Suspension

Suspension

Suspension is a disciplinary penalty that temporarily prohibits a regulated health professional from practising for a defined period. It sits between conditions or restrictions on a certificate of registration and the most serious penalty of revocation, and a discipline tribunal may impose it following a finding of professional misconduct or incompetence.

A suspension is a public-protection measure, recorded on the public register, rather than a form of compensation to a patient, who must pursue any damages through a separate civil claim. Tribunals often combine a suspension with other terms, such as remediation, supervision, or ongoing conditions, and the length reflects the seriousness of the conduct, the risk to the public, and any mitigating or aggravating features, including whether the matter was resolved by a joint submission on penalty.

Posts tagged Suspension analyze Ontario discipline decisions in which a physician’s or other professional’s certificate of registration was suspended, including the conduct and the penalty imposed.

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

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

Case comment on CPSO v Kilian, 2024 ONPSDT 23, on the PHIPA custodian-subject distinction, the Charter section 8 framework, and the "ungovernable physician" doctrine in COVID-era discipline. By Paul Cahill, LSO Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation.

CPSO v Kilian: Physician Custodians and the Duty to Produce Patient Records

An Ontario tribunal ruled physicians have no Charter privacy interest in their patients’ records. Subsequent proceedings produced a 12-month suspension.

October 17, 2024

Case comment on CPSO v Trozzi, 2024 ONPSDT 2, and CPSO v Luchkiw, 2024 ONPSDT 4, on the penalty phase of COVID-19 physician discipline including the ungovernable doctrine. By Paul Cahill, LSO Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation.

CPSO v Trozzi and Luchkiw: The Penalty Phase of COVID-19 Discipline

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.

February 13, 2024