A physician whose licence has been revoked can ask to be reinstated, and can keep asking. What the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal expects before it agrees is the subject of Fagbemigun v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2026 ONPSDT 31, released August 20, 2026. The Tribunal dismissed a former Etobicoke family physician’s second application for reinstatement. It found that his rehabilitation had never confronted the dishonesty that led to his revocation, and that the supervision and billing monitoring he offered could not make up for that gap.
Background
In 2022, the Tribunal found that Dr. Fagbemigun had intentionally billed OHIP for thousands of tests and procedures that he did not provide or that were not billable, accepted referral fees for sending patients to a private cardiac testing provider, and failed to maintain the standard of practice. His charting was inaccurate, he ordered or performed unnecessary tests, and he documented tests that never happened. The Tribunal found he received hundreds of thousands of dollars to which he was not entitled, and it revoked his certificate of registration: CPSO v Fagbemigun, 2022 ONPSDT 11 (misconduct) and 2022 ONPSDT 22 (penalty).
The Divisional Court dismissed his appeal and described revocation as clearly fit: Fagbemigun v CPSO, 2023 ONSC 2642. His first reinstatement application was dismissed in December 2024: Fagbemigun v CPSO, 2024 ONPSDT 30. Six months later, the minimum waiting period under the Code, he applied again. He represented himself at the hearing.
The Test for Reinstatement
Section 72 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, allows a physician whose licence was revoked for misconduct to apply for a new certificate one year after revocation (five years where the misconduct was sexual abuse of a patient), and again six months after an earlier application is dismissed.
A reinstatement hearing is not an appeal. The Tribunal proceeds on the basis that the misconduct occurred as found. The applicant bears the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities with clear, cogent and convincing evidence, that he is suitable to return. The Tribunal asks two broad questions: what is the risk of further misconduct and can it be managed with terms, conditions and limitations; and is the applicant suitable to practise, both for public protection and for public confidence in self-regulation. It draws on a familiar list of factors, including the original misconduct, rehabilitation and insight, restitution, current competence, present character and the reputation of the profession. Public protection is paramount.
Insight has a specific meaning here. An applicant does not have to admit guilt or agree with the original findings. But he must acknowledge that the findings were made and show he has taken enough steps to prevent the misconduct, as found, from happening again.
Why the Second Application Failed
Insight. Dr. Fagbemigun said he accepted the findings and took full responsibility. The Tribunal concluded that “his acceptance is shallow.” In cross-examination, he disputed nearly every core finding, including that he billed for services he did not provide, took improper referral fees, and placed false information in charts to make his billing look legitimate. He continued to attribute the problem to inadequate OHIP billing training, bad advice from colleagues and an excessive workload. The Tribunal noted that none of these was the basis of the original findings.
Therapy that missed the point. His psychotherapist testified that he had gained significant insight. But the therapist had not read the Tribunal’s decisions, apart from an excerpt the applicant sent him the day before he wrote his updated letter. There was no evidence that therapy had addressed dishonesty at all. The Tribunal gave that evidence little weight.
Remedies aimed at the wrong problem. Billing courses, a new electronic records system, a third-party billing agent and an office manager do not guard against intentional misuse of public funds. His stated interest in joining a Family Health Group was not a firm plan, and his own evidence was that it would let him earn preventive care bonuses he had missed out on. The Tribunal found no link between that plan and reducing the risk of fraud.
Supervision that depended on his own charts. The major new elements were a practice supervisor and an offer to send the College a monthly log of his OHIP billings. The supervisor would work off site and review 10 to 20 charts a month. Since the original findings included templated, inaccurate charting designed to make improper billing look legitimate, a supervisor relying mainly on those same charts was not enough. Billing monitoring would likely catch only the most obvious overbilling.
Competence after a long absence. The Tribunal also had concerns about his clinical skills after years out of practice. The College’s re-entry policy typically involves a needs assessment, an education plan, a period of clinical supervision and a final assessment. His proposal had none of these, and continuing education on its own did not prove he was ready to practise safely.
The Tribunal contrasted cases in which reinstatement was granted, including Doyle v CPSO, 2026 ONPSDT 1 (see our comment on Doyle v CPSO and the conditions framework for reinstatement). Those applicants offered expert evidence on their risk of reoffending, meaningful insight into the causes of their misconduct, rehabilitation directed at those causes, and significant changes to how they would practise. None of that was present here. The Tribunal concluded that reinstating a practitioner whose insight was incomplete and who might need permanent oversight in a solo practice would not serve the public interest.
What This Means for Patients
This is a billing fraud case at heart, but it was never only about money. The Tribunal found that patients were sent for tests they did not need and that their charts contained entries for tests that never happened. Our comment on CPSO v Iracleous discusses how OHIP fraud leads to revocation in similar cases.
A few practical points follow for patients and families.
Your chart may not tell the whole story. Medical records are usually the most important evidence of what happened in a patient’s care, which is why a finding that a physician falsified them is so serious. If entries in your record do not match your memory of an appointment, keep notes and raise it.
Discipline and compensation are separate. A College proceeding protects the public. It does not compensate patients. A patient who suffered physical harm from unnecessary testing or treatment would need a separate civil claim, with its own proof of negligence, causation and damages, and its own limitation period.
The complaint process matters. Many discipline cases begin with a complaint. Our guide to making complaints about health care in Ontario explains the options.
Revocation is not always permanent. The Code allows repeat applications, and reinstatement decisions can be followed through the College’s public register.
Speak With Paul Cahill
If you believe you or a family member were harmed by unnecessary, inaccurate or improper medical care, Paul Cahill can help you understand the difference between a College complaint and a civil claim, and which options may fit your situation. Paul is a partner at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP and is certified by the Law Society of Ontario as a Specialist in Civil Litigation. Every case depends on its own facts and expert evidence. To arrange a confidential consultation, contact Paul.
