Lawyer for Chiropractors
Chiropractic care in Ontario, such as other regulated professions in Canada, requires a high level of education, licensure, and professional conduct. Each province in Canada is responsible for overseeing the professionals who practice within its borders; in Ontario, this obligation is governed and overseen by the College of Chiropractors of Ontario (CCO). The CCO’s primary purpose is to ensure that all practicing chiropractors adhere to rigorous standards of education, ethics, and professionalism. This helps make sure that members of this profession uphold a high-quality standard of care for all patients across the province. Please note that each province in Canada has their own respective governing body for regulating the chiropractic profession.
Understanding the Role of the College of Chiropractors of Ontario (CCO)
The Chiropractic Act, 1991 is largely responsible for providing authority and power for the CCO to operate. This legislation is highly significant when it comes to regulating chiropractic practice in Ontario. It helps make sure that chiropractors have proper education from authorized programs before beginning their practice, and it requires continued education to maintain their competency. This means that chiropractors are expected to continuously update their skills and engage in lifelong learning in this respect.
The Act establishes a set of requirements that all chiropractors must comply with. This might include things like quality assurance protocols and participation in peer review programs. The overarching purpose is public protection, which the CCO achieves through receiving and thoroughly looking over the validity of the complaints filed against its members. If any chiropractor engages in unethical or professional misconduct, the CCO has the power and authority to take disciplinary actions to resolve the issue in question.
- CP24: Civil Sexual Assault Lawsuit at St. Michael’s in Toronto.
- Global News Morning Show: Sentencing Arguments in Assault case of Dafonte Miller.
- Breakfast Television: Role of Mental Health in Court Proceedings.
- Global News National: Bruce McArthur will not serve consecutive sentences.
- CBC Radio: Interview with Mayor John Tory and Jordan Donich on CBC Radio.
- CTV News National: Handgun ban supported by majority of Canadians: Nanos survey.
- Global News: How difficult is it to get a legal handgun in Canada.
- CP24: Sentencing Hearing for Chair Girl.
Key Regulations and Standards in Ontario’s Chiropractic Practice
The Chiropractic Act, 1991 encompasses a comprehensive set of regulations that guide the practice of chiropractic care in Ontario. These include requirements for various classes of certification—such as general, temporary, inactive, and retired certificates—and the procedures for applying for these certifications.
Chiropractors are also required to have a valid practice insurance and pay the required registration fees. Additionally, the Act details the expectations for professional conduct, listing 33 specific actions that are considered to be professional misconduct. Chiropractors who are found guilty of these actions can face serious repercussions, which may include disciplinary measures and potential impacts on their ability to continue practicing.
Possible Grounds for Lodging a Formal Complaints Against Chiropractors
Patients can lodge formal complaints against chiropractors for any number of reasons, including bad experiences that have caused harm or distress. A member of this profession failing to uphold professional standards, engaging in improper or otherwise inappropriate behaviour (emotional, verbal, physical, or sexual), practicing while incapacitated and/or under the influence of substances, or failing to give necessary treatment are all examples of different types of conduct that could result in a complaint. Generally speaking, conduct that is unbecoming of a professional might be grounds to constitute professional misconduct. Furthermore, conflicts of interest, unneeded diagnostic or therapeutic treatments, and abruptly stopping care without prior arrangements are major reasons for complaints. If you are facing such claims, you must get legal assistance quickly to defend your professional reputation and practice.
Professional Regulation in Canada
The Investigative Process
After receiving a complaint, the CCO will open a case file and conduct an investigation. The chiropractor will be notified and given an opportunity to respond. The investigation is overseen by the Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee (ICRC), which is comprised of both public members and certified chiropractors. If required, the Committee may assign an investigator with the authority to enter the chiropractor’s practice premises and collect evidence. The complaint and the chiropractor are expected to cooperate completely during this process.
After assessing the information, the ICRC will decide on the best course of action. The Committee’s decision is established in writing and communicated to both parties. Given the potentially serious repercussions of a professional misconduct finding, chiropractors should seek expert legal assistance as soon as they become aware of a complaint.
Potential Repercussions of a Complaint
The ICRC has several methods in which they might opt to resolve a complaint. If there is no professional misconduct found after the investigation, the complaint might be dismissed with no further action taken. However, if misconduct is identified, the chiropractor might be asked or required to appear before the Committee to receive a formal warning reprimand which will typically be noted on their record, undergo remedial education such as professional ethics course, or, in more severe cases, be required to attend a disciplinary hearing where further action might be decided on. The Committee’s decisions, including any disciplinary actions taken against the chiropractor, may be made public.
The ICRC offers numerous methods for settling a complaint. If no misconduct is discovered, the case can be closed without further action. If misconduct is found after the regulatory body investigates, the chiropractor may be required to appear before the Committee for a formal warning, which will be put on their record, remedial instruction, or, in more serious circumstances, a disciplinary hearing. When a formal warning is put on the chiropractor’s record, this makes it likely that they will face harsher penalties if found to have committed professional misconduct a second time.
