|
Delegated Legislation - SOR. Doxy.Me Inc. v. Ontario Health et al.
In Doxy.Me Inc. v. Ontario Health et al. (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a JR, this brought against "Ontario Health’s refusal to verify that its video service complies with required standards. The result of Ontario Health’s decisions is that Doxy’s physician clients are not entitled to receive payment from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (“OHIP”) for any services rendered through its videoconferencing platform."
Here the court considers the SOR for issues of ultra vires delegated legislation:[31] When reviewing the vires of subordinate legislation, the presumptive standard of review is reasonableness. In exceptional cases, the correctness standard is applied when it is alleged that it fails to respect the division of powers between Parliament and provincial legislatures: Auer v. Auer, 2024 SCC 36, at para. 27.
[32] The following principles apply when assessing the vires of subordinate legislation on the standard of reasonableness:(a) Subordinate legislation is presumed to be valid. The burden is on a challenger to demonstrate that subordinate legislation is invalid. Further, subordinate legislation is to be interpreted in a manner so that, where possible, it is construed in a manner that renders it intra vires.
(b) Subordinate legislation must be consistent with the specific provisions of the enabling legislation and with its overriding purpose or object.
(c) The challenged subordinate legislation and the enabling legislation should be interpreted using a broad and purposive approach.
(d) A review of the vires of subordinate legislation does not involve an assessment of its policy merits: Auer v. Auer, 2024 SCC 36, at paras. 31-40; Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Health and Long‑Term Care), 2013 SCC 64, at paras. 24-28. [33] No exception to the presumption of reasonableness review applies in this case nor has any exception been asserted.
|
