(They saw the public record. They promoted him anyway.)
The ODA Board Members’ lack of good judgment is now on full display.
At the March 26-27, 2026, meeting, the ODA’s Board of Directors selected the ODA’s next Vice-President, putting him on track to become the ODA President in 2 years.
Would You Put This Dentist in Charge?
The ODA’s next Vice-President, now on track to become President, has 6 public RCDSO decisions against him:
- Case File: 180023
- Case File: 180127
- Case File: 180567
- Case File: 190607
- Case File: 21-0668
- Case File: 21-0843
Some highlights from the decisions:
- “ A one-on-one course in … Establishing and maintaining appropriate boundaries in the dentist/patient relationship.” x2
- “ A one-on-one course in ethics, boundaries and communication…” x2
- “ Required Course: The PBI Education – Ethics and Professionalism…”
- “…lack of compliance with the College’s repeated requests for records hindered the College’s ability to properly investigate a patient complaint.” x2
- “ Required Course: Restorative dentistry, including instruction on proper removal of all decay from the tooth, marginal integrity and adequate contact points.”
- “ Required Cours: A one-on-one course in restorative dentistry, with the following components: Clinical and radiographic diagnosis of caries; Understanding caries severity and activity; Caries risk assessment; Appropriate radiographic prescribing and interpretation; Treatment planning; Treatment versus monitoring of carious lesions; Minimally invasive and preventive therapies.”
The ODA Board of Directors reveals itself by what it rewards, what it tolerates, and whom it promotes.
Would you, as an Ontario dentist, want to work with this dentist in the same office? Would you want this dentist representing you? Do you want this dentist to be the public face of our organization? Most Ontario dentists would answer no to each of these questions. But the ODA Board of Directors says YES!?
Judge the ODA Board of Directors by the People It Promotes
Forget the speeches. Forget the slogans.
Forget the polished language about professionalism and leadership.
Actions speak louder than words. The ODA Board of Directors can talk all it wants about professionalism, ethics, credibility, and protecting the profession’s reputation. But in the end, words mean very little. Decisions reveal the truth.
They saw the public record. They promoted him anyway. This should concern every Ontario dentist.
This choice tells us everything we need to know about their poor judgment, dysfunction and toxic culture.
ODA leaders do not represent only themselves. Their credibility affects the organization’s credibility. Their reputation affects the profession’s reputation. Their judgment, credibility and reputation reflects on all Ontario dentists.
A healthy Board understands that leadership is about standards, credibility, judgment, and what message this promotion sends to everyone watching.
The ODA Board of Directors have failed that test.
Badly.
Because no serious organization should look at a public record like this and decide: yes, this is the person who should be next in line to lead us.
And yet that is exactly what the ODA Board did.
So the more important question is no longer just about the newly elected Vice-President.
The real question is:
What kind of Board makes a decision like that?
And what does that say about the culture, standards, and judgment of the people now asking to be trusted with leadership again? The answers are becoming impossible to ignore.
Why would the ODA Board of Directors make a Decision Like This?
At some point, dentists have to ask the obvious question:
How does someone with this public record get elevated to the highest leadership pipeline of the ODA?
This selection is a symptom of a deeper problem inside the ODA Board of Directors: a culture that protects its friends, rewards loyalty, and prioritizes internal status, control, and power over its duty to represent and protect the interests of all ODA members.
That is what makes this decision so disturbing.
A healthy Board of Director asks:
What is in the best interests of all the 11,000 ODA dentists we serve?
A dysfunctional Board asks:
Who is with us? Who helps us keep control?
That is the difference.
The ODA Board of Directors’ job is not to reward insiders.
It is not to protect allies.
It is not to advance a clique.
It is not to preserve their own personal status or internal power.
Its duty is to act in the best interests the dentists it represents.
The Board is supposed to put the interests of Ontario dentists ahead of friendships, factions, loyalty networks, and internal politics. That is the Board’s legal fiduciary responsibility.
But this decision does the opposite.
