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.
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.
OPSDT accepts joint submission for permanent resignation after physician surreptitiously drugged a patient/employee with Rohypnol and Lorazepam, then self-administered to evade detection.
The Divisional Court affirms the OPSDT’s revocation of Dr. Trozzi’s licence. The Doré framework, the non-cooperation duty, and the limits of physician speech.
An Ontario tribunal ruled physicians have no Charter privacy interest in their patients’ records. Subsequent proceedings produced a 12-month suspension.
The OPSDT released two penalty decisions in January 2024 in COVID-19 misinformation cases. One physician received a six-month suspension. The other was found ungovernable and had his licence revoked.
The OPSDT imposed a two-month suspension and a reprimand on a physician for unprofessional COVID-19 commentary, calibrated to the lower end of the discipline spectrum.
A Northern Ontario ER physician was found guilty of misconduct and separately found incompetent for sustained COVID-19 misinformation across a two-year period.
A general surgeon was suspended for 18 months after sexual misconduct against an ultrasound technician at his hospital, with a prior discipline history weighing heavily.
Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.