Representing Victims of Medical Malpractice Across Ontario

Articles Tagged

Professional Misconduct

Professional misconduct is the legal finding under Ontario’s regulatory framework that a regulated health professional has engaged in conduct prohibited by the relevant college’s regulations. For physicians, the governing instruments are the Health Professions Procedural Code (Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991), the Medicine Act, 1991, and Ontario Regulation 856/93, which lists the specific acts that constitute professional misconduct.

Findings of professional misconduct are made by the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal after a hearing. The range of conduct that can support a finding is broad and includes incompetence, sexual abuse of a patient, falsifying records, billing fraud, breaches of patient confidentiality, conduct that would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, and failures of supervision or delegation. Penalties on a finding can range from a reprimand to permanent revocation of the certificate of registration.

Posts tagged Professional Misconduct analyze recent findings against Ontario physicians, with attention to the specific clinical or non-clinical conduct at issue, the regulatory provisions engaged, and the penalty imposed.

17 articles View all topics →
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.

Read More »
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.

Read More »
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.

Read More »
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.

Read More »
Navy title card reading "CPSO v Maharaj, Case Comment" with the line "Revocation after unconsented, non-evidence-based care," from paulcahill.ca

CPSO v Maharaj: A Revoked Licence, and What It Means For Patients

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.

Read More »
Have a Case Like This?

Concerned about medical negligence?
Talk to Paul directly.

Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.