Mehta v. Provincial Medical Board of Nova Scotia
The Chambers judge did not err in removing Dr. John Fraser as a defendant because the Statement of Claim contained no specific allegations against him nor sought any remedy specifically against him; accordingly the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the appellant.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2000 NSCA 14
- Parties
- Appellant: Navin Mehta; Respondent: The Provincial Medical Board of Nova Scotia; Respondent: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia; Respondent: Dr. John Fraser; Respondent: Dr. Allen Bishop
- Court
- Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 18 January 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed; Chambers judge's order removing Dr. John Fraser as a defendant upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Party Removal, Pleading Specificity, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Navin Mehta
Appellant
The Provincial Medical Board of Nova Scotia
Respondent
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia
Respondent
Dr. John Fraser
Respondent
Dr. Allen Bishop
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Chambers judge erred in removing Dr. John Fraser as a defendant
- 2 Whether the Statement of Claim contains specific allegations against Dr. Fraser
- 3 Whether any remedy is sought specifically against Dr. Fraser
Ratio Decidendi
The Chambers judge did not err in removing Dr. John Fraser as a defendant because the Statement of Claim contained no specific allegations against him nor sought any remedy specifically against him; accordingly the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the appellant.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; Chambers judge's order removing Dr. John Fraser as a defendant upheld.
Orders
- Leave to appeal dismissed
- Order removing Dr. John Fraser as a defendant upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Mehta v. Provincial Medical Board of Nova Scotia Court Court of Appeal Date 2000-01-18 Citation 2000 NSCA 14 Docket CA 157875 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Chipman, David (Honourable Justice); Glube, Constance R. (Honourable Chief Justice) (CA); Cromwell, Thomas A. (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Decision Content Date:20000118 CA 157875 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL [Cite as: Mehta v. Provincial Medical Board of Nova Scotia, 2000 NSCA 14] Glube, C.J.N.S.; Chipman and Cromwell, JJ.A. BETWEEN: NAVIN MEHTA ) Appellant in person ) Appellant ) ) - and - ) ) THE PROVINCIAL MEDICAL BOARD ) Marjorie A. Hickey, Q.C. OF NOVA SCOTIA, (under the Medical ) for the respondents Act of 1989), THE COLLEGE OF ) PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ) NOVA SCOTIA, (under the Medical Act of ) 1996) and DR. JOHN FRASER ) and DR. ALLEN BISHOP ) ) Respondents ) ) ) ) ) Appeal heard: ) January 18, 2000 ) ) Judgment delivered: ) January 18, 2000 ) ) THE COURT: Application for leave to appeal dismissed per oral reasons for judgment of Cromwell, J.A.; Glube, C.J.N.S. and Chipman, J.A. concurring. CROMWELL J.A.: [1] Dr. Mehta seeks leave to appeal a decision and order of MacAdam, J. in Chambers which removed Dr. John Fraser as a Defendant in this proceeding. The Chambers judge held that there was “... no specific allegation in reference to Dr. Fraser at all. The only reference that I can understand from the brief, as well as the oral argument, is that apparently his appointment by someone else, one of the other defendants ... is claimed as being improper since he was untrained, but that’s not a claim against him...”. [2] The Statement of Claim, as the Chambers judge pointed out in his reasons, does not make a single specific allegation against Dr. Fraser, nor is any remedy sought specifically as against him. [3] Therefore, we conclude that the Chambers judge did not err in removing Dr. Fraser as a defendant and we would dismiss the application for leave to appeal. The appellant shall pay to the respondents costs of the appeal fixed at $500.00 inclusive of disbursements. Cromwell, J.A. Concurred in: Glube, C.J.N.S. Chipman, J.A.