ONTARIO PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL

Date: May 29, 2026

Tribunal File No.: 25-038

BETWEEN:

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

College

• and -

Todd Kevin Young

Registrant

FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS

Heard: April 21, 2026

Panel:

Jennifer Scott (panel chair)

David Bird (public)

Jill Cross (public)

Camille Lemieux (physician)

Susanna Yanivker (physician)

Appearances:

Ruth Ainsworth, for the College

Keary Grace, 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

1Dr. Young obtained his independent practice certificate from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) in 2006 and was registered with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Newfoundland and Labrador (CPSNL) in 2007. He practises family medicine and addictions medicine in Newfoundland and Labrador. He also maintains a part-time practice in Ontario as a locum physician in emergency and family medicine.

2In November 2024, Dr. Young appeared before the Adjudication Tribunal of the CPSNL regarding the care he provided to three patients. Dr. Young admitted and the Adjudication Tribunal found that Dr. Young breached the standard of practice in his care of all three patients, falsified the medical records of one patient, and provided false or misleading documents to the CPSNL during its investigation. The Adjudication Tribunal ordered a four-month suspension, remedial education and professional development in addictions medicine, professional ethics and record-keeping, and a restriction on prescribing narcotics until he completed the remediation in addictions medicine.

3The hearing before this Tribunal proceeded on April 21, 2026. The parties relied on an agreed statement of facts in which Dr. Young admitted that the findings of professional misconduct by the Adjudication Tribunal constitute misconduct before us, and that he has engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

4We made those findings, as admitted.

5Dr. Young and the CPSO jointly submitted that we order a reprimand, seven-month suspension, clinical supervision, practice assessment, professional education, and monitoring. The parties agreed that we should order Dr. Young to pay costs of the hearing to the CPSO of $6,000. We made the order requested by the parties.

6These are the reasons for our decision.

Conduct in Newfoundland and Labrador

2023 complaint

7In April 2020, Dr. Young met with Patient C virtually for a clinical consultation. Patient C was not a regular patient and had her own family physician. She had seen Dr. Young twice before. Dr. Young prescribed Hydromorph (Hydromorphone) and Tramacet/Tramadol. Shortly thereafter, Patient C’s family physician filed a report indicating she was concerned about the appropriateness of Dr. Young’s prescription, as she had prescribed Hydromorph to Patient C two days before.

8In response to the complaint, Dr. Young said he had cancelled the prescription for Hydromorph, and that the family physician’s prescription for that drug was not on the provincial electronic medical record (EMR). He provided Patient C’s medical file to the CPSNL, which included a copy of a letter to the family physician dated April 15, 2020, in which he reported prescribing Tramacet, and a copy of his prescription for Hydromorph with the word “cancel” written on top of the word “Hydromorph,” and the word “Hydromorph” crossed out.

9The CPSNL investigation determined the family physician had not received correspondence from Dr. Young, and the pharmacy had not received a cancellation of the Hydromorph prescription. The CPSNL concluded that Dr. Young altered his clinic note and created the letter to the family physician after he was notified of the investigation. A copy of the prescription uploaded to the EMR did not include the word “cancel,” or the word “Hydromorph” crossed out.

10Dr. Young admitted and the Adjudication Tribunal found that he failed to comply with the CPSNL’s Standard of Practice: Telemedicine (2017) when he prescribed two narcotic medications without examining Patient C or communicating with another licensed health-care practitioner who had examined her. He admitted further, and the Adjudication Tribunal found, that he provided a false, misleading or inaccurate record to the CPSNL, altered his clinic record and falsified a record.

2024 complaint

11Patient A and Patient B received treatment from Dr. Young for opioid use disorder and were prescribed Metadol. Both patients advised Dr. Young that they worked at jobs which carried potential safety risks, and they were occasionally required to travel to remote work sites.

Patient A

12On June 27, 2023, Dr. Young prescribed a seven-day supply of unsupervised doses of Metadol to Patient A, to take with him for work travel.

13On July 31, 2023, Patient A told Dr. Young that he had taken fentanyl between July 26 and 31, 2023. On the same day, Dr. Young continued the unsupervised Metadol prescription for an additional eight days.

14On August 8, 2023, Dr. Young continued Patient A’s unsupervised Metadol prescription for an additional 30 days.

15Patient A travelled to a remote worksite on August 10, 2023. The following morning, he was found unconscious at the worksite. Narcan was administered and he was transported by Medevac to hospital for emergency medical treatment.

16Patient A continued to be prescribed Metadol by Dr. Young in September 2023.

17Dr. Young’s medical record does not indicate that he was aware of Patient A’s overdose in August 2023 until he received notice of the CPSNL allegation in October 2023.

Patient B

18Dr. Young prescribed Suboxone to Patient B from 2016 to 2023.

