SASKATCHEWAN HEALTH AUTHORITY v. CHARLES LAMB, 2023 SKKB 239

KING’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2023 SKKB 239 Date: 20 23 11 03 Docket: QBG-RG-02144-2020 Judicial Centre: Regina BETWEEN: SASKATCHEWAN HEALTH AUTHORITY and CHARLES LAMB PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS - and - SATYAM PATEL RESPONDENT Counsel: Ryan Kitzul and Jeffery Deagle for the plaintiff/applicant, Saskatchewan Health Authority E.F. Anthony Merchant, K.C. for the respondent Paul Harte for the applicant, Charles Lamb JUDGMENT LAYH J. November 3, 202 3 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Since 2016, Dr.

Patel, an orthopedic surgeon in Regina, Saskatchewan, has shown a remarkable inclination to engage in court proceedings, sometimes self-represented and sometimes represented by one or more lawyers. The main issue before me is whether Dr. Patel’s proceedings have reached the threshold of being vexatious under Rule 11-28 of The King’s Bench Rules . [ 2 ] If I decide Dr. Patel’s proceedings meet the threshold of vexatiousness, I must fashion a suitable order that will oblige Dr. Patel to seek judicial approval before he can bring further proceedings in this Court. If I decide to the contrary, Dr.

Patel will be unrestricted in bringing further proceedings to the court, subject only to the application of the ordinary King’s Bench Rules. [ 3 ] Given Rule 11-28 and the applicable case law, as applied to the facts of Dr. Patel’s proceeding in this Court (and other courts, tribunals, councils, and law societies), I have decided that any plans Dr. Patel has to initiate future proceedings in the Court of King’s Bench must be bridled. His proceedings in this Court has taken an unacceptable measure of judicial and court resources.

He has caused several private persons and public institutions tremendous expense and needless waste of time. [ 4 ] Ironically, Dr. Patel’s preoccupation with ill-conceived court proceedings have also surely taken an immense amount of his time and resources. Dr.

Patel may choose to see the consequences of this decision as unduly restricting his access to the courts or he may more appropriately see this decision as a safeguard against further ill-fated investments in proceedings that lack sufficient merit to proceed. [ 5 ] This hearing occurred over two days (September 6 and 7, 2023) and had before it three motions, which counsel agreed should be heard in the following sequence: (

a) Dr. Patel’s application seeking an order for lifting of implied undertakings; (

b) Dr. Patel’s Rule 7-9 of The King’s Bench Rules application seeking an order striking Saskatchewan Health Authority’s [SHA] application as an abuse of process (pursuant to an amended application to strike); and (

c) SHA’s Rule 11-28 of The King’s Bench Rules application seeking an order declaring Dr. Patel a vexatious litigant. [ 6 ] After argument was received respecting the first application, I gave an oral decision dismissing Dr. Patel’s

application but with the proviso that what was read into court might be slightly altered in final written fiat. That formal fiat has now been issued. [ 7 ] Respecting Dr. Patel’s second application, after hearing argument, I denied this application with brief written reasons to follow in a fiat. That formal fiat has now also been issued. BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUD [ 8 ] Dr.

Patel’s history of losing his surgical privileges and the consequential involvement of various administrative tribunals and courts has been repeated in many decisions of this Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. [ 9 ] In March 2014, Dr. George Carson became the Senior Medical Officer (SMO) of the former Regina Qu’Appelle Regional Health Authority [RQRHA] (later, in 2017, to be amalgamated with 11 other health authorities into the SHA). Pursuant to bylaws of the RQRHA, Dr. Carson was responsible to address quality of care concerns and behavioural issues respecting members of the practitioner staff.

Beginning in 2014, concerns were raised respecting Dr. Patel. After following certain procedures over several months, Dr. Carson imposed an immediate suspension of Dr. Patel’s surgical privileges on June 11, 2016. [ 10 ] On July 7, 2016, the RQRHA Board confirmed Dr. Patel’s suspension and referred the matter to a discipline committee for a hearing. A week later, Dr. Patel filed a notice of appeal from that decision with the Practitioner Staff Appeals Tribunal [PSAT]. Instead of advancing the appeal from the Board’s decision, Dr.

Patel proceeded with the hearing before the five-person discipline committee that was constituted pursuant to s. 76 of the bylaws [Discipline Committee] . Its hearing began November 24, 2016 with its legal counsel, Evert Van Olst, Q.C. The hearing continued until November 2017. [ 11 ] On July 31, 2017, after 24 days of hearings before the Discipline Committee, Dr. Patel brought an originating application for judicial review in the court file QBG-RG-01943-2017. Thus began a long history of Dr. Patel’s engagement with the Saskatchewan courts, later detailed in this decsion.

DISTILLING THE ISSUES [ 12 ] Counsel for the parties raised several issues, which I have sorted into three preliminary issues followed by five substantial issues. First, three prelimary issues are necessary to clarify the analysis: (

a) The Court of Appeal has previously declared Dr. Patel a vexatious litigant; (

b) Certain of Dr. Patel’s arguments must be dismissed out of hand; and (

c) Bringing proceedings “for purpose other than the assertion of legitimate rights” Sheppard v Sheppard , 2003 SKQB 461 , 243 Sask R 79 [ Sheppard ]. [ 13 ] After these preliminary issues, the substantial issues are as follows: (

d) A consideration of the “whole history of the matter” and “bringing actions to determine an issue which has already been determined” – Sheppard ; (

e) Whether Dr. Patel “rolls matters forward” from one proceeding to another – Sheppard ; (

f) Dr. Patel’s conduct during the within application; (

g) Dr. Patel’s complaints to Law Societies; (

h) Dr. Patel’s statements respecting judges of the Saskatchewan courts; and (

i) Dr. Patel’s freedom of information requests. (

a) The Court of Appeal Has Declared Dr. Patel a Vexatious Litigant [ 14 ] Two years ago, the SHA and Dr. Patel argued, respectively, for and against a vexatious litigant declaration in the Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan Health Authority v Patel , 2021 SKCA 140 [ Patel 2021 SKCA ], Justice Kalmakoff primarily considered Dr. Patel’s engagement in that court and, obviously, only concerning proceedings to the date of the hearing – August 25, 2021 – a full two years before the hearing before me in the Court of King’s Bench. In a 136-paragraph, detailed

summary of Dr. Patel’s appeal applications and a thorough review of the law (both requiring significant judicial resources), Justice Kalmakoff concluded: [134] In the final analysis, when all the relevant factors are weighed and considered, I am persuaded that Dr. Patel has taken himself across the line. He has habitually, persistently, and without reasonable cause commenced and conducted vexatious proceedings in this Court.

He has engaged in a pattern of conduct that amounts to an abuse of this Court’s process and, as such, an order under Rule 46.2(1) [ The Court of Appeal Rules ] is warranted. [135] Even where Dr. Patel has commenced a proceeding of arguable merit, his conduct during the course of the proceeding has inevitably devolved into that which can be described as vexatious.

He has repeatedly complicated proceedings by bringing meritless and improper applications, repeatedly attempted to file inappropriate fresh evidence, repeatedly sought relief that cannot be granted, and repeatedly accused opposing counsel, members of the Panel, judges, and court officials of improper conduct in the absence of any evidence to support such accusations. These repeated and unmeritorious actions have caused delay, increased the level of conflict and, undoubtedly, added substantially to the costs incurred by SHA in these matters. In addition to that, Dr.

Patel’s actions in this court have caused the needless expenditure of judicial resources that would otherwise have been available to meet the needs of other litigants. In

light of all of that, I am satisfied that this case warrants an order under Rule 46.2(1). [15] Given the thorough analysis in Patel 2021 SKCA it would be an odd result if proceedings in an appellate courtwere vexatious but originating actions and applications in the trial court in the same jurisdiction were not. Notwithstanding this apparentlogic, I have assessed the SHA’s application independently of the factors considered by Justice Kalmakoff. Justice Kalmakoff wasguided by Rule 46.2(1) of The Court of Appeal Rules.

It provides that vexatious litigant orders may be made where a person “hashabitually, persistently, and without reasonable cause commenced frivolous or vexatious proceedings in the court.” Justice Kalmakoffprincipally relied upon the

interpretation of Rule 46.2(1) as found in Barth v Saskatchewan (Social Services), 2021 SKCA 41, [2021] 12WWR 460. [16] This court, in a similar way, is guided by Rule 11-28 of The King’s Bench Rules (unlike the Alberta courts thattake statutory instruction from the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2). Rule 11-28 reads as follows: 11-28(1) If, the Court is satisfied that any person has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatiouslegal proceedings against the same person or against different persons, the Court may order that the person shall not institute anyproceedings in the Court without leave of the Court.

