v. Medical Services Commission, 2015 BCSC 53
| Judge | Affleck, J. |
| Court | Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada) |
| Case Date | January 16, 2015 |
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Citations | 2015 BCSC 53;[2015] B.C.T.C. Uned. 53 (SC);[2015] B.C.T.C. Uned. 53 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
2 practice notes
-
Pacific Centre for Reproductive Medicine v. Medical Services Commission, 2019 BCCA 315
...denial of the second application was the subject of a petition for judicial review (not the subject of this appeal). In reasons indexed as 2015 BCSC 53, the chambers judge noted the Commission’s stated willingness to reconsider its decision if PCRM provided additional information regarding ......
-
Pacific Centre for Reproductive Medicine v. Medical Services Commission, 2018 BCSC 1543
...prevents PCRM from billing the Medical Services Plan (“MSP”) for those services. [2] In reasons dated January 16, 2015 indexed at 2015 BCSC 53 I described the process PCRM had undertaken to that date to seek a certificate of approval. The hearing of the petition then before this Court was a......
2 cases
-
Pacific Centre for Reproductive Medicine v. Medical Services Commission, 2019 BCCA 315
...denial of the second application was the subject of a petition for judicial review (not the subject of this appeal). In reasons indexed as 2015 BCSC 53, the chambers judge noted the Commission’s stated willingness to reconsider its decision if PCRM provided additional information regarding ......
-
Pacific Centre for Reproductive Medicine v. Medical Services Commission, 2018 BCSC 1543
...prevents PCRM from billing the Medical Services Plan (“MSP”) for those services. [2] In reasons dated January 16, 2015 indexed at 2015 BCSC 53 I described the process PCRM had undertaken to that date to seek a certificate of approval. The hearing of the petition then before this Court was a......