skip to content

THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE DOCTOR SEARCH SECTION OF THE WEBSITE OF THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO WWW.CPSO.ON.CA
Date: 01/12/22 6:01:44 AM

Khan, Akbar Nauman

CPSO#: 65249

MEMBER STATUS
Revoked: Discipline Committee as of 15 Jul 2022
CURRENT OR PAST CPSO REGISTRATION CLASS
Restricted as of 30 Sep 2017

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum ac diam sit amet quam vehicula elementum sed sit amet dui. Vivamus suscipit tortor eget felis porttitor volutpat. Curabitur non nulla sit amet nisl tempus convallis quis ac lectus. Curabitur aliquet quam id dui posuere blandit. Vivamus suscipit tortor eget felis porttitor volutpat. Curabitur arcu erat, accumsan id imperdiet et, porttitor at sem. Vestibulum ac diam sit amet quam vehicula elementum sed sit amet dui. Donec sollicitudin molestie malesuada. Pellentesque in ipsum id orci porta dapibus.

Former Name: No Former Name

Gender: Male

Languages Spoken: English

Education: University of Toronto, 1992

Practice Information

Primary Location of Practice
Practice Address Not Available

Professional Corporation Information


Corporation Name: Dr. Akbar Khan Medicine Professional Corporation
Certificate of Authorization Status: Inactive: Oct 24 2022

Specialties

Specialty Issued On Type
No Speciality Reported

Postgraduate Training

Please note: This information may not be a complete record of postgraduate training.



University of Toronto, 15 Jun 1992 to 14 Jun 1993
Other - Family Medicine

University of Toronto, 01 Jul 1993 to 30 Jun 1994
Resident 2 - Family Medicine

Registration History

Action Issue Date
First certificate of registration issued: Postgraduate Education Certificate Effective: 15 Jun 1992
Transfer of class of registration to: Independent Practice Certificate Effective: 16 Jun 1993
Transfer of class of certificate to: Restricted certificate Effective: 30 Sep 2017
Terms and conditions imposed on certificate by Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee Effective: 30 Sep 2017
Terms and conditions amended by Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee Effective: 27 Jan 2022
Revoked: Discipline Committee. Effective: 15 Jul 2022

Previous Hearings

Committee: Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal
Decision Date: 09 Nov 2022
Summary:

On November 9, 2022, the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal found that Dr. Khan failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession and is incompetent in his treatment of Patient A and Patient B.

The Tribunal also found that Dr. Khan engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct when he billed OHIP for palliative care that Patient A did not need or receive; interfered with the College’s investigation; and benefited, both directly and indirectly, from his use of the ONCOblot blood test.

The Tribunal Office will schedule a penalty hearing.  

More detail can be found in the reasons for decision linked below. OPSDT reasons are also available at www.opsdt.ca and https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onpsdt/. The exhibits can be obtained by contacting the Tribunal Office at [email protected].


Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Hearing Date(s): Motion: 2022-06-09; Merits: 2022-06-20 to 24 and 29; 2022-08-25

 

Committee: Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal
Decision Date: 07 Feb 2022
Summary:

Dr. Akbar Nauman Khan is qualified as a family physician. He runs a medical clinic where he provides care to patients, many of whom have cancer. Over time Dr. Khan expanded his practice to include an integrative approach which combined complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and therapies with his patients’ conventional medical care.

On August 17, 2017, the College referred allegations of professional misconduct to what is now the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal. The College alleged Dr. Khan had engaged in conduct or an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional [paragraph 1(1)33 of Ontario Regulation 856/93] and failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession [paragraph 1(1)2 of O Reg. 856/93]. The Notice of Hearing further alleged that Dr. Khan is incompetent as defined by subsection 52(1) of the Code.
On October 24, 2018, the College referred a further allegation of disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct when Dr. Khan failed to co-operate with the College’s investigation.

The hearing took place on January 20-22, February 18-20, March 2-4, September 21-22, 24-25, October 5, 7-8 and November 2-3, 2020. Both parties were represented by counsel. Independent legal counsel to the Tribunal also took part in the hearing.

Communication with Patients

The Tribunal found Dr. Khan failed to communicate with his patients in an open and honest manner. Dr. Khan was required to engage in a comprehensive consent discussion with his patients, outlining the risks and benefits of the options and information necessary to allow patients to make a fully informed decision. The Tribunal found he failed to do so. There was no evidence Dr. Khan told any of the 10 patients receiving SAFE chemotherapy treatment that it should be stopped because it was not working. Therapy stopped only when his patients either could not afford it any longer, their condition had deteriorated to such a degree that they could not tolerate it, they were so ill that they were admitted to hospital or they died.