For example, if a chiropractor is found to have committed professional misconduct one time by sending verbally abusive e-mails to a colleague, they might get off with a formal warning by the COO. However, if they are found to have committed professional misconduct a second time, they might receive a penalty such as a $5,000 fine paid to the COO or a licence suspension. The instances of professional misconduct need not be directly related—the mere fact that the professional was not careful in their actions leading to the second transgression may be sufficient to warrant a harsher penalty.
The committee’s decisions, including any disciplinary actions made against the professional, may be made public to advance the value of transparency.
Understanding Workplace Investigations
Strategies to Defend Against Allegations
The specific claims and available evidence define the best method for defending against a formal complaint. When you receive notification of a complaint, you should immediately consult with legal counsel. In cases where the charge is baseless and/or unfounded, the chiropractor may respond by claiming compliance with all professional norms and regulations. In more serious cases, a strong and more technical defence may involve demonstrating that the chiropractor met the standard of care necessary in their practice, thereby providing an adequately high level of client care and meeting their duty to the patient.
Finally, the key to a successful defence is prompt, intentional, and strategic legal action. Donich Law specializes in representing healthcare professionals before the CCO, leading them through the complaint procedure and assisting them in obtaining the best possible results.
What Options Are Available After a CCO Disciplinary Decision?
After the CCO issues a disciplinary decision, chiropractors have several options for challenging the outcome. If they disagree with the findings of the Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee (ICRC) or the Discipline Committee, they can appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB). This appeal usually needs to be filed within 30 days of the decision.
The HPARB reviews the case to ensure that the CCO followed fair procedures and that the evidence supports the decision. The Board can uphold the decision, call for further investigation, or dismiss it if procedural errors are found.
In cases where the disciplinary action is particularly severe, such as license suspension or revocation, chiropractors can seek judicial review from the Ontario Divisional Court. This process involves challenging the legality of the CCO’s decision, possibly on grounds of unfair procedures or legal errors.
Moreover, both the chiropractor and the CCO have the right to appeal to higher courts, depending on the results at the HPARB or Divisional Court. These legal avenues provide chiropractors with opportunities to contest and potentially reverse the disciplinary actions taken against them.
Relevant Law
Reid v. College of Chiropractors of Ontario, 2016 ONSC 1041
Dr. M.R. filed an appeal in M.R. v. College of Chiropractors of Ontario, challenging the Discipline Committee’s findings of professional misconduct. His wrongdoing included sending inappropriate e-mails to the doctor and refusing to cooperate during an investigation. After M.R. wrote abusive emails and failed to respond to the College’s inquiries, the Committee issued a year-long suspension, a fine, and a required remediation class. M.R. questioned the process, specifically the participation of a panel member with prior case involvement.
The Court did not accept these arguments, stating that the proceedings were fair and neutral. It determined that M.R.’s acts were unprofessional, and that the College was correct in seeking replies to complaints. The Court upheld the fines as proportionate for M.R.’s actions.
Ciurleo v. Ontario (College of Chiropractors), 2021 CanLII 85583 (ON HPARB)
In this case, A.C., who has an extensive record chiropractic experience in Italy and New York, sought registration with the College of Chiropractors of Ontario (CCO). The registration process required passing the Canadian Chiropractic Examination Board (CCEB) exams.
A.C. was successful in passing Part C and had received an exemption from Part A due to her prior experience. However, it is important to note here that Dr. C failed Part B four times. She attempted to ask the COO for an exemption from Part B. In doing this, she tried proposing alternatives like an internship or supervised practice, but the CCO denied her request. In rendering this decision, the COO emphasized how important standardized exams are—they are a way of ensuring public safety and competence in the profession.
The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) reviewed her case. In the end, HPARB stood by the CCO’s decision, agreeing how important it is to have standardized, objective assessments like the CCEB exams for registration. The Board recognized Dr. C’s experience but ultimately held that her repeated failure to pass Part B justified the CCO’s decision. The Board reiterated that the CCO’s overarching duty is to protect the public, and the examination requirements are essential to this responsibility.
College of Chiropractors of Ontario v. Dies, 2016 ONCA 2
S.D. was found to have breached a 2006 order that prohibited him from practicing chiropractic without proper registration. Although S.D. consented to a hearing without live testimony, he later appealed, claiming the judge incorrectly assessed the case and should have ordered a trial.
Later, the appellate court rejected his appeal. The Court here asserted that S.D. had enough opportunities to present his defence sufficiently. S.D. also stated that the punishment was overly harsh, especially when taking into account his health status and caregiving responsibilities. However, the Court upheld the initial sentence of house arrest, with the possibility of jail time if conditions were breached. This demonstrates the need to safeguard the public from S.D.’s continued non-compliance. The appeal was partially successful only in altering the language of one order, and S.D. was required to pay for the legal expenses of the respondent.