Dr. Harpaul Anand

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel accepted the registrant’s admissions that he engaged in a concurrent treating and sexual relationship with a patient, sent intimate electronic messages, engaged in sexual touching, and disclosed confidential information of other patients without consent.

The panel found professional misconduct proven under the Health Professions Procedural Code and Ontario Regulation 853/93, including sexual abuse of a patient, abuse of a patient, breach of patient confidentiality, and disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical conduct.

Applying the public-interest standard governing joint penalty submissions, the panel accepted a joint submission requiring a reprimand, immediate revocation of the certificate of registration, reimbursement obligations under the patient funding program, security of $17,370.00, and costs of $10,000.00.

In a dental discipline proceeding, the member admitted professional misconduct arising from diagnosing and providing unnecessary restorative treatment, failing to use appropriate radiographic technique, prescribing antibiotics without adequate diagnostic foundation, failing to identify substandard restorations performed under supervision, and deficient recordkeeping.

The panel found the admissions voluntary, informed and unequivocal, and was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the misconduct was established.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty and costs, emphasizing public protection, specific and general deterrence, and rehabilitation.

A one-month suspension, remedial coursework, practice monitoring, reprimand, and $3,000 in costs were ordered.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the member admitted allegations arising from delayed diagnosis and inadequate management of a patient’s cancerous oral lesion, together with deficient recordkeeping.

The panel accepted the agreed statement of facts and found professional misconduct under the Health Professions Procedural Code and the applicable dentistry regulations.

Accepting a joint submission, the panel imposed a reprimand, a one-month suspension, practice conditions including monitoring and inspections for up to twenty-four months, and costs.

A publication ban protected the identity of the patient.