ONTARIO PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: 25-032
BETWEEN:
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario College
- and -
Pheroze Noshir Bharucha Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: April 10, 2026
Panel:
Sophie Martel (panel chair)
David Bird (public)
Joanne Nicholson (physician)
Linda Robbins (public)
James Stewart (physician)
Appearances:
Kenzie Bunting, for the College
Nadia Marotta and 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.
Introduction
1Over the course of several months, Dr. Pheroze Noshir Bharucha engaged in unwanted communications and touching with a colleague. The unwanted touching included kissing, hugging, touching his colleague’s buttocks and physically restraining her. Such conduct undermines the integrity and trust that forms the foundation of the medical profession and can impede the collaboration required among health care professionals for effective patient care.
2Relying on a statement of uncontested facts, we concluded that Dr. Bharucha engaged in conduct that is disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
3The parties jointly proposed that Dr. Bharucha be reprimanded, that his certificate of registration be suspended for eight months and that he complete the PROBE Ethics & Boundaries Program. Because the proposed penalty does not bring the professional discipline system into disrepute, we made the requested order at the hearing. We also accepted the parties’ joint proposal that Dr. Bharucha pay costs of $6,000.
Statement of uncontested facts
4The parties submitted a statement of uncontested facts. Under Rule 14.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, Dr. Bharucha did not admit that these events occurred but accepted that the Tribunal could rely on them for the purposes of this proceeding and make a finding of misconduct.
5Dr. Bharucha obtained his certificate of registration in 2010. He had a family practice and worked at the Alzheimer Society’s Memory Clinic, which operated out of the same clinic as his family practice.
6Ms. X, the complainant, is a nurse practitioner who worked with the local Alzheimer Society. In this role, she worked alongside Dr. Bharucha on three occasions at the Memory Clinic. They never had a patient-physician relationship.
7In May 2023, Ms. X and Dr. Bharucha were both present during an emotionally difficult patient appointment. After the patient left the examination room, Dr. Bharucha closed the door and asked Ms. X how she was feeling. She replied that she felt upset. Dr. Bharucha hugged and kissed her on the face without immediately letting go. He then kissed her head while hugging her. Ms. X did not consent to any of the touching and felt uncomfortable throughout the encounter.
8Ms. AR, a friend of Ms. X, attended two appointments with Dr. Bharucha at his family practice in the summer of 2023. During her second appointment, around June 1, 2023, she mentioned to Dr. Bharucha that she was friends with Ms. X. Dr. Bharucha asked Ms. AR to call Ms. X during her appointment. Ms. AR complied even though she felt this request to be unusual. Dr. Bharucha, Ms. AR and Ms. X then had a brief conversation on speakerphone during Ms. AR’s appointment. Ms. X was uncomfortable with this unexpected and unwanted communication from Dr. Bharucha.
9On July 26, 2023, at the beginning of her shift, Dr. Bharucha asked Ms. X why she was upset. A co-worker indicated that Ms. X’s dog had died. Dr. Bharucha then hugged Ms. X for a long time and kissed her head while hugging her. Ms. X did not consent to this touch and felt uncomfortable throughout the encounter.
10Later that afternoon on July 26, 2023, during a patient appointment where Ms. X and Dr. Bharucha were both present, Ms. X described the physical appearance of one of the patient’s other physicians as young and good looking. After the patient left the examination room, Dr. Bharucha grabbed Ms. X by the wrist or hand and pulled her toward him. He then grabbed her around her body and held her to him while he remained seated. He told her, “you think you can say another doctor is good looking and young in front of me.” He then touched Ms. X on her left buttock. No one else was present during this incident and the examination room door was closed. Ms. X did not consent to being touched by Dr. Bharucha, protested and felt uncomfortable.
11The following day, Dr. Bharucha sent two text messages to Ms. X. In his first message, he said, “And how r we feeling today? Hopefully a wee bit more upbeat than yesterday. Somehow (&I don’t know why) you look nicer when u smile.” The second message, sent one minute later, read, “Sorry Pheroze.” These communications made Ms. X feel uncomfortable.
