Wade v. New Brunswick (Minister of Health), (2013) 411 N.B.R.(2d) 207 (CA)

• Judge: Larlee, Richard and Bell, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: September 19, 2013
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2013), 411 N.B.R.(2d) 207 (CA);2013 NBCA 55

Wade v. N.B. (2013), 411 N.B.R.(2d) 207 (CA);

    411 R.N.-B.(2e) 207; 1069 A.P.R. 207

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2013] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.010

Renvoi temp.: [2013] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.010

Dr. D. Anthony Wade (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick as represented by the Minister of Health (respondent)

(13-13-CA; 2013 NBCA 55)

Indexed As: Wade v. New Brunswick (Minister of Health)

Répertorié: Wade v. New Brunswick (Minister of Health)

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Larlee, Richard and Bell, JJ.A.

September 19, 2013.

Summary:

Résumé:

A doctor applied under rule 69.03 to extend the three month time limit for applying for judicial review of a provincial decision that found him guilty of overbilling.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a judgment reported (2013), 397 N.B.R.(2d) 35; 1028 A.P.R. 35, dismissed the application. The doctor appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 3342.1

Judicial review - General - Practice - Limitation period - Extension of - An audit of a doctor's billing practices determined that he over-billed the province - Three months after the expiry of the three month limitation period for applying for judicial review, the doctor applied under rule 69.03 to extend the time limit - The trial judge dismissed the application on the ground that there were no "extraordinary circumstances" warranting the granting of an extension - The doctor was represented by counsel, failed to submit required documentation, and had all the information and means to act within the limitation period - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the doctor's appeal - The doctor had to show exceptional circumstances to explain the failure to apply for judicial review within the three month time period - The court stated that "the reviewing judge properly concluded she had no evidence before her of exceptional circumstances" - Further, "the application before the reviewing judge was ... bereft of any merit. Regardless, because judicial review remedies are discretionary, deference is owed to the reviewing judge in such circumstances".

Droit administratif - Cote 3342.1

Révision judiciaire - Procédure - Délai de prescription - Prolongation du délai - [Voir Administrative Law - Topic 3342.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick et al. v. LeBlanc et al. (2012), 398 N.B.R.(2d) 83; 1032 A.P.R. 83; 2013 NBCA 9, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Pêcheries Belle-Île Fisheries ltée et al. (2013), 405 N.B.R.(2d) 212; 1050 A.P.R. 212; 2013 NBCA 37, refd to. [para. 19].

Beaverbrook Art Gallery v. Beaverbrook Canadian Foundation (2013), 403 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 1045 A.P.R. 161; 2013 NBCA 17, refd to. [para. 19].

Parker v. New Brunswick (Minister of Social Development) et al. (2010), 364 N.B.R.(2d) 352; 937 A.P.R. 352; 2010 NBCA 76, refd to. [para. 19].

Beaverbrook Canadian Foundation v. Beaverbrook Art Gallery (2006), 302 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 784 A.P.R. 161; 2006 NBCA 75, refd to. [para. 19].

British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371; 313 N.R. 84; 189 B.C.A.C. 161; 309 W.A.C. 161; 2003 SCC 71, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Carosella (N.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80; 207 N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 19].

Elsom v. Elsom, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1367; 96 N.R. 165, refd to. [para. 19].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Matthew R. Letson, for the appellant;

Richard A. Williams, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 12, 2013, before Larlee, Richard and Bell, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.

On September 19, 2013, Bell, J.A., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Court of Appeal.