Szezepaniak v. Interior Health Authority

Szezepaniak v. Interior Health Authority

The Court held the Charter did not apply to the HAB/IHA decision because the decision to discipline and manage hospital privileges was a routine operational matter of the health authority (Stoffman line), not an exercise of statutory compulsion or implementation of governmental policy (Eldridge); alternatively, even...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2025 BCSC 1516
Parties
Petitioner: Dr. Theresa Szezepaniak; Respondent: Interior Health Authority; Respondent: Hospital Appeal Board
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Charter S.7, Application of Charter to Administrative Bodies, Hospital Privileges, Disciplinary Proceedings, Privative Clause, Doré/loyola Balancing, Standard of Review
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Health Law Employment Law Charter S.7 Application of Charter to Administrative Bodies Hospital Privileges Disciplinary Proceedings +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Theresa Szezepaniak

Petitioner

Interior Health Authority

Respondent

Hospital Appeal Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Hospital Appeal Board's decision was subject to the Charter
  2. 2 Whether section 7 of the Charter was engaged by the discipline and cancellation/suspension of hospital privileges
  3. 3 Whether, if s.7 engaged, the Doré/Loyola proportionality balancing would inevitably require quashing the HAB decision or remitting for reconsideration

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the Charter did not apply to the HAB/IHA decision because the decision to discipline and manage hospital privileges was a routine operational matter of the health authority (Stoffman line), not an exercise of statutory compulsion or implementation of governmental policy (Eldridge); alternatively, even if considered, s.7 was not engaged because the adverse effects (loss of work, stigma, psychological stress) flowed from the petitioner's voluntary choice not to be vaccinated and were not state-imposed; therefore the petition for judicial review is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the Interior Health Authority