R. v. Medix Holdings Ltd. Date:, 2016 BCPC 52

Citation: R. v. Medix Holdings Ltd. Date: 20160126 2016 BCPC 0052 File No: AH51041251-1 Registry: Victoria IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Traffic Court REGINA v. MEDIX HOLDINGS LTD. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE JUDICIAL JUSTICE H. W. GORDON Appearing for the Crown: Sgt. Glenn Vermette Appearing for the Accused: Lyall Jordan Place of Hearing: Victoria , B.C. Dates of Hearing: June 17, December 1, 2015

Date of Judgment: January 26, 2016 Introduction [ 1 ] This is a tale of an entrepreneur who is alleged to have leaped ahead of the proper authorizations to carry on its proposed enterprise. [ 2 ] Medix Holdings Ltd. is charged under section 57(2)(

a) of the Passenger Transportation Act with operating without a licence or permit. Its operating mind is Lyall Jordan, Chief of Operations.

Legislation [ 3 ] Passenger Transportation Act 1 In this Act : "commercial passenger vehicle" means a motor vehicle operated on a highway by or on behalf of a person who charges or collects compensation for the transportation of passengers in that motor vehicle; "compensation" includes a rate, remuneration or reward of any kind paid, payable or promised, or received or demanded, directly or indirectly; "general authorization", when used in relation to a motor vehicle, means an authorization to operate the motor vehicle as a general passenger vehicle; "general authorization vehicle identifier" means the passenger transportation licence number that is assigned in respect of a motor vehicle in respect of which a licence that includes a general authorization has been issued; "general passenger vehicle" means a commercial passenger vehicle when it is not operated as an inter-city bus or as a passenger directed vehicle; "licence" means a licence issued under section 25 (1) or 29 (1); "operate", when used in relation to a motor vehicle, includes the driving or managing of the motor vehicle; "passenger directed vehicle" means a commercial passenger vehicle if that vehicle (

a) can accommodate a driver and not more than the number of passengers prescribed by the regulations, and (

b) is operated to and from locations determined by the passenger or group of passengers or by a person acting on behalf of the passenger or group of passengers, and includes or excludes any commercial passenger vehicle or type of commercial passenger vehicles prescribed by regulation; "type", when used in relation to commercial passenger vehicles, means (

a) general passenger vehicles, (

b) inter-city buses, or (

c) passenger directed vehicles. Offence 57(2) A person commits an offence who (

a) operates a motor vehicle as a type of commercial passenger vehicle without holding (

i) a valid licence, issued in respect of that motor vehicle, that authorizes that operation, or (ii) a valid temporary operating permit issued in respect of that motor vehicle. Facts [ 4 ] The facts are not disputed by either party, except the intention of Medix to issue an invoice to a patient it transported and which resulted in this charge. [ 5 ] Medix wants to enter into a patient transfer service on Vancouver Island.

It owns and operates several vehicles that I understand were former ambulances operated by the BC Emergency and Health Services Commission. [ 6 ] As of April 2014, it had not received the required licence or permit to operate such an enterprise for compensation. [ 7 ] Medix has been providing voluntary first aid services at various charitable events on Vancouver Island, has apparently performed contract work transporting deceased for a funeral home and has been under contract with the coroner’s service.

[ 8 ] Close to midnight on April 10, 2014, Medix received a call from someone at Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria asking if it would provide a stretcher transfer for a 91 year old patient being discharged from the Emergency Department. Apparently he could not be transferred in the vehicle of his son who was accompanying him. [ 9 ] The transfer was for a distance of 2 kilometres, less than a dozen blocks. [ 10 ] Mr.

Jordan and another employee attended, picked up the patient, performed a limited examination, including vital signs, skin and eye test and recorded this on a Medix Crew Report. [ 11 ] Also recorded on the Crew report was the patient’s name, date of birth, MSP number and an email address in the box “Bill To”. [ 12 ] In the field “Bill To”, there are 16 choices and the first, “Patient”, was marked. [ 13 ] On April 12, 2014, Medix sent an invoice for $100 plus 5% GST to the patient at the email address on the Crew report. [ 14 ] On April 16, 2014, Mr.

Jordan had a planned meeting with a Supervisor of the local Integrated Road Safety Unit on some other matter. Sgt. Vermette of the Victoria Police Department asked to join the meeting. [ 15 ] After the discussion that prompted the meeting initially, Sgt. Vermette began a discussion about ongoing issues with Medix, including the matter that resulted in this charge. [ 16 ] Medix employees and former employees had raised concerns with the Victoria Police Department that prompted an investigation. [ 17 ] In addition, Sgt.

Vermette had become aware that Medix had transported a patient from Royal Jubilee Hospital and the officer knew that Medix did not have licence or permit to carry out such an enterprise. [ 18 ] Following that meeting, Sgt. Vermette conducted a further investigation of the transfer, speaking to nursing and security staff at the hospital as well as the patient’s son. [ 19 ] From that investigation, Sgt. Vermette became aware that the patient had been billed for the transfer service by way of an invoice emailed to the email address provided. [ 20 ] Sgt. Vermette then met with Mr. Jordan on April 16, 2014.

He advised Mr. Jordan of what he had learned. Mr. Jordan’s response was that the billing was in error. Medix had made the transfer as a public relations gesture, particularly for veterans, which the patient apparently was. [ 21 ] The patient’s son then received an email later that day from Mr. Jordan, advising that he wanted to discuss an urgent matter with him. [ 22 ] When the son contacted Mr. Jordan, he explained to the son that the billing was in error, as his father was a veteran and Medix provides its services to veterans free of charge.

Medix cancelled the invoice. [ 23 ] At trial, the patient’s son gave evidence of his dealings with Mr. Jordan. [ 24 ] Subsequently to the meeting on April 16, 2014, Sgt. Vermette served Mr. Jordan with the Violation Ticket now in issue. [ 25 ] Mr. Jordan’s explanation is that the billing was all a mistake. He blamed it on the person in his office who prepares the billings, who was not called to corroborate this explanation. [ 26 ] I do not believe Mr.

Jordan that it was a mistake. [ 27 ] All of the evidence, including that evidence recited above, belie an intention not to bill the patient. [ 28 ] Three pieces of evidence which particularly belie that intention are

a) the Crew Report prepared by Mr. Jordan which includes a billing address, and a mark for billing the patient,

b) the invoice, and

c) the timing of the urgent email to the patient’s son immediately after Mr. Jordan’s second meeting with Sgt. Vermette. [ 29 ] As the parties made submissions on whether the vehicle that Medix used was an ambulance and whether this vehicle or service is exempt under

section 5 of the Passenger Transportation Act , I will briefly address that issue. [ 30 ] The vehicle registration shows a vehicle type as commercial and the body style as ambulance, but in my view that does not make it an ambulance. [ 31 ] In my view, in the context of the Passenger Transportation Act and the Emergency Health Services Act , this vehicle was not an “ambulance” within the meaning of the exemption provided by

section 5(

d) of the Passenger Transportation Regulation . On the evidence, this vehicle did not meet the use requirement of ambulance services, as defined, in the definition of ambulance [section 1 of the Emergency Health Services Act ]. Decision

[ 32 ] I therefore find Medix guilty of operating a type of commercial vehicle without a licence or permit contrary to section 57(2)(

a) of the Passenger Transportation Act . The parties may arrange with the Registry by February 5, 2016 to make submissions on the fine, otherwise it will be the ticketed amount of $1150. ______________________________________________ Judicial Justice H. W. Gordon