DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE PRACTITIONERS AND ACUPUNCTURISTS OF ONTARIO

IN THE MATTER OF CHUN SHENG LIU

the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18, and the Traditional Chinese Medicine Act, 2006, S.O.

2006, c. 27

Decision Date: September 29, 2025

Indexed as: Ontario (College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners & Acupuncturists of Ontario) v Chun Sheng Liu, 2025 ONCTCMPAO 30

Panel: Kimberley Bishop Chairperson, Public Member

Iftikhar Choudry Public Member

Akari Yokokawa Professional Member

BETWEEN:

THE COLLEGE OF TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE PRACTITIONERS AND ACUPUNCTURISTS OF ONTARIO

-and-

CHUN SHENG LIU

( Anastasia-Maria Hountalas and ( Enniael Stair for the College

( Jingsong Liu for the Member (

( Fredrick Schumann

( Independent Legal Counsel (

( Dates of Hearing: July 7, 2025

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

The Member brought a motion in this disciplinary proceeding before the Discipline Committee of the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists (the

• 2 -

"College"). The motion came on for a hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the "Panel") on July 7, 2025.

The allegations and the motion

The Member faces allegations of professional misconduct in two Notices of Hearing, one with number 5-0172 and the other with number 5-0174 (both dated June 18, 2024). Notice of Hearing 5-0172 alleges that the Member failed to cooperate with an investigation into another member, and/or obstructed that investigation. Notice of Hearing 5-0174 alleges that the Member committed various record-keeping contraventions and engaged in improper billing.

At the hearing, the parties agreed to have these two matters heard together. Accordingly, the allegations in the two Notices of Hearing are ordered to be heard together, under s. 9.1(1)(a) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

In his motion, the Member seeks the following relief:

(a) An order dismissing the proceeding with file number 5-0172;

(b) In file 5-0174, an order excluding all evidence obtained in the investigation from July 19, 2022 to January 11, 2023, including:

(i) All information collected from the undercover investigator Shanna Yee; and (ii)All information collected from the undercover investigator Andrew Sprung;

(c) An order excluding from evidence the Member's interviews on May 10 and May 15, 2023;

(d) An order disclosing to the Member the investigative file with file number 4-0111, concerning another member;

(e) An order, framed as the "certification of common issues", which would determine certain facts in advance of the hearing on the merits.

We will deal with each of these requests in turn.

Motion to dismiss notice of hearing 5-0172

The Member's argument focused on s. 76(3.1) of the RHPA Code, which provides: "A member shall co-operate fully with an investigator." He argued that he did not have the obligation to cooperate with the College's investigation with number 4-0111 because he was not the subject of that investigation.

In our view, under s. 76(3.1), a member still carries a responsibility as a member of the College to cooperate with a College investigation. Whether it's an investigation into his own conduct, or that of another person, the member is still responsible to cooperate with that investigation.

• 3 -

We note that s. 76(3.1) says "a member", not "the member who is the subject of the investigation" (although that language is used in s. 76(1.1)). This, in our view, makes it clear that the obligation to cooperate applies to a member who is not the subject of the investigation.

Further, the Notice of Hearing in this matter does not just allege that the member failed to cooperate with an investigation; it also alleges that he obstructed the investigation, including by "failing to securely store and/or improperly destroying patient records" during the investigation. Even if there was some doubt about the member's obligation to cooperate with the investigation, which in our view there is not, he would still clearly be prohibited from obstructing the investigation, for example by destroying documents sought in that investigation.

The Member also argues that, on the facts, he provided everything the College investigator sought. We are not prepared to decide this issue in this motion. It should be decided in the merits hearing on a full evidentiary record.

Thus, we would not grant this aspect of the relief sought in the motion.

Reasonable and probable grounds to commence investigation in file 5-0174

The Member argued that the College did not have reasonable and probable grounds to commence the investigation with file number 5-0174.

We looked at the information before the ICRC when it authorized this investigation, chiefly the memorandum of an investigator.

