Distribution of family doctors | The Court of Appeal rejects the challenge

(Montreal) The Court of Appeal has ruled, the distribution plan for family doctors and the method used by the minister are valid. The D^r Mark Roper and his lawyer, M^e Julius Grey, therefore did not convince the judges that there was a real injustice towards the population of Montreal.

In a reaction sent by email to The Canadian Press, M^e Gray says he is disappointed and mentions that he is considering turning to the Supreme Court.

In the judgment signed by judges Stephen W. Hamilton, Martin Vauclair and Frédéric Bachand, the court maintains the first instance decision rendered by judge Dominique Poulin. We also underline the “careful” nature of the judgment in the Superior Court.

The thesis defended by M^e Gray and the D^r Roper alleges that Montreal is at a disadvantage compared to the majority of regions in Quebec. According to the figures of D^r Roper, it displays the worst rate of registration with a family doctor and from one year to the next, the minister uses his discretionary power to deprive the metropolis of new doctors in favor of other regions.

The applicants maintained that the system used was “unreasonable” and that it even violated the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

However, the judges of the Court of Appeal reached the same conclusions as Judge Poulin, that is to say that the insufficient number of front-line family doctors “does not result from the distribution of staff carried out by the minister, but rather the insufficient number of doctors to meet the needs at the provincial level.

In his request, the D^r Roper also denounced the fact that the calculation used for the distribution of staff did not take into account the rate of registration with a family doctor. In addition, he criticized the Ministry of Health for not taking into account the real pool of patients served by Montreal and for only sticking to the number of inhabitants.

The judges, however, recalled that it was not the role of the courts to replace the legislative, executive or administrative powers in this situation.

The Canadian Press’ health content receives funding through a partnership with the Canadian Medical Association. The Canadian Press is solely responsible for editorial choices.