Dr. Gregory Miller – May 2019

Status: Decision Rendered

Full Decision

Dr. Gregory Miller – May 2019

This matter came before a panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Optometrists of Ontario on May 28, 29 and 30, 2019, in Toronto, Ontario. The Panel issued an order on finding on June 10, 2019.

THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE FOUND that Dr. Miller committed professional misconduct pursuant to the following:

Clause 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, as set out in the following paragraphs of section 1 of Ontario Regulation 119/94 made under the Optometry Act, 1991:
- paragraph 14: Failing to maintain the standards of practice of the profession by failing to identify or document Ms. X’s optic disc swelling; and
- paragraph 39: Engaging in conduct or performing an act that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional for making unprofessional remarks about vision therapy.

THE DISCIPLINE PANEL MADE NO FINDING with respect to paragraph 11 of Ontario Regulation 11/9/94.

Read the full Discipline decision.

Dr. Gregory Miller – December 2019

The Penalty Hearing was held on December 4, 2019 before a panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Optometrists of Ontario.

THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE ORDERS

Dr. Miller is required to appear before the Discipline Committee to receive a reprimand.
Dr. Miller is required to pay costs to the College in the amount of $ 50,000 payable to the College of Optometrists of Ontario within 30 days of the date of the decision of the Discipline Panel.
The Registrar is directed to suspend Dr. Miller’s certificate of registration for a period of two months, to commence on a date acceptable to the Registrar.
The Registrar is directed to impose the following specified terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. Miller’s certificate of registration:
1. Dr. Miller is required to complete two and a half days of practice coaching with a practice coach who is chosen by the Registrar at his expense within two months of the date of this order as follows:
  1. One full day (minimum 6 hours) working with the coach on the following areas of practice:
    1. Recordkeeping; and
    2. Posterior segment examination.
  2. One full day (minimum 6 hours) discussing the issues in clause i, above, with respect to the services he provided to Patient A.
  3. One half day (minimum 3 hours) of follow-up coaching within six months of the coaching referred to in clauses i and ii., to assess Dr. Miller’s understanding and implementation of the issues raised in the first two days of coaching.
2. Dr. Miller is required to complete 6 hours of coaching with a communications coach chosen by the Registrar at his own expense within two months of the date of this order to work on the proper communication with patients including communications regarding treatment options and appropriate communications with patients regarding professional colleagues.
3. Dr. Miller is required to undergo a practice inspection of 20 files which were completed within 9 months of the completion of the coaching, including 3 insurance assessments, if any have been completed in this time. The inspection will be at Dr. Miller’s expense by a College-appointed inspector and shall be restricted to the issues for which he received coaching. Any deficiencies found in the practice inspection may result in a report to the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”).
4. At the conclusion of the coaching periods referred to above, the practice coaches shall send a report to the Registrar indicating whether, in the opinion of the coach, Dr. Miller understands the issues covered by the coaching and whether he has implemented improvements to his practice, as recommended by the coach. In the event of a report from the practice coach that is not acceptable to the Registrar, the Registrar may report the matter to the ICRC, and
5. Dr. Miller must provide to the Registrar proof of having registered for the ProBE Ethics and Boundaries Program within six months of the date of the Panel’s order and provide proof to the Registrar of having attained an “unconditional pass”, within one year from the date of the panel’s order.

Marg L. Courchesne (Revoked Member) – April 2019

Status: Decision Rendered

Full Decision

A motion to adjourn the hearing of Marg L. Courchesne (Revoked Member) sine die (without a return date) on the terms set out in an Undertaking & Surrender Agreement came before a panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Optometrists of Ontario this 15th day April 2019, in Toronto, Ontario, at 9:00 a.m. at 65 St. Clair Ave. E. The panel has granted the motion.

Dr. Casey L. Tepperman – April 2019

Status: Decision Rendered

Full Decision Download

This matter came before a panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Optometrists of Ontario this 15th day April 2019, in Toronto, Ontario, at 9:50 a.m. at 65 St. Clair Ave. E.

THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE FOUND that Dr. Tepperman committed an act or acts of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the “Code”) being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991 C.18, and defined in the following paragraphs:
1. Dr. Tepperman failed to make or maintain Patient X’s health record in accordance with applicable standards and College policies, in that he did not record Patient X’s complete health and oculo-visual history between April 2008 and October 2016, including with respect to the finding of an iris nevus or any associated clinical findings, despite numerous ocular examinations of Patient X, contrary to paragraph 1.24 and part 4, sections 10(2)(4) and (6) of Ontario Regulation 119/94 to the Optometry Act.
2. Dr. Tepperman failed to refer Patient X to an ophthalmologist for investigation when he recognized or should have recognized a raised nevus on Patient X’s left eye iris, contrary to paragraph 1.11 of Ontario Regulation 119/94.
3. Dr. Tepperman failed to maintain the standard of practice contrary to paragraph 1.14 of Ontario Regulation 119/94 in that he failed to diagnose, appropriately record, adequately monitor, and/or refer Patient X to an ophthalmologist for further investigation of an iris nevus.
THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE ORDERED:
1. Dr. Tepperman shall attend in person before the Panel of the Discipline Committee to receive a public, verbal reprimand, a copy of which shall be published on the College Register;
2. Dr. Tepperman shall participate in a College approved Practice Coaching Program at his expense, as follows:
  1. Within 6 months of the date of the order Dr. Tepperman shall participate in an initial 2-day session during which the Practice Coach approved by the College shall conduct such observation of and/or discussions relating to Dr. Tepperman’s practice as they deem necessary relating to the diagnosis of ocular pathology, including iris nevus, during eye examinations, and appropriate referral and record-keeping practices;
  2. Dr. Tepperman shall participate in a further half day session approximately 6 months after the initial meeting to review Dr. Tepperman’s practices with respect to eye examinations, appropriate referrals, and record-keeping practices;
  3. the Practice Coach shall report to the Registrar confirming that the Practice Coaching has taken place to his or her satisfaction.
3. Dr. Tepperman shall pay $7,500 CDN as a contribution towards the investigation and prosecution costs incurred by the College in this matter.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Tepperman waived his right to appeal and the Discipline Committee delivered the reprimand.

Dr. Gregory Miller – March 2019

Status: Decision Rendered

Full Decision Download

This matter came before a panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Optometrists of Ontario on October 10 and October 11, 2018, in Toronto, Ontario. The Panel issued a decision and reasons on finding on January 11, 2019.

THE PANEL FOUND that it is more likely than not that on November 30, 2006, Dr. Miller twice took Patient A’s hand and put it on his genital area and that this constitutes both touching of a sexual nature of the patient by the member and behavior of a sexual nature by the member towards the patient, both of which constitute sexual abuse of a patient as defined in subsection 1(3) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 (the “Code”).

THE PANEL FOUND that the actions of Dr. Miller constitute professional misconduct pursuant to clause 51(1)(b.1) of the Code.

Read the full Discipline decision and reasons on finding.

On March 4, 2019, THE PANEL MADE AN ORDER that:

The Registrar be directed to revoke Dr. Miller’s certificate of registration;
Dr. Miller be required to appear before the panel to be reprimanded;
Dr. Miller shall provide the College with a certified cheque in the amount of $16,060 by April 4, 2019, representing security to guarantee the payment of any amounts Dr. Miller may be required to reimburse the College for funding under the program required by s.85.7 of the Health Professions Procedural Code in relation to Patient A. Any funds that have not been used for the purposes of the program required by s. 85.7 of the Health Professions Procedural Code shall be returned to Dr. Miller by the College, without interest, at the expiration of the 5-year time period within which funding may be provided; and
Dr. Miller be directed to partially reimburse the College for its costs in relation to this proceeding in the amount of $37,000 by April 4, 2019.

Read the full Discipline decision and reasons on penalty.

On April 28, 2020, the Divisional Court set aside the decision of the Discipline Committee and returned the matter for a new hearing by a differently constituted panel of the Discipline Committee.

Read the full decision here.

Dr. Ampreet Singh – February 2019

Status: Decision Rendered

Full Decision Download

This matter came before a panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Optometrists of Ontario this 6th day February 2019, in Toronto, Ontario, at 9:45 a.m. at 65 St. Clair Ave. E.

1. THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE FOUND that Dr. Singh committed an act or acts of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the “Code”) being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991 C.18, and defined in the following paragraphs:

a. paragraph 1.12 of Ontario Regulation 119/94 in that he failed, without reasonable cause, to provide certain patients who needed a prescription for vision correction with a written, signed and dated prescription for subnormal vision devices, contact lenses or eye glasses after he had assessed their eyes;
b. paragraph 1.14 of Ontario Regulation 119/94 in that he has failed to maintain the standards of practice of the profession in respect of the oculo-visual assessments he conducted on certain patients and for failing to provide certain patients with his contact information; and
c. paragraph 1.24 in that he failed to make and maintain records in accordance with Part IV of Ontario Regulation 119/94

2. THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE ORDERED:

a. That Dr. Singh be reprimanded;
b. That Dr. Singh pay the College’s costs in the amount of $7,500 payable to the College of Optometrists of Ontario within six months of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee;
c. That the Registrar be directed to suspend Dr. Singh’s certificate of registration for a period of two weeks commencing February 25, 2019;
d. That a condition be imposed on Dr. Singh’s certificate of registration that he submit a written essay, which is in his own words, to the Registrar of at least 1,000 words as follows:

i. The essay shall reflect:

1. The appropriate documenting and maintaining of patient records with an emphasis on documenting patients’ health and oculo-visual history;
2. The required steps involved in completing an appropriate oculo-visual assessment;
3. The circumstances in which a patient should be dilated and the manner in which that is appropriately done;
4. The purpose of the requirement for mandatory prescription release; and
5. Dr. Singh’s reflections on how the eye examinations provided to the patients at issue in his discipline hearing should have been handled differently.

ii. The essay shall be completed within three (3) months of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee.
iii. The Registrar shall determine whether or not the essay is acceptable; if it is not, Dr. Singh will be required to correct it to the Registrar’s satisfaction.

e. That a condition be imposed on Dr. Singh’s certificate of registration that he shall undergo a practice inspection within twelve (12) months of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee. The details of which are as follows:

i. The Registrar shall assign an assessor to conduct an inspection of twenty-five (25) patient records for patients seen after the suspension has been served and the essay completed.
ii. The assessor shall review the records in the areas that are relevant to the allegations only and report the results of the inspection to the Registrar.
iii. In the event that any deficiencies are noted in the report of the inspection, the Registrar shall make a report to the Inquires, Complaints and Reports Committee;
iv. Dr. Singh shall be given five (5) business days’ notice prior to the College representative attending his practice to obtain the records; and
v. The practice inspection shall be conducted at Dr. Singh’s expense, to a maximum of $1,500.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Singh waived his right to appeal and the Discipline Committee delivered the reprimand.

Dr. Gregory Miller – October 2018

Status: Decision Rendered

Full Decision

THE PANEL FOUND that the actions of Dr. Miller constitute professional misconduct pursuant to clause 51(1)(b.1) of the Code.

Read the full Discipline decision and reasons on finding.

On March 4, 2019, THE PANEL MADE AN ORDER that:

The Registrar be directed to revoke Dr. Miller’s certificate of registration;
Dr. Miller be required to appear before the panel to be reprimanded;
Dr. Miller shall provide the College with a certified cheque in the amount of $16,060 by April 4, 2019, representing security to guarantee the payment of any amounts Dr. Miller may be required to reimburse the College for funding under the program required by s.85.7 of the Health Professions Procedural Code in relation to Patient A. Any funds that have not been used for the purposes of the program required by s. 85.7 of the Health Professions Procedural Code shall be returned to Dr. Miller by the College, without interest, at the expiration of the 5-year time period within which funding may be provided; and
Dr. Miller be directed to partially reimburse the College for its costs in relation to this proceeding in the amount of $37,000 by April 4, 2019.

Read the full Discipline decision and reasons on penalty.

On April 28, 2020, the Divisional Court set aside the decision of the Discipline Committee and returned the matter for a new hearing by a differently constituted panel of the Discipline Committee.

Dr. Farrukh Sheikh – October 2018

Status: Decision Rendered

Full Decision Download

This matter came before a panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Optometrists of Ontario this 3th day October 2018, in Toronto, Ontario, at 9:59 a.m. at 65 St. Clair Ave. E.