(2) The Court may require that the local registrar at each judicial centre be notified of an order pursuant to this rule. [17] Consistently, the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench has looked to Justice Ball’s reference in Sheppard atpara 41 to Re Lang Michener and Fabian (1987), (ON SC), 37 DLR (4th) 685 (Ont H Ct

J) as providing certainindicators that warrant consideration in determining whether a party is acting vexatiously: [47] … (

a) The bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue which has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdictionconstitutes a vexatious proceeding; (

b) Where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person canreasonably expect to obtain relief, the action is vexatious; (

c) Vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other parties bymultifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights; (

d) It is a general characteristic of vexatious proceedings that grounds and issues raised tend to be rolled forward into subsequentactions and repeated and supplemented, often with actions brought against the lawyers who have acted for or against the litigant in earlierproceedings; (

e) In determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the court must look at the whole history of the matter and not just whether therewas originally a good cause of action; (

f) The failure of the person instituting the proceedings to pay the costs of unsuccessful proceedings is one factor to be considered indetermining whether proceedings are vexatious; (

g) The respondent’s conduct in persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions can be considered vexatious conductof legal proceedings. [18] I do not view these factors as exhaustive, but as illustrative of conduct that the court might consider in avexatious litigation application. (

b) Certain Arguments Must be Dismissed Out of Hand [19] Frankly, I found none or Dr. Patel’s arguments compelling. Indeed, certain arguments must be dismissed out ofhand. (

i) Lawyers Do Not Initiate Frivolous Proceedings [20] First, Dr. Patel’s counsel, Mr. Merchant, provided, in writing, the names of nine different lawyers who haverepresented Dr. Patel in his numerous excursions into various courts. Mr. Merchant suggested that because Dr. Patel has retained severallawyers to represent him, the resultant court applications or actions should not be seen as vexatious. This conclusion is suspect. Perhapsdifferent reasons might explain Dr. Patel’s apparent need to change counsel and engage numerous law firms. Nor has Dr. Patel invariablyretained legal counsel.

He has initiated and has been self-represented in several court proceedings. [21] Indeed, Dr. Patel, appearing on his own behalf in Patel v Saskatchewan Health Authority, 2023 SKCA 93 [Patel2023 SKCA], argued the same point. Chief Justice Richards first explained and then discounted Dr. Patel’s position: [29] That said, let me comment briefly on the various points made by Dr. Patel: (

a) Dr. Patel indicates that he has frequently been represented by counsel or that counsel have generally been somehowinvolved in his proceedings. Building on this, he emphasizes that lawyers have an obligation not to bring frivolous proceedings andattempts to use this fact to suggest that the proceedings he has brought therefore cannot have been frivolous. This is not a compellingpoint. To begin, counsel appear to have been less present or obvious in Dr. Patel’s proceedings than what I take him to suggest and theyhave often acted under a limited retainer. Further, as Kalmakoff J.A. found, “[e]ven where Dr.

Patel has commenced a proceeding ofarguable merit, his conduct during the course of the proceeding has inevitably devolved into that which can be described as vexatious”(at para 135). …

[ 22 ] The Court of Appeal released this decision on August 11, 2023, 26 days prior to this hearing. That Mr. Merchant persisted in pressing the same point in this hearing, notwithstanding its obvious lack of merit, is indicative of what Sheppard described as a “general characteristic of vexatious proceedings,” that “issues raised tend to be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated…” (at para. 47(d)). [ 23 ] Quite to the opposite of Mr. Merchant’s argument that many of Dr. Patel’s actions were initiated with legal assistance and therefore could not be seen as frivolous or vexatious, Dr.

Patel’s off-and-on engagement of legal counsel and his changing of counsel has led to confusion, both to the court and to counsel opposite. I have witnessed this result during the several months of court proceedings and case management meetings in this application alone. Often I have had to clarify whether Dr. Patel was self-represented on a particular application, or if Mr. Mellor was his counsel, or if Mr. Merchant was his counsel. The Court of Appeal has noted Dr.

Patel’s array of legal representation in Patel v Saskatchewan Health Authority, 2021 SKCA 115 : [28] During the course of the hearing of the 2018 appeal before the PSAT Panel, Dr. Patel engaged several lawyers for different purposes and at different stages of the proceedings. He conducted some of the proceedings, including cross-examining witnesses and preparing and filing applications, himself.

His lawyers, who generally advised the Panel that they were appearing on a “limited retainer” basis, conducted other portions of the proceedings and drafted and filed other applications. [ 24 ] In conclusion, contrary to Mr. Merchant’s representation, I find little merit in suggesting that Dr. Patel’s proceedings should not be seen as vexatious because he has been represented by legal counsel. (ii) Suspect Misstatements of the Legal Principles [ 25 ] During Mr.

Merchant’s argument to strike the SHA’s originating application as an abuse of process, he stated that to be successful he had only to meet a low threshold. On the other hand, he stated that for the SHA to be successful in declaring Dr. Patel a vexatious litigant, the SHA had to meet a high threshold. As experienced counsel, Mr. Merchant will know that striking pleadings based on an allegation of abuse of process engages a high standard. Such an obvious misstatement of the law causes one to question other assertions of legal principles made on behalf of Dr.

Patel. (iii) Incomplete Proceedings in Court of King’s Bench [ 26 ] Mr. Merchant suggests that the Court of Appeal was more able to declare Dr. Patel a vexatious litigant because matters that Dr. Patel brought before that court had already been concluded in a lower court. Mr. Merchant suggests that in the Court of King’s Bench, no assessment can be made about the vexatiousness of any current proceedings because they are not completed. He suggests that proceedings cannot be vexatious if the subject matter of those proceedings has not been finally determined. [ 27 ] I do not accept this distinction.

A finding of vexatiousness can be shown at the commencement of a meritless proceeding. (iv) Opprobrium of Being Declared a Vexatious Litigant [ 28 ] Although Mr. Merchant accepts that a person declared a vexatious litigant may be spared expense and time because a judge will screen and prevent unmeritorious proceedings, he states that Dr. Patel cannot accept the opprobrium of the moniker “vexatious litigant.” Mr. Merchant states that if Dr.

Patel were to apply for licencing in another province, he must disclose the status of pending court actions and a designation as a “vexatious litigant” would have unfavourable consequences for him. This argument has little substance because the Court of Appeal has already declared Dr. Patel a vexatious litigant. (

v) Is Motive a Relevant Consideration? [ 29 ] Mr. Merchant repeatedly stated that the court must consider Dr. Patel’s motive in determining whether his conduct amounts to vexatiousness. Apparently, implicit in this argument is the suggestion that malice or some other nefarious motive must accompany Dr. Patel’s conduct. I disagree. Although ill motive might be a relevant consideration if present, it cannot be a prerequisite to a finding of vexatiousness. Mr.

Merchant should have been aware that this argument would gain little traction given Chief Justice Richards’ recent statement in Patel 2023 SKCA where he described and discounted Dr. Patel’s identical assertion, writing: [29] That said, let me comment briefly on the various points made by Dr. Patel: … (

g) Dr. Patel submits that “intent” is a threshold question in a vexatious litigant proceeding and that his only goal has been to get reinstated and move on with his life. He says that he has had no intention to harass the SHA or anyone else. I see nothing in this point either. As Kalmakoff J.A. explained at paragraph 14 of his decision, “[t]he question of whether a proceeding is vexatious is properly resolved by the application of objective rather than subjective standards”. He then went on to conclude that “[n]otwithstanding the obvious and repeated flaws in Dr.

Patel’s approach, I am not persuaded that his purpose has been improper” (at para 129, emphasis in original). In other words, Kalmakoff J.A. did not base his decision on any idea that Dr. Patel had intended to be vexatious. [Emphasis in original] (

c) Multifarious Proceedings Brought for Purpose other than the Assertion of Legitimate Rights [ 30 ] As the third preliminary issue, I now turn to the direction offered in Sheppard and ask whether Dr. Patel has brought multifarious proceedings for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights. One might think that Dr. Patel’s overarching goal has been to have his hospital privileges reinstated so he can perform orthopedic surgeries. In the intervening seven years since Dr.

Patel’s surgical privileges were suspended in 2016, he has entangled himself in dozens of manoeuvres before various tribunals and levels of court seemingly toward achieving that goal. However, when I pointedly asked if any court had the authority to reinstate Dr. Patel’s

privileges, Mr. Merchant’s candid answer was “No.” Mr. Merchant could not answer differently because, as early as December 18, 2017,Justice Pritchard in Patel v Carson, 2017 SKQB 377 made an obvious statement: [31] ... As is evident from para. 1(

d) of his application, Dr. Patel seeks a court order reinstating his surgical privileges. However, under s.45 of the Act [The Regional Health Services Act, SS 2002, RRS, c R-8.2 (rep)], the court’s jurisdiction with respect to the suspension ofDr. Patel’s surgical privileges does not arise until after the Tribunal has rendered a decision. [31] One must ask, then, as I did, why Dr. Patel has not re-engaged the PSAT. Why has he persisted in his invariablyunsuccessful proceedings in this and other courts? Mr. Merchant answered that Dr.

