When an Ontario physician license reinstatement application is made after a revocation, it’s not about re-arguing the case. Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal (OPSDT) accepts its earlier findings as fact. To succeed, the physician must show genuine insight, targeted remediation, and safeguards to prevent the same misconduct from happening again.
For dishonesty-based misconduct, like OHIP billing fraud, that’s where the catch-22 kicks in. Accepting the findings may help convince the Tribunal but those same admissions can be used in a criminal prosecution. Denying them may protect you legally, but it almost guarantees the Tribunal won’t reinstate you.
In Fagbemigun v. CPSO (2024 ONPSDT 30), the applicant took the second route. He framed his misconduct as oversight, not fraud, and proposed operational fixes. OPSDT found those irrelevant to the actual risk and denied reinstatement.
The lesson: in fraud or dishonesty cases, reinstatement is as much about managing criminal law risk as it is about meeting regulatory expectations. Success often depends on coordinated legal strategy and careful timing.
Read the Full Analysis
For a detailed breakdown of Fagbemigun v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2024 ONPSDT 30 , including the Tribunal’s full reasoning and implications for professional discipline defence, read my complete commentary on CanLII Connects.
Frequently Asked Questions: CPSO License Reinstatement
Q: Can I re-argue the facts of my original discipline case during reinstatement? A: No. The Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal (OPSDT) accepts its earlier findings as established fact. A reinstatement hearing is not an appeal or a “do-over.” The focus is entirely on your conduct since the revocation and your current fitness to practice.
Q: What is the “Catch-22” for doctors seeking reinstatement after fraud allegations? A: The dilemma is about admission. To demonstrate “insight” (required for reinstatement), a doctor usually must admit to the misconduct. However, admitting to fraud in a tribunal setting can potentially be used against them in criminal proceedings. Conversely, maintaining innocence to avoid criminal liability often leads to a refusal of reinstatement because it looks like a lack of insight.
Q: What are the three things I must prove to get my license back? A: Generally, you must demonstrate: 1) Genuine Insight (accepting responsibility); 2) Targeted Remediation (fixing the root cause of the behavior); and 3) Safeguards (proving you have systems in place to prevent the misconduct from happening again).
Q: Why was Dr. Fagbemigun’s reinstatement application denied? A: In Fagbemigun v. CPSO, the applicant attempted to frame his past OHIP billing fraud as merely an “administrative oversight.” The Tribunal rejected this, finding that minimizing past intentional misconduct demonstrated a lack of true insight, meaning the public would still be at risk if he were reinstated.
For more information on our regulatory defence practice and specifically, on defending Ontario physicians against CPSO complaints please click here.
This commentary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Facing a professional discipline process? Don’t wait until it escalates. Contact Tamir Litigation Law Firm today at 416-499-1676 or visit tamirlitigation.com to learn how you can protect your licence and your reputation. You can also message us on WhatsApp for a free initial chat.