A. THE DISCIPLINE PANEL MADE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS of professional misconduct in relation to the following allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing, dated February 16, 2018:

1. That Dr. Sheikh committed an act or acts of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Optometry Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 35, as amended, and defined in paragraph 1.14 of Ontario Regulation 119/94 in that, on or about August 23, 2016, while practising as an optometrist at the ________ Eye Clinic in Hamilton, Ontario, he failed to maintain the standards of practice of the profession with respect to:

a. his delegation to Mr. S., the controlled act(s) of communicating a diagnosis and prescribing eyeglasses to Patient X and, specifically, with respect to his failure to:

i. obtain informed consent or to ensure that informed consent was obtained from Patient X for the delegation;
ii. establish a formal patient/practitioner relationship with Patient X prior to the delegation; and
iii. ensure that the delegation was appropriately and/or adequately documented in the patient record

2. That he committed an act or acts of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Optometry Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 35, as amended, and defined in paragraph 1.18 of Ontario Regulation 119/94 in that, on or about August 23, 2016, while practising as an optometrist at the ________ Eye Clinic in Hamilton, Ontario, he permitted, counselled, or assisted Mr. S., a person who is not a member of the College to perform one or more of the following controlled acts, which should be performed by a member of the College, in relation to Patient X:

a. communicating a diagnosis identifying, as the cause of Patient X’s symptoms, a disorder of refraction; and/or
b. prescribing, for vision or eye problems, eye glasses.

3. That he committed an act or acts of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Optometry Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 35, as amended, and defined in paragraph 1.24 of Ontario Regulation 119/94 in that, from approximately August 23, 2016 to approximately September 26, 2016, while practising as an optometrist at the ________ Eye Clinic in Hamilton, Ontario, he failed to make and/or maintain records in accordance with Part IV and, in particular, he failed to ensure that the patient health record for Patient X included:

a. information about his delegation of a controlled act(s) to Mr. S.; and
b. information that would allow his entries and the entries of Mr. S. in the health record for Patient X to be readily identifiable.

4. That he committed an act or acts of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Optometry Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 35, as amended, and defined in paragraph 1.28 of Ontario Regulation 119/94 in that, on or about August 23, 2016, while practising as an optometrist at the ________ Eye Clinic in Hamilton, Ontario, he allowed to be submitted an account for professional services that he knew or ought to have known was false or misleading and, in particular, he allowed a claim to be submitted to Patient X’s insurance company in relation to an eye examination in circumstances where the information submitted to the insurance company suggested that:

a. he had completed Patient X’s eye examination on that date, when that was not the case; and
b. Patient X had received a complete eye examination on that date, when that was not the case.

5. That he committed an act or acts of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Optometry Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 35, as amended, and defined in paragraph 1.30 of Ontario Regulation 119/94 in that, from approximately August 23, 2016 to approximately September 26, 2016, while practising as an optometrist at the ______ Eye Clinic in Hamilton, Ontario, the administrative staff who support his practice, failed to issue a statement or receipt that itemizes an account for professional goods or services provided to Patient X, when he requested such a statement or receipt.

6. That he committed an act or acts of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Optometry Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 35, as amended, and defined in paragraph 1.39 of Ontario Regulation 119/94 in that, from approximately August 23, 2016 to approximately September 26, 2016, while practising as an optometrist at the _____ Eye Clinic in Hamilton, Ontario, he engaged in conduct or performed an act that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as dishonourable and unprofessional and, in particular, he:

a. delegated a controlled act(s) to Mr. S. in relation to Patient X without:

i. obtaining informed consent and/or ensuring that informed consent was obtained from Patient X for the delegation;
ii. establishing a formal patient/practitioner relationship with Patient X prior to the delegation; and/or
iii. ensuring that the delegation was appropriately and/or adequately documented in the patient record;

b. permitted, counselled, or assisted Mr. S., a person who is not a member of the College, to perform one or more of the following controlled acts, which should be performed by a member of the College, in relation to Patient X:

i. communicating a diagnosis identifying, as the cause of Patient X’s symptoms, a disorder of refraction; and/or
ii. prescribing, for vision or eye problems, eye glasses;

c. failed to make and/or maintain records in accordance with Part IV and, in particular, he failed to ensure that the patient health record for Patient X included:

i. information about his delegation of a controlled act(s) to Mr. S.; and
ii. information that would allow his entries and the entries of Mr. S. to be readily identifiable.

