The phrase “disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional” is the legal standard at the heart of much of Ontario’s regulated health professions discipline. It appears in the professional misconduct regulations under each of the profession-specific acts (such as Ontario Regulation 856/93 under the Medicine Act, 1991, for physicians), and it captures conduct that, while perhaps not falling neatly into the more specific categories of misconduct, would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as falling below the basic standards of integrity and propriety the profession expects.
The standard is a residual one. It is invoked when a registrant’s conduct does not fit the more specific definitions of professional misconduct, such as sexual abuse of a patient, fraud, or specific clinical incompetence, but is still inconsistent with what the profession expects of its members. Tribunals and courts applying the standard have looked to objective community-of-practice norms rather than to subjective beliefs about acceptable conduct, and have generally required that the conduct be relevant to the practice of the profession.
Posts tagged Disgraceful Dishonourable Unprofessional analyze Ontario discipline decisions in which the residual misconduct standard was applied or considered, including the types of conduct that have met or failed the test and the penalties imposed.
A family physician was suspended for three months after failing to complete a patient’s insurance forms, release another patient’s records to their lawyer, and cooperate with the College’s investigation. A look at why unreturned records are treated as misconduct, and what discipline does and does not do for an injured patient.
An emergency physician was struck off after billing OHIP $125,353 for services he never rendered, including critical care and cardioversions with no record they ever happened, and then refusing to cooperate with the College’s investigation. A look at why records integrity and the duty to cooperate sit at the centre of physician accountability.
A neurosurgeon practising pain medicine was suspended for six months after the tribunal found his chronic pain care fell below the standard of practice, his treatment of a patient who died after nerve blocks was deficient, and he breached a College order restricting his injections. A look at why a patient death led to remediation rather than revocation, and where the discipline process ends and a civil claim begins.
The Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal revoked Dr. Maharaj’s licence after finding his care of 17 patients fell below the standard of practice and that he was incompetent. A look at the consent, evidence-based-treatment and privacy findings, and what a discipline decision does and does not mean for an injured patient.
Ontario discipline tribunal revokes psychiatrist’s licence for issuing over 1,400 COVID exemption letters for profit, with dual misconduct and incompetence findings.
Ontario ER physician suspended after sending home a 19-year-old with a peritonitic abdomen; she died of septic shock. CPSO v Duic, 2025 ONPSDT 11.
Ontario anesthesiologist suspended ten months for lapses in vigilance, altering records after adverse events, and OHIP misbilling. CPSO v Sharma, 2025 ONPSDT 5.
OPSDT accepts joint submission for permanent resignation after physician surreptitiously drugged a patient/employee with Rohypnol and Lorazepam, then self-administered to evade detection.
A family physician refused to cooperate with multiple CPSO investigations during the pandemic. The OPSDT held that the refusal was itself professional misconduct.
A clinical immunologist crossed professional boundaries with a 30-year patient and tried to procure a false alibi during the CPSO investigation that followed.
Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.