ONTARIO PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: 25-022
BETWEEN:
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario College
- and -
Peter Tanuseputro Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: April 8, 2026
Panel: Jay Sengupta (panel chair) David Bird (public) Jill Cross (public) Joanne Nicholson (physician) Rupa Patel (physician)
Appearances: Sayran Sulevani, for the College Corey Willard and Ariane Lefebvre, 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
1The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the College) alleged that Dr. Peter Tanuseputro committed professional misconduct under paragraphs 1(1)33 and 1(1)34 of Ontario Regulation 856/93 made under the Medicine Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 30 by engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct, and conduct unbecoming a physician.
2Specifically, the College alleged that Dr. Tanuseputro contravened the College’s policy on professional behaviour and workplace anti-harassment policies, as well as related legislation prohibiting sexual harassment, in his interactions with two younger female colleagues over whom he had professional and academic power.
3The parties provided us with a statement of uncontested facts (SUF) in respect of the alleged misconduct and an agreed statement of facts (ASF) in respect of penalty. Dr. Tanuseputro did not contest that he had engaged in the misconduct as alleged. The parties jointly submitted that the penalty should be a reprimand and an eight-month suspension, to commence immediately. They also agreed that Dr. Tanuseputro should be ordered to pay the College costs in the amount of $6,000 by May 8, 2026.
4We found professional misconduct and accepted the parties’ joint submission on penalty and costs. These are the reasons for our decision.
Misconduct
5Dr. Tanuseputro obtained his independent practice certificate from the College in 2010. While he does not currently practise in Ontario, at the material time he held a faculty position at the University of Ottawa, had privileges at The Ottawa Hospital and held research positions at two hospitals.
6In April 2018, Ms. A, a research assistant in her mid-20s, went to a bar after work with a group of colleagues. Dr. Tanuseputro, who led a research team and held a more senior position at the hospital where they both worked, was also at the gathering. They both became intoxicated, with Ms. A being more so than Dr. Tanuseputro. At the end of the evening, while driving Ms. A home, Dr. Tanuseputro pulled his car over to the side of the road, made sexual comments to Ms. A, and engaged in unwanted touching of her. This interaction has had negative effects on Ms. A’s mental, physical and interpersonal well-being.
7Between September 2020 and October 2021, Dr. Tanuseputro had two interactions with Ms. B that have had negative effects on her career and emotional well-being. At the time, Dr. Tanuseputro was Ms. B’s graduate studies supervisor. She also worked for him at a hospital.
8In 2020, Dr. Tanuseputro and Ms. B were at a social event with two other people, including a colleague, where they both drank alcohol and smoked marijuana. During that evening, while alone with Ms. B., Dr. Tanuseputro made inappropriate comments to her about her dating life and twice placed his hands on her back, ran his hands down her back and hugged her. The first time, he also pulled her towards him. A few days later, he acknowledged to her that he had “crossed a line.”
9In 2021, they travelled together to a research team dinner retreat. Dr. Tanuseputro drank excessively during the dinner, encouraged others to do the same, and made inappropriate comments about Ms. B’s compensation at the hospital in front of others. When she drove him home at the end of the dinner, he did not get out of the car, despite being asked to do so several times. During the 53 minutes he sat in the car while parked outside his home, he grabbed and kissed her hand, hugged her and kissed her hair, shared private details about his personal life, and made inappropriate comments to her, calling her a “muse” and telling her he loved her and would “literally do anything for [her].” During the next two days, he acknowledged his conduct and described it as “crazy” and “totally belligerent” via text messages. Ms. B confronted Dr. Tanuseputro on the phone the following day and told him she would be moving to another research team.
10Dr. Tanuseputro did not contest that his conduct towards both Ms. A and Ms. B was in breach of their employer’s workplace policies and related legislation prohibiting sexual harassment.
11Based on the uncontested facts, we found that Dr. Tanuseputro was in a position of professional power with respect to Ms. A and Ms. B, and abused this power. Dr. Tanuseputro held senior positions at both hospitals. Ms. A and Ms. B were considerably younger and held junior positions.
