ONTARIO PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: 24-028
BETWEEN:
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
College
- and -
Michael Aaron Bensimon
Registrant
PENALTY REASONS
Heard: April 23, 2026
Panel:
Sherry Liang (panel chair) Vincent Georgie (public) Joanne Nicholson (physician) Rupa Patel (physician) Linda Robbins (public)
Appearances:
Kenzie Bunting, for the College Reema Zaia and Andrew McKenna, 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
1In our decision of March 2, 2026, we found that the registrant failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession and that he engaged in conduct that members of the profession would reasonably regard as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional during a prenatal appointment with a patient: College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Bensimon, 2026 ONPSDT 7.
2At the hearing on penalty and costs, the parties provided us with a joint recommendation. We made an order in accordance with the joint recommendation and ordered the registrant to appear before the panel to be reprimanded. We also ordered the suspension of the registrant’s certificate of registration for four months and imposed conditions on his certificate, including that he be required to have a practice monitor present whenever he conducts intimate examinations of patients for a minimum of two years. We directed the registrant to pay the College $26,740 in costs.
Background
3In our previous decision, we found that the registrant’s examination of the patient’s breasts through her clothing and while she was standing, as well as his failure to clearly explain the purpose and scope of the breast exam and obtain the patient’s informed consent, failed to meet the standard of practice of the profession. We described the patient’s feelings of surprise and discomfort at the unexpected touching of her breasts near the end of her prenatal appointment.
4We also found that the registrant’s examination of the patient’s spine did not meet the standard of practice in that he persisted in moving his hand down the patient’s spine despite her clear direction that she did not wish him to continue lower. The registrant should have listened more carefully to the patient’s expression of her wishes, particularly as they concerned an exam that inched close to her sensitive areas.
5The registrant’s conduct showed a serious disregard for his professional obligations. Not only did the breast exam risk missing important findings, but he also failed during both exams to adequately communicate with the patient, leaving her uncertain and confused. We found that the degree of confusion and consternation the patient experienced means that the registrant did not take enough steps to explain what he was going to do and why, to ensure that he had her informed consent.
6We were not satisfied that the College proved its allegation of sexual abuse.
Joint recommendation
7The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate penalty be a direction that the registrant appear before the panel for a reprimand, that the registrant’s certificate of registration be suspended for four months and that terms, conditions and limitations be placed on his certificate requiring him to take a course on ethics and boundaries and only perform intimate examinations of patients (including breast, pelvic, genital, perineal, perianal and rectal examinations of patients) in the presence of a practice monitor.
8The agreed terms also require the registrant to inform patients of this restriction on his practice and include provisions to support the College in monitoring his compliance with the restriction. The parties agree that after two years, the Registrar of the College should be authorized, in their sole discretion, to remove the restriction from the registrant’s certificate.
9We are satisfied that the proposed penalty satisfies the principles of sanctioning, including public protection, general and specific deterrence and remediation. It also satisfies the principle of proportionality: that like cases be treated alike.
10The misconduct in this case is without a doubt serious. The registrant disregarded the comfort and wishes of a vulnerable young patient who had recently experienced a miscarriage and was early in the stages of a new pregnancy, providing inconsiderate and substandard care. His treatment of her demonstrated a lack of understanding of the power imbalance inherent in the physician-patient relationship and of his responsibility to be particularly attentive to consent and communication when touching sensitive areas of a patient’s body.
11The registrant was the subject of complaints to the Collège des médecins du Québec, when he practised there in 2018, about his conduct of physical examinations. These resulted in advice from the syndic of the Collège that he pay particular attention to the professional standards that go along with performing a physical exam, especially as they pertain to maintaining the appropriate distance and explaining what he was going to do before conducting invasive or potentially unexpected exams.
12The College does not assert that the advice given by the Québec Collège amounts to a discipline history that can be considered an aggravating factor in our assessment of penalty. It submits however, and we accept, that this demonstrates that the registrant was previously made aware of the importance of explaining what he is going to do before conducting invasive or potentially unexpected examinations. The fact that similar issues have been raised with the registrant in the past elevates the seriousness of the misconduct in this case, supporting a meaningful sanction and rehabilitation measures.
