CPSO v. Phillips – Another Physician Disciplined Over COVID-19

OPSDT

On July 14, 2023, the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal (“OPSDT”) revoked the medical license of Dr. Patrick Brian Philips for statements made online about the COVID-19 vaccine. Dr. Philips was a family and emergency medicine doctor who practiced in Northern Ontario. This decision comes a week after another physician, Dr. Crystal Luchiw, was ordered to be disciplined by the OPSDT for failing to cooperate in an investigation into her COVID-19 vaccine exemption practice. 

Dr. Phillips did not contest that he had engaged in professional misconduct and that he was incompetent.

FACTS

According to the OPSDT, Dr. Phillips used social media to undermine public confidence in measures taken to address the COVID-19 pandemic and to deter the public from complying with public health measures, including:

  • Asserting that government, public health authorities, and other institutions should not be trusted, are lying to the public, and are acting out of improper and financial motives.
  • Comparing government action during the pandemic to residential schools with the intention of causing and concealing children’s deaths as well as asserting that public health measures were “ritualized child abuse.”
  • Comparing public health measures to Nazi policies and to thalidomide.
  • Asserting that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (“CPSO”) should not be trusted because it relies on propaganda rather than science, that he will not comply with the CPSO’s pandemic response measures, and that the restrictions the CPSO imposed on him are a “badge of honour.”

Additionally, Dr. Phillips shared online confidential investigative information from the CPSO, which included names, contact information, and other identifying details of two witnesses. This resulted in these witnesses being harassed online. Dr. Philips refused to remove this information from the internet until he was ordered to do so by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in January, 2022.

Other concerns the OPSDT articulated in their decision included findings that Dr. Phillips:

  • interfered with the testing of a child for COVID-19.
  • communicated to hospital colleagues and patients his opinion that COVID-19 vaccines were unsafe and that ivermectin was a useful drug in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19.
  • failed to cooperate with the CPSO’s investigation.
  • breached the terms of an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) order.
  • publicly made misleading and incorrect statements about COVID-19 vaccines, such that they did not prevent infection or transmission and that the original vaccine trials did not look at serious events such as hospitalizations or deaths. 
  • had deficits in documentation and understanding of the eligibility criteria for COVID-19 vaccines.
  • had vaccine exemptions notes that were factually incorrect and misleading.

Moreover, the OPSDT found (at para. 30):

Dr. Phillips’ professional care of patients displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment, particularly in respect of his treatment orders, which were identical for multiple patients, were based on incomplete documentation, and in at least one case, were contraindicated. His vaccine exemption notes were misleading and based on erroneous criteria. The deficiencies were to an extent that demonstrates that he is unfit to continue to practise or that his practice should be restricted. 

DECISION

Based on the above, the OPSDT revoked Dr. Phillips’ medical license and ordered him to pay $6,000 in costs.

Decision Date: July 14, 2023

Jurisdiction: Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal

Citation: College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Phillips, 2023 ONPSDT 16 (CanLII)

Recent Posts

Image of Forceps

Noel v. Hawrylyshyn – Birth Injury Informed Consent Case Dismissed

On August 15, 2024, a birth injury medical malpractice lawsuit was dismissed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The Plaintiffs alleged birth trauma resulting in neurodevelopmental limitations due to a lack of informed consent with respect to the use of forceps and vacuum to expedite the birth of the child. The Plaintiffs further alleged negligence with respect to the timeliness of a C-section while the fetus was in distress.

Read More »