Women's Health Clinic sued by medical professional providing therapeutic abortion services
The Manitoba Court of King’s Bench recently dismissed all claims of a family physician focusing on abortion care in a case that he filed against the Women’s Health Clinic Inc.
In 2010, the doctor, operating through his professional corporation, entered into a contract with the clinic to provide therapeutic abortion services on a fee-for-service basis.
Over time, the clinic expanded its roster of physicians providing therapeutic abortion services. This led to a reduction in the number of procedure days – or “slates” – assigned to the doctor. The doctor claimed that this reduction, along with other alleged failures by the clinic to adhere to the contract, amounted to breaches of their agreement.
In 2020, the clinic terminated the contract and gave the doctor the contractually stipulated 90 days’ notice. The doctor filed a lawsuit claiming breach of contract, wrongful termination, and defamation based on five communications that were allegedly harmful to his reputation.
In Hahlweg et al. v. Women’s Health Clinic Inc., 2024 MBKB 110, the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench ultimately dismissed all claims made by the doctor. The court saw no basis for the allegations of breach, wrongful termination, or defamation.
On the issue of alleged breach of contract, the court accepted that the clinic did introduce new doctors into the abortion program and did reduce the number of slates for the doctor but decided that this did not amount to a contractual breach.
The contract guaranteed no minimum number of slates and explicitly allowed the clinic to make changes in response to service demand, provided that it consulted with the physician, which the clinic did in this case, the court found. Any alleged breaches were either minor in nature or were condoned by the doctor’s continued work in the clinic, the court added.
The court rejected the doctor’s argument that the clinic failed to perform annual reviews and dispute resolution processes as specified in the contract. The court concluded that he had ample opportunity to raise concerns through other channels but chose not to do so.
Next, the court determined that the doctor was an independent contractor, given the terms of the contract and the context of his work. The doctor had control over his procedure days and received income that did not constitute the near-complete economic dependency required to establish dependent contractor status, the court said.
On the issue of constructive dismissal, the court ruled that this concept was inapplicable here due to the doctor’s independent contractor status. The court also held that the clinic’s termination of the contract was lawful and in line with the agreed terms and that the 90-day notice period was reasonable.
Regarding the defamation claims, the court considered the communications between the clinic management and the doctor. The court found these communications either true or protected by qualified privilege. The court saw no evidence that the clinic was malicious or that the communications were unjustified.