Standard of Practice – Use of SAFE Chemotherapy

While acknowledging the College’s CAM policy does not specify the amount of research, trials evidence, general evidence or science that must support use of a CAM therapy, the Tribunal was satisfied Dr. Khan’s use of SAFE chemotherapy fell below the standard of practice. The Tribunal found an absence of any published data to support the therapy as an effective treatment for cancer. Dr. Khan’s testimony, letters and websites did not contain any data, supportive literature or evidence to support SAFE chemotherapy as an effective treatment for cancer. Dr. Khan’s personal beliefs, along with his limited and personal observations of his patients he treated do not constitute evidence or science supporting the use of SAFE chemotherapy as an effective cancer treatment that offers patients a favourable risk/benefit profile or a reasonable expectation of remedying or alleviating a patient’s health condition. By treating patients with SAFE chemotherapy Dr. Khan repeatedly breached the CAM policy and failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession.

Standard of Practice - Dichloroacetate

Dr. Khan provided Dichloroacetate (DCA) to his adult patients as a cancer treatment and to a pediatric patient with medulloblastoma. Although it appears that published science does not yet support Dr. Khan’s recommendation of the use of DCA to treat cancer patients, the Tribunal accepted there is a body of research and experience that may support consideration of its use in some cancers.

Standard of Practice - Patient A

Patient A was diagnosed with pediatric medulloblastoma. The Tribunal found Dr. Khan both failed to maintain the standard of practice when he used DCA to treat this condition and in his treatment of Patient A. Specifically, the Tribunal found Dr. Khan:
  • made a diagnosis which was not a conventional diagnosis and did not satisfy the requirements of the CAM policy;
  • failed to obtain informed consent to use DCA;
  • used a medication that was not informed by evidence and science, did not possess a favourable risk/benefit ratio, and did not have a reasonable expectation of remedying or alleviating Patient A’s health condition. The two studies on pediatric medulloblastoma were not applicable to Patient A;
  • failed to provide accurate and objective information, substantiated by fact and sound clinical judgment, to Patient A’s parents. He provided inaccurate information about the potential benefits of DCA and inaccurate information about the results of treatment including interpreting results to deny the disease progression; and
  • demonstrated a disregard for Patient A’s welfare.
Standard of Practice - Patient B

Dr. Khan diagnosed Patient B with acute leukemia. The Tribunal found Dr. Khan failed to maintain the standard of practice in his treatment of Patient B when he:
  • made a diagnosis which was not a conventional diagnosis using an ONCOblot test which is not considered conventional or sufficient as a stand-alone diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of cancer and disregarded conventional diagnostic methods;
  • failed to obtain Patient B’s informed consent to the use of Low-Dose Naltrexone (LDN) and HonoPure;
  • used medications, LDN and HonoPure, which were not informed by evidence and science, did not possess a favourable risk/benefit ratio, did not have a reasonable expectation of remedying or alleviating Patient B’s health condition and were not the appropriate treatment for the presumed cancer; and
  • demonstrated disregard for Patient B’s welfare by diagnosing and treating them for a cancer they did not have, ignoring conventional testing that conclusively showed  they did not have cancer and continuing to tell them they had cancer that needed treatment with LDN to keep it “under control,” and using medications that were not informed by evidence and science, did not offer Patient B a beneficial risk/benefit ratio and could not reasonably be expected to alleviate their presumed cancer.
Standard of Practice - Patient C

Patient C was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and metastases to the liver. The Tribunal concluded Dr. Khan failed to maintain the standard of practice with respect to Patient C’s care when he:
  • treated Patient C’s cancer using SAFE chemotherapy, which was not informed by evidence and science, did not possess a favourable risk/benefit ratio, and did not have a reasonable expectation of remedying or alleviating Patient C’s health condition or symptoms;
  • used carboplatin as a standalone off-label treatment. This was conventional chemotherapy in an unconventional setting and did not show a favourable risk-benefit profile;
  • failed to obtain informed consent to the use of SAFE chemotherapy; and
  • failed to recognize the progression of Patient C’s cancer and instead of treating them with palliative intent, pushed for aggressive therapy in the form of surgery and further SAFE chemotherapy treatments; and
  • exposed Patient C to risk of harm and failed to have regard for their welfare.
Standard of Practice - Patient D

