His surgical privileges were suspended due to quality-of-care concerns
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has upheld a vexatious litigant order against an orthopedic surgeon involved in a complicated litigation history.
In Patel v Saskatchewan Health Authority, 2023 SKCA 93, the Saskatchewan Health Authority (SHA) applied for an order that Dr. Satyam Patel be prohibited from commencing proceedings in court without leave of a judge or the court. The SHA grounded its application on the argument that Dr. Patel had "habitually, persistently, and without reasonable cause commenced frivolous or vexatious proceedings in the court."
Dr. Patel and the SHA have a long, complicated litigation history that started in 2016. Dr. Patel is an orthopedic surgeon and a member of the practitioner staff of what was formerly the Regina Qu'Appelle Regional Health Authority (RQRHA), which was later subsumed into SHA. The dispute between Dr. Patel and SHA is rooted in Dr. Patel's disagreement with the SHA's decision to suspend his surgical privileges due to quality-of-care concerns. Dr. Patel launched numerous proceedings in what was then the Court of Queen's Bench and initiated proceedings in the Court of Appeal that played out through ten separate files.
Most Read
As a result of the numerous proceedings that Dr. Patel instituted, SHA applied for an order that Dr. Patel be managed as a vexatious litigant. The court issued an order prohibiting Dr. Patel from commencing any proceedings without leave of the court of a judge.
Dr. Patel opposed the order, arguing that the judge had no authority or jurisdiction to make it, that he should not have been found to be a vexatious litigant, and that the order was overly broad.
Dr. Patel advanced several arguments to establish that he should not have been found to be a vexatious litigant. The appeal court noted that in dealing with these various concerns, the governing standard of review is deferential. The court may interfere if the judge made an error in principle, disregarded or misapprehended a material matter of fact, failed to act judicially or rendered a decision so plainly wrong as to amount to an injustice.
The appeal court said that Dr. Patel's claims that his frequent legal representation suggests his proceedings were not frivolous are not compelling. The court noted that even when his proceedings had arguable merit, they often became vexatious.
The court also addressed Dr. Patel's claim that he did not launch multiple appeals on the same issue. The court found no merit in this point because the judge carefully examined whether Dr. Patel had brought more than one appeal seeking to determine the same issue. He effectively resolved this consideration in Dr. Patel's favour by concluding that it could not be seen as "tilting the balance toward making [a vexatious litigant order]."
Dr. Patel argued that the fact that some of his cases were reserved for decision indicates they were not meritless. However, the appeal court clarified that reserving decisions is not necessarily indicative of merit and can have various reasons, including the need to work out how to adequately express the reason why a meritless appeal or application is meritless, the need to confirm a point or authority before disposing of what appears to be a meritless submission, or a desire to relieve litigants of any impression that the court has not carefully considered matters.
Dr. Patel asserted 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. The court clarified that intent is not the sole basis for determining vexatiousness, as it is also evaluated using objective standards.
The appeal court was not persuaded that the judge made an error. The court found that the judge identified the controlling legal principles and thoroughly examined Dr. Patel's conduct before concluding.
Accordingly, the court found no merit in the great majority of the arguments that Dr. Patel advanced. However, the court deemed it proper to narrow the terms of the order by prohibiting Dr. Patel from "commencing any proceeding in this court that is 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 a party thereto, without leave of the Court or a judge thereof."