12Even though Dr. Tanuseputro did not directly supervise Ms. A, he occupied a senior position within Ms. A’s workplace. Dr. Tanuseputro does not contest that he was in a position of power relative to Ms. A, and he does not contest his actions had a serious negative effect on Ms. A’s well-being.
13Dr. Tanuseputro’s conduct towards Ms. B was especially egregious because he had direct professional and academic authority over her as her team leader and graduate studies supervisor. In addition, there were two incidents of inappropriate behaviour. The second incident is particularly concerning because Dr. Tanuseputro continued his inappropriate behaviour in Ms. B’s car for 53 minutes, despite Ms. B’s repeated directions to him to leave.
14Dr. Tanuseputro’s actions with respect to Ms. A and Ms. B were contrary to the College’s Policy on Professional Behaviour, and violated both hospitals’ workplace policies and related legislation, which prohibit sexual harassment.
15Consequently, the panel concluded that Dr. Tanuseputro’s conduct constituted conduct that was disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional and conduct unbecoming a physician.
Penalty and costs
16The parties jointly sought a reprimand, an eight-month suspension of the registrant’s certificate of registration, to commence immediately, and costs payable to the College of $6,000.
17While the Tribunal has the discretion to accept or reject a joint submission made by the parties, we must exercise restraint and should not reject a joint submission unless it meets the “undeniably high threshold” that the proposed penalty “would be viewed by reasonable and informed persons as a breakdown in the proper functioning of the justice system” (see R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 at para. 34).
18The parties submitted, and we agreed, that the proposed penalty is appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.
19Although the outcomes in other, similar cases are not binding, and the appropriate penalty is determined on the particular circumstances of each case, we have reviewed the cases put before us by the parties. The length of suspensions ordered in those cases ranged from 4 to 12 months, and were accompanied by reprimands, terms, conditions and limitations on the registrant’s certificate of registration, and costs. See College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Bahrgard Nikoo, 2022 ONPSDT 15; College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Mourcos, 2018 ONCPSD 11; College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Mukherjee, 2019 ONCPSD 16; and College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Abawi, 2014 ONCPSD 10.
20The primary objective of penalty orders is public protection, which includes maintaining public confidence in the profession. The penalty should be proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct, the goals of specific and general deterrence should be considered, and measures for rehabilitation of the registrant should be included where appropriate.
21We have found that Dr. Tanuseputro engaged in repeated boundary violations with two junior colleagues. He was in a position of power in workplace or academic environments with respect to both of them. The complainants were in isolated environments with some elements of confinement present when the misconduct occurred, and their vulnerability was heightened by both the environment and Ms. A’s intoxication. The negative impact on both complainants was not contested. These are all aggravating factors.
22A plea of no contest is not an admission, and we cannot infer insight or remorse in the circumstances of this case.
23The absence of a discipline history is a neutral factor. Compliance with professional and regulatory obligations is a requirement. A history of compliance is not a mitigating factor and is more properly viewed as a neutral one.
24In light of the pattern of misconduct with two separate complainants, both of whom were junior to Dr. Tanuseputro and over whom he held power, we are satisfied that an eight-month suspension and a reprimand are warranted and within the range of outcomes in similar cases.
25The ASF on penalty jointly submitted by the parties indicates that Dr. Tanuseputro participated in, and successfully completed, six one-on-one coaching sessions with a psychiatrist who is also an expert in physician health and leadership. The coaching sessions dealt with understanding power dynamics in team settings, maintaining appropriate workplace relationships and boundaries, reviewing standards of ethical and professional behaviour, and, particularly, demonstrating personal integrity, respect for others and adherence to employer and College policies.
26The parties indicated that this remediation effort undertaken by Dr. Tanuseputro mirrors the type of term that would ordinarily be sought by the College in a penalty order. It is the reason a requirement that the registrant undergo remediation efforts has not been sought.
27The amount sought in costs is reasonable and in line with the tariff.
28Accordingly, we granted the order sought jointly by the parties.
Order
29We 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 (8) months commencing on April 9, 2026, at 12:01 a.m.
Costs
- The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $6,000 by May 8, 2026.