Steven George Bosnick

The applicant sought leave to appeal a Divisional Court order that denied him permission to proceed with an application for judicial review and a motion.

The applicant was previously declared a vexatious litigant and required leave to commence proceedings.

The Court of Appeal initiated a review under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the motion for leave to appeal to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The motion for leave was dismissed, and the applicant was prohibited from making further motions in the proceeding without leave.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a College committee's decision requiring him to complete a remedial program and attend for a caution.

The discipline stemmed from the physician making a mandatory fitness-to-drive report to the Ministry of Transportation following an argument with a patient, and subsequently disclosing the patient's personal health information to her father.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the statutory immunity for reporting under the Highway Traffic Act does not oust the College's regulatory jurisdiction.

The Court further held that the Board's conclusions regarding the unsupportable nature of the report and the breach of patient confidentiality were reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision upholding the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to take no further action against his ophthalmologist.

The applicant suffered a rare complication following cataract surgery, resulting in loss of sight in his left eye.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC's investigation was adequate and the HPARB's decision was reasonable, noting that the ICRC's mandate is to screen complaints, not to determine civil liability or causation.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board decision upholding a remedial agreement between the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and a psychiatrist.

The applicant had complained about her premature discharge from a psychiatric unit while experiencing suicidal ideation.

The court found the Board's decision reasonable, concluding the investigation was adequate and procedurally fair.

Although the court expressed concern that the remedial agreement might have been crafted to avoid public disclosure requirements under the Protecting Patients Act, it declined to remit the matter as the physician had already completed the program.

The Health Services Appeal and Review Board brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of its own decision.

The underlying appeal concerned whether a hearing under s. 24.9(1)2 of the Independent Health Facilities Act is a hearing de novo.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing that the Board's participation would compromise its impartiality and violate the principle of finality.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that because the court would be conducting a correctness review on a jurisdictional issue, the finality and impartiality concerns were muted, and the court would benefit from the Board's expertise on its home statute.

The respondent physicians brought motions to strike out an affidavit filed by the applicant in support of her applications for judicial review of decisions by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The moving parties argued the affidavit contained impermissible evidence, argument, and matters outside the applicant's knowledge.

The court noted the general reluctance to determine evidentiary admissibility in advance of a judicial review hearing.

Given the mixed nature of the proposed evidence and uncertainty regarding its relevance to procedural fairness arguments, the court adjourned the motions to be decided by the panel hearing the applications.

The applicant, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming an order of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The ICRC had ordered the applicant to complete a Specified Continuing Education Program and be cautioned after he erroneously extracted a healthy adult tooth from a minor patient instead of a supernumerary tooth.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision to uphold the ICRC's findings—including that the applicant should have taken additional steps to verify the correct tooth and that expert evidence was not required to interpret intraoperative x-rays—was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The applicant commenced a proceeding that was substantially identical to a prior proceeding dismissed by the Divisional Court as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure indicating its intention to dismiss the proceeding and restrict the applicant's access to the courts.

Finding that the applicant's allegations were not grounded in objective reality and that the litigation was the product of mental illness, the court dismissed the proceeding under Rule 2.1.

The court also ordered that the applicant may not commence or continue any legal proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice without prior written permission from a judge.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which confirmed an administrative disposition imposed by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the Royal College of Dentists.

The applicant argued that the ICRC's failure to explicitly consider an expert report rendered its decision unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that HPARB reasonably concluded the failure to reference the report was not a sufficiently serious shortcoming to undermine the justification, intelligibility, and transparency of the ICRC's decision.

The court deferred to HPARB's assessment that the ICRC had considered all records obtained during its investigation.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to take no further action regarding her complaint against an anaesthesiologist.

The applicant alleged the doctor's inadequate care during her spouse's surgery contributed to his severe dementia and death, and claimed the subsequent investigation was inadequate and medical records were falsified.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding HPARB's conclusions that the investigation was adequate and the decision was reasonable were both reasonable, and finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

Egale Canada brought an unopposed motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal concerning whether vaginoplasty without penectomy is an insured service under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

The court granted the motion, finding that Egale has relevant expertise regarding the systemic disadvantages faced by trans and nonbinary individuals in accessing gender-affirming care and would make a useful contribution to the resolution of the appeal without causing injustice or undue delay.

The applicant, an orthopedic surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding OHIP's denial of certain billing claims.

The applicant argued the Board erred by admitting opinion evidence from an OHIP medical advisor who was not an independent expert.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably exercised its broad statutory discretion to admit the evidence.

The court noted the witness, while not a traditional independent expert or a 'participant expert' under the civil rules, possessed relevant expertise as an employee of a party and her evidence was largely factual and explanatory.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upholding a committee's decision to take no further action on her complaint against a psychologist.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness because 96% of the Record of Investigation was redacted.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the HPARB reasonably exercised its statutory discretion to limit disclosure to protect the privacy interests of the applicant's children and to prevent interference with ongoing family law proceedings.

The applicant brought a motion for an adjournment.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment request and imposed a timetable agreed upon by the parties.

Due to the inordinate delay in the case and the reasons for it, the court declined to award costs to any party.

The applicant, a plastic surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The ICRC required the applicant to be cautioned for failing to attend in person to a patient with a severe hand injury while on-call, and advised him to make appropriate efforts to communicate urgency when handing over care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the HPARB's decision was reasonable and owed deference, as the record supported the conclusions that the applicant should have attended the emergency room and failed to adequately communicate the urgency of the patient's referral.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a committee's decision to issue a caution regarding his obstetrical care of a patient whose infant died.

The applicant argued the committee breached procedural fairness by rejecting his proposal for a remedial agreement and ignoring his expert's report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's decision reasonable, as the committee was not bound by its decision-making framework guidelines and was entitled to weigh the expert evidence using its own specialized medical knowledge.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's (CPSO) disposition of his complaint against a pediatric hepatologist.

The applicant alleged the physician provided inadequate care to his son, who died shortly after being discharged from the hospital, and falsified medical records.

The CPSO's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) investigated and ordered the physician to be cautioned regarding record-keeping and sepsis assessment, but declined to refer the matter to the Discipline Committee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the ICRC and HPARB decisions were reasonable, free of bias, and supported by adequate reasons.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board ordering the College to register the respondent as a psychological associate.

The respondent had completed an online master's degree, which the College's Registration Committee found did not meet the resident study requirement and was not substantially similar.

The Board found the Committee acted improperly by not following the Board's prior recommendation that the program was substantially similar.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal, holding that the Committee was not bound by the Board's recommendation and that the Board erred in finding an improper exercise of power.

The matter was remitted to a newly constituted panel of the Registration Committee.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The ICRC had required the applicant to appear for a caution and submit a reflective essay following a complaint from a female patient regarding an inappropriate comment made during a pelvic examination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's conclusions regarding the adequacy of the ICRC's investigation and the reasonableness of its remedial disposition were transparent, intelligible, and justified.

The respondent Board brought a motion in a judicial review proceeding to add the subject physician as a party respondent, seal third-party medical records inadvertently included in the record, and strike the self-represented applicant's affidavit, application record, and factum.

The court granted the requests to add the physician and seal the records on consent.

The court struck the applicant's affidavit and portions of her application record as they raised irrelevant policy issues and complaints unrelated to the specific decision under review.

The court declined to strike the factum, finding it provided a manageable summary of the applicant's position for the hearing panel.