Patel was seeking compensation for wrongs doneagainst him by various individuals, institutions, tribunal members and officials. That answer, too, is suspect since many of Dr. Patel’sproceedings have not sought financial compensation, including complaints to the Law Society of Saskatchewan and the Law Society ofOntario, as well as complaints to the Canadian Judicial Council [CJC] respecting judges’ conduct. None of these proceedings soughtcompensation. (

d) A Consideration of the “whole history of the matter and “bringing actions to determine an issue which has already beendetermined” (

i) Introduction [32] Perhaps the most compelling factor found in Sheppard at para 47(

e) that applies to this application is therequirement that the court “look at the whole history of the matter and not just whether there was originally a good cause of action.”Accordingly, the court must understand the history of Dr. Patel’s denial of surgical privileges and his subsequent efforts to have thoseprivileges reinstated. [33] In December 2020, when the SHA brought its application seeking to have Dr. Patel declared a vexatious litigant,it provided a description of Dr. Patel’s engagement in the Saskatchewan courts from 2017 to December 2020.

In two affidavits sworn onDecember 16 and 24, 2020 by a legal assistant in the law firm of Miller Thomson LLP she detailed uncontroverted descriptions of Dr.Patel’s engagement in the courts from 2017 to December 2020. Because the hearing date continued to be adjourned given interveningapplications, the SHA filed further supplemental affidavits to update the proceedings that Dr. Patel had initiated in various actions andapplications. Again, (although Dr. Patel unsuccessfully brought an application to strike the affidavits) these affidavits wereuncontroverted descriptions of proceedings.

In total, the SHA filed five further affidavits, the last one sworn May 30, 2023. [34] After Mr. Lamb was added as a party to the vexatious litigation application, the court received three supportingaffidavits on his behalf. Dr. Patel served and filed four affidavits through January 2021 until June 28, 2023. (ii) Reported Decisions Involving Dr. Patel Related to his Hospital Privileges [35] Understanding and appreciating the complexity of Dr. Patel’s engagement in various courts and before otheradministrative bodies over the past several years is a challenging task.

An electronic search showing only the reported decisions overfour years that involve Dr. Patel frequently contain judicial statements that show Dr. Patel often pursues meritless applications or isunsuccessful in opposing applications brought by other parties. Unreported fiats in the Court of King’s Bench respecting Dr. Patel’smatters outnumber reported decisions. The findings of Saskatchewan judges in the following reported cases should be seen an illustrativeof many more unreported decisions of the courts. For example: (

a) Patel v Carson, 2017 SKQB 377, where Justice Pritchard wrote, in dismissing Dr. Patel’s application for judicial review ofSenior Medical Officer’s suspension order, as upheld by the Board: [31] …Although Dr. Patel has made broad claims of unfairness and denial of natural justice throughout the current process, he has notasked the court to review any specific evidentiary ruling or interim procedural decision made by the SMO, the Board or the DisciplineCommittee. … [32] The application of the SMO is therefore allowed, the originating application for judicial review commenced by Dr. Patel is herebydismissed with costs to the SMO set, as requested by the SMO, at $1,000.00. (

b) Patel v Carson, 2018 SKCA 98, where the Court of Appeal dismissed Dr. Patel’s appeal of Patel v Carson, 2017 SKQB 377with costs. (

c) Patel v Practitioners Staff Appeals Tribunal, 2019 SKQB 291, where Justice Scherman granted the SHA’s application todismiss Dr. Patel’s judicial review application and adjourned the matter of costs. Among Dr. Patel’s arguments that Justice Schermandiscounted, he addressed Dr. Patel’s request that he should recuse himself. He wrote: [51] Dr. Patel’s application that I recuse myself as the judge to hear his judicial review application is based upon his premise that Mr.Watson has in various respects acted unethically and improperly in the prosecution (if prosecution it is) of Dr.

Patel before the HearingCommittee and the PSAT, that his judicial review application will necessarily involve me in adjudicating on the actions of a former legalpartner of mine and thus a reasonable apprehension of bias on my part arises. [52] The application I am deciding is not Dr. Patel’s judicial review application. It is the SHA application to strike Dr. Patel’s judicialreview application applying the Strickland [Strickland v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 37, [2015] 2 SCR 713] analysis.

Iconclude that the decision I have to make in no way engages me passing judgment on the actions of Reginald Watson, and thus theessential premise for Dr. Patel’s application that I recuse myself does not here exist. (

d) Patel v Carson, (SCC), where the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Dr. Patel’s application for leaveto appeal Patel v Carson, 2018 SKCA 98.

(

e) Patel v Saskatchewan (Health Authority), 2020 SKQB 194, where Justice Scherman, in an application brought by Dr. Patel,decided to recuse himself, but not because he accepted that bias existed. In his review of the affidavits provided by Dr. Patel, JusticeScherman wrote: [119] The affidavit of Dr. Patel sworn May 14, 2020, breached the requirements of a proper affidavit by including extensive irrelevantmatters, inadmissible facts, inference, argument and opinion.

The overarching problem is that the bulk of the affidavit contained evidenceof matters that may at future hearings have some relevance but, in the context of the disqualification/recusal application, are not relevant.The sole issue in the disqualification/recusal application is whether grounds for reasonable apprehension of bias existed. The affidavitappeared to be designed to paint the Saskatchewan Health Authority and its counsel in the most negative light, even though the presentissue was not the propriety of their actions but, rather, the propriety of me sitting in judgment. (

f) Patel v Saskatchewan Health Authority, 2020 SKCA 100, where Justice Caldwell of the Court of Appeal, sitting inchambers, granted Dr. Patel an extension of time to file a notice of appeal against Justice Scherman’s cost award in Patel v Saskatchewan(Health Authority), 2020 SKQB 194. (

g) Patel v Saskatchewan Health Authority, 2021 SKCA 115, where the Court of Appeal heard five appeals: two from publisheddecisions (2019 SKQB 291 and 2020 SKQB 194) and three from unpublished decisions in QBG-RG-00953-2019; QBG-RG-01792-2020; and QBG-RG-01793-2020. In Dr. Patel’s attempt to adduce “fresh evidence” the court was critical of Dr. Patel’s largelyinadmissible affidavit evidence. The court wrote: [89] Significant portions of his July 9, 2020, affidavit (for example, paragraphs 16, 20, 40, 42, 77, 78, 103, 104 and 124) are simply arecitation or repetition of his lawyer’s opinions or advice.

Other portions are no more than argument or irrelevant, self-serving hearsay(e.g., paragraphs 21, 27, 28, 30, 35, 40, 47, 76, 77, 115–123, 128, and 130–132). None of this is admissible as evidence, regardless ofwhen it is tendered for admission. [90] Still other portions of this affidavit amount to nothing more than Dr. Patel attempting to summarize and direct this Court’s attentionto parts of the record and material that were filed in the Court below (for example, paragraphs 13, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 28, 31, 32, 36,37, 38, 105 and 106).

Summarizing the existing record and drawing the appellate Court’s attention to certain portions is the function ofargument. It is not evidence. … [92] Finally, a significant portion of the July 9, 2020, affidavit also refers to correspondence or other material that was in existence at thetime the application giving rise to the November 7 Decision [Patel v Saskatchewan Health Authority, 2019 SKQB 291] was heard and, tothe extent that it is evidence, it falls squarely into the category of what could have been admitted at that time with the exercise of duediligence. We do not agree with Dr.

Patel’s argument that any of that material has taken on new significance since the decision wasrendered. It fails at the first leg of the Maitland [Maitland v Drozda (1983), (SK CA), 22 Sask R 1 (CA)] /Palmer [Rv Palmer, (SCC), [1980] 1 SCR 759] test. [93] The material contained in Dr. Patel’s January 25, 2021, and March 11, 2021, affidavits suffers from the same defects. [94] A large portion of the January 25, 2021, affidavit is simply argument by Dr. Patel, none of which is properly admissible asevidence.

Another large portion is comprised of excerpts from the record of proceedings before the PSAT, augmented by Dr. Patel’sinterpretation of, or commentary on that material. The record is already before us, so it is not necessary for us to receive it in this fashion,and Dr. Patel’s

interpretation and commentary is not properly admissible as evidence. The rest of the affidavit contains Dr. Patel’saccount of matters that are simply not relevant to the issues at play in this appeal. To the extent that any of this affidavit is properlyadmissible, it fails to meet the requirement that it could reasonably be expected to have affected the result. As such, it cannot be admittedas evidence. [95] Dr.

