Superior Court dismisses motion brought forward by Steelworkers Local 2251 president Mike Da Prat to re-roster ousted patients – but that doesn’t mean the civil matter is over

A civil suit launched by Steelworkers Local 2251 president Mike Da Prat to fight the de-rostering of patients at Group Health Centre has mostly been dismissed. 

In a written decision released July 11, Ontario Superior Court Justice Kathleen Cullin ruled against granting three motions, including an injunction ordering the Sault Ste. Marie and District Group Health Association to continue providing health-care services to all de-rostered patients who had paid premiums for health-care services under a subscriber agreement. 

A motion to sue GHC for breach of contract – on behalf of all de-rostered union members who were not part of the subscriber agreement –was also dismissed.   

The matter was heard in October 2024.  

Last year, GHC announced it would cut 10,000 of its 60,000 patients effective May 31, 2024 due to the inability to find replacements for several departed physicians. Those 10,000 patients included many ‘brickers’ – members of the Steelworkers who originally built the place. 

Local 2251 represents more than 2,200 hourly-rated workers at Algoma Steel. 

Its members played a key role in founding Group Health Centre, which was regarded as a model for the delivery of health services for several years.   

The union local also had representation on the centre’s governing board up until 2012.  

When union members voted to launch the civil action in May of last year, Da Prat told SooToday’s David Helwig the objective was to “get the Group Health Centre back.” 

“We want to get the board structure back the way it was [before 2012], and we want to make sure that it’s recognized that the people that built the Group Health Centre are the members of the Group Health Centre, along with other people,” the union president said at the time. 

“If there’s a case where some enrolment needs to be reduced, it’s going to have to be done on the basis of the people that came last. The other thing is, people should remain members of the group – and as doctors come in, they should be on a priority list for obtaining doctors. 

“That’s the way the intent once was. It was never intended to be career choices or retirements of doctors would affect the membership of the patients,” Da Prat continued. 

“The Group Health Centre is ours. And it was simply taken away from us.” 

In her written decision, Cullin determined that even if Da Prat is successful in arguing that Group Health Association continues to be obligated to him through the subscriber agreement, that agreement doesn’t require the organization to deliver OHIP-funded care.  

“The subscriber agreement is an agreement to deliver privately-funded health-care services paid by the premiums of its subscribers, an arrangement which I view as similar to facilities such as Medcan or Telus Health,” Cullin wrote.  

“In my view, if the defendants have any obligation to the plaintiff, it is not to re-roster him, but rather to explore the available options for privately-funded health-care services, provided he is prepared to pay the attendant premiums for those services.” 

Cullin also determined the plaintiff’s claim that the subscriber agreement had been breached due to his de-rostering doesn’t “meet the threshold of a strong prima facie case.” 

But the legal battle launched by the union boss may not be over yet.  

As part of the written decision, Da Prat has been authorized by the courts to take legal action against Group Health Association for breach of contract on behalf of all de-rostered members of the subscriber agreement so individual lawsuits aren’t needed.      

The plaintiff has been granted a 60-day window to amend the June 2024 statement of claim.  

– with files from David Helwig