Patel v Saskatchewan Health Authority, 2021 SKCA 105

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan Docket: CACV3857 Citation: Patel v Saskatchewan Health Authority , 2021 SKCA 105 Date: 2021-07-29 Between: Dr. Satyam Patel Applicant/Prospective Appellant (Applicant) And Saskatchewan Health Authority and Charles Lamb Respondents/Prospective Respondents (Respondents) Before: Barrington-Foote J.A. (in Chambers) Disposition: Application denied Written reasons by: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barrington-Foote On application from: QBG 2144 of 2020, Regina Application heard: July 28, 2021 Counsel: Kevin Mellor for Dr.

Satyam Patel Reginald Watson, Q.C., and Ryan Kitzul for Saskatchewan Health Authority Paul Harte for Charles Lamb Barrington-Foote J.A. [ 1 ] In a June 22, 2021, fiat, a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench [Chambers judge] granted the application of Charles Lamb to be added as a party [Order] to Saskatchewan Health Authority v Dr. Satyam Patel , QBG 2144 of 2020 [QB 2144]. Dr. Patel has applied for leave to appeal the Order. [ 2 ] QBG 2144 is an application to have Dr. Patel declared a vexatious litigant.

It is one of many actions and applications that have been spawned, directly or indirectly, by the suspension of Dr. Patel’s surgical privileges by the predecessor to the Saskatchewan Health Authority [SHA] on June 11, 2016. Dr. Patel appealed his suspension to the Practitioner Staff Appeals Tribunal and, since doing so, has launched multiple civil claims and appeals and has filed multiple complaints with the Law Society of Saskatchewan and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan. [ 3 ] Mr. Lamb is a former patient of Dr. Patel who is pursuing a medical malpractice claim against him.

That action has featured a difficult and as yet unresolved dispute relating to the disclosure of medical records. When QBG 2144 was commenced, Mr. Lamb applied to be added as an intervenor pursuant to Rule 2-12 or as a party pursuant to Rule 3-84 of The Queen’s Bench Rules . The Chambers judge declined to grant intervenor status. He found that Rule 3-85, not Rule 3-84, was the Rule that “most specifically ground[ed] the type of remedy” sought by Mr. Lamb (at para 26). He concluded that Mr.

Lamb was required to meet only one of the three grounds specified in Rule 3-85(1) to be added as a party but had met all of them. In the result, he ordered that Mr. Lamb be added as a party, and that if he intended to file affidavit materials or a brief of law he must do so by July 31, 2021. [ 4 ] The test that has been repeatedly applied by this Court on applications for leave to appeal is that described by Cameron J.A. in Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v Saskatchewan , 2002 SKCA 119 at para 6 , 227 Sask R 121.

In brief, a Chambers judge hearing such an application must consider whether the proposed appeal is of sufficient merit to warrant the attention of the Court and whether it is of sufficient importance to the proceedings, the field of practice, the state of the law or the administration of justice to warrant determination by this Court. The inquiry into merit may include, among other things, a consideration of whether the appeal is destined to fail, is apt to unduly delay the proceedings or to add unduly to the cost of the proceedings.

The inquiry into importance may include whether the decision bears heavily or potentially prejudicially on the course or outcome of the action, raises a new or unsettled point of law or practice, or transcends the particular in its implications. [ 5 ] These questions are not exhaustive and are not a checklist.

The authority to grant leave is discretionary and calls for the Chambers judge to decide whether they are sufficiently concerned about the correctness of a decision to warrant its exercise: see also Lepage Contracting Ltd. v Saskatchewan (Employment Standards) , 2020 SKCA 29 at paras 23–24 ; and Saskatoon (City) v North Ridge Development Corporation , 2015 SKCA 13 at para 50 , 451 Sask R 265. [ 6 ] The SHA made submissions in relation to certain evidentiary issues but took no position as to whether leave should be granted. Mr. Lamb submitted that the appeal was without merit, as Dr.

Patel had not identified an error in fact or law by the Chambers judge and that it is of no importance in any event. With respect, I do not agree. This appeal would not be destined to fail. The Chambers judge relied on a Rule that differs from the Rules relied on by Mr. Lamb in his application to be added as an intervenor or a party. As Dr. Patel pointed out, he did not have the opportunity to make submissions. That raises an arguable issue, particularly given that there is limited little authority relating to Rule 3-85. Finally, although many of the issues identified by Dr.

Patel lack merit, there are arguable points as to whether the Chambers judge erred in law in his

interpretation of the Rule or in mixed fact and law. [ 7 ] Dr. Patel argues that facing two opponents would add significantly to the complexity of QBG 2144 and to his costs. In my view, that is unlikely. It is likely, and Mr. Lamb’s counsel confirmed, that Mr. Lamb will adduce little if any evidence that would not be adduced by the SHA in any event. There is nothing to suggest that he would make materially different submissions as to the law, or as to the application of the law to the facts.

These factors support the conclusion that the Order does not bear heavily on the outcome of QBG 2144. [ 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. On the other hand, the Order should not materially delay the resolution of the SHA application, particularly given that this action was commenced by Originating Notice and in light of the conditions imposed by the Chambers judge. [ 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. “Barrington-Foote J.A.” Barrington-Foote J.A.