Reasonable and probable grounds does not mean proof that the member committed professional misconduct, or even evidence showing it is more likely than not that he committed professional misconduct. It is not a "rigorous" standard.¹

We also recognized that we should defer to the determination by the Registrar and the ICRC that there were reasonable and probable grounds. Subsection 75(1)(a) grants discretion to the Registrar and a reviewing body (including this panel) should defer to their determination, unless it is unreasonable.² We asked ourselves whether the Registrar and ICRC could reasonably have concluded that there were reasonable and probable grounds.

We noted that the investigator's memorandum stated that the Member told her that he would provide a receipt for chiropractic services, even though those were not to be the services provided. He repeated a similar statement in a later conversation. In our view, this was a "red flag" that warranted investigation and amounted to reasonable and probable grounds.

Commencing investigation based on facts from another investigation

The Member argued that his interactions with the College investigator in relation to the investigation of another member could not be used as grounds for an investigation of him. He relied on s. 33(6) of the Public Inquiries Act, 2009, which is incorporated by reference into s. 76 of the RHPA Code.

• 4 -

In our view, s. 33(6) does not prevent the College from relying on a member's interaction with its investigator to commence an investigation into that member's conduct, or to use as part of its case in a disciplinary proceeding. The interactions in question did not occur as part of compelled testimony by the Member. In our view, if a member obstructs an investigation into another member, or fails to cooperate with that investigation, then the College must be able to use that evidence to investigate the member or as evidence in a disciplinary proceeding.

Lack of verbatim records of interviews

The Member asked us to exclude from evidence two interviews that he gave to a College investigator, on the grounds that there was no transcript or audio recording of the interviews.

In our view, this is not a sufficient basis to exclude the interviews from evidence. It is conceivable that the lack of verbatim records might affect the weight that a panel might give to aspects of the investigator's evidence about the interviews, but that would depend on the specific evidence in question and would be up to the panel hearing the merits. It is not a matter that can justify the wholesale exclusion of the interviews at a preliminary stage.

Independence of investigation

The Member alleges that the College interfered with the independence of an investigation by directing an investigator to attend an appointment undercover.

In light of the statements that the Member had made to the investigator (discussed above), in our view the attendance was appropriate. We do not see the College's direction to the investigator as improper or amounting to interference in the circumstances.

Gathering independence before Member served with notice of investigation

The Member complained that investigative steps were taken, and evidence gathered, before he was served with the notice of investigation. In our view, the College must be able to investigate, in certain circumstances, before notifying the Member of the investigation. To do otherwise could risk compromising the integrity of the investigation.

No report to ICRC

The Member argues that there was no Registrar's report to ICRC as required by section 79 of the Code. Section 79 requires the Registrar to report to ICRC the results of an investigation; it is not relevant to the commencement of investigations. The Registrar did report to ICRC the results of the investigations, and this is what led to the Notices of Hearing before us.

Request for disclosure of investigative file with number 4-0111

The Member sought disclosure of the investigative file with number 4-0111. This is the investigation in which his cooperation was sought and in which it is alleged that he failed to cooperate.

In our view, the Member has not established that he should receive disclosure of the entire investigative file in this other matter. The material relevant to the allegations in the notice of

• 5 -

hearing with number 5-0172 have presumably already been disclosed to him in that matter. (He has not raised any issue about the completeness of disclosure in file 5-0172.) There is no indication that any of the other information in file 4-0111 would be relevant to any allegations he is facing.

Request for findings of fact

Finally, the member asked the panel to make formal findings of fact and suggested that this would save time in the hearing on the merits.

The motion proceeded on a paper record, with both sides filing affidavits in which they set out their versions of events and exhibited relevant documents. There were no live witnesses, no cross-examinations, and no submissions on the credibility or reliability of any evidence.

In our view, findings of fact on the merits should be made by the panel hearing the merits, on a full evidentiary record. A panel hearing a motion should only find the facts that are necessary to resolve the motion before it.

Accordingly, we dismissed the Member's motion. The discipline hearing has been scheduled for November 24-25 and 27, 2025.

Footnotes

1. 1Kustka v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 2325, at para 37.
2. 2See College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v Kilian, 2024 ONPSDT 23, at para 37.