Steven George Bosnick

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.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which affirmed a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario.

The ICRC had ordered the applicant to complete a specified continuing education or remediation program (SCERP) and receive a caution regarding unnecessary dental restorations and providing inaccurate information during the investigation.

The applicant argued the ICRC made impermissible credibility findings and that the HPARB failed to provide meaningful analysis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC's factual conclusions were reasonable, within its mandate, and supported by the documentary record, and that the HPARB's review was adequate and responsive.

The applicant, a physician, brought an application for judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

On preliminary motions, the applicant sought to introduce additional evidence consisting of a summary of the underlying committee decision posted on the College's website.

The Board sought to add the complainant as a party and to seal portions of the record containing the applicant's conduct profile.

The court granted all motions, allowing the additional evidence as context for the judicial review, adding the complainant as a necessary party, and sealing the conduct profile to maintain the integrity of the Board's process.

The respondents, a professional engineer and a certificate of authorization holder, admitted to professional misconduct regarding the flawed design of cantilevered formwork and falsework for a bridge rehabilitation project in New Brunswick.

An independent expert concluded the design contained serious errors and could have resulted in a collapse.

The Discipline Committee accepted an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty.

The engineer's licence was suspended for three months and restricted from acting as a supervising engineer, the corporate respondent's certificate was restricted, and the respondents were ordered to pay a $5,000 fine and receive a reprimand.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order denying its request to file an affidavit as part of its record in an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The applicant argued that the affidavit was necessary to show the Board's findings of fact were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law by the motion judge, who was bound by established precedent that restricts the admission of new affidavit evidence on judicial review.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upholding a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) to caution her.

The ICRC had found the applicant failed to attend the hospital to assess a decompensating patient.

The Divisional Court quashed the HPARB decision and set aside the ICRC decision, finding that the ICRC fundamentally misstated the medical records.

The contemporaneous records showed the patient was stable and resting comfortably, not decompensating or in crushing pain as the ICRC had concluded.

The HPARB's deference to a decision based on an unreasonable finding of fact was itself unreasonable.

The applicant union brought a motion for leave to file an affidavit in support of its application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The affidavit sought to challenge numerous factual findings made by the Board, alleging they were unreasonable or made without evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the strict test that affidavit evidence is only admissible on judicial review in rare and exceptional circumstances to demonstrate a complete absence of evidence on an essential jurisdictional point.

The court found the applicant failed to meet this exacting standard, as the Board had received some evidence on the primary functions in dispute, and the affidavit merely reflected the applicant's counsel's differing notes of the proceedings.

The Hospital respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following the applicant's unsuccessful motion to stay a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board appeal pending a judicial review application.

The applicant, a self-represented litigant, argued that no costs should be awarded or that they should be stayed.

The court found that the Hospital respondents were entitled to costs but not on a substantial indemnity basis, as the applicant's conduct did not warrant such an elevated scale.

Costs were awarded to the Hospital respondents on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $9,780.

The applicant physician sought an interlocutory injunction to stay proceedings before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) regarding the non-renewal of his hospital privileges, pending the disposition of his application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the RJR-MacDonald test.

The court found the applicant's claim for judicial review prior to exhausting the statutory HPARB process was weak, he failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured allowing the HPARB process to continue.

A motion for leave to file a 100-page factum was also dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a College committee's decision regarding an emergency physician's conduct.

The physician had begun completing a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act after the applicant staged a suicide attempt, but stopped when the applicant admitted it was faked.

The applicant sought the unconditional removal of the incomplete Form 1 from his hospital chart.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable, as the Personal Health Information Protection Act does not grant patients the right to demand the destruction of their medical records.

The member and his engineering firm faced discipline for professional misconduct related to the structural design and post-construction review of a post and beam house.

The member admitted to preparing deficient structural drawings that failed to comply with the Ontario Building Code and to issuing a false review letter stating that periodic site reviews had been conducted when they had not.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission as to Penalty, finding the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The panel ordered a reprimand, publication of the decision without names, and a requirement for the member to successfully complete the Professional Practice Examination within 14 months, failing which his licence would be suspended.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board not to proceed with a review of his complaint against his niece, a physician.

