Home About the Appeal Board Contact Us Search Links
HAB Banner





 

Judicial Review Decisions

A party dissatisfied with a decision or order of the Hospital Appeal Board may apply to the Supreme Court for a judicial review of the decision pursuant to the Judicial Review Procedure Act R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241 and sections 57 and 58 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, S.B.C., 2004 c. 45.

Below are brief summaries, drafted by HAB staff, of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions reviewing HAB decisions. Copies of the full decisions can be obtained through the Court Registry, the HAB Office, Quicklaw or any law library.

 

Colin A. Samson v. The Sisters of Charity of the Immaculate Conception and St. Vincent’s Hospital

Decision Date: February 6, 1984

Court:  B.C.S.C., MacDonald, J. 

Cite: [1984] B.C.J. No. 2857  Vancouver Registry No. A833261

A doctor filed an application to quash the decision of the Appeal Board which dismissed his appeal of the hospital’s refusal to renew his admitting privileges.  The petition was based on the grounds that the Appeal Board’s decision was a nullity because of the failure of the hospital to comply with specific procedures and time limits set out in the hospital by-laws and regulations or in the alternative, that the Appeal Board breached the rules of natural justice in reaching its decision. 

The Court held that the defects in the procedure before the hospital were not such as to render then a nullity and were cured by the de novo proceedings before the Appeal Board which were properly conducted.  The petition was dismissed with costs.

 

Colin A. Samson v. The Sisters of Charity of the Immaculate Conception and St. Vincent’s Hospital                          

Decision Date:      July 2, 1985

Court:  B.C.C.A., Nemetz C.J.B.C., Craig and Macfarlane JJ.A..

 Cite: [1985] B.C.J. NO. 2021   Vancouver Registry NoCA002004

A doctor appealed to the Court of Appeal from the Supreme Court judgment dismissing his application for judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Board refusing to grant him admitting privileges to a hospital.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and confirmed that the Appeal Board had jurisdiction, that it did not decide that the appellant was generally incompetent or unfit to practice medicine generally and thereby encroach upon the jurisdiction of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, but rather it decided that he was not to be granted admitting privileges at a particular hospital due to his lack of sound judgment and indecisiveness. The Court also held that the Appeal Board did not err in not admitting certain evidence and that its exclusion did not amount to a miscarriage of justice.  The Court also found that there was no evidence of bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Appeal Board or the investigating doctors.

 

Dr. Sylvia Hicks v. West Coast General Hospital         

Decision Date: January 21, 1993      

Court: B.C.S.C., MacKenzie, J.

Cite:  [1993] B.C.J. No. 107  Vancouver Registry No. A921720

 A doctor filed a petition for judicial review of the Appeal Board decision upholding the hospital’s decision to deny her admitting privileges to the hospital on the grounds that she lacked interpersonal skills.  The majority found that it is a hospital board’s duty in selecting doctors for its medical staff to have regard to the ‘whole person’, including character and personality, and to consider what was best for that individual hospital.  The majority found that the hospital board “arrived at their judgment honestly and fairly” and, having acted correctly, the Appeal Board had no reason to reverse the hospital’s decision.  (The dissenting member felt the appellant should be reinstated with a period of probation to give her an opportunity to rectify any errors in communications the hospital saw and for the hospital to correct its procedures.)

 The Court allowed the petition and the matter was remitted back to the Appeal Board for rehearing. The Court found that the Appeal Board had applied the wrong test by relying on the subjective reasoning of the hospital board below, which resulted in a fundamental jurisdictional error.  The Court held that the Appeal Board was required to exercise its own judgment independent of the hospital board’s decision below and accordingly the petition was granted and the decision of the Appeal Board quashed, with costs to the petitioner.

 

Provincial Health Services Authority v. Dr. Andrew Campbell

Decision Date: December 11, 2020

Court: B.C.S.C., Weatherill, G.C.

Cite: 2020 BCSC 2073

The Provincial Health Services Authority (“PHSA”) sought judicial review of the decision of the Hospital Appeal Board (“HAB”) dated August 20, 2020 in respect of the order that Dr. Andrew Campbell be reinstated at the British Columbia Children’s Hospital (“BCCH”). PHSA brought an application for an interim order staying the HAB’s decision until the final disposition of the judicial review. The Court determined that there was a serious issue to be tried, that there was compelling evidence of irreparable harm if the stay was not granted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the stay being granted. The Court granted the PHSA’s application for a stay of the decision.

 

Provincial Health Services Authority v. Dr. Andrew Campbell

Decision Date: April 30, 2021

Court: B.C.S.C., Kent, J.

Cite: 2021 BCSC 823

The Provincial Health Services Authority (“PHSA”) sought judicial review of the decision of the Hospital Appeal Board (“HAB”) dated August 20, 2020 that held that Dr. Andrew Campbell’s privileges had been constructively revoked by the failure of the British Columbia Children’s Hospital (“BCCH”) to allocate him cases, and that ordered that BCCH “restore meaningful access” to Dr. Campbell’s privileges by providing “fair and equitable case allocation”.

The Court held that the applicable standard of review was one of patent unreasonableness and found that there was nothing patently unreasonable about the HAB's interpretation of Dr. Campbell's privileges or its finding that the HAB had jurisdiction to grant a remedy regarding case allocation. The Court further found that there was nothing patently unreasonable about the way the HAB exercised its remedial discretion.

The Court dismissed the petition with costs.

 

topcopyrightdisclaimerprivacyfeedback