Whether you are a regulated health professional or an unregulated practitioner, your career depends on your professional reputation and the trust of your clients. Complaints, investigations, and legal challenges—regulatory or otherwise—can seriously impact your ability to practice. At Tamir Litigation, we offer strong, experienced legal defence for a wide range of healthcare providers across Ontario.

We understand the distinct challenges facing both regulated professionals and unregulated practitioners. Our approach is strategic, discreet, and tailored to your profession.

Common Issues We Handle:

Complaints and formal investigations

Professional misconduct and discipline hearings

Fitness-to-practice or incapacity concerns

Licensing, registration, and renewal issues

Employer reporting and practice audits

Appeals to  HPARB and judicial review in court 

Unregulated Health Practitioners

 Therapists like  osteopathic manual practitioners are not currently regulated under Ontario’s health professions regulatory framework, but that does not mean they are immune to legal risk. Civil claims, professional complaints, or contractual disputes can pose serious threats to your business and reputation.

We help  osteopathic manual practitioners and other unregulated professionals defend against:

  • Allegations of negligence or improper practice
  • Breach of contract or scope-of-practice disputes
  • Practice management and client complaint issues
  • Risk management and compliance advice 

Why Choose Tamir Litigation

  • Extensive experience in health law and professional regulation
  • Representation before regulatory colleges, courts, and tribunals
  • Customized legal strategies for your specific profession
  • Dedicated to protecting your license, livelihood, and reputation


Relevant Blog Posts

In RCDSO v. Kwong (2025 ONRCDSO 1), a Scarborough dentist was suspended for five months after admitting he falsified records by backdating patient treatment dates to maximize year-end insurance benefits. The RCDSO panel found this conduct amounted to multiple acts of professional misconduct, including falsification, false reporting, and unethical behaviour. The penalty included suspension, ethics and billing courses, 24 months of practice monitoring, and a ban on employing his spouse. The case underscores that even “helping” patients use expiring benefits is still considered falsification.
In LSO v. Balaganthan (2025 ONLSTH 126), a newly-called lawyer and former Toronto police officer was found guilty of professional misconduct after $1.7M in stolen funds flowed through his trust account. Despite personal hardships, the Tribunal held he was wilfully blind to glaring red flags: offshore parties, unexplained fees, and instructions to pay non-parties. His own note, “I will be paid from the funds received” , underscored the risks. The case shows that trust accounts are not escrow services and inexperience is no defence.
Reinstatement after a licence revocation for fraud is a legal catch-22. The Tribunal requires proof of insight and remediation, often by accepting past findings, but such admissions can be used in criminal prosecution. In Fagbemigun v. CPSO (2024 ONPSDT 30), the physician denied intentional fraud, proposed operational changes, and was denied reinstatement. This case highlights why fraud-related professional discipline matters require coordinated regulatory and criminal defence strategy to protect both your licence and your legal position.