ONTARIO PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: 25-036
BETWEEN:
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
College
- and -
Christopher Andrew Sulowski
Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: May 27, 2026
Panel:
Jennifer Scott (panel chair)
David Bird (public)
Jill Cross (public)
Virginia Roth (physician)
Susanna Yanivker (physician)
Appearances:
Kenzie Bunting, for the College
Colin Johnston and Derek Hooper, 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. Sulowski practised pediatric and cosmetic medicine. Between 2023 and 2024, he provided medical care to Patient A (until May 2024) and Patient B (until June 2024). Patient B is Patient A’s child. By May 2024, Dr. Sulowski had engaged in a physical sexual relationship with Patient A.
2Patient A attended an appointment with Dr. Sulowski on May 3, 2024. Dr. Sulowski altered his clinical records in an attempt to conceal that Patient A had an appointment that day. He deleted the appointment for Patient A and added an appointment for Patient B that did not occur.
3In July 2024, Dr. Sulowski met with the police regarding an outstanding police report and provided inaccurate and/or false information including that he was never in an intimate relationship with Patient A and that they were just friends.
4We found Dr. Sulowski engaged in sexual abuse of a patient and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct. We ordered revocation of Dr. Sulowski’s certificate of registration, a reprimand, reimbursement for therapy and counselling for Patient A, and costs to the College. These are our reasons.
Uncontested evidence of sexual abuse and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct
5Dr. Sulowski engaged in frequent electronic communications with Patient A and exchanged more than 15,000 messages on a variety of platforms. The messages began in October 2023 and by mid-February 2024, the tone of Dr. Sulowski’s communications with Patient A had become flirtatious and sexual.
6Dr. Sulowski was intimately involved in Patient A and Patient B’s day-to-day lives. He had a key to Patient A’s home and was listed as an emergency contact with Patient B’s daycare and nanny. In April 2024, Dr. Sulowski moved into Patient A’s home.
7By May 2024, Dr. Sulowski had engaged in a physical sexual relationship with Patient A, including oral sex and sexual intercourse. He also made digital recordings with Patient A’s consent and on Patient A’s phone, depicting intimate acts between them.
8Patient A attended an appointment with Dr. Sulowski on May 3, 2024. She did not bring Patient B to the clinic; Patient B did not have an appointment that day.
9Dr. Sulowski altered his appointment list for May 3, 2024. He deleted Patient A’s appointment and added an appointment for Patient B that did not occur. He did not make an entry in Patient A’s Electronic Medical Record for the appointment on May 3rd.
10Dr. Sulowski met with the police on July 26, 2024 regarding an outstanding report to the police and provided inaccurate or false information that he was not and had never been in an intimate relationship with Patient A, and that they were just friends.
11The date the sexual relationship began between Dr. Sulowski and Patient A is unclear in the materials before us. The exact date does not matter given the definition of patient in s. 1(6) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c.18 (Code). Patient A was a patient up to and including May 3, 2024, when she saw Dr. Sulowski for a medical appointment. Under the definition in the Code she remained a patient for at least one year after that. She was a patient when the sexual relationship took place.
12Under Rule 14.3.2 of the Health Professions Discipline Tribunals’ Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of this proceeding, the registrant did not contest these facts and did not contest that he had engaged in sexual abuse of Patient A and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.
Finding
13Dr. Sulowski engaged in a physical sexual relationship with Patient A that included sexual intercourse and oral sex. Sexual intercourse or other forms of physical sexual relations between a registrant and a patient are sexual abuse under s. 1(3) of the Code. Sexual abuse is an act of professional misconduct under s. 51(1)(b.1) of the Code. His relationship was also disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.
14Dr. Sulowski engaged in further disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct when he altered his clinical record to delete his appointment with Patient A on May 3, 2024 and substitute an appointment with Patient B that did not occur. His disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct continued when he was dishonest with the police about his relationship with Patient A.
Penalty
15Before making the order on penalty, we considered the victim impact statement of Patient A, in which she described the devastating effects of the sexual abuse, which included the impact on her mental health and her ability to access timely and consistent medical care for Patient B.
16After a finding of sexual abuse, the Tribunal must reprimand the registrant and, where the sexual abuse consists of certain kinds of sexual conduct, including sexual intercourse and oral to genital contact, it must revoke the registrant’s certificate of registration. Because the sexual abuse committed by Dr. Sulowski included this conduct, the revocation of his certificate is mandatory under s. 51(5)(3) of the Code.
17We accepted the jointly proposed penalty of a reprimand and revocation of Dr. Sulowski’s certificate of registration. Given the mandatory nature of the penalty, it is not necessary to consider whether the joint submission on penalty meets the legal test for acceptance.
Counselling
18Section 85.7 of the Code requires the College to establish a program to provide funding for therapy and counselling for persons alleging sexual abuse by a registrant. In this case, the College requests $20,470 for funding. The College is entitled to recover from Dr. Sulowski money paid from this program.
Costs
19The parties’ submission on costs is reasonable and based on the tariff rate for a half-day hearing.
Order
20At the conclusion of the hearing, we 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. revoke the registrant’s certificate of registration effective May 28, 2026 at 12:01 a.m.
Costs
- The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $6,000 by June 26, 2026.
Reimbursement for Therapy and Counselling
- The Tribunal requires the registrant to reimburse the College
$20,470 for funding provided for therapy and counselling under s. 85.7 of the Health Professions Procedural Code and to post security acceptable to the College to guarantee the payment of these amounts, by June 26, 2026.