Ontario's Regulated Health Professions Act requires mandatory revocation of a health professional's certificate of registration where a discipline panel makes a finding of sexual abuse of a patient falling within the categories defined in the Act — which include touching of a sexual nature, not only the most serious forms of misconduct. A person generally remains a "patient" for a defined period after the professional relationship would otherwise end, meaning conduct occurring within that window can still trigger mandatory revocation. Where a panel makes a qualifying finding but defers the penalty portion of a hearing, the member's certificate must be immediately suspended on an interim basis until the final penalty is imposed.
- Mandatory revocation applies to defined categories of sexual abuse findings against a patient — not only the most extreme forms of misconduct.
- The definition of qualifying conduct is broader than many assume, including touching of a sexual nature, not only sexual activity in the fullest sense.
- A person generally remains a "patient" for a defined period after the professional relationship ends, so conduct within that window can still trigger mandatory revocation.
- Where a panel makes a qualifying finding but has not yet decided the final penalty, an immediate interim suspension applies until revocation is formally ordered.
- Health professionals have a mandatory duty to report reasonable grounds to believe another health professional has sexually abused a patient.
- Because revocation here is mandatory, not discretionary, the entire focus of a defence shifts to whether the underlying finding itself is correct.
The Short Answer
For most professional misconduct findings, a discipline panel has a range of penalties to choose from. For sexual abuse findings meeting the specific categories defined in the Regulated Health Professions Act, there is no range — revocation is mandatory, with an interim suspension applying immediately once a qualifying finding is made.
What Conduct Triggers Mandatory Revocation
The Act defines specific categories of conduct that trigger mandatory revocation, which include touching of a sexual nature of a patient — a threshold that is broader than many people assume, extending well beyond only the most extreme forms of misconduct. Certain sexual offence convictions under the Criminal Code can also separately trigger mandatory revocation.
Because the defined categories include touching of a sexual nature generally, not just the most serious conduct, health professionals sometimes underestimate how readily a finding can fall within the mandatory revocation provisions once the underlying conduct is established.
Who Counts as a "Patient"
The Act's definition of “patient” extends for a defined period after the professional relationship would otherwise end — meaning a health professional cannot simply treat a relationship as safely over the moment formal treatment concludes. Conduct occurring within that extended window can still trigger mandatory revocation the same as conduct during active treatment.
The Immediate Interim Suspension
Where a discipline panel makes a finding that falls within the mandatory revocation categories but has not yet completed the penalty portion of the hearing, the member's certificate of registration must be immediately suspended on an interim basis until the final revocation order is made. This closes the gap that might otherwise exist between a finding and a final penalty — see our general guide on interim suspension of a professional licence in Ontario for how interim measures generally work in regulatory proceedings.
The Duty to Report Other Professionals
Separately from the revocation framework, the Act imposes a mandatory reporting duty on health professionals who have reasonable grounds to believe that another health professional has sexually abused a patient. This obligation exists independently of whatever process the reported professional eventually faces, and failing to report can itself raise separate professional conduct concerns for the person who failed to report.
Why This Changes How a Case Should Be Defended
Because the penalty itself is not discretionary once a qualifying finding is made, the entire focus of a defence in these cases is almost always on the underlying finding — whether the conduct alleged actually occurred, and whether it genuinely falls within the Act's defined categories — rather than on arguing for a lesser penalty once a finding has already been made. This is a meaningfully different strategic posture than most other discipline matters, where the finding and the penalty are both open questions, including the general range described in our guide on healthcare professional discipline in Toronto. See also our guide on what happens when a professional licence is revoked in Ontario for what follows once revocation is ordered.
What to Do If You Are Facing an Allegation
Given the stakes and the mandatory nature of the outcome once a finding is made, get advice immediately — before any investigative interview or written response. Say nothing substantive to the college without first understanding how the finding itself, not just the eventual penalty, will be contested. A finding here also affects how long the matter stays on the public register, and if you are a physician specifically, see our guide on CPSO discipline in Ontario. Where the allegation involves a licensing applicant rather than an existing member, see our guide on good character hearings, and if social media evidence is part of the complaint, our guide on social media and professional discipline risks is also relevant. Call 416-274-2222 for a free, confidential consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions
A discipline finding of sexual abuse of a patient falling within the categories defined in the Act triggers mandatory revocation. The defined categories include touching of a sexual nature, not only the most extreme forms of misconduct, so the threshold is broader than many people assume.
Potentially, yes. A person generally continues to be considered a patient for a defined period after the professional relationship would otherwise end, meaning conduct occurring within that window can still fall within the mandatory revocation provisions.
No. Once a finding falls within the defined mandatory revocation categories, the panel does not have discretion over the outcome — revocation must be ordered, subject only to very limited statutory exceptions.
Where a panel makes a qualifying finding but defers the penalty portion of the hearing, an interim suspension must be imposed immediately, meaning the member cannot continue practising during that gap.
Yes. The Act imposes a mandatory reporting duty on health professionals who have reasonable grounds to believe another health professional has sexually abused a patient, separate from the reported professional's own discipline process.
Because the penalty itself is not discretionary once a qualifying finding is made, the real contest is almost always over whether the underlying finding is correct — whether the alleged conduct occurred and whether it falls within the Act's defined categories — rather than over what penalty should apply.