13The proposed penalty is proportionate, having regard to other cases. The parties referred us to decisions of this Tribunal concerning registrants who engaged in similar misconduct by engaging in unwanted touching of a patient’s sensitive areas without adequate explanation or informed consent, and in a manner that caused distress to the patient (see College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Jolly, 2026 ONPSDT 14; College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Wardle, 2022 ONPSDT 4; College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Nahas, 2020 ONCPSD 37; College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Noza, 2019 ONCPSD 19; College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Heymans, 2018 ONCPSD 57; College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Malette, 2020 ONCPSD 2).
14In most cases we were given, the registrant admitted to the misconduct and agreed to a joint recommendation on penalty. The Tribunal ordered suspensions ranging from two to six months, in addition to terms, conditions and limitations on the registrant’s certificate of registration. Some decisions resulted in a requirement that the registrant treat patients under the observation of a practice monitor. In Heymans, the Tribunal directed that a practice monitor be present for all professional encounters, while in Malette, the direction to have a practice monitor applied to certain intimate examinations.
15These cases demonstrate that the kind of misconduct the registrant engaged in is treated as a serious matter and results in a suspension, as well as, in some cases, ongoing monitoring of a registrant’s practice. While each of the above decisions was based on its own set of unique facts, we conclude that the suspension proposed here is appropriate, given the range of penalties imposed for similar misconduct.
16The suspension and reprimand serve the goals of specific and general deterrence. The penalty reminds the registrant of the importance of treating patients with dignity and professionalism, engaging in clear communication and active listening and obtaining a patient’s ongoing informed consent during treatment. General deterrence is achieved by demonstrating to other registrants that maintaining professional standards and always being attentive to the power imbalance between themselves and their patients is essential to continuing to enjoy the privilege of practicing the profession.
17The terms, conditions and limitations imposed on the registrant’s certificate of registration serve the purpose of remediation and ensure that the registrant will return to practice in keeping with the standards of practice of the profession. The requirement to practise under the observation of a practice monitor is a measured and reasonable rehabilitation measure, being restricted to intimate exams and with the possibility of an end date.
18Overall, the penalty shows the public that the College takes seriously its responsibility to govern the profession and enhances public confidence in the College’s ability to protect the public.
19We do not accept the registrant’s assertion that his agreement to a joint recommendation on penalty shows insight and remorse and can be viewed as a mitigating factor. Prior cases of this Tribunal treat a registrant’s admission to misconduct or plea of no contest as a mitigating factor in assessing penalty, as it avoids the costs of conducting a full hearing and spares witnesses from the need to testify (see College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Fagbemigun, 2022 ONPSDT 22 at para. 16). In this case, the registrant contested the allegations, and the Tribunal conducted a five-day hearing on the merits, in addition to a half-day motion and the penalty hearing. We see no reason to view the registrant’s decision to agree to a joint recommendation on penalty, after that prolonged process, as a factor arguing in favour of a lesser penalty.
20Having regard to the relevant penalty principles as well as the caselaw, we are satisfied that the joint recommendation is the appropriate penalty. We are also satisfied that the proposed costs order, which takes into consideration the mixed result in this case, is appropriate.
Order
21We 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 four (4) months commencing May 15, 2026, at 12:01 a.m.;
b. place the following terms, conditions and limitations on the registrant’s certificate of registration effective April 24, 2026, at 12:01 a.m.:
i. Dr. Bensimon will, at his own expense, participate in the PROBE Ethics & Boundaries Program offered by the Centre for Personalized Education for Professionals, by receiving a passing evaluation or grade, without condition or qualification. Dr. Bensimon will complete the PROBE program within six (6) months of the date of this Order or, if it is not available within that timeframe, will complete it at the earliest available opportunity. Dr. Bensimon will provide proof to the College of his completion, including proof of registration and attendance and participant assessment reports, within one (1) month of completing it.
ii. For a minimum of two (2) years, Dr. Bensimon shall not engage in any intimate examinations, which includes breast, pelvic, genital, perineal, perianal and rectal examinations of patients, (“Intimate Examination” or “Intimate Examinations”), with patients of any age, in any jurisdiction, unless the Intimate Examination takes place in the continuous presence and under the continuous observation of a monitor who is a regulated health professional acceptable to the College (the “Practice Monitor” or “Practice Monitors”), and unless the other requirements provided in this Order are fulfilled. For further clarity, Dr. Bensimon must not perform any Intimate Examinations, for any length of time, without the presence of a Practice Monitor. The Registrar of the College, in their sole discretion, is authorized to remove this restriction from Dr. Bensimon’s certificate of registration after a minimum of two (2) years.
