The Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba has dismissed a doctor’s claim against against Women’s Health Clinic Inc. (WHC) regarding breaches of contract, wrongful termination, and defamation.
Dr. K.H., a family physician specializing in abortion care, entered into an agreement with WHC in 2010 to provide Therapeutic Abortion services (TAs) as an independent contractor. Over the years, WHC expanded its team of physicians, which led to a reduction in the number of procedure days (slates) for Dr. K.H.. Feeling aggrieved by the reduction in his slates and other alleged contractual breaches, he filed a statement of claim against WHC in December 2020, after his contract was terminated with 90 days’ notice.
Dr. K.H.’s primary allegations included breach of contract, wrongful termination, and defamation. He asserted that WHC had failed to consult with him about changes to the number of slates, did not provide annual performance reviews, and failed to resolve disputes as outlined in the contract. Additionally, he claimed that communications from WHC staff amounted to defamation, damaging his reputation.
Breach of contract
The court reviewed the evidence and found no breaches of contract by WHC. The court noted that while Dr. K.H. was unhappy with the reduction in slates, the contract never guaranteed a minimum number of procedure days.
The addition of new physicians was within WHC’s rights and Dr. K.H. had been consulted, as evidenced by numerous emails and meetings. Furthermore, the court determined that Dr. K.H. had condoned any alleged breaches by continuing to work under the contract until its termination.
Independent contractor status
The court also addressed the nature of Dr. K.H.’s working relationship with WHC. Despite his claim of being a dependent contractor entitled to more substantial notice upon termination, the court concluded that he was an independent contractor, as defined in the contract.
The ruling cited that Dr. K.H. maintained significant control over his work and was responsible for his professional expenses and liabilities.
Constructive dismissal and wrongful termination
The concept of constructive dismissal was found inapplicable, as it pertains to employer-employee relationships. Dr. K.H.’s contract clearly allowed termination with 90 days’ notice, which WHC adhered to.
The court deemed the notice period reasonable, especially considering the negotiated terms and the fact that Dr. K.H. quickly transitioned to full-time work at his other practice.
Defamation claims
Dr. K.H. identified five communications he claimed were defamatory. However, the court concluded that the statements were either true or protected by qualified privilege. Key points included:
- An email from Dr. G discussing a breach of doctor-patient confidentiality by Dr. K.H. was found to be factual.
- A complaint letter from A-P, a former WHC employee, was deemed not defamatory as WHC did not publish it.
- A performance review email criticizing Dr. K.H.’s punctuality and contribution to a toxic work environment was considered justified.
- A response to Dr. K.H.’s lawyer about the performance review was not deemed a publication to a third party.
- The termination letter outlining reasons for ending the contract was found to be truthful and protected by privilege.
Conclusion
The court dismissed all of Dr. K.H.’s claims, concluding that WHC acted within its contractual rights and did not defame him. The ruling emphasized the importance of clear contractual terms and the obligations of independent contractors.
WHC, having successfully defended against the claims, is entitled to costs, pending further discussions if necessary.
For more information, see Hahlweg et al. v. Women’s Health Clinic Inc., 2024 MBKB 110 (CanLII).
