Supreme Court

Decision Information

Clemmy v Babiuk

Court Supreme Court
Date 1990-02-21
File numbers 02019
Judge(s) de Weerdt
Location Yellowknife
Cases and statutes considered Cases considered:
Butler v. Jeannie Marie-Jewell as Minister of Personnel et al. (Unreported, April 14, 1989 N.W.T.S.C.);
Re Wakil and Medical Review Committee et al (1977) 15 O.R. (2D) 157 (DIV. CT.);
R. v. Randolph et al (1966) S.C.R. 260, 56 D.L.R. (2D) 283;
Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Plice Commissioners (1979) 1 S.C.R. 311, 88 D.L.R. (3d) 671;
Martineau v. Matsqui Inst. Disciplinary Board (1980) 1 S.C.R. 602;
Cardinal v. Kent Inst. (1985) 2 S.C.R. 643;
Re Wilson and the Law Society of B.C. (NO.2) (1975) 64 D.L.R. (3D) 512 (B.C.S.C.);
Barsoum v. Pape, [ 1988 ] N.W.T.R. 368 (S.C.)

Statutes considered:
TERRITORIAL HOSPITAL INSURANCE SERVICES ACT, R.O.N.W.T. 1974, C. T-4, S. 11 (2)
Decision information:

Abstract: Application for relief in the nature of certiorari to quash the suspension of Applicant's hospital privileges - Further application for prohibition of the board from hearing written and unwritten complaints under hospital by-law - Finally, application for injunctive relief to prevent members of the board who took part in the suspension from hearing the complaint which led to the suspension.
Decision: Application to quash suspension granted - Just cause for suspension not established, nor was there a bona fide emergency that required immediate action - Application to prohibit hearing written complaints dismissed as this is within the jurisdiction of the board - Application to prohibit hearing unwritten complaints granted - The board is without any authority to hear an unwritten complaint or one based on events that occurred outside the Northwest Territories - Injunctive relief granted prohibiting the same members who dealt with the suspension to hear the complaints.
Subjects: Administrative law
Keywords: Certiorari - prohibition - injunctive relief
Suspension - quash - jsut cause

Decision Content

There is no document available for this decision.
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.