On April 29, 2026, the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal released its reasons in College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v Fenty, 2026 ONPSDT 16. Dr. Pauline Fenty, a family physician in the Greater Toronto Area, was suspended for three months and reprimanded after admitting that she had failed to complete a patient’s insurance forms, failed to send another patient’s records to that patient’s lawyer, and failed to cooperate with the College when it investigated. There was no allegation of botched treatment or patient injury. The case is a reminder that professional misconduct is not only about what happens in the examining room. It also reaches the basic duties a physician owes to patients, to the people acting for them, and to the regulator.
What happened
Two complaints brought Dr. Fenty before the College. The first patient, identified only as Patient A, had asked repeatedly over about six months to have insurance forms completed, without success. The forms were done only after the College told Dr. Fenty about the complaint. The second patient, Patient B, had a lawyer who asked over a lengthy period for the patient’s medical records. Those records were handed over only months after the College got involved.
The cooperation problem came next. Over several months Dr. Fenty did not respond to the College’s letters, emails, voicemails and calls, including its requests for the records and for her answers to the complaints. The College’s Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee was prepared to resolve the matter with an undertaking and an in-person caution, but Dr. Fenty did not respond to that proposal either, and the committee referred the allegations to the tribunal.
At the hearing the parties filed an agreed statement of facts in which Dr. Fenty admitted the allegations, and they made a joint submission on penalty.
The findings
The tribunal made two findings of professional misconduct, both under the Professional Misconduct Regulation made under the Medicine Act, 1991. First, the delay in responding to the patients’ requests was conduct the profession would reasonably regard as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. The tribunal described responding to such requests as “an important aspect of the ongoing care of her patients,” and found that the failure caused unnecessary anxiety and had the potential to affect the patients’ rights. Second, the failure to cooperate with the investigation was itself misconduct. Members of a regulated profession have to respond appropriately and within a reasonable time to the College’s written inquiries, because the regulator can only protect the public if it is able to investigate.
The penalty
The penalty was a joint submission: a reprimand, a three-month suspension, a set of educational and monitoring terms, and $6,000 in costs. A tribunal’s role on a joint submission is narrow. It must implement the agreement unless doing so would bring the discipline system into disrepute (R v Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43). The tribunal was satisfied the proposed penalty was within range, noting that comparable cases had drawn suspensions of two to three months for failing to respond to records requests or to cooperate with the College.
The terms attached to the suspension are worth noting, because they show what remediation looks like in this kind of case. Dr. Fenty has to complete an ethics and professionalism program and ten hours of individual instruction, keep a log of every third-party and records request and review it weekly, and undergo a reassessment of her practice, all under College monitoring.
Two factors pulled in opposite directions. In her favour, admitting the misconduct showed insight and remorse and avoided a contested hearing. Against her, this was not the first time. She had two earlier complaints about delays in producing records, and in the second she had signed an undertaking that included education in records management, clinical supervision, and a log of third-party requests. Returning on similar allegations made the misconduct more serious, because it showed she knew the obligation and fell short anyway.
Why it matters for patients
For anyone who has been injured and is trying to pursue a claim, the records strand of this case is the one that lands closest to home. Medical records are central to a malpractice investigation, and a patient, or a lawyer acting for the patient, is entitled to obtain them. When a physician sits on a records request, it is not a minor administrative lapse. The tribunal treated delay of this kind as misconduct that can affect a patient’s care, cause anxiety, and bear on their legal rights.
It is also worth being clear about what a decision like this does and does not do. A suspension protects the public and signals that the College takes these duties seriously, but it does not compensate a patient who was harmed by the delay. If a refusal to release records caused real loss, that is a separate question for a civil claim, with its own requirements. What the discipline route offers is a way to hold a physician to account for the conduct itself and, as here, to force changes in how the practice is run.
The practical points are straightforward. You are entitled to your records and to have forms completed within a reasonable time. If a physician will not respond, a complaint to the College is a genuine avenue, and the College’s ability to investigate depends on the physician cooperating. A doctor who ignores both the patient and the regulator can expect to answer for it.
The full decision is available on CanLII: College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v Fenty, 2026 ONPSDT 16.