Professional misconduct
12In summary, Dr. Bharucha repeatedly crossed professional boundaries with Ms. X. He touched and communicated with her in a sexual and inappropriate manner. The unwanted touching included kissing, hugging, touching her buttocks and physically restraining her in an examination room with the door closed. This type of workplace misconduct is not only harmful to the victim, but it can also impede the collaboration required for effective patient care. It is conduct that members of the profession would reasonably regard to be disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
Penalty
13The parties jointly proposed that Dr. Bharucha be reprimanded, that his certificate of registration be suspended for eight months and that he complete the PROBE Ethics & Boundaries Program.
14Our role is limited when the parties agree on penalty. We should only depart from a joint submission if the proposed penalty would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise not in the public interest: R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43. This is a high threshold. A joint submission must be accepted unless it is so “unhinged” from the circumstances of the case that a reasonably informed member of the public would think that the administration of the professional discipline system had broken down: Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 (Div. Ct.).
15We are satisfied that the proposed penalty would not bring the administration of physician regulation into disrepute.
16We recognize that by not contesting the facts, Dr. Bharucha saved the College time and costs and spared the complainant from having to attend the hearing to testify.
17However, the misconduct at issue was quite serious. It was repeated over several instances. It involved unwanted touching that escalated to physical restraint and touching of the buttocks, a sensitive area. It included sexualized comments and other unwanted communications. This type of workplace misconduct is not only disruptive and harmful to the victim, but it also has the potential to affect patient care.
18It is also concerning that the misconduct occurred despite previous advice Dr. Bharucha received about professional boundaries from the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC). In March 2023, following a patient complaint that Dr. Bharucha had made a pass at her with his comments, the ICRC advised Dr. Bharucha to maintain appropriate boundaries with patients and to minimize offhand comments about topics unrelated to clinical issues. While this advice addressed patient boundaries, Dr. Bharucha should have been alert to the importance of maintaining professional boundaries with all members of a patient’s medical team.
19Dr. Bharucha also entered into a remedial agreement in December 2023 regarding another complaint about a patient encounter in July 2023 where a patient complained of Dr. Bharucha’s intent to use his cellphone flashlight for an intimate examination when his wall mounted light was not working. Dr. Bharucha agreed to engage in self-directed education and prepare a self-study report. We recognize that the December 2023 ICRC decision and remedial agreement occurred after the incidents before us, but we are concerned about the repeated boundary complaints.
20While ICRC dispositions do not constitute a previous discipline history, the March 2023 ICRC disposition demonstrates that despite being advised about the importance of maintaining professional boundaries, Dr. Bharucha engaged in further boundary violations with a colleague just a few months later in May, June and July 2023.
21More recent decisions of this Tribunal and its predecessor have imposed increasingly lengthy suspensions in cases of sexual misconduct with colleagues. As stated in College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Mourcos, 2018 ONCPSD 11, there is an increasing sense in society that the public will no longer turn a blind eye and tolerate workplace harassment. In Mourcos, the panel accepted a joint suspension of six months. Dr. Mourcos had engaged in inappropriate touching on one occasion with his medical receptionist.
22In College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Iannantuono, 2023 ONPSDT 20, the panel accepted a joint submission that included an 18-month suspension along with several rehabilitation and monitoring measures. Dr. Iannantuono had asked another health care professional to inappropriately perform an intimate procedure on him. He effectively forced her to view and touch his penis several times.
23We find that the proposed eight-month suspension is proportionate with these cases. While Dr. Bharucha’s conduct was repeated, he has no prior discipline history.
24The various elements of the joint penalty submission appropriately balance the penalty goals. The reprimand serves as specific deterrence and publicly denounces the conduct. The eight-month suspension addresses the goals of general deterrence and maintaining confidence in the College’s ability to effectively govern the profession. It demonstrates the profession’s intent to treat this misconduct seriously. The PROBE program is meant to rehabilitate the physician; the learning and insight gained will also protect the public once he returns to practice.
25Ultimately, we are satisfied that the proposed order is not so unhinged from the circumstances that implementing it would bring the administration of the College’s professional discipline system into disrepute.
Costs
26Similarly, we accept the parties’ joint proposal that Dr. Bharucha pay costs of $6,000, which reflects the tariff rate in the Rules of Procedure.
Order
27We 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 eight months commencing April 11, 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. Bharucha 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. Bharucha 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. Bharucha 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 $6,000.00 by June 11, 2026.