Criminal Conviction Need Not Result in Revocation

A family physician in Edmonton, Alberta was recently sanctioned by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta’s (“CPSA”) Hearing Tribunal following her admission of unprofessional conduct, for which she was also convicted and sentenced in criminal law. The CPSA Hearing Tribunal found that revocation of the physician’s practice permit was not necessary in this case, and that the physician could return to practice with terms and conditions placed on her permit.

Criminal Conviction and Alleged Professional Misconduct

The physician pled guilty to and was convicted of one count of unlawfully defrauding the Government of Alberta contrary to s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code in November 2022 for conduct that occurred in 2016-2017. She was sentenced criminally, served a 10-month prison term, and subsequently faced a Discipline Hearing before the CPSA. The physician’s conduct was directly related to her practice, as it was a result of improper billings submitted to Alberta Health.

In general, regulated health professionals have a duty to self-report charges or convictions of criminal offences to their governing body. For example, physicians in Alberta must notify the CPSA as soon as reasonably possible once they become aware of any criminal charges or convictions. As the regulator for physicians in Alberta, the CPSA’s mandate is to protect the public and ensure that Alberta’s physicians are providing safe, high-quality care. Criminal charges and convictions will therefore result in a formal investigation and are often considered by the CPSA’s Hearing Tribunal to determine whether unprofessional conduct has occurred and, if so, whether action must be taken by the CPSA.

The physician admitted to the conduct, and the Hearing Tribunal agreed that there was sufficient evidence to prove the allegations and that the conduct amounted to unprofessional conduct.

The Penalty

As is the case with all regulators, in determining a penalty, the CPSA Hearing Tribunal must consider the circumstances surrounding the criminal charge or conviction on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the Hearing Tribunal noted several mitigating factors which contributed to the Hearing Tribunal’s decision to use tools other than revocation in disciplining the physician. These factors included that the physician had completed a practice review in 2021, which found no concerns with her clinical practice, and that the conditions of the physician’s parole were altered to allow her to practice medicine. The physician also underwent an independent forensic psychiatric assessment, which concluded that the physician’s risk of reoffending was low, that there were no psychological or psychiatric issues impairing her ability to practice, and that she was fit to practice. The psychiatric report also recommended that the physician be restricted to multi-physician family medicine practices on a temporary basis to ensure oversight, and that she attend counselling.

While the parties’ joint submission on penalty noted that the physician’s conduct was serious, they also noted that the physician was new to practice when the conduct occurred; that the physician had no prior complaints; that the physician admitted to the unprofessional conduct; and that the physician faced serious financial and other penalties, including 10 months of incarceration and significant financial restitution. Ultimately, the Hearing Panel accepted the joint submission on penalty and agreed that the physician could return to practice with conditions placed on her permit. These terms and conditions included that:

• the physician would practice in a multi-physician practice for at least one year;

• the physician would submit to random audits of her billing for five years; 

• the physician would pay a fine of $10,000 and 100% of the costs of the investigation and hearing; and

• if the physician did not comply with the Hearing Tribunal’s orders or if the CPSA received or opened another complaint regarding similar issues in the future, the physician would be required to serve a suspension of two months.

Key Takeaways

This decision highlights that revocation of a health professional’s certificate of registration is not always necessary in order to effectively sanction the individual, even in cases involving serious misconduct. A penalty that is contextual, proportional to the risk posed by the registrant’s conduct, and that focuses on providing education and rehabilitation to the registrant can still achieve a regulator’s mandate of public protection when appropriate terms and conditions are put in place.

The full decision of the Hearing Tribunal is available on the CPSA’s website, linked here.

For guidance and advice regarding self-reporting criminal charges or convictions to your regulator, please connect with us.