Patel’s March 11, 2021, affidavit is also comprised almost entirely of argument, his commentary on portions of the recordrelating to the Panel’s recusal, external information that he has learned about the members of the Panel, events that have occurred sincethe Panel recused itself, and correspondence authored by his lawyers expressing concern about delays in the proceedings.

Again, muchof this is not even evidence, legally speaking, and to the extent it is, it fails to meet any of the criteria of the Maitland/Palmer test. [96] In the end, we find nothing in the proposed fresh evidence that meets the test for admission. Dr. Patel’s application, in that respect,must be dismissed. Given the volume and nature of material filed by Dr. Patel, it is appropriate to order that he pay costs to SHA inrelation to this application. We fix those costs at $2,500.00.

The Court of Appeal dismissed appeal CACV 3517 (an appeal from QBG-RG-00095-2019) and appeal CACV 3527 (an appeal from2019 SKQB 291) awarding $15,000 in costs against Dr. Patel. The court partially allowed appeal CACV 3679 (an appeal from 2020SKQB 194) by striking the award of $5,000 of costs against Mr. Merchant. The Court dismissed appeal CACV 3751 (an appeal fromQBG-RG-01792-2020) and appeal CACV 3752 (and appeal from QBG-RG-01793-2020), with $22,500 in costs against Dr. Patel. (

h) Patel v Saskatchewan Health Authority, 2021 SKCA 105, where Justice Barrington-Foote, in chambers, denied Dr. Patelleave to appeal an order that I had previously made in the within action when I allowed Charles Lamb to be added as a party to thevexatious litigation application. Justice Barrington-Foote summarized and concluded the matter as follows: [2] QBG 2144 is an application to have Dr. Patel declared a vexatious litigant. It is one of many actions and applications that have beenspawned, directly or indirectly, by the suspension of Dr.

Patel’s surgical privileges by the predecessor to the Saskatchewan HealthAuthority [SHA] on June 11, 2016. Dr. Patel appealed his suspension to the Practitioner Staff Appeals Tribunal and, since doing so, haslaunched multiple civil claims and appeals and has filed multiple complaints with the Law Society of Saskatchewan and the College ofPhysicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan. …

[8] Further, granting leave would result in additional delay despite the fact that this would be an expedited appeal. That is of particular concern in the context of QBG 2144, resulting as it does from a long, arduous and complex series of claims and complaints, and relating as it does to a claim that Dr. Patel is a vexatious litigant. … [9] Taking all of these factors into account, I do not consider this to be an appropriate case to exercise my discretion to grant leave to appeal. Dr. Patel’s application is accordingly denied, with costs in favour of Mr. Lamb in the amount of $1,000, payable immediately. (

i) Patel 2021 SKCA , where Justice Kalmakoff found that Dr. Patel’s proceedings in the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan were vexatious. Justice Kalmakoff thoroughly canvased the nature of Dr. Patel’s engagements in that court over a relatively brief period – approximately three years. Justice Kalmakoff also provided fuller details respecting the above-described affidavits that Dr. Patel filed in CACV 3517 and CACV 3527. Dr. Patel had prepared what he called a “joint” appeal book consisting of 66 volumes and more than 21,000 pages.

He was ordered to separate the volumes of his appeal book that contained fresh evidence from material that was properly part of the appeal book. This ruling led to Dr. Patel filing a new appeal book comprising 49 volumes and more than 16,700 pages, as well as a new fresh evidence application consisting of an affidavit with more than 4,700 pages of exhibits.

In deciding that any further appeals before the Court of Appeal would need judicial oversight, among other reasons, Justice Kalmakoff wrote: [111] One of the hallmarks of vexatious conduct is the repeated initiation of proceedings that are manifestly without merit. In my view, Dr. Patel has been guilty of this. … [120] In my view, much of Dr. Patel’s conduct in this Court demonstrates an abuse of the Court’s process. … [130] A particularly problematic aspect of Dr. Patel’s conduct before this Court has involved the repetition and rolling forward of arguments from one appeal to the next. … (

j) Patel v Saskatchewan Health Authority, 2022 SKCA 84 , where the Court of Appeal dismissed Dr. Patel’s request to vary an earlier interlocutory order as a means of challenging a taxation of costs under Rule 54.1 of The Court of Appeal Rules. (

k) Patel v Van Olst , 2022 SKQB 199 , where Justice Tochor declined Dr. Patel’s application that he recuse himself from hearing matters in the action. Justice Tochor first introduced Dr. Patel’s position: [1] Dr. Satyam Patel applies for an order that I recuse or disqualify myself from dealing with his case because of bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias. [2] In his application materials, Dr. Patel expresses the view that some judges who have been assigned to hear his cases have conflicts of interest. He also implies this is a result of deliberate action on the part of the court.

He expresses this view in his brief of law as follows: [113] Dr. Patel has had a surprising number of judges who were formerly employed by the firms prosecuting him. … … [138] … Respectfully, there are too many judges with pre-existing links to parties prosecuting Dr. Patel for those assignments to have been by chance. …Is it coincidence that Popescul CJ appointed Scherman J. to hear this matter on the same day that Mr. Watson met him, ostensibly on behalf of the STLA? [3] In other cases, Dr. Patel objected to some of the assigned judges because of his concerns of bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias.

In some instances, judges recused themselves because of an apprehension of bias. In one or two instances, judges recused themselves out of an abundance of caution. In a 120-paragraph decision, Justice Tochor found that his adjudication raised no bias or reasonable apprehension of bias and, therefore, he did not recuse or disqualify himself. (

l) Patel v Saskatchewan Health Authority , 2022 SKCA 114 , where Justice Caldwell denied Dr. Patel’s application for leave to appeal against the Court of Queen’s Bench decision in Patel v Saskatchewan Health Authority (9 June 2022) Regina, QBG-RG-00827- 2021 (Sask QB). (

m) Patel v Saskatchewan (Health Authority) , 2022 SKQB 183 , where Justice Brown denied Dr. Patel’s application for a stay of proceedings which were set to proceed before the newly constituted PSAT, with costs of $4,000 awarded against him. Dr. Patel alleged 16 grounds why the PSAT proceedings should have been stayed, including that “the Chairperson of the PSAT was impaired based on a prescription of medical marijuana” (at para. 4(a)(ix)). (

n) Patel v McMurtry , 2023 SKCA 74 , where Justice Caldwell, allowed a portion of Dr. Patel’s appeal from the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench that struck Dr. Patel’s statement of claim against Dr. McMurtry and Western Medical Assessments Corporation. Although the court considered Dr.

Patel’s statement of claim as “prolix and difficult to comprehend” (at para. 67) and the alleged facts were “not distilled or organized in a way that readily facilitates the conclusion that the Claim pleads free-standing causes of action,” (at para. 67) the court concluded: [69] …It is simply not plain and obvious, despite the poor state of the pleadings, that no reasonable cause of action has been pled… The court awarded no costs.

(

o) Patel 2023 SKCA , where Dr. Patel applied pursuant to s. 20(3) of The Court of Appeal Act, 2000, SS 2000, c C-42.1 to vary Justice Kalmakoff’s order that found Dr. Patel to be a vexatious litigant. Chief Justice Richards found that Dr. Patel’s arguments were “largely misplaced.” Chief Justice Richards described and rejected 10 different arguments that Dr. Patel raised, seeing “no merit in the great majority of the arguments advanced by Dr. Patel.” (at para. 35). However, he narrowed the terms of Justice Kalmakoff’s order so that Dr.

Patel would be prohibited from commencing any proceeding in that court that “related to, or grounded in or traceable to, the dispute about the suspension of his surgical privileges by the Saskatchewan Health Authority, regardless of whether the Saskatchewan Health Authority is party thereto, without leave of the Court of a judge thereof.” (at para. 35). Because Dr. Patel’s application had “largely failed,” the court awarded fixed costs of $2,500 in the SHA’s favour. (

p) Patel v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 922 [ Patel 2023 FC ], where Dr. Patel sought judicial review of the decision of Marx Giroux, Interim Executive Director of the Canadian Judicial Council, when he dismissed Dr. Patel’s complaints against Justice McCreary (as she then was) and Justice Tochor. Mr. Giroux concluded and responded to Dr. Patel, writing: “Having reviewed your complaint, it is my view that it does not warrant consideration by the Council as it does not concern judicial conduct.” Justice Lafrenière first characterized Dr.

Patel’s material as being “extremely voluminous and cover[ing] a lengthy period of time.” (at para. 9). Justice Lafrenière, in dismissing Dr. Patel’s application for judicial review, offered comments that characterized Dr. Patel’s approach: [58] The above [Dr. Patel’s statement of issues] read more like arguments than a list of issues.

