Ontario Superior Court: Upholds Practice Restrictions on Physician

• The Ontario Superior Court upheld interim practice restrictions imposed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) on an emergency medicine specialist.
• The physician had faced voyeurism charges, which were later withdrawn, but no court determined a Charter violation or excluded evidence.
• The court found the CPSO reasonably relied on evidence from the police investigation, citing different standards for regulatory and criminal proceedings.
• Restrictions include continuous practice monitoring, patient notification, and posted notices, which the court deemed reasonable for patient safety.
• This decision affirms a regulator's ability to act on evidence from withdrawn criminal cases to protect the public.

This ruling by the Ontario Superior Court upholds practice restrictions on a physician, underscoring a critical distinction between criminal justice outcomes and professional regulatory obligations.

An emergency medicine specialist in Ontario faced significant professional repercussions after criminal voyeurism charges against him were withdrawn. In February 2024, the physician was accused of secretly photographing the buttocks of teenage girls while they were exercising at a YMCA, leading to four counts of voyeurism. During a search of his residence, police seized his phone, and subsequent warrants allowed for its examination, revealing photographs of young girls engaged in exercise.

The criminal proceedings took a turn in September 2025 when the Crown withdrew all charges. This decision followed a challenge by the defense counsel to the validity of the search warrants and an attempt to exclude the phone evidence under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ultimately, the Crown concluded there was no longer a reasonable prospect of conviction. Crucially, the criminal case concluded without any judicial determination that the physician's Charter rights had been violated or that the evidence should have been excluded from a trial.

Following the withdrawal of charges, the physician informed the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) of his intention to resume his practice. In response, the CPSO's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) imposed interim practice restrictions in December 2025. These conditions mandated continuous monitoring of his practice, notification to patients about the restrictions, and the posting of notices detailing these limitations. The physician subsequently challenged this order, contending that the committee had improperly relied on evidence obtained through what he alleged was an unconstitutional search. He further argued that there was no direct link between the allegations and patient safety, and that the imposed restrictions effectively prevented him from working.

The Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the case of Kilian v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2026 ONSC 5716, ultimately upheld these interim practice restrictions on the physician. The court dismissed the physician's application for judicial review, finding that the ICRC had reasonably considered the phone evidence. This was permissible because no court had ever determined that a Charter violation occurred during the evidence collection or that the evidence should be excluded from consideration. The court emphasized that professional regulatory proceedings operate under different considerations and standards than criminal proceedings.

Central to the court's decision was its finding that the ICRC had reasonably established a connection between the alleged conduct involving vulnerable young individuals and the potential for harm to vulnerable patients within an emergency department setting. The committee was deemed to have correctly applied the test outlined in s. 25.4(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, which permits interim restrictions if a physician's conduct exposes or is likely to expose patients to harm or injury, going beyond a mere risk. The court also noted that the committee had considered, but reasonably rejected, the option of limiting monitoring solely to patients under 18, citing the dynamic nature of emergency department practice. Furthermore, the court rejected the physician's challenge regarding procedural fairness, confirming that he had received adequate notice, information about the allegations, and an opportunity to present his submissions.

This ruling by the Ontario Superior Court upholds practice restrictions on a physician, underscoring a critical distinction between criminal justice outcomes and professional regulatory obligations. It reinforces the authority of professional bodies like the CPSO to act in the public interest, even when criminal charges related to a physician's conduct have been withdrawn. The decision clarifies that the absence of a criminal conviction or a judicial finding of a Charter breach does not automatically preclude a regulator from using evidence gathered during a police investigation to impose practice limitations.

The case highlights that the primary mandate of professional regulators is the protection of the public, which may necessitate measures that differ from those in the criminal justice system. While the court acknowledged that the imposed restrictions might effectively prevent the physician from working in an emergency department, it concluded that this outcome did not render the order unreasonable, prioritizing patient safety. This judgment sets an important precedent for how evidence from criminal investigations, even those that do not result in conviction, can be legitimately considered by professional colleges when assessing a practitioner's fitness to practice and the potential risk they pose to vulnerable patients. The physician retains the option to request a reconsideration of these restrictions, while the CPSO is statutorily obligated to continue its investigation and expeditiously prosecute the matter.

Source: Original reporting via Canadian Legal Newswire.