When forced to choose between credibility and its inner circle, this Board chose its inner circle.
When forced to choose between what is best for Ontario dentists and what is best for its own inner circle, it chose the inner circle.
That is why this is not just a bad decision. It is a revealing decision. Because it reveals that the dysfunction inside the ODA Board of Directors is no longer occasional or accidental. It is cultural.
And once a Board reaches that point, it ceases to function as a true representative of the dentists it claims to serve. It becomes a protection system for its own people.
That is not leadership. That is not stewardship.
And it is certainly not what Ontario dentists deserve from the organization that claims to represent them.
12 Responses
Dr. Edward Busvek must resign. This is shameful. He has boundary issues how can this person be in any leadership capacity. Does the CEO do checks on people’s background? These are not allegations of wrong doing these are convictions.
Read his Rate MD Reviews, including June 21 2014. As someone who practiced in the area a long time and knew both an associate dentist and past employees of his, the negative and highly unprofessional information is true. There are plenty more College complaints that aren’t available to the public as well. Not only should he not have a role within the ODA, he really shouldn’t be licensed to practice. The ODA must do better.
Thank you for disclosing this information.
When will you disclose who are the creators of engageoda.org?
You are asking for transparency – why is your group not being transparent?
I am unsure as to whether I can offer my support given I do not know who I am supporting. Do any of the creators have cases at the RCDSO?
Why is it that “who” is more Important than “what” ? The board spent hundreds of thousands in legal fees to remove a board member who asked for transparency. Wha is this anonymous is a board member? Or councillor? Fear of retaliation is real. Let’s focus on facts, shall we?
Thank you for disclosing this information.
When will you disclose who are the creators of engageoda.org? It is essential that this information is provided.
You are asking for transparency – why is your group not being transparent?
I am unsure as to whether I can offer my support given I do not know who I am supporting. Do any of the creators have cases at the RCDSO?
https://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/4027574/Dr-J+L-Walker-London-ON.html/
I’m not sure where you were asked to support anything. I don’t see a donate button or a membership fee in this website. Which brings me to question you:
Why are you not bothered by spending your membership fees on surf’n turfing at the Ritz Carlton while denying broke 4th year dental student pizza lunch and learn? Why are you not bothered by spending your fees on legal fees to remove an elected board member who asked for accountability? Why are you not bothered by electing bullies and un-ethical dentists who break the oda and rcdso code of conduct REPEATEDLY to be the face out profession? Why?
Dear Anonymous,
I find it disappointing that the conversation has shifted toward personal criticism rather than addressing the questions at hand.
The comment that was reposted dates back to 2016, and there have been no negative posts since that time. Over the course of a 38-year practice, it is unrealistic for any dentist to meet every patient’s expectations in every instance; having only one less-than-positive review in that time is, in my view, a strong reflection of consistent care. We all know not to put too much stock in the occasional
negative review!
Rather than criticizing one another, our profession is best served by supporting each other and upholding standards of honesty, transparency, and kindness in our work.
Wishing you a positive day.
It’s just ironic that the so-called one post cites over treatment, which is exactly one of the things you’re I’m assuming Friend and colleague Dr. Ed Busvak was accused of. I’m not really sure if in 47 years of practice, anyone has ever accused me of over treatment, but if it makes you feel better that you have only had one bad review and I’m assuming this is because either you work in a cave or on Neanderthals, who don’t have online access or that you don’t practice at all or that you just overt treat the five patients you have you get away with this and fly under the radar like someone you clearly admire and support. And then, of course, there are the boundary issues which you will notice are not treated with kid gloves by our college.
He has repeated boundary issue findings and had a romantic relationship with a patient as well. Somehow he’s still practicing. When patients transfer to another office he continually refuses to send the chart and radiographs. Somehow even the College continues to give this guy a hall pass. In most other cases that many discipline findings would result in suspensions, fines or a revocation. He clearly hasn’t learned from his mistakes nor does he care. It is an absolute joke that he’s on the ODA board and in line for President.