Case information

Courts — Judicial review — Jurisdiction — For the purposes of a Strickland v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] 2 S.C.R. 713 analysis, what constitutes exceptional circumstances and what is the proper role of appellate courts in Canada in reviewing whether the facts justify the intervention by a superior court? — Can it be assumed that breaches of procedural fairness will always be cured by de novo hearings? — Does allowing de novo proceedings involving the same facts, evidence and witnesses to run concurrently undermine their very purpose? — When should appellate courts in Canada take into account significant events that occurred after the hearing or decision under review? — The Regional Health Services Act, SS 2002, RRS, c. R 8.2, s. 45 (rep) — Practioner Staff Appeals Regulations, c. R 8.2 Reg 5, s. 8 (1).

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant, Dr. Satyam Patel, is an orthopaedic surgeon and a staff member of the Saskatchewan Health Authority (formerly the Regina Qu’Appelle Regional Health Authority (RQRHA)). He worked as a surgeon in Regina starting in March 2010. Relying on the opinion of an independent orthopedic surgeon, the respondent Dr. George Carson, Senior Medical Officer of the Health Authority, provided written notice to Dr. Patel in June 2016 advising him of the immediate suspension of his surgical privileges. In July 2016, the respondent, the RQRHA Board confirmed the immediate suspension of Dr. Patel’s surgical privileges in a written decision; the Board then referred the matter to the respondent, the Discipline Committee. Dr. Patel then filed a notice to appeal with the Practitioner Staff Appeals Tribunal. In July 2017, the hearing date of the appeal was adjourned sine die and Dr. Patel filed an originating notice of application for judicial review before the Court of Queen’s Bench seeking: (a) an order quashing the Senior Medical Officer’s suspension decision, (b) an order quashing the Board’s decision to uphold suspension, (c) a stay of the proceedings before the Discipline Committee, and (d) an order restoring Dr. Patel’s hospital privileges. In response, the Senior Medical Officer brought an application to strike Dr. Patel’s application for a judicial review. The Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan dismissed the application for a judicial review and allowed the application to strike the application for a judicial review. The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan dismissed the appeal.