In any event, they all come down to the same proposition: that the Decisions are unreasonable. … [64] The Applicant’s submissions are essentially a rehash of argument already made to the Executive Director. … … [84] In the cases at hand, the Applicant’s allegations of conflict of interest and bias rely largely on speculation and conjecture, or on unsupported bald assertions. Justice Lafrenière summarized the nature of Dr. Patel’s complaint against Justice McCreary, writing: [27] On November 30, 2020, Justice McCreary dismissed the Applicant’s application for the enforcement of the summons [ Summons Decision ].

She ruled that the Applicant had no standing to bring the application, that the summons could not be subject to enforcement while it was stayed, and that the application amounted to a request for judicial review of an interim decision. At paragraph 19 of her reasons, Justice McCreary added: [19] […] it is my view that Dr. Patel s current application is completely and obviously without merit. I realize that Dr. Patel is self- represented and has limited knowledge of the complexities of administrative law.

Still, this application borders on, and perhaps even infringes into, the area of frivolous and vexatious litigation. As I said, the application has no merit, but even if it did, the issue of the validity of the Summons is to be determined by this Court in another proceeding – the application for which was filed prior to Dr. Patel’s application. In this context, Dr. Patel’s application was utterly unnecessary, resulting in unwarranted expense to all the parties. [28] Justice McCreary ordered the Applicant to pay $5,000 to C.L.

Justice Lafrenière also summarized the nature of the complaint against Justice Tochor: [47] Specific allegations against Justice Tochor are that he:

a) Acted in violation of the Ethical Principles [CJC’s Ethical Principles for Judges ], which prohibit judges from presiding over matters in which their former firm was involved in litigation prior to their appointment to the bench;

b) Violated the Ethical Principles numerous times as the underlying actions that he was presiding over concern the spouse of a Queen’s Bench judge and the uncle of a Queen’s Bench judge;

c) Is guilty of misconduct, failed in the due execution of the office of judge and has been placed by his conduct or otherwise in a position incompatible with the due execution of that office;

d) Failed to disclose proactively his own potential conflict of interest;

e) Encouraged and allowed opposing counsel to judge shop via the Registrar on numerous files;

f) Reserved the decision on his own recusal application since May 6, 2021;

g) Ignored the case law regarding the provisions of transcripts in recusal applications; and

h) Possibly received correspondence from counsel in separate legal matters requesting permission to observe a hearing in the civil action brought by the Applicant against Mr. Van Olst and the civil action brought by the Applicant against Mr. Watson. Justice Lafrenière dismissed Dr. Patel’s application. However, he clarified that even if Dr. Patel had succeeded, he would simply have referred the matter back to the Executive Director and would not have entertained the remedies Dr. Patel sought. Justice Lafrenière described the respondent’s request for costs of $2,000 in total as “quite modest and fully justified.” (at para. 98). (

q) Patel v Saskatchewan Medical Association , 2023 SKKB 209 , where Justice Klatt dismissed Dr. Patel’s claim against the

Canadian Medical Association, awarding $1,500 in costs in favour of the CMA. She wrote: [60] If I am wrong in concluding that the claims against CMA [Canadian Medical Association] should be struck under Rule 7-9(2)(

a) of The Queen’s Bench Rules , I would nonetheless conclude that the claims are frivolous in the sense that it is plain and obvious that the claim is groundless and cannot succeed. In considering whether the claims are frivolous (or vexatious or an abuse of process), I am entitled to consider other material including the affidavits filed by the parties. … [63] … Dr. Patel asserted most of the causes of action on the basis of vicarious liability and the affidavit evidence satisfies me that the causes of action have absolutely no chance of success on this footing. … [65] … I conclude that the claims Dr.

Patel alleges against CMA disclose no reasonable cause of action. They are also frivolous and have no chance of success. The claim is to be struck against CMA. [ 36 ] Again, the above decisions are only those that have been formally published and do not include a multitude of fiats and orders that remain on court files (many exhibited in affidavits submitted by the SHA). They all ring of the same tenor: Dr. Patel, with essentially one grievance – the loss of his surgical privileges – has commenced a broad network on interconnected claims but with virtually no success. (iii) The SHA’s Description of Dr.

Patel’s Engagement in the Courts [ 37 ] To assist the court in understanding Dr. Patel’s proceedings, both reported and unreported, over the past several years, counsel for the SHA prepared a coloured, complex chart with linked bubbles expanding outward in four concentric circles. The innermost circle begins with seven complaints Dr.

Patel has laid against doctors, lawyers and judges and the outermost circle concludes with five decisions of the Court of Appeal. [ 38 ] Counsel for the SHA has also prepared a “Relief Table”, which in bullet form, over four pages, identifies, in three columns, various claims, applications and appeals Dr. Patel has initiated since 2017; the basis of each particular action, application or appeal; and the relief sought under each. I have correlated the

summary offer in the table to references in the filed affidavits and have found that the table provides an accurate thumbnail sketch of Dr. Patel’s engagements with the court. Left out of such a

summary, though, are astonishing details such as Justice Kalmakoff mentioned in Patel 2021 SKCA where Dr. Patel filed an appeal book in CACV 3517 and CACV 3527 consisting over 66 volumes and more than 21,00 pages. I have reproduced the Relief Table as found in the SHA’s “Supplementary Brief of Law” filed July 31, 2023. Claim, Application, or appeal Basis Relief Sought JR1 QBG 1943/17 Seeks a review of the Initial Suspension decision, Board decision to uphold Initial Suspension, and the procedure at the DC Hearing • Quash decision to suspend surgical privileges • Stay Regulatory Proceedings • Restore Dr.

Patel Privileges JR2 QBG 953/19 Seeks a review of interim decisions of the PSAT, including that they were properly constituted as a two member panel • Quash decision to suspend surgical privileges • Disband PSAT • Quash decision made by PSAT • Stay Regulatory proceedings And by amendment: • Quash all decisions made by PSAT • Remove Mr. Watson as counsel in Regulatory Proceedings • Order that PSAT only hear charges that Dr. Patel was not successful in defending at the DC Hearing • Restoring Dr. Patel’s privileges pending the reconstituting of a new PSAT panel

QB Appeal QBG 953/19 Seeks to appeal from interim decisions of the PSAT, including that they were properly constituted as a two member panel • Quash decision to suspend surgical privileges • Disband PSAT • Quash decisions made by PSAT • Stay Regulatory Proceedings August 2, 2019 Application in JR2 QBG 953/19 Seeks a review of the PSAT that it was properly constitutes as a two member panel • Disband PSAT • Quash decisions made by PSAT • Restore Dr. Patel surgical privileges August 6, 2019 Application in JR2 QBG 953/19 Seeks removal of Mr. Watson in PSAT on the basis of Mr.

Watson’s alleged conflict of interest • Removal of Mr. Watson and Miller Thomson LLP as counsel in Regulatory Proceedings August 6, 2019 Application in JR2 QBG 953/19 Seeks a review of the decision of the SHA to pursue “charges” before PSAT that were not successful at the DC Hearing • Limiting PSAT to hearing only those charges that Dr. Patel was not successful in defending at the DC Hearing Aug. 15, 2019 Application in JR 2 QBG 953/19 Seeks a review of an interim decision of the PSAT that required Dr.

Patel to produce records prior to the SHA tendering evidence • An Order quashing all PSAT rulings and orders relating to the parties’ disclosure obligations to the extent they were constitutionally invalid • An Order pursuant to

section 24 of the Charter [ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ] permanently staying proceedings against Dr. Patel • Stay Regulatory Proceedings • Unconditionally restore Dr. Patel’s surgical privileges December 5, 2019 in Civil Claim 1 QBG 1385/18 Seeks removal of Mr. Watson as counsel for the SHA in Civil Claim 1 on the basis of Mr. Watson’s alleged conflict of interest • Removal of Mr. Watson and Miller Thomson LLP as counsel in Civil Claim 1 Sept. 16, 2020 Application in JR2 QBG 953/19 Requests removal of PSAT Chair and recusal of Justice Scherman • Permanently stay Regulatory Proceedings • Restore Dr.

Patel’s surgical privileges Appeal 2 CACV 3517 Appeal the decision of Justice Scherman holding that no right of appeal lies from an interlocutory decision of the PSAT • That Dr. Patel’s application to remove Justice Scherman be heard by a justice other than Justice Scherman • That Justice Scherman recuse himself Claim, Application, or appeal Basis Relief Sought

Appeal 3 CACV 3527 Appeals the decision of Justice Scherman declining to conduct judicial review • Restore Dr. Patel’s surgical privileges pending appeal And, in argument: • Quash Regulatory Proceedings • Declaration that the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee and the subsequent SHA decision were respectively an objectively impossible recommendation and decision • Declaration that the Board decision was ultra vires and that it lost its jurisdiction by such an objectively impossible sentence • Restore Dr.

