Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The case dealt with whether the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB) could intervene in an appeal regarding its own jurisdiction under the Independent Health Facilities Act.

• The underlying dispute involved a reimbursement order from the Minister of Health against a private health facility operator over improperly documented ultrasound services.

• A central issue was whether the Board's hearing constituted a true “review” of the Minister’s decision or a hearing de novo permitting new evidence and arguments.

• The appellant argued the Minister expanded the basis of her decision improperly, violating procedural fairness and overstepping legal limits.

• The court was asked to rule on whether the Board could participate in the appeal to offer its interpretation of the statutory framework.

• Justice Faieta granted the Board limited intervenor status as a friend of the court, solely to address the jurisdictional question.

Facts and procedural background

In Partap Law Medicine Professional Corporation (formerly Di-Med Services Limited) v. Minister of Health, the appellant operated independent health facilities offering diagnostic imaging services. Following an audit, the Ontario Minister of Health issued a letter demanding reimbursement of $294,692.25. The Minister claimed that the facility had billed for limited pelvic ultrasounds that were not actually rendered, relying on section 24.3(1)1(i) of the Independent Health Facilities Act (IHFA).

The appellant disputed the finding and requested a review hearing before the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB). At the hearing, although it was confirmed that the ultrasounds were performed, the Board upheld the reimbursement demand on different grounds: that proper documentation of medical necessity was lacking, shifting the basis to section 24.3(1)1(iii) of the IHFA. This change in reasoning gave rise to allegations that the Minister had “bootstrapped” her original decision.

Issues raised in the appeal

The appellant brought the matter before the Divisional Court, raising multiple legal grounds. Chief among them was the claim that the HSARB erred in treating the hearing as a hearing de novo — a full reconsideration — rather than a confined review of the Minister’s stated reasons. The appellant argued that allowing new arguments and evidence from the Minister undermined procedural fairness, and that the Board misconstrued its statutory authority.

The appellant also claimed that the Minister introduced new legal justifications (related to medical directives and documentation standards) after the fact, in breach of administrative law principles. The main legal question became whether HSARB’s statutory mandate permitted it to re-hear the matter afresh or only to assess the lawfulness of the Minister’s written decision.

Board’s motion to intervene

Before the appeal could be heard on the merits, the Board itself filed a motion seeking permission to intervene in the case. It asked to participate as a friend of the court (amicus curiae), with a narrow focus: to provide submissions on the interpretation of section 24.9(1)2 of the IHFA — specifically, whether it authorizes a hearing de novo. The Board stated clearly that it would not argue the merits of its own decision or seek costs.

Court’s ruling on intervention

Justice Faieta of the Divisional Court considered principles from leading cases such as Northwestern Utilities and Ontario (Energy Board) v. Ontario Power Generation Inc., which limit a tribunal’s ability to defend its own decisions to preserve impartiality. However, the court accepted that in this instance, the Board’s input on the jurisdictional question could assist the court in resolving a pure question of law.

The judge found that because the issue was one of statutory interpretation to be reviewed for correctness (not reasonableness), the risks of undermining finality or impartiality were limited. The court concluded that the Board’s statutory expertise could be helpful in this narrow context.

Outcome and parties' roles

The Divisional Court granted the Board leave to intervene as a friend of the court. The Board was permitted to file a factum and make brief oral submissions — but only on the jurisdictional question of whether a section 24.9(1)2 hearing under the IHFA is a hearing de novo.

This decision did not resolve the underlying appeal between Partap Law Medicine Professional Corporation (Appellant) and the Minister of Health (Respondent). It merely allowed the Board to assist the court on a specific legal point. The winner of this ruling was the Health Services Appeal and Review Board, which was granted limited intervenor status and permitted to participate in the appeal in a non-adversarial role.