by Written on behalf of Wise Health Law December 04, 2017 4 min read

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) has recently sanctioned six physicians for cyberbullying. Three additional physicians are set to have disciplinary hearings into alleged “professional misconduct” related to online behavior, and investigations into an additional two physicians are ongoing.

A Short History of the Issue

The sanctions all relate to infighting between physicians stemming from a contract dispute between the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) and the provincial government that led to the online targeting of a number of individuals including the former OMA president, a Toronto family physician, a medical student, and Ontario’s Health Minister. The three physicians facing disciplinary hearings are alleged to all have sent “offensive, objectionable and inappropriate communications” to the former OMA president in the lead up to a ratification vote on a tentative contract. Investigations have been overseen by the CPSO’s Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee and could lead to further disciplinary hearings.

Examples of the Online Behaviour Leading to Sanctions

Some of the email communications that are the subject of the discipline proceedings or that are being investigated include:
  • An email sent by an anesthesiologist to the former OMA president which stated: “You are a c---. Crash and burn as you deserve to do!! This will be a NO vote and the end of the OMA. Sincerely, F--- YOU and the OMA!!!”
  • An email sent by a radiologist to the former OMA president which stated: “(Virginia): Are you serious? F--- You! Mark.”
  • A message posted on a Facebook group for doctors. The message was posted by a family physician about another doctor, Dr. Philip Berger, who had written a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star criticizing a group of physicians who were threatening work action and planning to overthrow the OMA board. The Facebook message read: “Coño hijo de puta anda a chupar Berger. Sorry. Couldn’t hold that rant back. I revert to my native tongue when mad.” (translated as: “P---y, you son of a w---e. Why don't you go and suck Berger…”
  • An email sent by a radiologist about a medical student who had voiced support for a tentative fee agreement. The email stated: “That kid should be shot with a ball of his own s---.”
  • A message posted by an ER physician on a Facebook message board which referred to Health Minister Dr. Eric Hoskins as “Reichminister Hoskins”, and a further message which stated (in response to someone who asked the physician to stop using such language): “When stops acting like a dictator, and smearing colleagues with his lies, I might consider it”.
  • A message posted on a Facebook forum by a physician, apparently angry at Dr. Berger for an opinion piece in a newspaper which argued that money was at the heart of the dispute between the province and doctors. The message suggested that Dr. Berger needed a sedative, stating: “Whew. Lorazepam 0.5s/l stat over here please.” Another message written by the same doctor about Dr. Berger stated: “RT (Re-Tweet) = gathering the wolf pack to go hunting. Berger is the target here.”
  • A family doctor who replied to two mass emails from the OMA to Ontario doctors by stating: “I don’t believe you guys anymore. Stop sending me shit” and “F--- off.”

The CPSO’s Response

The CPSO sanctioned each of the above physicians with regulatory penalties, noting, in separate decisions that:
  • The family physician acted “intemperate” by posting “profanity-laced, derogatory comments about a colleague”
  • “It (is) important for physicians, because of their position of trust within society, to understand that they can harm the profession and cause the public to lose trust when they communicate in an unprofessional manner,”
  • “It was difficult to accept that could be ignorant of the unintended consequences of unprofessional email communication . . . Given his leadership role in the profession, communications are more important and open to scrutiny than someone not in a position of authority.”
  • “… it should be common knowledge among educated professionals such as that this type of metaphor causes grave offense to many people and is not acceptable in a public forum. Moreover, the committee noted that comment makes light of the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime, which is beneath the dignity of a physician.”
Importantly, the CPSO also provided a powerful reminder that: “Social media communications are never truly private or secure.”

Bullying in the Medical Profession

According to the Canadian Medical Association (CMA), which represents more than 86,000 doctors across Canada, problems with bullying and disrespect are widespread within the medical profession. The Association has begun a campaign intended to proactively address the issue, which is considers serious as it believes patient care is affected when doctors cannot cooperate and work well together. Steps taken include:
  • a series of town hall meetings on the issue of cyberbullying;
  • an annual general meeting centered around the theme of “unifying the medical profession”;
  • developing a draft Charter of Shared Values; and
  • working on a new code of ethics and professionalism.
The OMA, who was at the center of the online bullying firestorm, has stated that it is also taking steps to adopt a framework that would “help guide member interactions”. If you are a regulated health professional facing a complaint, investigation, or disciplinary hearing at your College, contact the trusted and respected health lawyers at Wise Health Law. We will help you understand your rights, risks, and options, guide you through the process, and skillfully represent you at the proceedings. We have significant expertise assisting physicians and other health professionals in the civil and regulatory contexts, including in the complaints and discipline process, in litigation, in appeals and judicial reviews. Contact us for forward-thinking advice about health law and regulatory matters. Reach us online, or at 416-915-4234 for a consultation.


Also in Blog

Cases to Watch: Marchi v. Nelson

by Mina Karabit September 22, 2020 3 min read

In August 2020, the Supreme Court heard and granted leave to appeal in Marchi v. Nelson, a case from the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision is one to watch as it will likely result in a renewed discussion of the distinction of policy versus operational decisions and their impacts on liability in tort law. The discussion will likely impact many of the anticipated post-COVID-19 lawsuits against public and government institutions.
Judicial Review: New Time Limits and a Helpful Primer

by Mina Karabit September 17, 2020 4 min read

In December 2019, Ontario’s Attorney General introduced Bill 161, the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act (the “Act”), which became law on July 8, 2020. The Act hopes to simplify a complex and outdated justice system by bringing changes to how legal aid services are delivered, how class actions are handled, and how court processes are administered.

Of note, the Act has amended the Judicial Review Procedures Act (JRPA) to establish new rules as to when an application for judicial review may be brought.

Any decisions made on or after July 8, 2020 are now subject to a 30-day limit for bringing an application for judicial review unless another Act provides otherwise. Courts, however, retain powers to extend the time for making an application for judicial review if satisfied that there are apparent grounds for relief and that no prejudice or hardship will be incurred by the delay. Before these amendments, the JRPA did not set out any time limits for bringing an application, but courts had powers to extend the time to bring an application if another Act prescribed the limit.

Recent Exemptions for Psychedelic Therapy in Canada

by Mina Karabit August 14, 2020 3 min read

In early August 2020, the Federal Minister of Health granted an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) to four terminally ill Canadians to use psilocybin in their end of life care.

Psilocybin is one of the active ingredients/chemicals in “magic mushrooms,” the other is psilocin. Both psilocybin and psilocin are controlled substances under Schedule III of the CDSA. The sale, possession, production, etc. are prohibited unless authorized for clinical trial or research purposes under Part J of the Food and Drug Regulations. Both have been illegal in Canada since 1974. According to Health Canada, there are no approved therapeutic products containing psilocybin in Canada. However, the purified active ingredient, i.e. psilocybin, is being studied in supervised clinical settings for its potential to treat various conditions such as anxiety and depression.