ONTARIO PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: 24-012
BETWEEN:
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario College
- and -
Aaron Francis Jolly Registrant
PENALTY REASONS
Heard: January 22, 2026
Panel:
Jay Sengupta (panel chair)
Madhu Azad (physician)
Lucy Becker (public)
Linda Robbins (public)
Joanne Nicholson (physician)
Appearances:
Kenzie Bunting and Penelope Ng for the College
Marie Henein, Jacob Roth and Sarina Nezhadian, 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
1We previously found that the manner in which the registrant physically demonstrated the Valsalva breathing technique to two patients using skin-to-skin palpation of the lower abdomen, his examination of the apical impulse through the neckline of the clothing of one of the patients, his failure to adequately explain the scope and rationale of procedures and to obtain informed consent before conducting them all amounted to professional misconduct. The registrant failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession and engaged in conduct that was disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional (see College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Jolly, 2025 ONPSDT 30).
2At the penalty hearing, the parties jointly requested an order requiring that the registrant appear before the panel to be reprimanded, suspension of the registrant’s certificate of registration for five months, completion of the PROBE ethics and boundaries program within six months and costs of $30,000 to be paid by a specified date.
3We granted the order sought by the parties and the reprimand was delivered at the close of the hearing. The reasons for our order are set out below.
Additional evidence
4The parties provided us with an agreed statement of facts (ASF) relevant to the penalty hearing.
5It confirmed that the registrant has no prior discipline history.
6It also confirmed he had completed a one-on-one program of study and counselling with Gail Siskind in April and May 2024 focussed on ethics, establishing and maintaining professional boundaries and goal-directed communication.
7Finally, the ASF confirmed that the registrant completed a subsequent course of counselling with Ms. Siskind following the release of this panel’s findings on the merits in November 2025 that focussed on understanding the ethical, professional and regulatory foundations of informed consent. The follow-up education and counselling reinforced the earlier learning regarding maintaining professional boundaries and goal-directed communication.
8We were provided with both reports prepared by Ms. Siskind, which confirmed the learning objectives undertaken, provided a detailed account of the concepts and materials reviewed and Ms. Siskind’s assessment of the registrant’s efforts and understanding of the concepts and materials discussed.
9The registrant also provided the panel with three letters of support from colleagues.
Penalty principles
10The Tribunal summarized the goals of penalty orders, as well as factors to consider when deciding on the appropriate penalty in individual cases, in College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Fagbemigun, 2022 ONPSDT 22; aff’d Fagbemigun v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 2642.
11In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Fagbemigun decision, the Tribunal said the following about the goals of penalty orders:
The most important goal of a penalty order is protection of the public. The public must have confidence in the member, the profession and in the College’s ability to govern the profession in the public interest. Patients place their physical and mental health, their bodies and lives in the hands of physicians. The public expects that every member of the medical profession will protect that trust by acting in the interests of their patients and the public, upholding the high standards of the profession.
Other penalty purposes support the goal of protecting the public. These include discouraging the member and other physicians from committing misconduct (specific and general deterrence), rehabilitating the physician, ensuring a safe return to practice where appropriate and expressing the Tribunal and the profession’s disapproval of the misconduct.
12Factors to consider when determining the appropriate penalty in particular cases, as outlined in Fagbemigun, are the seriousness of the misconduct, the registrant’s discipline history, their actions since the misconduct and their personal circumstances.
Application of penalty principles to this case
13It is not disputed that the registrant has no discipline history.
14The conduct of the registrant is undoubtedly serious. There is a power imbalance inherent in the physician-patient relationship. Patients place their trust in the physician because of the latter’s knowledge, skill and judgment, and are in a vulnerable position. The requirement of informed consent protects patient autonomy and control over their own body.
15By failing to clearly explain the scope and rationale of the examinations, conducting examinations that were inconsistent with accepted practice and that were of a sensitive nature without the proper informed consent, the registrant caused significant distress and upset to two patients who had entrusted their care to him.
16The parties referred us to a number of cases where similar penalties have been ordered when findings of boundary violations and DDU were made.
17In College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Wardle, 2022 ONPSDT 4, the Tribunal ordered a reprimand, a five-month suspension and terms on his certificate of registration. Suspensions of two-to-three months were ordered in College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Nahas, 2020 ONCPSD 37 (two months), College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Noza, 2019 ONCPSD 19 (three months) and College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Raja, 2018 ONCPSD 22 (two months).
18The range of suspensions in cases with similar findings falls between two and five months. The penalty jointly proposed by the parties is at the high end of the range, but within it. As such, we are satisfied that the suspension of five months will serve the purpose of reinforcing the profession’s and the Tribunal’s disapproval of the conduct and the related goals of specific and general deterrence, with a view to ensuring the public is protected and to maintaining the public’s confidence in the profession.
19We are encouraged by the remedial steps taken by the registrant in 2024 and following our decision on the merits in 2025 and 2026. His two engagements with Ms. Siskind focussed on examining his actions and the resulting impact on his patients.
20This demonstrates to us that he has examined his practices to understand what he did wrong, gained insight about the harm he caused to his patients and taken concrete steps in his practice to ensure that he does not commit similar misconduct going forward, all of which indicate a commitment to improving his practice.
21Requiring completion of an additional PROBE ethics and boundaries course, also sought jointly by the parties, will serve to reinforce remediation efforts already undertaken by the registrant.
22Taken in conjunction with the reprimand and five-month suspension, we are satisfied that the goals of public protection, specific and general deterrence and remediation of the individual registrant are met by this order.
23The cost order jointly sought is reasonable.
Order
24We made the following order:
Penalty
The Tribunal requires the registrant to appear before the panel to be reprimanded.
The Tribunal directs the Registrar to:
a. suspend the registrant’s certificate of registration for five (5) months commencing on January 23, 2026, at 12:01 a.m.
b. place the following terms, conditions and limitations on the registrant’s certificate of registration effective immediately:
PROBE
i. Dr. Jolly shall participate in and successfully complete, without condition or qualification and at his own expense, the PROBE Ethics & Boundaries Program offered by the Centre for Personalized Education for Professionals. Dr. Jolly will complete the PROBE program within six (6) months of the date of this Order or, if it is not available within that timeframe, at the earliest available opportunity. Dr. Jolly will provide proof of his successful completion to the College, including proof of registration and attendance and participant assessment reports, within one (1) month of completing it.
Costs
The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $30,000 by March 23, 2026.