Stoffman et al. v. Vancouver General Hospital et al., (1990) 118 N.R. 241 (SCC)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka Gonthier and Cory, JJ.
• Citation: (1990), 118 N.R. 241 (SCC),52 BCLR (2d) 1,[1990] 3 SCR 483,2 CRR (2d) 215,[1990] ACS no 125,13 CHRR 337,[1991] 1 WWR 577,118 NR 241,1990 CanLII 62 (SCC),[1990] SCJ No 125 (QL),76 DLR (4th) 700,JE 91-11
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 06 December 1990

Stoffman v. Vancouver General Hosp. (1990), 118 N.R. 241 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

The Vancouver General Hospital and The Board of Trustees of the Vancouver General Hospital (appellants) v. Isaac Wilfred Stoffman, William Philip Goldman, Victor Hertzman, Leslie George Cohen, Charles Sutherland Rennie, Clayton Robinson, Thomas William Acheson, Sidney Evans, Jermaine Vincent White, Murray Edgar, Jacoba Van Norden, Charles Schom, Elmer Jones and John Jacob Zack (respondents) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General for Ontario and Attorney General of British Columbia (interveners)

(20795)

Indexed As: Stoffman et al. v. Vancouver General Hospital et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka Gonthier and Cory, JJ.

December 6, 1990.

Summary:

The Vancouver General Hospital, by Medical Staff Regulation 5.04, refused to renew the admitting privileges of doctors over the age of 65, unless it was shown they had "something unique to offer". The respondents, most of whom were general practitioners and all of whom were 65 or older, applied to set aside the Hospital Board's decision to terminate their admitting privileges and for a declaration that regulation 5.04 violated, inter alia, s. 15 of the Charter.

The doctors, meanwhile, obtained an interim injunction, upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal, restraining the hospital from acting pending the application.

The trial judge, in a decision reported in [1986] 6 W.W.R. 23; 30 D.L.R. (4th) 700; 25 C.R.R. 16, allowed the application and held that the Charter applied to the hospital, that regulation 5.04 contravened s. 15 of the Charter and was not justified under s. 1. The hospital appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in [1988] 2 W.W.R. 708; 49 D.L.R.(4th) 727; 21 B.C.L.R.(2d) 165; 40 C.R.R. 236, dismissed the appeal. The hospital appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Wilson, L'Heureux-Dubé and Cory, JJ., dissenting in part, allowed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 995

Discrimination - Employment - Age - Retirement - The Vancouver General Hospital, through its medical Staff Regulation 5.04, adopted a policy of refusing to renew the admitting privileges of doctors over the age of 65, unless it was shown they had "something unique to offer" - The Supreme Court of Canada (La Forest, J., Dickson, C.J.C., Gonthier and Sopinka, JJ.), assuming that the Charter applied to the hospital, held that this policy clearly violated s. 15 of the Charter on the ground of age discrimination - Only the majority held, however, that the policy was justified under s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 45 to 72, 74.

Civil Rights - Topic 5658.1

Equality and protection of the law - Mandatory retirement - Hospitals - [See Civil Rights - Topic 995].

Civil Rights - Topic 8311

Charter - Application - Nongovernmental or private interference - Hospitals - The Vancouver General Hospital, by its Medical Staff Regulation 5.04 established a policy of refusing to renew the admitting privileges of doctors over the age of 65, unless it was shown they had "something unique to offer" - The Supreme Court of Canada (per La Forest, J., Dickson, C.J.C., Gonthier and Sopinka, JJ.), held that the Charter was inapplicable to the Vancouver General Hospital in establishing and administrating regulation 5.04 - See paragraphs 24 to 43, 74.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Charter - Application - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 995].

Hospitals - Topic 343

Operation - Doctors - Revocation of hospital privileges - Grounds - Age - Mandatory retirement - [See Civil Rights - Topic 995].

Cases Noticed:

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 175, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 20].

Blaikie et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec et al., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 312; 36 N.R. 120, dist. [para. 29].

Re McCutcheon and City of Toronto (1983), 147 D.L.R.(3d) 193 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

Klein and Dvorak v. Law Society of Upper Canada (1985), 8 O.A.C. 161; 16 D.L.R.(4th) 489 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [para. 46].

Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), 438 U.S. 265, refd to. [para. 46].

Roth v. United States (1957), 354 U.S. 476, refd to. [para. 46].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; [1989] 2 W.W.R. 289; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 47].

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 47].

United States of America v. Cotroni; United States of America v. El Zein, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469; 96 N.R. 321; 23 Q.A.C. 182, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Videoflicks et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 51].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Claudzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115; 69 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 103].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 422, refd to. [para. 126].

