Joint Submission

Joint Submission

A joint submission on penalty is an agreement between a regulatory College and the member it has prosecuted, presented together to the discipline tribunal, recommending a particular penalty in exchange for an admission. Joint submissions resolve a large share of discipline matters efficiently and provide certainty to both sides.

Discipline tribunals give joint submissions substantial deference and will generally accept them unless doing so would be contrary to the public interest or would bring the administration of the regulatory system into disrepute, a high threshold that reflects the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Canada in the criminal sentencing context in R v Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43. Because of this deference, the negotiated outcome usually stands, which is why understanding how joint submissions are crafted and assessed is important to understanding discipline results.

Posts tagged Joint Submission analyze Ontario discipline decisions resolved by a joint submission on penalty, including the conduct admitted and the penalty accepted.

Navy title card reading "CPSO v Hart: Ketamine prescribing, a no-complaints release, and a suspension" from paulcahill.ca

CPSO v Hart: Ketamine Prescribing, a No-Complaints Release, and a Six-Month Suspension

A physician’s practice was found deficient across assessment, consent, prescribing, monitoring, record keeping and OHIP billing, on the evidence of two complainants and 34 further charts reviewed by two independent assessors. Patients were also asked to sign a form promising not to sue him and not to complain to the College. A look at what the Tribunal did with that, and why a discipline finding is not compensation.

August 6, 2026

Navy title card reading "CNO v Paulson: missed medications, false charting, and a three-month suspension" from paulcahill.ca.

CNO v Paulson: False Charting, Missed Medications, and the Electronic Audit Trail

A registered practical nurse admitted failures across two Guelph hospitals: an admission assessment backdated without notation, medications charted but never given, and a bladder scan reported but not performed. The CNO Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission for a three-month suspension with twelve months of oversight. What the electronic audit trail proved, and where a discipline finding stops short of a civil claim.

July 29, 2026

Navy title card reading "Remediation, Not Revocation: A contested second chance after a patient's death," crediting the Hamilton Spectator, from paulcahill.ca.

A Suspended Pain Doctor’s Possible Return: Commentary in the Hamilton Spectator

Hamilton Spectator coverage of Dr. Stefan Konasiewicz, whose six-month suspension could end in August. Paul Cahill comments on why a patient death led the discipline tribunal to remediation rather than revocation, and where a College proceeding ends and a civil claim begins.

June 18, 2026

Navy title card reading "CPSO v Fenty, Case Comment" with the line "A suspension for failing to respond to patients and the College," from paulcahill.ca

CPSO v Fenty: A Suspension for Failing to Respond to Patients and the College

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.

April 29, 2026

Dark-blue banner with the title 'CPSO v Iracleous' and subtitle 'Revocation for false OHIP claims and a refusal to cooperate' indicating a legal case comment.

CPSO v Iracleous: Billing for Care He Never Provided, and Revocation

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.

April 28, 2026

Navy title card reading "CPSO v Konasiewicz, Case Comment" with the line "A patient death, deficient technique, and a suspension," from paulcahill.ca

CPSO v Konasiewicz: A Patient Death, Deficient Technique, and a Suspension

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.

March 30, 2026

CNO v Paulson: False Charting, Missed Medications, and the Electronic Audit Trail

A Suspended Pain Doctor’s Possible Return: Commentary in the Hamilton Spectator

CPSO v Fenty: A Suspension for Failing to Respond to Patients and the College

CPSO v Iracleous: Billing for Care He Never Provided, and Revocation

CPSO v Konasiewicz: A Patient Death, Deficient Technique, and a Suspension

CPSO v Faruqi: Out-of-Province Misconduct and the Cross-Jurisdictional Discipline Framework

CPSO v Nahvi: Drugging of a Patient/Employee, Cover-Up, and Permanent Resignation

CPSO v Turek: A Two-Month Suspension for COVID-19 Misinformation

Concerned about medical negligence?
Talk to Paul directly.

Joint Submission

Browse related areas

Concerned about medical negligence? Talk to Paul directly.

Concerned about medical negligence?
Talk to Paul directly.