ONTARIO PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: 25-029
BETWEEN:
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario College
- and -
Lenna Mary Morgan Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: April 7, 2026
Panel: Raj Anand (panel chair) Jill Cross (public) Julie Maggi (physician) Joanne Nicholson (physician) Rob Payne (public)
Appearances: Ruth Ainsworth, for the College Colin Johnston and Christine Windsor, 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.
Introduction
1Physicians are expected to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with their patients. For a pediatrician, this expectation extends to the patient’s adult family members and caregivers because the power imbalance and obligation of trust that is inherent in a physician-patient relationship applies as well between the physician and the patient’s caregivers. Treating a child while engaged in a romantic relationship with a close family member of the child can cloud the physician’s judgment and impair the child’s entitlement to both an independent, fiduciary relationship with their physician and unbiased decision-making by a caregiver acting in the child’s best interests.
2Dr. Lenna Mary Morgan provided care and treatment as Patient A’s pediatrician for over a decade, beginning shortly after birth and extending until Patient A’s early teenage years. During that time Dr. Morgan entered into a close personal relationship with Patient A’s parent Person B, who was responsible for Patient A’s welfare. The registrant continued in this relationship for much of Patient A’s childhood years. Dr. Morgan became increasingly involved in their personal and family life.
3Throughout Patient A’s lifetime, Dr. Morgan has been governed by College policies that warn physicians of the dangers of entering into an intimate relationship with a person closely associated with a patient, and of the risks inherent in treating family members or persons close to them.
4While still a minor, Patient A filed a complaint with the College regarding Dr. Morgan, which led to the allegations that were referred to hearing.
5Dr. Morgan admitted, and we found, that by breaching the College policies, she engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct as well as conduct unbecoming a physician. We accepted the parties’ joint submission on penalty, imposed a three-month suspension, directed her to complete individualized instruction in medical ethics and professionalism including boundary management, and imposed a reprimand.
6These are our reasons.
Redaction issues
7The evidence before the Tribunal came in the form of a brief, straightforward agreed statement of facts (ASF). The public version of the ASF was even shorter, because the parties made significant redactions to the non-public version, including the removal of almost half of its 17 paragraphs.
[