Hospital privileges were suspended in 2016 after concerns were raised
The Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench recently ruled that the cumulative history of the conduct of an orthopedic surgeon in Regina, Saskatchewan in the course of prosecuting his claims placed him squarely within the rubric of advancing vexatious proceedings.
The doctor, who was the respondent in this case, had his surgical privileges suspended in 2016 after concerns about him were raised in 2014.
The Saskatchewan Health Authority (SHA) confirmed the suspension and referred the matter to a discipline committee. The doctor filed a notice of appeal with the Practitioner Staff Appeals Tribunal (PSAT) and also proceeded with the hearing before the discipline committee.
In 2017, the doctor took the matter to the court via a judicial review application. He has since been involved in various proceedings before administrative tribunals and courts. Last August, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upheld a vexatious litigant order against him.
The present matter involved the SHA’s application under r. 11-28 of The King’s Bench Rules of Saskatchewan. The SHA sought an order to declare the doctor a vexatious litigant.
Conduct shows vexatiousness: court
In Saskatchewan Health Authority v Patel, 2023 SKKB 239 (CanLII), the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench prohibited the commencement, without leave of a judge of this court, of further proceedings related to, grounded in, or traceable to the dispute about the SHA’s suspension of the doctor’s surgical privileges, regardless of whether the SHA was named as a party.
If the doctor wanted to seek the required leave, he should give notice to the parties he was planning to name in the proceedings so that they could make representations to the court at the leave application, the court said.
The court considered the following to reach its conclusion. First, the court noted that the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal already declared the doctor a vexatious litigant.
Second, the court found that the doctor commenced dozens of proceedings before various tribunals and courts for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights, as highlighted by the case of Sheppard v Sheppard, 2003 SKQB 461.
Assuming that the doctor’s overarching objective was to reacquire his hospital privileges so that he could return to performing orthopedic surgeries, the court asked why he had not taken his case back to the PSAT instead of persisting with his unsuccessful court proceedings.
Third, the court considered the entire history of the matter and the number of proceedings that the doctor already initiated. The doctor rehashed overlapping and previously determined issues, named almost anyone with potential connections to his suspension, and repeatedly failed to bring meritorious actions, the court said.
The doctor was subject to several cost orders amounting to almost $50,000, while the SHA had never been ordered to pay costs, the court noted. This pattern of cost awards should have made him realize that his perspective on the legal accountability of others was often misguided, the court added.
Fourth, the court found that the doctor was rolling matters forward from one proceeding to another. The doctor tried numerous times to remove the SHA’s counsel, filed a complaint with the Law Society of Saskatchewan, and challenged the ability of judges to fairly adjudicate his matters, the court noted. He also submitted multiple access-to-information requests.
The court concluded, based on ample support, that the doctor’s conduct throughout the proceedings was illustrative of vexatiousness.