Patient D was diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer and metastatic disease of the liver. Despite an aggressive multidisciplinary treatment approach, the cancer continued to progress. Patient D’s  conventional physicians eventually informed them that treatment options going forward were non-curative. The Tribunal concluded that Dr. Khan failed to maintain the standard of practice with respect to Patient D’s care when he:
  • treated Patient D’s cancer using SAFE chemotherapy that was not informed by evidence and science, did not possess a favourable risk/benefit ratio, and did not have a reasonable expectation of remedying or alleviating Patient D’s health condition or symptoms;
  • used SAFE chemotherapy on Patient D although they were likely resistant to it and myelosuppressed;
  • exposed Patient D to potential harm due to the bone marrow suppression perpetuated by the SAFE chemotherapy, limiting options for conventional treatments had they, at any point, wished to utilize them and displayed a disregard for their welfare;
  • demonstrated a lack of knowledge, skill, and judgment across numerous areas of Patient D’s care
  • failed to obtain informed consent from Patient D for the use of SAFE chemotherapy; and
  • failed to provide accurate and objective information, substantiated by fact and sound clinical judgment, to Patient D and their family about the progress of the cancer.
Standard of Practice - Patient E

Patient E was diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer which metastasized to the brain. The prognosis was terminal. The Tribunal found Dr. Khan did not maintain the standard of practice when he:
  • treated Patient E’s cancer using SAFE chemotherapy which was not informed by evidence and science, did not possess a favourable risk/benefit profile, and did not have a reasonable expectation of remedying or alleviating Patient E’s  health condition or symptoms;
  • failed to obtain informed consent from Patient E for the use of SAFE chemotherapy and DCA. Dr. Khan’s notes do not state which or in what detail standard chemotherapeutic options were reviewed with Patient E or their likely resistant to the carboplatin in SAFE chemotherapy;
  • failed to provide accurate and objective information, substantiated by fact and sound clinical judgment, to Patient E about progress of the cancer;
  • demonstrated a lack of judgment by placing Patient E on SAFE chemotherapy when they were likely resistant to this class of chemotherapeutic drugs;
  • displayed a lack of knowledge and judgment in his email communication to another health care professional and to Patient E that did not accurately reflect Patient E’s actual response to SAFE chemotherapy; 
  • exposed Patient E to risks of harm from the side effects and toxicities of carboplatin and disregarded their expressed wish to avoid immunosuppressing medication; and
  • demonstrated a disregard for Patient E’s welfare.
Standard of Practice - Patient F

Patient F was diagnosed with breast cancer which progressed despite conventional treatments. The Tribunal found Dr. Khan did not maintain the standard of practice when he:
  • treated Patient F’s cancer using SAFE chemotherapy, which was not informed by evidence and science, did not possess a favourable risk/benefit ratio, and did not have a reasonable expectation of remedying or alleviating the patient’s health condition or symptoms. Patient F was likely resistant to platinum-based therapies. Use of carboplatin exposed Patient F to side effects such as the risk of bone marrow suppression, which they had already experienced when previous conventional chemotherapy caused bone marrow damage;
  • failed to obtain informed consent for the use of SAFE chemotherapy. There was no documentation in Patient F’s chart describing which standard chemotherapeutic treatment options had been discussed or how their risks and benefits compared with the treatments Dr. Khan was offering;
  • showed a lack of knowledge and judgment in using a SAFE chemotherapy/gemcitabine regimen, which was unlikely to benefit Patient F while it simultaneously exposed them to the risk of side effects and toxicities;
  • exposed Patient F to the risk of harm from the side effects and toxicities of both gemcitabine and carboplatin; and
  • demonstrated a disregard for Patient F’s welfare.
Standard of Practice - Patient G

Patient G was diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer in both lungs, metastatic to the brain, lymph nodes, and liver. The Tribunal found Dr. Khan did not maintain the standard of practice when he:
  • treated Patient G’s cancer using SAFE chemotherapy, which was not informed by evidence and science, did not possess a favourable risk/benefit ratio and did not have a reasonable expectation of remedying or alleviating Patient G’s health condition or symptoms. The Tribunal accepted that, by conventional definitions, Patient G was resistant to platinum agents, including carboplatin. Dr. Khan failed to recognize this;
  • failed to obtain Patient G’s informed consent for the use of SAFE chemotherapy. The chart contained no written documentation of which standard chemotherapeutic treatment options were discussed with Patient G nor how their risks and benefits compared with SAFE chemotherapy. He also failed to inform Patient G they were likely resistant to platinum-based chemotherapy and, without this information, Patient G could not provide informed consent;
  • failed to provide accurate and objective information, substantiated by fact and sound clinical judgment, to Patient G about the progress of the cancer; and
  • showed a lack of knowledge when he failed to recognize Patient G was resistant to platinum agents;
  • showed a lack of judgment by placing Patient G on carboplatin;
  • demonstrated a lack of skill by failing to properly interpret the evidence and science and failing to recognize that SAFE chemotherapy would not overcome platinum resistance; and
  • exposed Patient G to the risk of harm from the known side effects and toxicity of carboplatin without providing the “more aggressive therapy” Patient G requested and disregarded their welfare.
Standard of Practice - Patient H

