COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Talwar v. Grand River Hospital, 2025 ONCA 35

DATE: 20250117

DOCKET: M55550 (COA-24-OM-0190)

Paciocco, Monahan and Wilson JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Dr. Manoj Talwar

Moving Party

and

Grand River Hospital and St. Mary’s General Hospital

Responding Parties

Dr. Manoj Talwar, acting in person

Henry Ngan and Isaac Wright, for the responding parties

Heard: In Writing

Determination pursuant to r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, with respect to the motion to set aside or vary the decision of Justice Harvison Young of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dated November 12, 2024.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] Dr. Talwar was a surgeon who practiced at Grand River Hospital and St. Mary’s General Hospital until June 2016 when the hospitals recommended that his appointment to the medical staff not be renewed. Dr. Talwar requested a hearing before the hospitals’ boards of directors and in October 2017, the boards accepted the recommendation and confirmed his hospital privileges would not be renewed. Following this, Dr. Talwar has unsuccessfully appealed every decision that has been made in relation to this matter. The following is a chronology of dates to give context to the motion that is currently before this court:

• March 17, 2020: following an 11-day hearing on the merits, the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (“HPARB”) confirmed the decision of the hospitals’ boards not to renew Dr. Talwar’s hospital privileges: Talwar v. Grand River Hospital St. Mary’s General Hospital, 2020 CanLII 21358 (Ont. HPARB).

• April 19, 2022: Broad J., the motion judge of the Divisional Court, dismissed Dr. Talwar’s application for judicial review of the boards’ decision: Talwar v. Grand River Hospital, 2022 ONSC 2166 (Div. Ct.).

• June 28, 2022: a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court dismissed Dr. Talwar’s appeal of the HPARB decision: Talwar v. Grand River Hospital, 2022 ONSC 3822 (Div. Ct.).

• January 25, 2023: the Court of Appeal dismissed Dr. Talwar’s leave to appeal application of the Divisional Court’s June 28, 2022 decision.

• June 5, 2024: the Divisional Court dismissed Dr. Talwar’s appeal of Broad J.’s decision. Dr. Talwar sought leave to appeal this decision.

• October 7, 2024: the Registrar of the Court of Appeal issued an order dismissing Dr. Talwar’s motion for leave to appeal for delay.

• November 12, 2024: Harvison Young J.A. dismissed the motion of Dr. Talwar to set aside the order for dismissal for delay and for an order extending the time to permit him to file a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the Divisional Court dated June 5, 2024.

• November 18, 2024: Dr. Talwar then filed a motion seeking to set aside the order of Harvison Young J.A. and have it reviewed by a panel of this court.

• November 20, 2024: counsel for the responding parties requested a r. 2.1 dismissal under the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (the “Rules”), of Dr. Talwar’s panel motion contending that it is a frivolous, vexatious, or abusive proceeding.

[2] Under r. 2.1 of the Rules, this court may stay or dismiss a proceeding that appears to be on its face frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. Vexatious litigants put a strain on the justice system that affects all levels of the judiciary as well as counsel: Lochner v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2020 ONCA 720, at para. 18. The power to dismiss an appeal under r. 2.1. is to be used only in “the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading and there is a basis in the pleadings to support the resort to the attenuated process”: Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, 81 C.P.C. (7th) 258, at para. 8.

[3] Some hallmarks of vexatious litigants include exhausting all rights of review, appealing any time there is an adverse judgment, and bringing multiple proceedings in an attempt to re-determine settled issues: see Lochner, at paras. 19-20; Mukwa v. Farm Credit of Canada, 2022 ONCA 320, at para. 9. Each of these hallmarks is evident in the case at bar.

[4] What Dr. Talwar seeks to do now is set aside Harvison Young J.A.’s dismissal of his motion seeking to set aside the Registrar’s dismissal for delay order and, further, obtain an order extending the time to bring a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the Divisional Court dismissing his appeal of Broad J.’s decision. There is no basis on which to grant Dr. Talwar the relief he seeks. As noted by Harvison Young J.A., Dr. Talwar sought and obtained a full hearing in front of the HPARB from which he unsuccessfully appealed. There is no merit to the leave to appeal application and it is not in the interests of justice to grant the relief sought. This matter has been ongoing since 2016 and it is unfair to the responding parties to continue to be required to respond to Dr. Talwar’s motions, all of which have been dismissed. We agree that allowing this matter to proceed to an appeal would constitute yet another collateral attack on the underlying decisions.

Disposition

[5] Dr. Talwar’s motion is dismissed. Pursuant to r. 2.1, Dr. Talwar is prohibited from making any further motions related to his appeal or motion without leave of a judge of this court.

[6] The motion is dismissed with costs payable to the responding parties in the sum of $5,000.

“David M. Paciocco J.A.”

“P.J. Monahan J.A.”

“D.A. Wilson J.A.”