ONTARIO PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: 25-039
BETWEEN:
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
College
- and -
Sam Naghibi
Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: March 4, 2026
Panel:
Jennifer Scott (panel chair) Heather-Ann Badalato (physician) Jill Cross (public) Camille Lemieux (physician) Rob Payne (public)
Appearances:
Elisabeth Widner, for the College Adam Patenaude, for the registrant
RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Rule 2.2.2 of the HPDT Rules of Procedure and ss. 45-47 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, no one shall publish or broadcast the names of patients or any information that could identify patients or disclose patients’ personal health information or health records referred to at a hearing or in any documents filed with the Tribunal. There may be significant fines for breaching this restriction.
The Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal is the Discipline Committee established under the Health Professions Procedural Code.
Introduction
1Dr. Naghibi obtained his independent practice certificate from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (College) in 2011, and then practised family medicine.
2In January 2021, Dr. Naghibi was charged with sexual assault of Patient A under s. 271 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c. C-46. Five weeks later, in March 2021, he was charged with sexual assault of Patient B under s. 271 of the Criminal Code.
3Dr. Naghibi signed an undertaking to stop practising medicine in all jurisdictions in April 2021 and resigned his certificate of registration in January 2024. In December 2025, Dr. Naghibi agreed to never apply or reapply for registration as a physician in Ontario or any other jurisdiction.
4Dr. Naghibi was convicted of both sexual assaults and sentenced to two periods of incarceration. His first sentence relating to Patient A was 20 months’ incarceration and his second sentence for Patient B was 12 months’ incarceration. The second sentence was consecutive to the first (served after the first sentence). He remains incarcerated today.
5The College referred allegations of misconduct to the Tribunal in November 2025. Under s. 14(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act (RHPA), 1991, SO 1991, c. 18 (Code), the College had jurisdiction over Dr. Naghibi because the misconduct (sexual assaults) occurred while he was a registrant of the College.
6The hearing before the Tribunal proceeded on March 4, 2026. Dr. Naghibi’s counsel attended. Dr. Naghibi did not attend. He remains incarcerated.
7The parties relied on a Statement of Uncontested Facts (SUF) at the hearing. Dr. Naghibi did not contest:
a. the facts regarding his convictions;
b. that he had been found guilty of an offence relevant to his suitability to practise under s. 51(1)(a) of the Code;
c. that he had engaged in sexual abuse of patients under s. 51(1)(b.1) of the Code; and
d. that he had engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct and conduct unbecoming a physician under paragraphs 1(1) 33 and 34 of Ontario Regulation 856/93 made under the Medicine Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 30 (Professional Misconduct Regulation).
8We made those findings.
9Dr. Naghibi and the College jointly submitted that we should impose the mandatory penalty of reprimand and revocation of Dr. Naghibi’s certificate of registration. The parties agreed that we should order Dr. Naghibi to pay costs of the hearing to the College of $6,000. We made the order requested by the parties.
10These are the reasons for our decision.
Sexual assaults
Patient A
11The court found that at the beginning of Dr. Naghibi’s medical appointment with Patient A, he brought her a beer to consume while he asked her some preliminary questions. He then conducted a vaginal examination and midway through the examination, he began licking her vagina and undid his pants so that his penis was exposed. Patient A confronted him and said, “What are you doing doctor?” Dr. Naghibi stopped licking her but did not immediately do up his pants. He then kissed Patient A around the mouth, and his penis touched her vagina. There was no penetration.
Patient B
12The Court found that Dr. Naghibi sexually assaulted Patient B by inserting his finger into her vagina without her consent, kept it there, and asked Patient B if she felt sexual desire. The court found the touching was sexual in nature, was not for a medical purpose, and clearly violated Patient B’s sexual integrity.
Professional misconduct
13Under s. 51(1)(a) of the Code, the Tribunal shall find a member has committed an act of professional misconduct if the member has been found guilty of an offence that is relevant to the member’s suitability to practise. It is obvious that sexual assault is relevant to a physician’s suitability to practise.
14Sexual assault of a patient is also sexual abuse under s. 51(1)(b.1) of the Code.
15Finally, it is well established that sexual assault of a patient is regarded by registrants as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional and conduct unbecoming a physician (paras. 1(1) 33 and 34 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation).
16Dr. Naghibi does not contest these facts and that he has engaged in professional misconduct.
Finding
17We find Dr. Naghibi committed acts of professional misconduct in that he has been found guilty of an offence that is relevant to his suitability to practise under s. 51(1)(a) of the Code, has committed sexual abuse of patients under s. 51(1)(b.1) of the Code, and has engaged in conduct that is disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional and unbecoming a physician.
Penalty
18We accepted the jointly proposed penalty of a reprimand and revocation of Dr. Naghibi’s certificate of registration, both being mandatory penalties.
19Section 51(5.2)(a) of the Code requires the Tribunal to reprimand the registrant and revoke the registrant’s certificate of registration if the member has been found guilty of professional misconduct under s. 51(1)(a) of the Code and the offence is prescribed by regulation. Section 271 (sexual assault) of the Criminal Code is a prescribed offence under Ontario Regulation 262/18, made under the RHPA.
20The same mandatory penalty is required where a member has engaged in sexual abuse of a patient and the sexual abuse consists of certain kinds of sexual conduct, including oral to genital contact and touching of a sexual nature of the patient’s genitals. Because the sexual abuse committed by Dr. Naghibi included this conduct, the revocation of his certificate is mandatory under s. 51(5)3 of the Code as well.
21The requirements of s. 51(5.2)(a) and (b) of the Code are met and the Tribunal must apply the mandatory penalty of reprimand and revocation. Given the mandatory nature of the penalty, it is not necessary to consider whether the joint submission on penalty meets the legal test for acceptance.
22The parties’ submission on costs is reasonable and based on the tariff rate for a half-day hearing.
Order
23At the conclusion of the hearing, we made the following order:
Penalty
The Tribunal requires the registrant to appear before the panel to be reprimanded.
The Tribunal directs the Registrar to revoke the registrant’s certificate of registration effective immediately.
Costs
- The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs of $6,000 by April 4, 2026.
24Dr. Naghibi did not attend the hearing, and the reprimand was delivered in writing.