Patel privileges • Declaration that the issues in the Regulatory Proceedings are res judicata Appeal 5 CACV 3751 Seeks to appeal the decision of Justice McCreary granting SHA standing in JR3 and the Lamb JR • Uphold Summons • Recusal of Justice McCreary • Assigning of an out-of-province judge to all of Dr. Patel’s matters • A review of the standing of Miller Thomson LLP in all matters related to Dr.

Patel Appeal 6 CACV 3527 Seeks to appeal the decision of Justice McCreary dismissing JR3 • Recusal of Justice McCreary • Recusal of Justice Tochor • Assigning either an out-of- province judge or a Federal Court judge to all of Dr. Patel’s matters • That Justices Tochor, McCreary, Scherman and Chief Justice Popescul provide statements on the record attesting to any and all communications between themselves and any other outside party regarding Dr. Patel’s matters • A review of the standing of Miller Thomson LLP in all matters related to Dr.

Patel Claim 1 ( Patel v SHA ) QBG 1385 of 2018 Seeks damages against the SHA as a result of the suspension decision. • Pecuniary damages; • Non-pecuniary damages; • Special damages; • Aggravated damages; • Punitive damages; Claim, Application, or appeal Basis Relief Sought

Claim 2 ( Patel v Miller Thomson et al. ) QBG 1957 of 2019 Seeks damages against legal counsel for the SHA as a result of the suspension decision. • Pecuniary damages; • Non-pecuniary damages; • Special damages; • Aggravated damages; • Punitive damages; Claim 3 ( Patel v Shaw et al. ) QBG 3105 of 2019 Seeks damages against Dr.

Susan Shaw, the Saskatchewan Medical Association and 3 others for failing to assist in overturning the suspension. • Pecuniary damages; • Non-pecuniary damages; • Special damages; • Aggravated damages; • Punitive damages; • Declaratory order of unethical conduct by the named individual Defendants. • Declaratory order of unethical conduct involving violation of The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code , 2018 based on the prohibited ground of race.

Claim 4 ( Patel v Van Olst ) QBG 3187 of 2019 Seeks damages against Evert Van Olst, Q.C. flowing from the continuation of the suspension following the Discipline Hearing recommendation. • Pecuniary damages; • Non-pecuniary damages; • Special damages; • Aggravated damages; and • Punitive damages. Claim 5 ( Patel v McMurtry et al. ) QBG 240 of 2020 Seeks damages against Dr. Robert McMutry [ sic ] and Western Medical Assessments as a result of the suspension decision. 37.

The Defendant’s negligent misrepresentation caused the Plaintiff damages’ [ sic ] in the amount of $3,000,000.00 or an amount to be proven at trial. These damages are of an ongoing nature since the Plaintiffs [ sic ] suspension and the proceedings arising from this continue. … 50. The interference with the Plaintiffs [ sic ] economic relations has caused the Plaintiff to suffer damages of $3,000,000.00 or in an amount to be proven at trial. • General Damages in the amount of $3,000,000.00 and/or an amount to be proven at trial • Special damages; • Punitive damages; • Aggravated damages; and • Exemplary damages.

Claim, Application, or appeal Basis Relief Sought

QB Appeal Seeks to appeal decisions of the PSAT tribunal to recuse • Quash SHA Board decision and reinstate full privileges • Staying the suspension of privileges and reinstating privileges until PSAT has rendered a decision on the appeal JR4 ( Patel v PSAT, et al. ) QBG 827 of 2021 Seeks a judicial review of the PSAT and its decisions • A declaration that The Practitioner Staff Appeals Tribunal is not an adequate alternative remedy or process to determine the rights of the Applicant • An injunction that orders the Saskatchewan Health Authority to immediately allow the Applicant to exercise his surgical privileges until The Practitioner Staff Appeals Tribunal renders its decision on the Applicant’s appeal of the Regina Qu’Appelle Regional Health Authority Board’s decision dated July 7, 2018; • A declaration that the June 11, 2016 suspension of the Applicant’s surgical privileges by Dr.

George Carson was improper and should be set aside as it was founded upon evidence that was not objectively determined by a person that was not an expert and unqualified to opine upon the surgeries conducted by the Applicant; • A declaration that the July 7, 2018 decision by the Saskatchewan Health Authority Board’s [ sic ] was improper and should be set aside; • That the Applicant be reinstated at the Saskatchewan Health Authority with full surgical privileges. • In the alternative, a staying of all decisions preventing the Applicant from practicing as an orthopedic surgeon including the Saskatchewan Health Board’s July 7, 2018 decision that continued the suspension of the Applicant’s surgical privileges; • In the alternative, an order allowing the Applicant’s appeal of the July 7, 2018 decision by the Saskatchewan Health Authority Board that suspended the Applicant’s surgical privileges; • In the alternative, an order directing the July 7, 2018 decision by the Saskatchewan Health Authority be stayed and the Applicant shall be allowed to immediately exercise his surgical privileges as before; • That The Practitioners Staff Appeals Tribunal recusal decision rendered in respect of the Applicant’s appeal be quashed and the tribunal be ordered to complete the appeal process including rendering a decision by Claim, Application, or appeal Basis Relief Sought

December 31, 2021, unless the date to complete needs to be amended as directed by this court; • That The Practitioners Staff Appeals Tribunal shall only hear those charges and determine those charges that the Applicant appealed and was not successful in defending before the Discipline Committee established by the Regina Qu’Appelle Regional Health Authority; Claim, Application, or appeal Basis Relief Sought [Footnotes omitted] [Emphasis in original] [ 39 ] The SHA qualifies this Relief Table with the proviso that the SHA does not know the full extent of Dr.

Patel’s actions and applications in this Court respecting actions where the SHA is not a party. [ 40 ] While the sheer number of proceedings initiated by Dr. Patel is not determinative whether he has been vexatious, nor is the number irrelevant. In his drive, ostensibly to reinstate his surgical privileges, Dr. Patel has relentlessly named almost anyone who may have had even the remotest connection to his suspension.

He seemingly has an unquenchable appetite to continue his far-reaching claims, the last being the Canadian Medical Association. [ 41 ] Aside from the number of claims, he continues to bring forward to the court overlapping and already determined matters. I agree with Justice Lafrenière’s comments that Dr. Patel’s arguments are “essentially a rehash of argument already made….” [ Patel 2023 FC 922 at para 64] . [ 42 ] Notably, Dr. Patel has been ordered to pay nearly $50,000 in costs. Equally notably, the SHA has never been ordered to pay costs. This fact is consistent with Dr.

Patel’s repeated failure to bring meritorious actions before the court. This pattern of several costs awards against him should have informed Dr. Patel that his view of the legal accountability of others is often misguided. (

e) Rolling Matters Forward [ 43 ] As stated in Sheppard , a general characteristic of vexatious proceedings sees grounds and issues rolled forward into subsequent actions, particularly “with actions brought against the lawyers who have acted for or against the litigant in earlier proceedings.” (at para. 47(d)). [ 44 ] This last phrase – that special attention should be given when a litigant brings an action against opposing counsel – is glaringly present in Dr. Patel’s relentless quest to have Mr. Watson removed as counsel for the SHA. The SHA has cited eight instances when Dr.

Patel has advanced this argument in different application as well as his complaint to the Law Society of Saskatchewan. [ 45 ] Other examples of rolling forward similar issues are apparent. Notwithstanding that his counsel has stated that only proceedings before the PSAT can reinstate Dr. Patel’s surgical privileges, he has asked the court to do the legally impossible in at least four different actions. He has been repeatedly told that the court has no jurisdiction to reinstate his surgical privileges but the message has not been received. (

f) Dr. Patel’s Conduct in this Vexatious Litigation Application is Illustrative of Vexatiousness [ 46 ] The SHA served its originating application to declare Dr. Patel a vexatious litigant in December 2020, even before SHA brought a similar application in the Court of Appeal. One might have thought that with a looming possibility of being declared a vexatious litigant, Dr. Patel would not add any grist to SHA’s argument, that he would not exacerbate his position by conduct that, itself, might be seen as vexatious. However, to the contrary, Dr. Patel’s conduct since the SHA initiated its originating application precisely exemplifies what the SHA and Mr. Lamb are attempting to prove. (

i) Dr. Patel’s Use of Affidavits [ 47 ] An example of Dr. Patel’s obfuscation of the issues is his use of affidavits. In October 2021, the SHA brought an application to strike portions of Dr. Patel’s affidavits sworn on January 11, 2021 (respecting SHA’s vexatious litigation application) and on April 14, 2021 (respecting Dr. Patel’s application to have Mr. Watson removed as legal counsel for the SHA). By fiat of October 29, 2021, I provided a detailed explanation why many of Dr. Patel’s statements in his January 11, 2021 affidavit had to be struck. I wrote: [12] … Dr.

