Steven George Bosnick

The applicants, two bariatric surgeons, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upholding cautions issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The cautions were issued after the applicants' names and photographs appeared in an advertisement for their employer on a third-party website, contrary to the Advertising Regulation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the applicants failed to show they took reasonable steps to prevent the improper advertising.

The applicant, a former member of the Labourers' Union, sought an order permitting him to make claims against the union's Benefit Trust or a return of his Dollar Bank Balance after being expelled for violating a dual union policy.

He also claimed the trustees breached their fiduciary duties.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant ceased to be a beneficiary upon expulsion, had no right to a distribution of the notional dollar bank account, and that the trustees did not breach their fiduciary duties by adopting or enforcing the dual union policy.

The defendants brought a motion under the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike or dismiss the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim arising from employment-related disputes with hospitals and subsequent complaints before several administrative tribunals.

The court held that the Ministry of Health, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the Workplace Safety Insurance Appeals Tribunal, and the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board were not suable entities because their enabling statutes did not confer corporate status or capacity to be sued.

The claim against those bodies was therefore dismissed.

The court further held that the pleadings against the Crown disclosed no reasonable cause of action, contained vague and unsupported allegations of corruption and Charter breaches, and failed to plead material facts necessary to support a recognized cause of action.

The claim against the Crown was struck with leave to amend.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board regarding whether her Master's degree program was "primarily psychological in nature." The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board conducted a detailed and nuanced examination of the material and that its decision was not demonstrably unreasonable.

The Court noted it was bound to afford deference to the Board's expertise.

No costs were ordered.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent's new by-law was invalid and that his removal as President under that by-law was void.

The respondent had implemented the new by-law without obtaining the required Ministerial approval under the Canada Corporations Act.

The court found the new by-law invalid and declared the previous 2005 by-law operative.

While the applicant was estopped from challenging actions taken under the shared assumption of the new by-law's validity prior to November 2012, his removal as President occurred after this period and was declared invalid.

The court ordered a fresh election under the 2005 by-law.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), and the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The allegations stemmed from the handling of complaints against doctors, the joinder of complaints, and the disclosure of personal information.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed almost all allegations, finding they had no reasonable prospect of success, were barred by judicial immunity, or were inadmissible under section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Tribunal deferred dismissing one allegation regarding the College's alleged refusal to allow a complaint due to disability, directing the applicant to provide further particulars.

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

The Committee had decided not to refer a patient's complaint to discipline, but instead cautioned the applicant and required him to take an educational program on patient communication after he insisted on a written apology from a patient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable regarding the adequacy of the investigation, the characterization of the applicant's conduct, and the consideration of his prior complaints history.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), which affirmed a decision by the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to take no further action regarding her complaints against two doctors.

The complaints related to a spinal anaesthetic administered in 1994 and subsequent care.

The Divisional Court found HPARB's decision reasonable, noting that the investigation was adequate and the treatment provided was within professional expectations.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiff’s Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim alleging fraud, negligence, defamation, breach of contract, and numerous other causes of action arising from a physician assessment and subsequent complaints to the professional regulator and review board.

The court held that the pleading failed to set out material facts supporting the alleged causes of action and instead consisted largely of bald allegations and inflammatory assertions.

Claims relying on materials from professional discipline proceedings were barred by s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, and the regulatory bodies and their officials were protected by statutory immunity absent properly pleaded bad faith.

The court also found the claim constituted an improper collateral attack on the outcomes of the regulatory complaint and review process.

The entire claim was struck without leave to amend.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming a decision to take no further action on his complaint against a psychiatrist.

The applicant argued that HPARB should have held an oral hearing rather than a written review, alleging a failure to accommodate his hearing impairment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that HPARB reasonably exercised its discretion to proceed in writing after attempts to accommodate the applicant's hearing impairment at an oral hearing were unsuccessful, and the applicant failed to show good reason why a written hearing was inappropriate.

The appellant, a foreign-trained physician, appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's refusal to issue him a certificate of registration.

The appellant had participated in a practice assessment program but failed to meet the non-exemptible standards for registration, including sufficient knowledge, skill, judgment, and mental competence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board and the College's Registration Committee complied with procedural fairness and reasonably concluded the appellant lacked the required qualifications to practice medicine in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal issued an addendum to correct an error in paragraph 11 of its reasons for judgment released on November 17, 2005.

The court amended the reasons to replace the reference to 'Subordinated Debenture Holders' with 'Senior Debt Holders' in the first two sentences of the paragraph.

The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board brought a motion to file portions of the record in a sealed form pending a judicial review application by a physician.

The physician sought judicial review of the Board's decisions affirming cautions against him, arguing the Board failed to make full disclosure of the materials it relied upon.

The court granted the motion, finding that unsealing the records prematurely would render the judicial review application moot, as the right to keep the information secret was the very issue to be determined by the full panel.

In a CCAA restructuring of Stelco Inc., the appellants, representing subordinated debenture holders, sought to be classified as a separate class of creditors for voting purposes on the proposed plan.

They argued their interests conflicted with senior debt holders due to a turnover payment provision requiring them to remit distributions to senior debt holders until the senior debt was paid in full.

The supervising judge dismissed the motion, finding no material distinction in their legal rights vis-à-vis the debtor company.

The Court of Appeal granted leave but dismissed the appeal, affirming that creditor classification under the CCAA is determined by the creditors' legal rights in relation to the debtor company, not their rights as creditors in relation to each other.

In a CCAA proceeding regarding Stelco Inc., the Informal Independent Converts' Committee appealed an order denying them a separate class of creditors.

The Court of Appeal granted leave but dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error or error in principle in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellants lacked a different legal or practical interest from other unsecured creditors vis-à-vis the debtor.