Discipline Proceedings

Discipline Proceedings

The list below outlines referrals to the Discipline Committee, including the details of hearings, decisions, and penalties.

If you would like to observe a virtual hearing, please contact the College and we will provide you with access to the videoconference.

Past Discipline Proceedings

JOHN SOMERTON

Finding of Guilt

Decision and Reasons

Summary of Discipline Committee Decision

Hearing Regarding Allegations of Professional Misconduct

Name of Registrant: John Somerton (#15296)
Place of Practice: London
Date: February 22, 2022

Background

During the relevant period, the Registrant practiced homeopathy at Homeopathy of London in London, Ontario. He ran the clinic out of his home.
The Discipline Committee hearing involved one Notice of Hearing involving “Patient A.”

Summary of Facts
The Registrant began treating “Patient A.” in 2021 when “Patient A.” sought his services for lymphatic drainage massage (LDM). “Patient A.” learned of the Registrant through a friend who saw the Registrant for homeopathic services. “Patient A” had never received a LDM but had been advised that it would help relieve her symptoms experienced at the time.
The Registrant’s website did not indicate that he provided this service. When Patient A emailed the Registrant, she asked if he provided LDM. The Registrant advised that he did and that her first LDM would be free. Patient A proceeded to make an appointment with the Registrant, via email.

When “Patient A.” arrived at the Registrant’s Clinic, she met the Registrant in the waiting area. He then led her into the treatment room. Prior to commencing treatment, the Registrant discussed with “Patient A.” all the homeopathic services he offered; his fee schedule for those services; and the lymphatic system. The Registrant asked “Patient A.” to sign a fee schedule form. Other than this form he did not provide “Patient A.” any other documents to sign.

During discussion about the lymphatic system, the Registrant showed “Patient A.” a diagram of the lymphatic system and explained that there were lymph nodes throughout the body, including the breasts, and that females had extra lymph nodes in the breasts. The Registrant felt his discussion with “Patient A.” was sufficient to obtain informed consent.

Before providing the LDM to “Patient A.”, the Registrant did not alert “Patient A.” which body parts or in what order he would touch during the LDM; inform “Patient A.” that the LDM that he intended to provide would involve exposing and massaging her breasts; offer “Patient A.” options as to how he could perform the lymphatic drainage massage; obtain Patient A’s health history prior to commencing treatment; seek further information from “Patient A.” when she alerted the Registrant that a recent biofeedback report indicated her lymph nodes “were sluggish”; or maintain appropriate records of Patient A’s appointment.

During the course of the treatment, the Registrant massaged both “Patient A.’s” breasts. He lowered the draping to expose her entire upper body down to the top of her underwear. He asked “Patient A.” to put her arms behind her head so that her elbows were bent out to the sides. He massaged both of her entire breasts including her nipples and areolae. The Registrant massaged both of “Patient A.’s” breasts at the same time and used his hands to trace a figure eight pattern in a manner that circled and connected both “Patient A.’s” breasts. Both “Patient A.” and the Registrant were silent during the entire massage.

The Registrant did not receive any formal training, evaluation, or certification in LDM. His only training was approximately ten to fifteen years ago from a woman who performed LDM. The Registrant acknowledged that he does not have sufficient training or competency to provide LDM and that it is not within the scope of homeopathy.

Summary of Findings of Professional Misconduct

The Registrant admitted, and the Panel found, that the Registrant committed acts of professional misconduct regarding “Patient A.” because he:

contravened a standard of practice of the profession or failed to maintain the standard of practice expected of members of the profession;
touched the patient without consent, although consent was required by law;
attempted to treat a condition that he knew or ought to have known that he does not have the knowledge, skills or judgment to treat;
failed to advise the patient’s to consult another member of a health profession within the meaning of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, where the member knew or ought to have known that the patient requires a service that he did not have the knowledge, skills or judgment to offer or that is beyond his scope of practice;
engaged in conduct or performed an act or acts, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional; and
engaged in conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members as conduct unbecoming of a member of the profession.

It is agreed that the Registrant sexually abused “Patient A” specifically by touching “Patient A’s” breasts in a sexual nature, and that the above conduct constitutes professional misconduct pursuant to section 51(1)(b.1) of the Code.

Summary of Order

The CHO and the Registrant made a joint submission to the Panel, which was accepted and which provided for:

An oral reprimand;
Immediate revocation of the Registrant’s certificate of registration; and
Requirement that the Registrant reimburse the College for funding provided to “Patient A.” under the Program required under section 85.7 of the Code in the amount of $3,000 within one month of the date of the Order.

Summary of Reasons

By touching “Patient A.’s” breasts in a sexual nature without any clinical purpose, the Registrant engaged in sexual abuse. Such conduct would also be inherently a contravention of the standards of practice.

The Registrant performed a LDM which is outside the scope of practice of a homeopath and which he did not have sufficient training and/or competency to perform. He did not obtain “Patient A.’s” medical history and did not obtain sufficient consent. This is a breach of standards and an independent act of misconduct as well.

By discussing and offering a procedure that he was not appropriately qualified to perform and not disclosing this to “Patient A.”, the Registrant attempted to treat a condition that he knew or ought to have known he did not have the knowledge, skills or judgment to treat and offered a service that was beyond his scope of practice.

All this conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional and conduct unbecoming a member of the profession.

While it was mandatorily required, the Panel also found that public protection would be achieved by the revocation of the Registrant’s certificate of registration. This ensures that the Registrant is no longer part of the profession and is deprived of future opportunities to place the public at risk while practising. Removing the Registrant from the profession would also enhance public confidence in the ability of the College to regulate the profession. It would also achieve general deterrence by demonstrating to other registrants that conduct of this nature will warrant removal from the profession.

The reprimand, which was legislatively required given the finding of sexual abuse, would provide an opportunity for the Panel to publicly denounce the Registrant’s misconduct and send a message to the general membership of the profession that the Discipline Committee finds sexual abuse completely unacceptable.

The Panel also ordered the Registrant to reimburse the College, in part, for funding provided for counselling and therapy for “Patient A.” This order would further the goals of public protection and general deterrence by sending a clear message to the public and the profession that if a registrant is found to have sexually abused a patient, the Discipline Committee may hold that registrant financially responsible for therapy sought by the patient in connection with the sexual abuse. This also will instill public confidence in the College’s ability to regulate the profession in the public interest.

Hearing Dates: Tuesday, February 22nd and Wednesday, February 23, 2022

Mr. Somerton received his oral reprimand on February 22, 2023.

SARABPREET GHATOURA

Registrant Name: Sarabpreet Ghatoura
Registrant Number: 15328

REFERRAL TO DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
Motion to Refer Specified Allegations to Discipline
On September 8, 2022 members of a panel of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee moved that after investigating this complaint, making reasonable efforts to consider all records and documents the panel considers relevant and considering all submissions, the panel directs that, pursuant to section 26(1) paragraph 1 of the Health Professions Procedural Code the following specified allegations be referred to the Discipline Committee:

STATEMENT OF SPECIFIED ALLEGATIONS

The Registrant

Sarabpreet Ghatoura (the “Registrant”) registered with the College of Homeopaths of Ontario (the “College”) on or about May 3, 2016.
The Registrant resigned from the College on or about April 1, 2022.

Sexual Assault

It is alleged that on or about December 8, 2020 the Registrant sexually assaulted and/or sexually abused a client at his clinic.
It is alleged that on or about December 13, 2021 the Registrant was found guilty of sexually assaulting the client.
It is alleged that the Registrant has not appealed the finding.

Allegations of Professional Misconduct

It is alleged that the above noted conduct constitutes professional misconduct:
1. pursuant to section 51(1)(a) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 as the registrant was found guilty of an offence that is relevant to the registrant’s suitability to practise;
2. pursuant to section 51(1)(b.1) of the Code as the registrant sexually abused the client; and/or
3. pursuant to section 51(1)(c) of the Code, as set out in one or more of the following paragraphs of section 1 of Ontario Regulation 315/12 made under the Homeopathy Act, 2007:
  1. Paragraph 48 - Engaging in conduct or performing an act relevant to the practice of the profession that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by registrants as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

Hearing Date: February 22, 2023

Decision and Reasons

SUKHDEV SINGH KOONER

Registrant Name: Sukhdev Singh Kooner
Registration Number: 15285

STATEMENT OF SPECIFIED ALLEGATIONS

The Registrant
1. Sukhdev Singh Kooner (the “Registrant”) registered with the College of Homeopaths of Ontario (the “College”) on or about May 3, 2016.

Advertising
2. On or about April 21, 2021 a member of the public contacted the College about a sign that advertised the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. The sign also stated that COVID-19 vaccine “is one of the number one killers.”
3. On or about April 25, 2021 the Registrant confirmed that he was the owner and/or controller of the sign. The Registrant advised he had posted the sign a year earlier.
4. Vaccination is not within the scope of practice of the homeopathic profession.

Acts of Professional Misconduct
5. It is alleged that the above noted conduct constitutes professional misconduct pursuant to section 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 as set out in one or more of the following paragraphs of section 1 of Ontario Regulation 315/12 made under the Homeopathy Act, 2007:
a. Paragraph 1 – Contravening, by act or omission, a standard of practice of the profession or failing to maintain the standard of practice of the profession;
b. Paragraph 9 - Failing to advise a patient or the patient’s authorized representative to consult another member of a health profession within the meaning of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, where the member knows or ought to know that the patient requires a service that the member does not have the knowledge, skills or judgment to offer or is beyond his or her scope of practice;
c. Paragraph 28 - Permitting the advertising of the member or his or her practice in a manner that is false or misleading;
d. Paragraph 48 - Engaging in conduct or performing an act relevant to the practice of the profession that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional; and/or
e. Paragraph 49 - Engaging in conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members as conduct unbecoming a member of the profession.

Hearing Dates: Tuesday, April 26 and Wednesday, April 27, 2022

Discipline Hearing Summary

Decision and Reasons

Hearing Date, Penalty and Costs: Wednesday, April 19, 2023

Penalty and Costs Decision and Reasons