DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 586/03
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
(Divisional Court)
IN THE MATTER OF the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.J.1, as amended;
AND IN THE MATTER OF the Public Hospitals Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.P. 40, as amended
RE: ONTARIO COUNCIL OF HOSPITAL UNIONS, ONTARIO HEALTH COALITION and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION Applicants
- and -
TONY CLEMENT, MINISTER OF HEALTH AND LONG-TERM CARE FOR THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO Respondents
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Gravely
COUNSEL: C. Michael Mitchell, Steven Shrybman & Steven Barrett, for the applicants
Jack Coop & Leslie McIntosh, for the respondents
F.J.C. Newbould, Q.C. & Ron Foerster, for William Osler Health Centre
Andrew J. Lenz, for Royal Ottawa Health Care Group
Marcus Klee, for Toronto Grace Hospital
HEARD at Toronto: September 30, 2003
E N D O R S E M E N T
William Osler Health Care Centre and Royal Ottawa Health Care Group to be added as parties to application.
It is common ground that the application must be adjourned to allow for filing of material and other preparation.
The contentious issue is whether the applicants are entitled to an order pending the adjournment restraining the Minister of Health from approving any plans for involvement of for-profit corporations in the design or operation of William Osler Health Care Centre or Royal Ottawa Health Care Group.
The rules for making such an order are those for the granting of injunctive relief. I do not propose to canvass all the points mentioned in argument. They may be dealt with at the hearing of the motion. For the following reasons I decline to make the order sought:
- Both sides allege that the entire issue will be won or lost by the making or failure to make the interim order. The applicants must show, then, not just a serious issue to be tried but also a strong prima facie case. I am not satisfied on the evidence presented by the applicants that the P 3 projects will likely be in breach of the Public Hospitals Act or the Regulations. The Minister retains control under the Act and in the public interest may revoke approvals under sec. 4(5).
Absent any contravention of the statute this Court has no right to become involved in these Government decisions.
- The applicants have not shown on this evidence the likelihood of irreparable harm to them or to members of the public if the interim order is not made. The implementation of the scheme may or may not adversely affect union members. Should the scheme be delayed, harm according to the evidence is more likely to accrue to the communities and hospitals depending on the implementation of the scheme in order to deliver health services to their constituents.
The application is adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Registar.
I do not propose to set up a timetable or order production. I assume counsel will cooperate to deal with all this as expeditiously as possible.
Costs are reserved to the judge hearing the motion.
”Gravely J.”
DATE: 20031002