d. submitted an account for professional services that he knew or ought to have known was false or misleading and, in particular, he allowed a claim to be submitted to Patient X’s insurance company in relation to an eye examination in circumstances where the information submitted to the insurance company suggested that:

i. he had completed Patient X’s eye examination on that date, when that was not the case; and
ii. Patient X had received a complete eye examination on that date, when that was not the case; and/or

e. failed to have the appropriate administrative processes in place to ensure that Patient X received an itemized statement or receipt when he requested one.

B. THE DISCIPLINE PANEL MADE AN ORDER:

1. Requiring the Member to appear before the Panel to be reprimanded at the conclusion of the hearing on October 3, 2018.

2. Directing the Registrar to suspend the Member’s certificate of registration for three (3) weeks, uninterrupted, commencing at 12:01 am on October 4, 2018 and ending at 11:59 pm on October 24, 2018.

3. Directing the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s certificate of registration:

a. the Member successfully complete, at his own expense, with an unconditional pass, and within one (1) year of the date that this Order becomes final, the ProBe Program on professional/problem-based ethics offered in Ontario;

b. the Member shall submit, to the Registrar, an essay of at least 1,000 words on the following topics, that the Registrar deems satisfactory:

i. the delegation of controlled acts, as defined in the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, and the assignment of care, with discussion of the following specific topics:

A. the legislation and College publications the Member reviewed relevant to the delegation of controlled acts and to the assignment of care;
B. the process for optometrists to delegate controlled acts and the process for optometrists to assign care, with reference to the applicable standards of practice and/or other legislated requirements;
C. the purpose of allowing regulated health professionals, including optometrists, to delegate controlled acts and to assign care;
D. the purpose of the controls that exist to limit the circumstances in which regulated health professionals, including optometrists, can delegate controlled acts and can assign care; and

ii. the Member’s reflections on how the appointment of the patient at issue in his discipline hearing should have been handled differently.

c. the Member shall not delegate controlled acts (as defined in the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991) until he has received written confirmation from the Registrar that the essay referred to in 3(b), above, is satisfactory; and

d. the Member shall co-operate fully in an unannounced inspection of his practice by the College, within one (1) year of either the end of the suspension referred to in paragraph 2, or the date of the Registrar’s approval referred to in paragraph 3(b), whichever occurs later. The practice inspection shall include any inquiries, chart reviews, interviews, attendances and/or investigative techniques the Registrar deems appropriate to assess the Member’s compliance with the College Standards and applicable legislation relating to the delegation of controlled acts and the assignment of care, and shall be at the Member’s cost, up to a maximum of $1,500.

4. Directing the Member to partially reimburse the College for its costs in relation to this proceeding in the amount of $20,000 to be paid according to the following schedule:

a. one cheque dated October 3, 2018 in the amount of $2,000; and
b. twelve, post-dated cheques, provided to the College on October 3, 2018, each in the amount of $1,500 and each dated on the third day of the month commencing, November 3, 2018.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Sheikh waived his right to appeal and the Discipline Committee delivered the reprimand.

Dr. Andrew Mah – September 2018

Status: Decision Rendered

Full Decision Download

This matter came before a panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Optometrists of Ontario this 5th day September 2018, in Toronto, Ontario, at 9:30 a.m. at 65 St. Clair Ave. E.

THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE FOUND Dr. Mah guilty of professional misconduct for having committed an act or acts of professional misconduct as set out in subsection 51(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Optometry Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 35, and as defined in Ontario Regulation 859/93 and/or Ontario Regulation 119/94, which were in effect at the relevant times.

