Docket: A-255-15
Citation: 2016 FCA 70
|
CORAM:
|
DAWSON J.A.
RYER J.A.
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
DHEERAJ KUMAR
MITTAL
|
|
Appellant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
HEALTH
|
|
Respondent
|
Heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on March 2, 2016.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on March 2,
2016.
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
|
DAWSON
J.A.
|
Docket: A-255-15
Citation:
2016 FCA 70
|
CORAM:
|
DAWSON J.A.
RYER J.A.
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
DHEERAJ KUMAR
MITTAL
|
|
Appellant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
HEALTH
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on March
2, 2016).
DAWSON J.A.
[1]
The appellant is a dentist licensed to practice
in the Province of Manitoba. In or about May 2000, he was registered as a
dental service provider with the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program (Program).
The Program provides health-related goods and services not covered by other
federal, provincial, territorial or third-party insurance plans to registered First
Nations and recognized Inuit and Innu persons.
[2]
In 2006, an audit was conducted of the
appellant’s claims made under the Program over the previous two year period.
The audit found that the appellant had made unsupported claims in the total
amount of $30,768.15. As a result of the audit findings and the appellant’s
ongoing billing practices, on November 5, 2008, a decision was made to
terminate the appellant’s status as a dental service provider under the
Program. The appellant did not challenge that decision.
[3]
Subsequently, the appellant has applied to be
registered as a dental service provider under the Program. His most recent
request was denied by letter dated October 10, 2013.
[4]
For reasons cited as 2015 FC 571, a Judge of the
Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review of the October 10,
2013 decision. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court.
[5]
On this appeal, the appellant re-argues the
issues raised before the Federal Court. Specifically, he argues that he was
denied procedural fairness in that he was not provided with notice of the case
to be met, he was not provided with a meaningful opportunity to make
submissions and the decision was made by a biased decision-maker. He also
argues that the decision was unreasonable.
[6]
Before us, the appellant concedes that the
Federal Court correctly determined the content of the duty of fairness and
correctly selected the reasonableness standard of review. However, he argues
that the Federal Court erred in the application of those standards to the
evidence.
[7]
We disagree. We see no reviewable error on the
part of the Federal Court. We reach this conclusion substantially for the
reasons given by the Federal Court.
[8]
It follows that the appeal will be dismissed
with costs.
“Eleanor R. Dawson”
FEDERAL
COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES
OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
|
DOCKET:
|
A-255-15
|
|
|
STYLE OF CAUSE:
|
DHEERAJ KUMAR
MITTAL v. THE MINISTER OF HEALTH
|
|
|
PLACE OF
HEARING:
|
Winnipeg, Manitoba
|
|
DATE OF
HEARING:
|
March 2, 2016
|
|
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
|
DAWSON J.A.
RYER J.A.
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
|
|
DELIVERED
FROM THE BENCH BY:
|
DAWSON J.A.
|
|
|
|
|
APPEARANCES:
|
J.A. Kagan and Andrew Sain
|
For The
Appellant
|
|
Dhara Drew
|
For The
Respondent
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Thompson Dorfman Sweatman LLP
Winnipeg, Manitoba
|
For The
Appellant
|
|
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
For The
Respondent
|
Email this Content