Ron Steeves, vice-president of the Canadian Snowbird Association Inc. and representative of eastern Canada, was outraged when he learned that Ontario was eliminating payment for out-ofCanada medical treatment. As chair of the CSAGovernment Relations Committee, he was emphatic about the fact that CSA should fight against what Ontario was proposing. He stated, “in my opinion, this is completely contrary to the intent of the Canada Health Act.” Ron sent e-mails to fellow directors expressing his disgust, and vowing that something had to be done. All agreed that this was a terrible situation and that the government had to be made accountable. A big concern was that if Ontario got away with it, the other provinces could very well do the same thing. All of the provinces − through their health schemes − paid something for out-of-province medical treatment, although most did not pay what was required under the Canada Health Act. Suppose they all followed Ontario. At the next board meeting, the topic was foremost. As the meeting progressed, it was obvious to me that court action was going to be considered. We had been down that road before, in 1995, and it had been my opinion that the actions of the Ontario government were contrary to Ontario law. We took action against the government. The case was heard in the Divisional Court, which is composed of three Supreme Court judges. Roy McMurtry was chief judge and had the responsibility of naming the judges who would hear the case. He picked himself, and named the other two judges as Pat Hartt and Dennis O’Leary. I was concerned, as I considered Roy McMurtry to be pro-government, having been attorney general at one time and having been previously appointed Ontario representative in London, England. When the case was heard, McMurtry, along with Pat Hartt, ruled that the case was “premature,” such that we did not win. On the other hand, Dennis O’Leary ruled in a dissenting opinion that we were 100% correct and that the approach of McMurtry and Hartt was flawed. But we had lost. A judgment in a later case putting forth the same argument as ours, brought by someone other than the CSA, met the same fate in the Divisional Court, following the judgment in the 1995 case. Thus, there were two cases against us. However, I recalled an experience in my law school days when I had been invited to write an article for the law school publication. There had been a municipal law decision reported in the press by a Supreme Court judge, and I was of the opinion that the judge was wrong. I wrote my article saying so and setting forth my reasons. The article had to be reviewed by one of our professors who had to OK publication. When I presented it to him, he told me that I had a lot of nerve disagreeing with a Supreme Court judge, and he refused to approve publication. A short time later, the case appeared before the Court of Appeal and one would think that I had written the decision. The Court allowed the appeal, saying that the original judge was wrong. As well, we had the dissenting opinion of Dennis O’Leary in our favour. McMurtry and Hartt had not said that we were wrong, just that we were premature. I again expressed the opinion that the Ontario government had acted illegally and that we should be successful in a court action against the government. As the Board was discussing the matter, I was onmy computer looking for a lawyer whom I would suggest to handle our case if the Board decided to take court action. I found someone whose credentials impressedme and I was instructed tomake inquiries. Two days later, I met with Scott Fairley at his office on Adelaide St. I outlined the problem and expressed my opinion that we should be successful in a court action. Would he be interested in taking the case? He agreed withmy assessment and said that he was interested in acting for the CSA. I thought that he would be the right person to handle the case, so I asked him to prepare a written opinion for the Board. He did so, setting forth why we should be successful for the reasons I had expressed, and also adding two other grounds involving the Charter of Rights. I had no opinion on these other grounds, but welcomed anything which would be of assistance. The Board, led by president Karen Huestis, agreed to proceed with court action. This was in October, and the law was to come into effect on the first of January, 2020. Our action included an application for an injunction to prevent the change from coming into force but, because of the shortage of time and the problem of getting a court date for a hearing, we were unable to proceed on the injunction front. However, we continued with the main action. We needed an individual as well as the CSA as applicant. It had to be someone who would be adversely affected by the change. Bob Slack, past-president, consented to be that person and the CSA agreed to cover any costs to which he was exposed. Bob was the ideal applicant − senior, BEHIND THE SCENES THE COURT ACTION by Wallace Weylie, CSA Legal Counsel 12 | www.snowbirds.org CSAUpdate
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzMzNzMx