Panel finds registrant had power over two complainants in workplace or academic environments
The Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal has imposed a reprimand and an eight-month suspension on a doctor who did not contest that he engaged in conduct toward two complainants that breached workplace policies and related legislation prohibiting sexual harassment.
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Tanuseputro, 2026 ONPSDT 24, centred on a doctor who earned his independent practice certificate from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in 2010.
While the doctor currently does not practise in the province, the doctor had a faculty position at the University of Ottawa, research positions at two hospitals, and privileges at The Ottawa Hospital in the relevant period.
In April 2018, the doctor engaged in unwanted touching of Ms. A, a research assistant in her mid-20s, and made sexual comments to her. At the time, he had a senior position at the hospital where they both worked.
In September 2020, the doctor hugged Ms. B, touched her back, and made inappropriate comments to her. A few days afterward, he accepted that he had “crossed a line.”
In October 2021, he again hugged Ms. B, grabbed her hand, kissed her hand and hair, shared private details regarding his personal life, and made inappropriate comments to her. Within the next two days, he acknowledged that his actions were “crazy” and “belligerent.”
At the time, the doctor was the graduate studies supervisor of Ms. B, who also worked for him at a hospital. After the second incident, she informed him that she would be transferring to another research team.
The College alleged that the doctor engaged in professional misconduct under ss. 1(1)33 and 1(1)34 of Ontario Regulation 856/93, made under Ontario’s Medicine Act, 1991, by committing disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct, as well as conduct unbecoming a physician.
Specifically, the College claimed that the doctor contravened its policy on professional behaviour and workplace anti-harassment policies and related legislation prohibiting sexual harassment during his interactions with two younger colleagues over whom he had professional and academic power.
The doctor did not contest that he engaged in the alleged misconduct, had a position of power over Ms. A, and seriously negatively impacted her well-being through his actions.
The parties submitted a statement of uncontested facts concerning the alleged misconduct and an agreed statement of facts regarding the penalty.
Suspension and reprimand
The Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal accepted the parties’ joint submission on penalty and costs.
Thus, the tribunal required the doctor to appear for a reprimand, pay the College $6,000 in costs, and instructed the registrar to suspend the doctor’s registration certificate for eight months.
The tribunal found this penalty warranted and within the range of outcomes in similar cases, given the doctor’s pattern of misconduct with two junior colleagues over whom he had power. The tribunal considered the following aggravating factors:
- the doctor’s repeated boundary violations with the two colleagues
- his position of power in workplace or academic environments relating to both of them
- Ms. A’s and Ms. B’s isolated environments – featuring some elements of confinement and heightening their vulnerability – during the misconduct
- Ms. A’s intoxication at the time
Misconduct findings
The tribunal agreed with the College that the doctor had engaged in professional misconduct. Specifically, the tribunal found:
- disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct
- conduct unbecoming of a physician
- conduct that went against the College’s Policy on Professional Behaviour
- conduct that breached both hospitals’ workplace policies
- conduct that violated related legislation, which prohibited sexual harassment
The tribunal acknowledged that the doctor did not directly supervise Ms. A.
However, the tribunal determined that the doctor abused his position of professional power over Ms. A and Ms. B, who were considerably younger and in junior positions to the doctor, who held senior positions at the hospitals where they worked.
The tribunal considered the doctor’s two incidents of inappropriate behaviour toward Ms. B especially egregious due to his direct professional and academic authority over her as her team leader and graduate studies supervisor.
The tribunal was especially concerned about the second incident because the doctor acted inappropriately toward Ms. B in her car for 53 minutes, even though she repeatedly asked him to leave.
The tribunal held that the doctor’s interaction with Ms. A adversely affected her mental, physical, and interpersonal well-being, and that his two interactions with Ms. B negatively impacted her career and emotional well-being.