Patel is a self-represented litigant – sort of. By statements in his affidavit, he has frequently engaged various legal counsel in several matters. H has sworn several affidavits in previous action. In previous applications, Justice Scherman of the Court of Queen’s Bench and Justice Caldwell of the Court of Appeal have struck offending portions of Dr. Patel’s affidavits as being argument, opinion or irrelevant. In short, While Dr.

Patel may have authored the January 11, 2021 affidavit without direct legal assistance, he is not a neophyte in preparing affidavits as one would expect with a self-represented litigant new to the court process. …

[14] On January 11, 2021, Dr. Patel served a 42 page, 211 paragraph affidavit that attached 1,072 pages of exhibits in response to an application SHA had earlier brought to have Dr. Patel declared a vexatious litigant. [ 48 ] In chart form I struck 59 paragraphs and several exhibits from Dr. Patel’s January 11, 2021 affidavit. [ 49 ] In the same fiat, I dealt with Dr. Patel’s application for an order to completely remove the affidavit sworn by legal assistant, Nikki Fessler, employed at Miller Thomson LLP (legal counsel for the SHA).

Her affidavit was a simple recitation, with accompanying exhibited pleadings, to illustrate the various actions and applications that Dr. Patel had initiated over several years. Dr. Patel alleged that the affidavit contravened “section 5.2 of the Code of Professional Conduct and Practice Directive N. 1 of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan. ” I rejected Dr. Patel’s argument, explaining that Ms. Fessler’s affidavit contained only uncontroverted matters and the exhibits were necessary for the court to appreciate the extent of Dr. Patel’s engagement with the court and other tribunals.

I ordered $1,000 in costs against Dr. Patel and stated: [23] I find Ms. Fessler’s affidavits are all of uncontroverted matters. As one would expect in a vexatious litigant application, the court must be informed of the matters that the litigant has brought before the court. Ms. Fessler’s affidavit is a recitation of the matters Dr. Patel has brought before the court. She offers no other facts. [ 50 ] Notwithstanding my detailed fiat of October 29, 2021, which struck portions of Dr. Patel’s affidavit of January 11, 2021, when Dr.

Patel swore a subsequent affidavit dated June 28, 2023 he re-stated several paragraphs and attached several identical exhibits from his January 11, 2021 affidavit that I had previously struck. [ 51 ] Furthermore, and more significantly, before the hearing on September 6 and 7, 2023, Mr. Merchant had prepared a book of excerpts that he repeatedly referred to during argument. The book was a miscellany of 45 tabbed documents that had only been served on opposing counsel immediately before the hearing.

Most objectionable was the inclusion in the book of excerpts, yet again, of several documents that I had disallowed in my fiat of October 29, 2021. This was Dr. Patel’s third attempt to bring before the court matters that I had ruled as being irrelevant, prolix, hearsay, speculative or argument. [ 52 ] Even more surprisingly, I had purposefully and deliberately set filing deadlines for the SHA, Mr. Lamb and Dr. Patel. Filing the excerpt book was in breach of the instruction I had provided and was a surprise to the SHA and Mr. Lamb. (ii) Seeking the Removal of Mr. Watson as Legal Counsel [ 53 ] In May 2021, Dr.

Patel, in a nine-page notice of application, sought an order to remove Miller Thomson LLP and Mr. Watson as counsel of record for the SHA. Dr. Patel alleged that Mr. Watson was in a conflict of interest because he had acted as a prosecutor against him at the discipline hearing before the SHA, the SHA Board and before the PSAT. Simultaneously, Dr. Patel had also sought a similar order in QBG-RG-00827-2021, presided over by Justice Brown. The parties agreed that Justice Brown’s decision respecting that issue would also determine the same issue in the vexatious litigation application.

On January 23, 2023, Justice Brown in Patel v Saskatchewan Health Authority (20 January 2023) Regina, QBG-RG-00827-2021 (Sask KB) rejected Dr. Patel’s application and ordered costs of $5,000 against Dr. Patel. Dr. Patel has sought leave to appeal this decision. [ 54 ] In some instances, Dr. Patel did not initiate intervening applications but unsuccessfully opposed other parties’ application. For example, by fiat of June 22, 2021, I permitted an application by Charles Lamb, Dr. Patel’s former patient (who had commenced an action against him for medical malpractice) to be added as a party in the SHA’s application.

Costs on Column 2 of the Tariff of Costs were awarded against Dr. Patel. Dr. Patel sought leave to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal. It was denied and he was subject to an additional $1,000 of costs ordered against him. (iii) Dr. Patel’s Letters to the Local Registrar [ 55 ] In this application, Dr. Patel has shown a repeated inclination to write detailed, multi-page letters to the Local Registrar. These letters invariably contain irrelevant assertions, numerous attachments and argument.

They include a barrage of correspondence dated May 17, 2021, May 26, 2021, May 31, 2021, June 9, 2021, June 14, 2021, June 18, 2021 and June 23, 2021.

In a fiat of June 25, 2021 I wrote: [2] The long-accepted method of bringing a matter before the court for judicial consideration and adjudication is by filing either an Application without Notice or a Notice of Application for a specific date, both in accordance with the Rules of Court. [3] Factual assertions can only come before the court based on sworn affidavits or viva voce testimony and should not be contained in correspondence directed to the Local Registrar. … [4] Letters to the Registrar should necessarily be brief and cannot contain argument, opinions, or positions of law.

These matters are reserved for open court. … [5] When a party is represented by counsel, that party should not be corresponding with the court. Any confusion respecting representation must be clarified by limited retainers filed with the court. [ 56 ] In an order dated February 26, 2021, I ruled that any party wishing to file further documents or pleadings had to seek the court’s leave – my attempt to control and bring the application forward. Dr. Patel has consistently ignored this and other directions. After the SHA sought leave to file a further affidavit sworn by Nikki Fessler, on March 8, 2022 I provided Dr.

Patel with a deadline of June 1, 2022 to file opposing material and I set a hearing date on June 10, 2022. My case management fiat of June 10, 2022 expresses my disappointment with Dr. Patel’s disregard to the March 8, 2022 fiat and the filing deadlines that I had set out. I wrote at

page 2: For several reasons, the court shall permit SHA to file the Fifth Supplemental Affidavit of Nikki Fessler. First, the court has valiantly tried to give direction to the parties involved in this ongoing and protracted litigation. That is why the previous fiat was detailed and explicit in its direction that Dr. Patel had to file opposing material no later than June 1, 2022. Contrary to the terms of the fiat, the material was served and filed the day before the hearing, June 9, 2022. The Local Registrar sent the materials electronically to me at 3:44 p.m.

I received the Local Registrar’s email after 6:00 p.m. Mr. Watson, counsel for the SHA, states he did not receive the material until the afternoon of June 9 th . Mr. Harte, counsel for Mr. Lamb, states that he was not served at all. Second, although the late filing is problematic, I might have been included to consider Dr. Patel’s opposing materials, but I find his objection to have little merit in any event. Mr.

Merchant has reasonably admitted that in a vexatious litigation application the court will look to the entirety of the proceedings to the date of adjudication, not the date of application (now approximately 18 months ago). Accordingly, Dr. Patel’s involvement in proceedings in the Court of Queen’s Bench must be fully before the court. In my view, that is what Ms. Fessler’s affidavits have attempted to accomplish. If Dr. Patel believes there is a more succinct and helpful way to inform the court of Dr. Patel’s involvement in proceedings in this court, he has not stated his intentions. (iv) Dr.

Patel’s Late-coming and Numerous Applications [ 57 ] Dr. Patel’s delaying tactics continued. After Justice Brown ruled in his fiat of January 20, 2023 that Mr. Watson was not in a conflict of interest and could continue to represent the SHA in matters before him, it appeared that the vexatious litigation application would proceed. However, on March 28, 2023, the same day that a further case management conference was scheduled, Dr.

Patel served a notice of application seeking to have SHA’s originating application struck as an abuse of process, approximately 26 months after the SHA had served its initial application. [ 58 ] A month later, on April 26, 2023, Mr. Merchant filed two more applications “Notice of Application to Amend Application to Strike and Relief from the Implied Undertaking Rule” and “Notice of Application”, the latter seeking an order to

schedule the two new applications at a date prior to the vexatious litigation hearing. [ 59 ] Although Mr. Merchant advised the court that Dr. Patel was seeking leave to appeal Justice Brown’s decision permitting Mr. Watson to continue acting for the SHA, I ruled that the vexatious litigation hearing would proceed either in June or September, depending on the court’s availability. Subsequently, at my direction, the Local Registrar advised counsel that the hearing would proceed during the first week of September.

At my direction the Local Registrar sent communication to counsel asking them to present their respective proposals for filing deadlines. Counsel for the SHA responded by providing the court with its proposals for filing deadlines. Counsel for Dr. Patel, however, filed two new applications. [ 60 ] The first was an application seeking to amend Dr. Patel’s previously filed application to strike and to be granted relief from the implied undertaking rule. The second, he described as an “Application regarding Sequencing.” Dr. Patel’s counsel also filed a brief of law setting out his argument as to why Dr.