Specifically, the discipline committee found that between January, 2014 and July, 2015 Dr. Mah recommended and/or provided unnecessary diagnostic or treatment services in relation to certain patients; failed to maintain the standards of practice of the profession in relation to his care and management of certain patients; failed to maintain records in accordance with Part IV in relation to certain patients; submitted or allowed to be submitted an account(s) for professional services in relation to certain patients that he knew was false or misleading; and engaged in conduct or performed an act that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical regarding his care and management of certain patients; all as set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE MADE AN ORDER:

1. Requiring the Member to appear before the Panel to be reprimanded.

2. Directing the Registrar to suspend the Member’s certificate of registration for an uninterrupted period of approximately three and one half (3.5) months, starting on October 17, 2018 and finishing at 11:59 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2019.

3. Directing the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s certificate of registration:

a) the Member shall successfully complete, at his own expense, with an unconditional pass, and within two (2) years of the date that this Order becomes final, both the ProBe Program on professional/problem-based ethics offered in Ontario and the ProBe Plus follow-up module;

b) the Member shall cooperate with, participate in, and pay for, eight (8) full day, one-on-one sessions (“the Sessions”) with a practice coach/monitor, who has been pre-approved by the Registrar (“the Practice Coach/Monitor”). The requirements for the Sessions are as follows:

i. each Session shall be at least six (6) hours in duration;

ii. the Sessions shall focus on the following subjects and/or areas of practice:

A. maintaining healthcare records that are legible, accurate, complete and that meet the standards of practice of the profession and the requirements set out in Ontario Regulation 119/94, including in relation to recording:

• the patient’s health and oculo-visual history;

• the clinical procedures used;

• the clinical findings obtained; and/or

• the diagnosis;

B. appropriate billing for optometric tests and procedures, including in relation to the criteria for submitting accounts to OHIP under billing codes V402, V406, V408, V409 and V410; and/or;

C. the appropriate investigations for patients suspected of having glaucoma and/or diplopia, including:

• the appropriate tests to conduct;

• the appropriate equipment to conduct such tests; and/or

• the clinical findings necessary to support such a diagnosis;

D. when, from a clinical and timing perspective, it is appropriate to:

• refer patients for consultations with an ophthalmologist;

• recommend that patients return for office visits and/or ongoing monitoring;

• recommend, provide, and/or bill diagnostic or treatment services with respect to:

o visual field testing (AVF);o fundus photography;

o Heidelberg retinal tomography (HRT);

o digital retinal imaging (DRI);

o optical coherence tomography (OCT);

o corneal pachymetry;

o anterior optical imaging (AOI); and/or o prescriptions for spectacles (together, “the Subjects”).

iii. the first three (3) to four (4) Sessions, shall take before the end of the Member’s suspension (“the Learning Sessions”), and shall focus on improving the Member’s knowledge, skill, judgment, and understanding in relation to the Subjects;

iv. any remaining Sessions that the Member has not completed by the end of his suspension (“the Implementation Review Sessions”) shall be scheduled once every four (4) to six (6) weeks thereafter, but in any event, all of the Sessions shall be completed with one (1) year of the date of the Panel’s Order, and all of the Implementation Review Sessions shall include:

A. a review of the Member’s patient health records and practice by the Practice Coach/Monitor to assess whether the Member has improved his knowledge, skill, judgment, and understanding in relation to the Subjects and whether the Member has successfully incorporated those improvements into his practice;

B. a discussion between the Practice Coach/Monitor and the Member regarding the Practice Coach/Monitor’s assessment;

C. a learning plan to address any deficiencies identified by the Practice Coach/Monitor.

v. At least seven (7) days before the first Session, the Member shall provide the Practice Coach/Monitor with a copy of:

A. the Notice of Hearing;

B. the Agreed Statement of Facts;

C. this Joint Submission on Order and Costs, and

D. a copy of the Panel’s Order and the Panel’s Decision and Reasons, if available;

vi. the Member shall review, be familiar with, and be prepared to discuss with the Practice Coach/Monitor, at any of the Sessions:

A. Ontario Regulation 119/94, Part IV – Records;

B. the following sections of the College’s Optometric Practice Reference:A. Section 4.5 – Referrals;

B. Section 5.1 – the Patient Record;C. Section 6.3 – Refractive Assessment and Prescribing; and

D. Section 7.2 – Glaucoma; and

C. any other materials that the Practice Coach/Monitor asked the Member to review prior to the next Session.

vii. at the end of each Session, the Member shall request the Practice Coach/Monitor to forward, within thirty (30) days, a written report to the Registrar, which shall be copied to the Member, confirming:

A. the date of the Session and, in relation to the first Session, whether the Member had provided the Practice Coach/Monitor with the documents specified in paragraph 3(b)(v), above;

B. whether the Member had reviewed and was prepared to discuss the materials listed in paragraph 3(b)(vi), above;

C. the Practice Coach/Monitor’s assessment of whether the Member has improved his knowledge, skill, judgment, and understanding in relation to the Subjects and, with respect to the Implementation Review Sessions, whether the Member has successfully incorporated those improvements into his practice.

c. within twelve (12) to eighteen (18) months of the Member completing the Sessions, the Member shall undergo and cooperate in one (1) unannounced inspection of his practice, at his expense, to a maximum of $3,500 (“the Practice Inspection”). The requirements for the Practice Inspection are as follows:

i. The Practice Inspection shall be conducted by an individual chosen by the College’s (“the Inspector”) and shall include the Inspector’s review of twenty-five (25) patient health records and any other documentation and/or information the Inspector considers appropriate;

ii. The purpose of the Practice Inspection shall be to assess:

A. the Member’s compliance with the term set out in paragraph 3(d); and

B. whether the Member is maintaining the standards of practice and/or may be engaging in professional misconduct in relation to the Subjects.

iii. the Member shall request the Practice Inspector to forward, with thirty (30 days after completing the Practice Inspection, a written report to the Registrar setting out his/her assessment.

d. the Member shall ensure that his clinical records are legible for the purpose of the Sessions referred to in paragraph 3(b) and the Practice Inspection referred to in paragraph 3(c);

4. Directing the Member to partially reimburse the College for its costs in relation to this proceeding in the amount of $25,000 to be paid by post-dated cheques provided to the College by September 5, 2018, according to the following schedule:

a) one cheque dated September 5, 2018 in the amount of 5,000;

b) one cheque dated December 5, 2018 in the amount of $5,000;

c) one cheque dated March 5, 2019 in the amount of $5,000;

d) one cheque dated June 5, 2019 in the amount of $5,000; and

e) one cheque dated September 4, 2019 in the amount of $5,000.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Mah waived his right to appeal and the Discipline Committee delivered the reprimand.

Dr. Jon Barnes – April 2018

Status: Decision Rendered

Full Decision Download

This matter came before a panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Optometrists of Ontario on March 22 and April 19, 2018 in Toronto, Ontario:

On March 22, 2018, THE DISCIPLINE PANEL MADE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS of professional misconduct in relation to the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing, dated August 24, 2017:

1. that Dr. Barnes committed an act or acts of professional misconduct as set out in Allegation #1 of the Notice of Hearing, in that, between approximately 2002 and 2016, he sexually abused Patient A, Patient B, and Patient C when he engaged in behaviour and made remarks of a sexual nature towards Patient A, Patient B, and Patient C, who were also staff, including, but not limited to when he:

a) wrote comments of a sexual nature in various places in the workplace where they would see them;

b) made verbal, sexual comments to them, about them, and/or about others in their presence; and

c) engaged in behaviours of a sexual nature towards them in the workplace.

2. that Dr. Barnes committed an act or acts of professional misconduct as set out in Allegation #2 of the Notice of Hearing, in that, between approximately 2002 and 2016, he failed to maintain the standards of practice of the profession when he:

a) noted, in patient records, inappropriate commentary about patients and/or their relatives, including comments of a sexual nature, not relevant to care; and

b) engaged in unprofessional behaviours in the office, including engaging in the sexual harassment of staff.

3. that Dr. Barnes committed an act or acts of professional misconduct as set out in Allegation #3 of the Notice of Hearing, in that, between approximately November 2016 and March 2017, he contravened, by act or omission, subsection 76(3) of the Health Professions Procedural Code when he applied white-out to or otherwise redacted notations he had made in patient charts and, in so doing, concealed and/or destroyed information relevant to the College’s investigation;

4. that Dr. Barnes committed an act or acts of professional misconduct as set out in Allegation #4 of the Notice of Hearing, in that, between approximately 2002 and 2016, he engaged in conduct or performed an act that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional and unethical and, in particular, he:

a) noted, in patient records, inappropriate commentary about patients and/or their relatives, including comments of a sexual nature, not relevant to care;

b) wrote sexual comments in various places in the workplaces where staff could see them including on post-it notes and the white board;

c) made verbal, sexual comments to staff;

d) engaged in sexual behaviours towards staff, including when he showed them sexual images and/or videos;

e) acted in a physically aggressive manner in the office;

f) shared a staff member’s private health information with other staff; and/or

g) acted in a verbally and/or emotionally abusive manner towards staff.