19On July 26, 2023, Dr. Young substituted his Suboxone prescription for Methadone. Patient B received Methadone by supervised dosage at his pharmacy.

20On August 8, 2023, Dr. Young’s medical record indicates Patient B’s urine drug screening showed the presence of opiates (morphine and fentanyl) and methadone. On the same day, Dr. Young changed Patient B’s medication from Methadone to Metadol and prescribed 28 unsupervised doses for Patient B to take with him during upcoming travel for work.

21Patient B travelled to a remote worksite on August 10, 2023. On August 14, 2023, Patient B was brought to the onsite medical clinic with signs of decreased or lost consciousness. After receiving several doses of Narcan, he was transported by Medevac to hospital for emergency treatment.

22Patient B continued to receive treatment from Dr. Young’s clinic for opioid use disorder and was prescribed Metadol by Dr. Young in September and October 2023.

23Dr. Young’s medical record does not indicate that he was aware of Patient B’s overdose incident in August 2023 until he received notice of the CPSNL allegation in October 2023.

24Dr. Young admitted and the Adjudication Tribunal found that he did not meet the standard of care in his treatment of Patients A and B. He failed to document in their medical records that their Metadol should be given to an onsite medic or nurse for supervised dosing. Dr. Young admitted this was poor judgment and that he ought to have sought his patients’ consent to contact the onsite medic or nurse to arrange for supervised dosing.

Finding

25The Adjudication Tribunal found that Dr. Young breached the standard of care in his treatment of Patients A and B and breached the Standard of Practice on Telemedicine in his treatment of Patient C. The Adjudication Tribunal’s finding that Dr. Young failed to maintain the standards of practice in medicine is professional misconduct before this Tribunal under s. 1(3) of Ontario Regulation 856/93 made under the Medicine Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 30 and s. 51(1)(b) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c.18, because his actions in Newfoundland would also be misconduct in Ontario.

26Dr. Young’s conduct is also disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. He provided opiate prescriptions to three patients in a manner that caused or could have caused harm, and falsified medical records to cover up his actions.

Joint Submission

27The parties made a joint submission on penalty. A joint submission will be rejected only where it is contrary to the public interest in a way that brings the administration of justice into disrepute: R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 at para. 34.

28A penalty is contrary to the public interest when it fails to protect the public and/or impairs the ability of the CPSO, and by extension the Tribunal, to regulate the profession of medicine and govern physicians. If the proposed penalty violates the public interest, the administration of justice is brought into disrepute. In the professional regulation context, this would mean the proper functioning of the CPSO’s professional discipline system had broken down.

29We considered the seriousness of Dr. Young’s misconduct, his discipline history, and the caselaw on penalties in similar cases, because these are the factors that are relevant to determining whether the proposed penalty fails to protect the public interest.

Seriousness of the misconduct

30Dr. Young’s conduct is extremely serious. He prescribed two opiate medications to a patient in 2020 without physically examining her and without confirming whether the patient had been prescribed opiates by other physicians. Following a complaint about his conduct, he altered a clinical note, created a letter to the patient’s physician that had never been sent and wrote the word “cancel” on one of the opiate prescriptions after the prescription had been received by the pharmacy, without providing the change to the pharmacy.

31In 2023, he prescribed methadone to two patients in a reckless and unsafe manner. He prescribed large amounts of methadone for unsupervised use even though one patient informed him that he had recently taken fentanyl, and the other patient had opiates other than methadone in his urine. Both patients worked at remote worksites and both subsequently overdosed requiring evacuation for emergency medical care in hospital.

32Dr. Young violated the obligation of a physician to do no harm and attempted to cover up his conduct by falsifying medical documents. His conduct undermines public trust in the medical profession.

Discipline history

33Dr. Young has a discipline history. In November 2015, the CPSNL disciplined Dr. Young for having sexual relations with two emotionally vulnerable female patients. He transferred care of one patient to pursue a romantic relationship with her in 2011 and had a relationship with the other while she was still a patient in 2013. Dr. Young withdrew from practice in April 2014 and received a 19-month suspension that ended in November 2015.

34In July 2019, the Discipline Committee of the CPSO found his misconduct in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2011 and 2013 constituted misconduct in Ontario. Dr. Young received a six-month suspension and reprimand.

Other cases

35The parties rely on several cases of this Tribunal to support their joint submission on penalty. While no case is identical, they involve some of the same allegations of misconduct found by the Adjudication Tribunal: failure to maintain the standard of practice, creating false documents and misleading the CPSO during its investigation: College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Alexander, 2018 ONCPSD 60, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v Ismail, 2020 ONCPSD 45 and College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Fenton, 2017 ONCPSD 16.

36The penalties in these cases included a reprimand, six-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on the physicians’ certificates of registration. The penalty proposed by the parties in this case is in the range of penalties in these other cases.