iii. At all times, Dr. Bensimon shall ensure that a Practice Monitor shall:
a) remain present at all times during all Intimate Examinations, in person or otherwise, with all patients;
b) carefully observe all of Dr. Bensimon’s Intimate Examinations with patients. It is Dr. Bensimon’s obligation to ensure the Practice Monitor’s view of all of his Intimate Examinations with patients is unobstructed at all times;
c) refrain from performing any other functions, except those required in the Practice Monitor’s undertaking attached as Appendix “A,” while observing Dr. Bensimon in all of his Intimate Examinations with patients;
d) maintain a log of all Professional Encounters with patients in the form attached to this Order as Appendix “B” (the “Log”) and in the manner described in Appendix “A”;
e) initial all corresponding entries in the records of patients noted in the Log to confirm that the Practice Monitor was in Dr. Bensimon’s presence at all times during the Intimate Examinations;
f) submit the original Log to the College on a monthly basis;
g) provide reports (as described in the Practice Monitor’s undertaking) to the College on at least a monthly basis; and
h) remain free of any conflict of interest with Dr. Bensimon.
iv. Dr. Bensimon shall maintain a copy of the Log and make it available to the College on request.
Practice Location
v. Dr. Bensimon shall inform the College of each and every location at which he practises, delegates, or has privileges in any jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, any hospitals, clinics, offices, and any Out-of-Hospital Premises and Independent Health Facilities with which he is affiliated, in any jurisdiction (collectively his “Practice Location” or “Practice Locations”), within five (5) days of this Order. Going forward, he shall inform the College of any and all new Practice Locations within five (5) days of commencing practice at that location.
vi. Dr. Bensimon shall post a sign in all waiting rooms, examination rooms and consulting rooms, in all of his Practice Locations, in a clearly visible and secure location, at all times whether or not he is physically present at the Practice Location, in the form set out in Appendix “C” that states: “Dr. Bensimon must not perform intimate examinations, including breast, pelvic, genital, perineal, perianal and rectal examinations of patients, of any age, unless in the continuous presence and under the continuous observation of a practice monitor acceptable to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Dr. Bensimon must not be alone during any intimate examinations with any patient. Further information may be found on the College website at www.cpso.on.ca.”
vii. Dr. Bensimon shall post a certified translation in any language in which he provides services, of the sign described in paragraph 2(b)(vi) above, in all waiting rooms, examination rooms and consulting rooms, in all of his Practice Locations, in a clearly visible and secure location, in the form set out at Appendix “C.”
viii. Dr. Bensimon shall provide any certified translation(s) required by paragraph 2(b)(vii) above to the College within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
Notifying Patients
ix. Dr. Bensimon shall ensure that each patient with whom he has a Professional Encounter is directly notified, prior to the Professional Encounter, of the details of the restriction described in paragraph 2(b)(ii) above, in the presence of his Practice Monitor.
Monitoring of Compliance
x. Dr. Bensimon shall consent to the College making appropriate enquiries of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (“OHIP”) 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 Dr. Bensimon shall sign any consents requested by the College to obtain such information from these persons or institutions.
xi. Dr. Bensimon shall submit to and not interfere with unannounced inspections of his Practice Locations and to the inspection of patient charts by the College and to any other activity the College deems necessary in order to monitor his compliance with the provisions of this Order.
xii. Dr. Bensimon shall consent to the College providing any information to the Practice Monitor that the College deems necessary or desirable in order to assist the Practice Monitor in fulfilling their undertaking and in order to monitor Dr. Bensimon’s compliance with this Order.
xiii. Dr. Bensimon shall consent to any Practice Monitor disclosing to the College, and to any other Practice Monitor, any information relevant to this Order, relevant to the terms of the Practice Monitor’s undertaking and/or relevant for the purpose of monitoring Dr. Bensimon’s compliance with this Order.
xiv. Dr. Bensimon shall consent to the College providing this Order to any Chief of Staff, or a colleague with similar responsibilities, at any Practice Location (“Chief of Staff” or “Chiefs of Staff”), and to providing any Chief(s) of Staff with any information the College has that has led to this Order and/or any information arising from the monitoring of his compliance with this Order.
Costs of Implementation
xv. Dr. Bensimon shall be responsible for any and all costs associated with implementing the terms of this Order.
Costs
- The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $26,740 in two installments as follows: 50% of the costs amount by May 23, 2026 and the remaining 50% by November 30, 2026.