B. On April 19, 2018, THE DISCIPLINE PANEL MADE AN ORDER:

1. Requiring the Member to appear before the Panel to be reprimanded at the conclusion of the hearing on April 19, 2018.

2. Directing the Registrar to suspend the Member’s certificate of registration for four (4) months, uninterrupted, commencing on May 24, 2018.

3. Directing the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s certificate of registration:

a) that the Member successfully complete, at his own expense, with an unconditional pass, and within two (2) years of the date that this Order becomes final, both the ProBe Program on professional/problem-based ethics and the ProBe Plus follow-up module; and

b) that the Member shall provide the College with a certified cheque in the amount of $48,180, by April 19, 2018, representing security to guarantee the payment of any amounts the Member may be required to reimburse the College for funding under the program required by s. 85.7 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, in relation to Person A, Person B and/or Person C ($16,060 each), as referred to in the Agreed Statement of Facts. Any funds that have not been used for the purposes of the program required by s. 85.7 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, shall be returned to the Member by the College, without interest, at the expiration of the 5-year time frame within which funding may be provided.

4. Directing the Member to partially reimburse the College for its costs in relation to this proceeding in the amount of $30,000 to be paid by post-dated cheques provided to the College by April 19, 2018, according to the following schedule:

a) one cheque dated April 19, 2018 in the amount of $10,000;

b) one cheque dated December 22, 2018; in the amount of $10,000; and

c) one cheque dated September 22, 2019 in the amount of $10,000.

Additionally, Dr. Barnes signed an Undertaking/Agreement. To read the Undertaking/Agreement please click here. (PDF)

At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Barnes waived his right to appeal and the Discipline Committee delivered the reprimand.

Dr. Gordon Ng – February 2018

Status: Decision Rendered

Full Decision Download

This matter came before a panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Optometrists of Ontario this 6th day February 2018, in Toronto, Ontario, at 9:40 a.m. at 65 St. Clair Ave. E.

1. THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE FOUND Dr. Ng guilty of professional misconduct for having committed acts of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(a) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991 C.18 in that on or about February 26, 2016, he was found guilty of an offence that is relevant to his suitability to practise optometry;

2. THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE FOUND Dr. Ng guilty of professional misconduct for having committed acts of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991 C.18, and defined in paragraphs 1.32 of Ontario Regulation 859/93 in that he submitted or allowed to be submitted an account for professional services that he knew or ought to have known is false or misleading;

3. THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE FOUND Dr. Ng guilty of professional misconduct for having committed acts of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991 C.18, and defined in paragraphs 1.27 of Ontario Regulation 859/93 in that he failed to make or maintain the records required by Part IV of the Regulation; and

4. THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE FOUND Dr. Ng guilty of professional misconduct for having committed acts of professional misconduct as provided by subsection 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991 C.18, and defined in paragraphs 1.53 of Ontario Regulation 859/93 in that he engaged in conduct or performed an act that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unethical.

5. THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE ORDERED that:

a. Dr. Ng appear before the panel to be reprimanded.

b. Dr. Ng pay of the College’s costs of $5,000 to be paid within 3 months of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee. Dr. Ng shall provide the Registrar with post-dated cheques for the full amount of the costs, at the hearing.

c. The Registrar be directed to suspend Dr. Ng’s certificate of registration for a period of 14 weeks to commence on a date acceptable to the Registrar.

d. The Registrar be directed to impose the following specified terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. Ng’s certificate of registration: that Dr. Ng complete the ProBE Ethics and Boundaries Program at his own expense and attain an “unconditional pass”, prior to February 5, 2019.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Ng waived his right to appeal and the Discipline Committee delivered the reprimand.