37In addition to the suspension and reprimand, Dr. Young will have clinical supervision for a minimum of three months following his suspension, and an assessment of his practice six months after that. He will receive professional education in prescribing drugs, professionalism, and opioid use disorder treatment, and will be subject to ongoing monitoring by the CPSO.

38The penalty sends a strong message to Dr. Young and other registrants that serious consequences will result if they breach the standard of practice required of physicians and falsify medical records to cover up their breach. The terms relating to supervision, assessment, monitoring and professional education minimize the risk that Dr. Young will engage in misconduct in the future. The purpose of all the penalty terms is protection of the public. The Tribunal finds that the joint submission does not put the administration of justice into disrepute, and it is accepted for this reason.

39The parties’ submission on costs is reasonable and based on the tariff rate for a half-day hearing.

Order

40We made the following order:

Penalty

1. The Tribunal requires the registrant to appear before the panel to be reprimanded.

2. The Tribunal directs the Registrar to:

a. suspend Dr. Young’s certificate of registration for ​seven (7) months​ commencing April 22, 2026, at 12:01 a.m.;

b. place the following terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. Young’s certificate of registration effective April 22, 2026, at 12:01 a.m.:

Clinical Supervision

i. Upon resuming practice after the period of suspension of his certificate of registration, Dr. Young shall retain, at his own expense, a College-approved Clinical Supervisor, with respect to prescribing Narcotic Drugs, Narcotic Preparations, Controlled Drugs, Benzodiazepines and Other Targeted Substances and Monitored Drugs (“Narcotics”, as set out at Schedules B, C & D to this Order), who will sign an undertaking in the form attached as Schedule “A” to this Order (the “Clinical Supervisor”).

ii. For a minimum period of three (3) months commencing on the date Dr. Young resumes practice after the suspension of his certificate of registration, Dr. Young shall practice in accordance with the terms of the Clinical Supervision set out herein and in Schedule “A”.

iii. Dr. Young shall cooperate fully with the Clinical Supervision of his practice, which shall contain the following elements:

1. The Clinical Supervisor shall facilitate the Professional Education set out at subparagraph (xiv)-(xv) of this Order;

2. Dr. Young and the Clinical Supervisor shall have an initial meeting to discuss the objectives for the Clinical Supervision and practice improvement recommendations;

3. Dr. Young shall meet with his Clinical Supervisor at his Practice Location once every month after the initial meeting;

4. The Clinical Supervisor shall review at least fifteen (15) of Dr. Young’s patient charts at every meeting, selected at the sole discretion of the Clinical Supervisor from patients listed in the Prescribing Log, as set out at subparagraph (xv) of this Order;

5. If there are not fifteen (15) charts listed in Dr. Young’s Prescribing Log since the Clinical Supervisor’s prior review, the Clinical Supervisor shall review the charts of all patients listed in the Prescribing Log since the Clinical Supervisor’s prior review. For greater clarity, the Clinical Supervisor shall review a minimum total of forty-five (45) charts prior to the conclusion of the Clinical Supervision;

6. The Clinical Supervisor shall keep a log of all patient charts reviewed along with patient identifiers;

7. The Clinical Supervisor shall discuss with Dr. Young any concerns arising from the chart reviews, and will make recommendations to Dr. Young for practice improvements and ongoing professional development and inquire into Dr. Young’s compliance with the recommendations;

8. The Clinical Supervisor will perform any other duties, such as reviewing additional patient records, OHIP billings and/or conduct interviews with staff or colleagues, that the Clinical Supervisor deems necessary to the Clinical Supervision;

9. The Clinical Supervisor shall submit written reports to the College at a minimum of once per month, or more frequently if the Clinical Supervisor has concerns about Dr. Young’s standard of practice. Such reports shall be in reasonable detail and shall contain all information the Clinical Supervisor believes might assist the College in evaluating Dr. Young’s standard of practice, as well as Dr. Young’s participation in and compliance with the requirements set out in this Order; and

10. The Clinical Supervisor shall remain free of any conflict of interest with Dr. Young.

iv. Dr. Young will cooperate fully with the Clinical Supervision of his practice, conducted under the terms of this Order and Schedule “A”, and shall abide by the recommendations of the Clinical Supervisor, including but not limited to, any recommended practice improvements and ongoing professional development.

v. If a person who has given an undertaking as set out in Schedule “A” to this Order is unable or unwilling to continue to fulfill its provisions, Dr. Young shall, within twenty (20) days of receiving notice of same, obtain an executed undertaking in the same form from a similarly qualified person who is acceptable to the College and ensure that it is delivered to the College within that time.

vi. If Dr. Young is unable to obtain a Clinical Supervisor in accordance with this Order, either upon resuming practice after the period of suspension of his certificate of registration or during the course of the Clinical Supervision, he will cease prescribing Narcotics until such time as he has obtained a Clinical Supervisor acceptable to the College and commences Clinical Supervision as set out herein and in Schedule “A”, and the fact that Dr. Young must not prescribe Narcotics will be a term, condition or limitation on his certificate of registration, which shall be included on the College’s public register.

vii. For greater clarity, upon resuming practice after the period of suspension of his certificate of registration and until the completion of Clinical Supervision, Dr. Young must not prescribe Narcotics unless he does so under the guidance of a Clinical Supervisor in accordance with this Order.

