Citation and Court Information

CITATION: Talwar v. Grand River Hospital et al., 2024 ONSC 1480

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 362/23 (Kitchener)

DATE: 20240311

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: MANOJ TALWAR, Plaintiff AND: GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL, ST. MARY’S GENERAL HOSPITAL, MALCOLM MAXWELL, DONALD SHILTON, PETER POTTS, ASHOK SHARMA, PETER STEVENSON, BOGDAN PAUN, YVES LECLERC and MATTHEW KILMURRY

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.

COUNSEL: Dr Talwar, self-represented Plaintiff / Responding Party Simon A. Clements and Christian Breukelman, for the Defendants / Moving Parties

HEARD by ZOOM: January 5, 2024

CASE MANAGEMENT ENDORSEMENT

D.L. Corbett J.:

[1] Dr Talwar has pursued multiple proceedings, in multiple fora, in connection with decisions taken by Grand River Hospital and St Mary’s General Hospital to limit and ultimately terminate his hospital privileges as a surgeon.

[2] The HPARB upheld the termination decision, and a panel of this court upheld the HPARB’s decision on June 28, 2022 (2022 ONSC 3822). Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused on January 25, 2023. Thus, the impugned termination decision of the respondent hospitals was authoritatively upheld on a final basis about a year ago.

[3] Dr Talwar takes the position that he was entitled to seek and be afforded hospital privileges pending the final disposition of appeals from the termination decision. He says that he was improperly denied these privileges. He has taken multiple proceedings before the HPARB in respect to these issues (which arose annually) and has commenced proceedings in this court from adverse decisions on these issues. By decision dated April 6, 2022, D.A. Broad J., a further proceeding in the Divisional Court was quashed on the basis that it was an improper attempt to raise issues by way of judicial review that were the subject of appeal proceedings in the Divisional Court: 2022 ONSC 2166. Subsequent to the decision of Broad J., as noted above, the appeal proceedings were resolved against Dr Talwar.

[4] Currently, the defendant hospitals have motions outstanding before the HPARB to quash or dismiss Dr Talwar’s pending proceedings before the HPARB as a result of the final disposition of the termination of Dr Talwar’s hospital privileges.

[5] I am satisfied that some of Dr Talwar’s claims in the current proceeding are collateral attacks on the termination decision. Those claims will not be permitted to proceed further. Some of Dr Talwar’s claims in the current proceeding are based on his position that he was entitled to annual appointments pending disposition of his appeals from the termination decision – issues that are pending before the HPARB. The hospital’s motions to quash these HPARB appeals are scheduled to be heard in June 2024.

Hospitals’ Motion to Quash

[6] The respondent hospitals brought a motion to quash the civil proceedings (the case now before me) and I initially scheduled this motion for argument in July 2023. The motion did not proceed as scheduled and was eventually rescheduled for hearing on January 5, 2024.

[7] At the outset of the motion, Dr Talwar sought an adjournment until the disposition of his motion to review the order of Broad J., and determination of the appeals pending before the HPARB. He argued, in effect, that this court should not prejudge the results of these other proceedings.

[8] During oral argument, I asked Dr Talwar if he agreed that his civil claims would have to fail if he was not successful in the current administrative proceedings before the Divisional Court and the HPARB. He was unable to answer this question.

[9] The review motion is scheduled to be heard soon. The results of that motion, and the results of the motions to quash the outstanding HPARB appeals, may have a bearing on whether any of Dr Talwar’s civil claims can continue. Given this, I am granting Dr Talwar’s request for an adjournment pending determination of the HPARB appeals by the HPARB and determination of the review motion in the Divisional Court, or other order of this court. In the meantime, this civil proceeding is stayed.

[10] The parties argued the hospitals’ motion to quash before me, and I am seized of the return of that motion – on the attendance for further argument, the parties need only update this court on events since January 5, 2024. Costs of the motion to date to be addressed on final disposition of that motion by this court.

[11] Finally, I note that Dr Talwar unsuccessfully sought to adjourn the HPARB appeals, and then commenced an application for judicial review of the HPARB’s denial of that request. A notice pursuant to r. 2.1 has been issued in respect to this latest application for judicial review from Dr Talwar. I have granted Dr Talwar’s request for an adjournment because it is more convenient for this court to wait the short period required to obtain final dispositions of the HPARB appeal and Divisional Court review motion. If those proceedings should be delayed materially, the hospitals may ask me to lift the stay of these proceedings and decide their motion to quash: the interminable delays of the multiple proceedings concerning Dr Talwar’s hospital privileges should move forward with reasonable dispatch now that the termination decision has been disposed of on a final basis.

“D.L. Corbett J.”

Released: March 11, 2024