In her clinic, physician hosted gatherings serving drinks and attended by patients
The Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal has ordered the revocation of the registration certificate of a doctor found to have sexually abused a patient while taking advantage of his vulnerability both as a patient and as a person.
In College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Khulbe, 2026 ONPSDT 2, a panel of the tribunal determined that a doctor registered with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario sexually abused Patient A.
In its decision on Aug. 22, 2025, the panel also found that the physician hosted social gatherings with patients at her clinic, where alcohol was served and a local anesthetic called procaine was administered.
The panel held that the doctor engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct when hosting such gatherings and communicating with Patients B and C.
The panel imposed an interim suspension as of Aug. 23, 2025, given the nature of the doctor’s sexual acts with Patient A.
Registration revoked
In its recent penalty reasons, the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal required the registrant to appear before the panel for a reprimand and asked the registrar to revoke her certificate of registration.
The tribunal directed the doctor to reimburse the College $17,940 for funding devoted to Patient A’s therapy and counselling pursuant to the program established under s. 85.7 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, schedule 2 to Ontario’s Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.
The tribunal also ordered the doctor to pay the College $124,440 in costs, representing 12 days of the hearing at the daily tariff rate of $10,370.
According to the panel, the tribunal should impose a reprimand upon finding that a doctor sexually abused a patient and should revoke the registration certificate if the sexual abuse involved oral or genital contact, masturbation, and other specific types of sexual conduct.
As the doctor’s sexual abuse in this case included such conduct, the panel considered the revocation of her certificate mandatory under s. 51(5)(3) of the Health Professions Procedural Code.
The panel held that the doctor breached her professional obligations when she had a sexual relationship with Patient A despite knowing he was in a very troubling phase of his life. The panel added that the doctor’s conduct had devastating, long-term consequences on the vulnerable patient.
The panel noted that it relied on Patient A’s victim impact statement after redacting two sentences containing criticisms of the doctor or factual assertions regarding her misconduct.
Regarding the funding for counselling, the doctor opposed the College’s reimbursement request. She
alleged that the tribunal should not force her to pay for Patient A’s counselling when she was the victim in the situation.
The panel pointed out that the doctor’s argument demonstrated her lack of insight into her misconduct and her obligations as a physician.
Lastly, the panel considered the College entitled to costs due to its success in this case. The panel saw no reason to deviate from the principle that the daily tariff rate should apply to each hearing day.
The panel acknowledged occasional hearing delays. However, the panel did not deem the hearing significantly delayed. The panel noted that some delay was part of the litigation process.
