OCPDT 2025

The College of Chiropodists of Ontario alleged that the registrant committed professional misconduct regarding his relationship with an orthotics manufacturer and his orthotics prescribing practices.

The registrant brought a preliminary motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the prescribing allegations because they were outside the scope of the registrar's authorized investigation and not related to the investigation report.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the prescribing allegations were fundamentally different from the conflict of interest concerns that prompted the investigation.

Because the new issues were not authorized by a new appointment and the registrant was not given an opportunity to respond to them in the report, the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee had no jurisdiction to refer them to the Tribunal.

The registrant, a chiropodist, was found to have committed professional misconduct by failing to keep proper records, failing to conduct adequate assessments before prescribing orthotics, allowing non-registrants to dispense orthotics, and failing to guard against fraudulent billing practices at clinics where she worked.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, noting the registrant's serious health issues as a mitigating factor.

The penalty included a seven-month suspension (with three months remitted upon completion of a record-keeping course), a reprimand, 18 months of practice supervision, and $20,000 in costs.

The registrant admitted to professional misconduct for validating insurance claims for orthotics dispensed by clinic staff and non-registrants, falsifying patient records, and providing false information to an insurance company.

Prior to the hearing, the registrant undertook to permanently resign from the College and never reapply.

The Discipline Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and $8,000 in costs, finding that the permanent resignation adequately protected the public and the penalty did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The registrant chiropodist brought a motion for the production of records and communications related to the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) meetings that resulted in the referral of professional misconduct allegations against him.

He argued the disclosure was necessary to support an intended motion to quash the Notice of Hearing based on lack of notice and jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the requested documents, including notes and staff recommendations, were protected by deliberative privilege.

The Tribunal further held that the registrant failed to provide evidence to lift the privilege and that the requested documents were not relevant to his intended arguments regarding notice and jurisdiction.

The registrant, a chiropodist, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to properly supervise students, permitting them to treat patients and dispense orthotics contrary to College standards, and submitting inaccurate documentation to an insurance company.

The matter proceeded on an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Tribunal found the registrant engaged in professional misconduct and ordered a reprimand, a seven-month suspension (with two months remitted upon completion of remedial work), practice restrictions, supervision, and $20,000 in costs.

The registrant, a chiropodist, admitted to professional misconduct for posting messages in a private Facebook group that discouraged colleagues from reporting misconduct to the College, and for failing to cooperate with a College investigator for nearly three months.

The Discipline Tribunal found that the Facebook posts constituted a failure to meet professional standards and were disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension, completion of a social media course, mentorship, and $25,000 in costs.

The College of Chiropodists of Ontario alleged that the registrant engaged in professional misconduct by over-prescribing orthotics, failing to keep adequate records, and participating in improper clinic business practices, including providing incentives for orthotics purchases.

Proceeding on an Agreed Statement of Facts, the Tribunal found the registrant committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a Joint Submission on Penalty, the Tribunal ordered a seven-month suspension (with two months remitted upon completion of remedial courses), a reprimand, a six-month restriction on prescribing orthotics, a 12-month period of supervision, and $14,000 in costs.

The registrant admitted to professional misconduct for failing to meet practice standards and keep adequate records when prescribing orthotics.

The College and the registrant presented a joint submission on penalty, which included a net four-month suspension, coursework, practice supervision, and a reprimand.

The Tribunal accepted the joint submission, finding that the proposed penalty was proportionate to similar cases and did not bring the administration of the professional discipline system into disrepute.

The registrant was also ordered to pay $23,000 in costs.

The College of Chiropodists of Ontario alleged that the registrant committed professional misconduct by misdiagnosing a patient's melanoma as a nail fungus, performing unnecessary nail avulsion surgery, and failing to refer the patient to a physician.

The patient subsequently required amputation of his right toe.

Proceeding on an Agreed Statement of Facts, the Tribunal found the registrant engaged in professional misconduct.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a nine-month suspension, a reprimand, remedial coursework, mentorship, and costs of $24,000.

The College of Chiropodists of Ontario alleged that the registrant committed professional misconduct by participating in an arrangement where patients received free shoes if they purchased orthotics.

The registrant admitted to failing to perform complete assessments, using improper casting techniques, and submitting false or misleading records to an insurance company.

Proceeding on an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Penalty, the Discipline Tribunal found the misconduct proven.

The Tribunal accepted the joint submission and ordered a reprimand, a 10-month suspension, practice restrictions, and $10,000 in costs.

The registrant, a podiatrist, admitted to professional misconduct for failing to disclose a civil lawsuit against him on his annual College renewal forms.

He resigned from the College and undertook never to reapply or practise in any jurisdiction.

The Discipline Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and $13,500 in costs, finding the proposed penalty was not contrary to the public interest.