Patel’s application to strike should be heard and determined before a date was scheduled for hearing SHA’s vexatious litigant application. [ 61 ] I did not accept Dr. Patel’s request to conduct a hearing respecting the sequencing of his two applications before the vexatious litigation hearing. Instead, dates for all the applications were set to be heard September 6 and 7, 2023. I also set filing deadlines with the SHA and Mr. Lamb to serve and file material by June 1, 2023 and Dr. Patel to serve and file material in support of his applications by June 30, 2023.

All parties were to serve and file their briefs of law by July 31, 2023, with response briefs to be served and filed by August 25, 2023. Respecting the sequencing, I wrote in a fiat of May 17, 2023: [2] This Fiat follows the inability of counsel to agree on filing deadlines pending the hearing of: 1. an Amended Originating Application Notice of Application initiated by the SHA and filed on December 18, 2020 seeking a declaration that Dr. Patel is a vexatious litigant; 2 a Notice of Application initiated by Dr.

Patel and filed on March 28, 2023 seeking an order striking the SHA’s Originating Application as an abuse of process; 3. a Notice of Application to Amend Application to Strike and Relief from the Implied Undertaking Rule initiated by Dr. Patel and filed on April 26, 2023; and 4. a Notice of Application Re Sequencing of Applications initiated by Dr. Patel and filed on April 26, 2023 asking that Dr. Patel’s application to strike SHA’s Originating Application to be heard and determined in advance of the Court hearing and determining the Originating Application.

HEARING DATES [3] As the parties will recall (and as is evident from the Minutes of the Case Management telephone conference call held on March 28, 2023) I made a preliminary decision which I considered to be clear instructions, namely that Dr. Patel’s Notice of Application to strike SHA’s Originating Application would be heard prior to the vexatious litigation application. Both would proceed on the same date.

Similarly, I will also hear matters (3) and (4) described above (which were served and filed after the case management conference call) at the commencement of the hearing date. [4] The court canvased with legal counsel the possibility of a mid June date for the hearing date or, alternatively, a September hearing date. Upon learning that a June hearing date could not be scheduled, counsel received an email from the Local Registrar’s office

that although a hearing date in June could not be arranged, September 5 – 8, 2003 were open. Notwithstanding the Local Registrar’s invitation, “Please advise if you are available any of these dates,” the Local Registrar did not receive a reply from anyone. [5] Accordingly, the Local Registrar has scheduled these matters to be heard on Thursday and Friday, September 7 and 8, 2023. Please accommodate this hearing date. Dr. Patel’s Notices of Application will be heard first. SHA’s application will be heard after. [Emphasis in original] [ 62 ] Dr.

Patel sought leave to appeal this scheduling order and asked for a stay of proceedings in the SHA’s application. The matter came before Justice Kalmakoff on August 10, 2023. He denied leave and Dr. Patel’s application to stay proceedings and awarded $1,500 in costs to each the SHA and Mr. Lamb. [ 63 ] Based on my experience alone in QBG-RG-02144-2020, I have found ample support to conclude that Dr. Patel’s proceedings have crossed the line and have ventured deeply into being vexatious. (

g) Dr. Patel’s Threats and Complaints (

i) Dr. Patel’s Attacks in Other Fora [ 64 ] In addition to Dr. Patel’s pursuit of proceedings in Saskatchewan’s court, his conduct before other institutions that involve reinstatement of his surgical procedures is also relevant. I agree with Justice Kalmakoff’s statement in in Patel 2021 SKCA at para 15 that a “person’s conduct before other courts or tribunals can properly inform the decision that must be made.” [ 65 ] Dr. Patel has made ill-founded complaints against many individuals, including members of the PSAT Panel, the registrar of the court, lawyers and judges.

Justice Kalmakoff in Patel 2021 SKCA summarized how Dr. Patel had frequently impugned the conduct of many individuals: [110] More troubling on this front, however, is that a number of the applications that Dr. Patel has brought in conjunction with his applications for leave to appeal appear to seek what is essentially first-instance relief from this Court or relief that this Court has no ability to grant. Examples of this include the application for orders to “compel reasonable behaviour by opposing counsel”, “attributing the causation and costs of delay personally to Mr. Harte and Mr.

Watson” and “addressing the unprofessional behaviour” of each with their respective law societies in CACV3857; and his application for orders compelling statements on the record from several Court of Queen’s Bench judges about their out-of-court communications and formally reviewing the standing of Miller Thompson LLP in CACV3751 and CACV3752.

As for his application to compel production of correspondence between counsel and the Registrar of the Court of Queen’s Bench and his application to conduct an examination of issues regarding alleged differential treatment of self- represented persons and parties represented by counsel in CACV3854 and CACV3866, Tholl J.A. noted that none of those matters were raised before the Court of Queen’s Bench. Dr. Patel’s attempts to raise them before this Court ignores this Court’s role as a court of review and invites it to exercise first-instance powers in the absence of a proper basis. Dr.

Patel’s repeated applications of this nature can properly be characterized as vexatious conduct. ... [131] In a number of Dr. Patel’s appeals and applications, he has filed affidavits and briefs of law that make spurious allegations about the improper conduct of opposing counsel. [132] In addition, he has also launched improper attacks against many of the decision makers below, including members of the Panel and judges of the Court of Queen’s Bench, implying that they have not disclosed the “real” reasons for the decisions they have made.

He has raised allegations of bias and racism and suggested that judges and court officials have conspired to treat him differently. While there may be rare cases in which allegations of this sort are validly made, Dr. Patel has made them in the complete absence of an evidentiary basis. That is a hallmark of vexatious conduct. [ 66 ] In a subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal, in Patel 2023 SKCA , Dr. Patel objected to Justice Kalmakoff’s prior reference to attacks against various persons as characterizing vexatious conduct. Chief Justice Richards commented and dismissed Dr.

Patel’s position, writing: [29] That said, let me comment briefly on the various points made by Dr. Patel: … (

i) Dr. Patel takes issue with Kalmakoff J.A.’s comments about him having made allegations against judges, court officials and lawyers. He does so by noting that Leurer J.A. recused himself when he raised a concern in CACV3517, CACV3527 and CACV3679 about the fact that Leurer J.A.’s former law firm had acted for the SHA. I am not moved by this submission. Justice Kalmakoff’s concerns went far beyond an arguable reasonable apprehension of bias issue relating to a specific judge in a particular appeal. At paragraph 132 of his decision, he noted that Dr.

Patel had made spurious allegations about the conduct of opposing counsel, launched improper attacks against decision-makers including members of the hearing panel and judges of the Court of Queen’s Bench. [ 67 ] Clearly, Dr. Patel’s repeated and ill-conceived criticism of lawyers, judges and other adjudicators of his matters is germane to the court’s consideration whether he should be declared a vexatious litigant. (ii) Complaints Against the PSAT Panel [ 68 ] On December 17, 2020, in response to threats that Dr.

Patel had made against the PSAT panel, the SHA brought an application that the panel should be recused. The panel determined that it was unable to continue because a series of threats made by Dr. Patel had created a reasonable apprehension that the panel could not discharge its duties without a perception of bias. Leslie Sullivan,

Chair of the PSAT wrote (Supplemental affidavit of Nikki Fessler sworn December 24, 2020, Exhibit E page 1): … The essence of the threats was that Dr. Patel would sue the Chair, make a complaint about the Chair to the Law Society or otherwise engage in legal proceedings against the Panel, should rulings not be in his favour.

The concern of the SHA is that the Panel’s decision- making could be influenced by these threats or implied threats, rather than based on an even-handed assessment of the evidence. [ 69 ] The panel then cited four “specific threats underpinning…this aspect of the SHA application,” writing (Supplemental affidavit of Nikki Fessler sworn December 24, 2020, Exhibit E page 1): 1) On November 28, 20198 Dr.

Patel wrote to the Panel that if the Tribunal did not permit him to rebut certain evidence, the result would be a Law Society complaint about the Chair. 2) On May 26, 2020 in a letter to the Panel with several complaints about the proceedings, Dr. Patel wrote “Tribunals have established protection from liability. But a Tribunal that exceeds its jurisdiction or demonstrates bad faith is not protected from civil responsibility”. 3) On October 23, 2020 in the context of a complaint about the SHA conspiring with the Ministry of Health, Dr.

Patel stated “the Tribunal will inevitably face complaint, judicial review and/or appeal from one or more parties”. 4) On November 19, 2020 Dr. Patel wrote to Heather Jensen, counsel to the PSAT. He wrote “The Tribunal has long relied on the court’s reluctance to deal with interim or interlocutory decisions. That will not last forever. A

[…]