Assessment of Practice

viii. Approximately six (6) months after the completion of the period of Clinical Supervision set out above, Dr. Young shall, at his own expense, undergo an assessment of his practice (“the Assessment”) by a College-appointed assessor or assessors (the “Assessor”). The Assessment shall include a chart review and may include direct observation of Dr. Young’s care, interviews with Dr. Young, colleagues and co-workers, feedback from patients, and any other tools deemed necessary by the College. The Assessor(s) shall submit a written report on the results of the Assessment to the College.

ix. Dr. Young will cooperate fully with the Assessment, conducted under the terms of this Order.

x. Dr. Young acknowledges that the Clinical Supervisor may receive and review the findings of the Assessor and may discuss with the Assessor any issues or concerns arising from the Assessment.

xi. Dr. Young acknowledges that the results of the Assessment will be provided to him and reported to the College, and the Assessment may form the basis of further action by the College.

xii. If Dr. Young has not seen enough patients following the conclusion of Clinical Supervision to permit the Assessment to take place within six (6) months, he will be restricted from prescribing Narcotic Drugs, Narcotic Preparations, Controlled Drugs, Benzodiazepines and Other Targeted Substances and Monitored Drugs (as set out at Schedules B, C & D to this Order) until released from this condition in the sole discretion of the College. The determination of whether Dr. Young has seen enough patients to permit the Assessment to take place shall be within the sole discretion of the College.

xiii. If Dr. Young is required to cease prescribing Narcotic Drugs, Narcotic Preparations, Controlled Drugs, Benzodiazepines and Other Targeted Substances and Monitored Drugs as a result of subparagraph (xii) of this Order, this will be a term, condition or limitation on his certificate of registration, which shall be included on the College’s public register.

Professional Education

xiv. Dr. Young will engage in review, reflection and discussion with the Clinical Supervisor of the following College policies:

1. Prescribing Drugs, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario: www.cpso.on.ca/Physicians/Policies-Guidance/Policies/Prescribing-Drugs;

2. Essentials of Medical Professionalism, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario: www.cpso.on.ca/en/Physicians/Policies-Guidance/Essentials-Medical-Professionalism;

3. Professional Behaviour, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario: www.cpso.on.ca/Physicians/Policies-Guidance/Policies/Physician-Behaviour-in-the-Professional-Environmen; and

4. Advice to the Profession: Professional Behaviour, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario: www.cpso.on.ca/Physicians/Policies-Guidance/Policies/Physician-Behaviour-in-the-Professional-Environmen/Advice-to-the-Profession-Professional-Behaviour.

xv. Dr. Young will successfully complete the Opioid Use Disorder Treatment (OUDT) Course, Centre for Addiction & Mental Health, 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. Young 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 the course.

Monitoring

xvi. Dr. Young will maintain a Narcotic Prescribing Log in the form attached as Schedule “E” to this Order, until the College releases him from this requirement in its sole discretion. Dr. Young shall provide the Log to the College upon request.

xvii. Dr. Young must inform the College of each and every location at which he practices, delegates, or has privileges, including but not limited to, any hospitals, clinics, offices, and any Out-of-Hospital Premises or Independent Health Facilities with which he is affiliated in any jurisdiction (collectively, the “Practice Location”), within five (5) days of this Order. Going forward, Dr. Young will inform the College of any and all new Practice Locations within five (5) days of commencing practice at that location.

xviii. Dr. Young will submit to, and not interfere with, unannounced inspections of his Practice Locations and patient records by a College representative for the purposes of monitoring his compliance with the provisions of this Order.

xix. Dr. Young shall give his irrevocable consent to the College to make appropriate inquiries of OHIP, NMS and/or any person who or institution that may have relevant information, in order for the College to monitor his compliance with the provisions of this Order, and shall promptly sign such consents as may be necessary for the College to obtain information from these persons or institutions.

xx. Dr. Young shall consent to the sharing of information between the Clinical Supervisor, the Assessor and the College as any of them deem necessary or desirable in order to fulfil their respective obligations.

xxi. Dr. Young shall be responsible for any and all costs associated with implementing the terms of this order.

Costs

3. The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs of $6,000​ by ​May 22, 2026​.