Statutes Noticed:

Board of Health in the City and County of St. John, an Act to Establish a, S.N.B. 1855, 18 Vict., c. 40, sect. 11 [para. 95].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 16, 20, 49-50, 53, 63, 110-111, 114, 116, 119, 129, 133, 136-138, 152-154, 157-159]; sect. 15(1) [paras. 1-2, 11, 13-16, 18, 21, 44-47, 49, 53, 63, 72, 74, 100-104, 106-107, 109, 126, 128-129, 131, 133, 135]; sect. 32(1) [paras 24, 26-27, 33, 40, 43, 45, 72, 76-77, 89, 92-93, 100, 133-135]; sect. 32(1)(b) [para. 12].

Charity Aid Act, R.S.O. 1877, c. 223, generally [para. 96].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 92(7) [para. 96]; sect. 133 [paras. 32-33, 91].

Emigrant Hospital at Quebec and of the Fever Hospital at Point Levi, an Act to appropriate certain sums of money for the support of the, Statutes of Lower Canada 1832, c. 15, generally [para. 95].

General Hospital Act, Consolidated Statutes of Manitoba 1880, c. 26, generally [para. 96].

Health Act, R.S.B.C. 1867, c. 91, generally [para. 95].

Hospital Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 176, sect. 1 [para. 39]; sect. 2 [para. 8]; sect. 2(1) [para. 40]; sect. 2(1)(a) [paras. 9, 81]; sect. 2(1)(b) [para. 82]; sect. 2(1)(c) [paras. 9, 12, 80, 82-83]; sect. 2(1)(d) [para. 83]; sect. 2(3) [paras. 9, 40, 83]; sect. 3, sect. 4, sect. 18 [para. 84]; sect. 30, sect. 37 [para. 80]; sect. 32 [paras. 8-9, 83, 85]; sect. 36 [para. 85]; sect. 36(1) [paras. 38, 83]; sect. 40, sect. 41 [para. 87]; sect. 41(1) [para. 37]; sect. 44 [paras. 38, 83]; sect. 44(1) [para. 83]; sect. 45 [para. 82].

Hospital Act Regulations, Reg. 289/73, sect. 2, sect. 3, sect. 4, sect. 5, sect. 8 [para. 85].

Hospitals Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. H-11, generally [para. 97].

Hospital Standards Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. H-10, generally [para. 97].

Human Rights Act, S.B.C. 1984, c. 22, generally [para. 2].

Insane Asylums Act, Consolidated Statutes of British Columbia 1888, c. 61, generally [para. 95].

Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux, an Act respecting the R.S.Q. 1977, c. M-19.2, generally [para. 97].

Prison and Asylum Inspection Act, R.S.O. 1877, c. 224, sect. 14 [para. 96].

Public Health in the Colony of British Columbia, an Ordinance for Promoting the, Consolidated Statutes of British Columbia 1877, c. 83, generally [para. 95].

Public Hospitals Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 410 [para. 97].

Title VI of the Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia 1900, c. 47, generally [para. 96].

Vancouver General Hospital Act, S.B.C. 1970, c. 55, sect. 5 [paras. 6, 39, 81, 101]; sect. 6 [paras. 6, 9, 82-83, 101, 133]; sect. 6(b) [para. 8]; sect. 11 [para. 82].

Vancouver General Hospital Bylaws, art. 2 [para. 42]; art. 2(1) [paras. 7, 81]; art. 3 [para. 81]; art. 4(2) [paras. 7, 81]; art. 6 [para. 86].

Vancouver General Hospital Regulations, Medical Staff Regulations, reg. 5.04 [paras. 10-20, 29-31, 33-34, 43-44, 46-48, 53-54, 56, 58-69, 71-72, 74, 90, 101-109, 124, 128-129, 131, 133, 135-136, 138-139, 152].

York Hospital, an Act to grant a sum of money to His Majesty in aid of, Statutes of Upper Canada, 11 Geo. 4, c. 31, generally [para. 95].

Authors and Works Noticed:

McDougal, Lasswell and Chen, Human Rights and World Public Order (1980), p. 781 [para. 47].

Counsel:

Brian A. Crane, Q.C., and Adam Whitcombe, for the appellants;

Peter A. Gall, Donald J. Jordan, Q.C., Robin Elliot and Susan P. Arnold, for the respondents;

Duff Friesen, Q.C., and Virginia McRae Lajeunesse, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Janet E. Minor and Robert E. Charney, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

E.R.A. Edwards, Q.C., and George H. Copley, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia.

Solicitors of Record:

Davis & Company, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellants;

Jordan & Gall, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondents;

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Ministry of Attorney General, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia.

This appeal was heard before Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada on May 19, 1989.

On December 6, 1990 the Supreme Court delivered the following opinions in both official languages:

La Forest, J. (Dickson, C.J.C., and Gonthier, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 73;

Sopinka, J. - see paragraph 74;

Wilson, J., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 75 to 132;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 133 to 152;

Cory, J., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 152 to 159.