The Board had found the complaint to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as it arose from ongoing family litigation and was essentially the same as a previous complaint that had been dismissed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable and concluding there was no breach of procedural fairness.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board brought a motion for a sealing order regarding portions of its record of proceedings in an application for judicial review.

The applicant, acting in person, opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking an adjournment, a public trial, and written responses from the respondents.

The Divisional Court granted the Board's motion to protect the integrity of its non-disclosure orders and dismissed the applicant's cross-motion, noting the procedural requirements of judicial review.

The applicants, trustees of multi-employer pension plans, sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordering the disclosure of confidential actuarial valuation reports to a representative of a rival union.

The applicants argued that disclosure would cause harm during the construction industry's 'raiding season'.

The Divisional Court allowed the application and set aside the commissioner's order, finding that the commissioner applied an overly burdensome standard of proof and an overly stringent test for causation of harm under s. 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The court held that the applicants only needed to establish a reasonable expectation of probable harm, which was met given the highly competitive context of union raiding.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The Board had directed the Inquiry, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) to reconsider whether the applicant breached s. 7 of the Advertising Regulation regarding steering.

The Divisional Court found that the Board unreasonably focused on only one of the ICRC's reasons for deferring consideration of s. 7, ignoring the ICRC's valid conclusion that a caution for other advertising breaches was a sufficient disposition.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the Board's direction was set aside.

The applicant, an RCMP officer on long-term sick leave, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The HPARB had upheld a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee to take no further action on her complaint against an RCMP Occupational Health Services Officer.

The applicant alleged the physician arbitrarily changed her medical profile from employable with restrictions to unemployable without examining her.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HPARB's conclusion that the physician performed a reasonable review of the medical information and exercised appropriate clinical judgment was reasonable.

Following the successful dismissal of the self-represented plaintiff's action against 78 defendants, six groups of defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court considered the complexity of the claims, the plaintiff's mental health, and principles of proportionality and fairness.

The court reduced several of the costs claimed to ensure comparability and fairness, ultimately awarding a total of $71,000 in costs across the successful defendants.

A tribunal and one of its members moved to dismiss or strike a civil action arising from the tribunal’s review of a complaint against a physician.

The plaintiff alleged conspiracy, conflict of interest, and negligence in connection with the tribunal’s confirmation of a professional regulator’s decision not to take action against the physician.

The court held the pleadings failed to allege material facts establishing bad faith, which is required to overcome statutory immunity for tribunal members acting in good faith.

The claim was also a collateral attack on the tribunal’s decisions and was commenced outside the two‑year limitation period.

The statement of claim against the moving parties disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The moving lawyer defendants sought to strike a self-represented plaintiff’s expansive civil action alleging conspiracy, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, Charter breaches, defamation, and other torts arising from criminal proceedings and child protection litigation.

The court held that the statement of claim lacked material facts linking the lawyer defendants to the alleged misconduct and improperly attempted to relitigate criminal convictions and child protection determinations.

Many claims were also barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found the pleadings vague, speculative, and abusive, failing to establish recognized causes of action or the elements of torts such as conspiracy, malicious prosecution, defamation, or abuse of public office.

The action against the four lawyer defendants was struck or dismissed without leave to amend.

The appellant, a construction worker, was expelled from his union local for violating its dual union policy by maintaining membership in a rival union.

Upon expulsion, his coverage under the union's benefit plan was terminated, despite having a positive balance in his notional 'dollar bank account' used to track employer contributions.

The appellant sought an order permitting him to continue making claims against the benefit plan or a cash payment of his notional balance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant ceased to be a beneficiary of the trust upon his expulsion and had no beneficial interest in the funds.

The court also held that the union officials did not breach their fiduciary duties as trustees by adopting and enforcing the dual union policy, as no conflict of interest existed in this context.