Patient H had pancreatic cancer and possible metastatic disease of the liver. The Tribunal found that, in his care and treatment of Patient H, Dr. Khan failed to maintain the standard of practice when he:
  • treated Patient H’s cancer using SAFE chemotherapy which was not informed by evidence and science, did not possess a favourable risk/benefit ratio, and did not have a reasonable expectation of remedying or alleviating Patient H’s health condition or symptoms. The use of carboplatin was inappropriate because it would have no activity on pancreatic cancer;
  • failed to obtain informed consent to the use of SAFE chemotherapy. Patient H’s earlier physicians would not have compared conventional options with SAFE chemotherapy and that was an essential part of the consent process. Anything less than a full risks-benefits discussion is insufficient to obtain informed consent;
  • exposed Patient H to a risk of harm by placing them on SAFE chemotherapy in the absence of sufficient evidence showing the use of the medication mesna protects patients from the toxic side effects of carboplatin. Patient H needed rehydration in the emergency department for intractable nausea and vomiting.
  • exposed Patient H to the risk of harm from the opportunity cost of leaving their home and family to travel across the country for ineffective treatment when they had little time to live. By telling Patient H that, cost allowing, they should consider SAFE chemotherapy over conventional chemotherapy Dr. Khan displayed a disregard for Patient H’s welfare; and
  • failed to provide accurate and objective information, substantiated by fact and sound clinical judgment, to Patient H’s family and others about the progress of the cancer.
Standard of Practice - Patient I

Patient I had a CT scan demonstrating the likely presence of metastatic lung cancer with enlarged lymph nodes. They declined a bronchoscopy and a biopsy and started natural therapies on their own. Patient I was referred to Dr. Khan by a naturopath for DCA treatment. While the Tribunal found Dr. Khan met the standard of care in some aspects of Patient I’s treatment, he failed to do so when he:
  • treated Patient I’s cancer using SAFE chemotherapy that was not informed by evidence and science, did not possess a favourable risk/benefit profile and did not have a reasonable expectation of remedying or alleviating Patient I’s health condition or symptoms. Dr. Khan did not have any published literature or robust scientific evidence demonstrating the efficacy of SAFE chemotherapy and little in the way of personal experience or data to validate its use on Patient I.
  • As there was no evidence supporting the use of CTC (circulating tumour cells) counts to monitor cancer, or that a falling CTC count has clinical implications towards cancer response to therapy, the Tribunal rejected Dr. Khan’s claim that a falling CTC count meant Patient I was having a partial response to therapy;
  • failed to obtain informed consent for the use of SAFE chemotherapy. The evidence did not support finding Dr. Khan described standard chemotherapeutic options to Patient I before beginning SAFE chemotherapy;
  • showed a lack of judgment in using SAFE chemotherapy to treat Patient I which exposed them to the known risks and side effects of carboplatin, even though it was unlikely to treat the presumed cancer;
  • showed a lack of knowledge in failing to recognize the significance of the various radiological studies showing cancer progress in Patient I;
  • misdiagnosed Patient I’s disease progress in the brain as pseudoprogression. This demonstrated a lack of knowledge; and,
  • exposed Patient I to the risk of harm or injury from the well-established side effects and toxicities to conventional chemotherapy carboplatin.
Standard of Practice - Patient J

Patient J was a young person with stage IV melanoma with brain metastases. Despite extensive conventional treatment the disease was progressing. The Tribunal found Dr. Khan failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession when he:
  • treated Patient J’s cancer using SAFE chemotherapy and DCA, both of which were not informed by evidence and science, did not possess a favourable risk/benefit ratio, and did not have a reasonable expectation of remedying or alleviating the health condition or symptoms. Melanoma is a chemo resistant cancer. Dr. Khan would have had to use Carboplatin with Taxol to achieve even a very low effect. He did not do this;
  • failed to obtain informed consent for the use of SAFE chemotherapy and DCA;
  • failed to provide accurate and objective information, substantiated by fact and sound clinical judgment, to Patient J about the progress of the cancer. He deprived his patient of critical information that could have helped them to better understand the clinical status; and
  • treating Patient J with SAFE/carboplatin and DCA exposed them to side effects and toxicities of these treatments even though they were unlikely to provide effective treatment for their cancer. This showed a lack of judgment, exposed Patient J to a risk of harm or injury, and disregarded Patient J’s welfare.
Standard of Practice - Patient K

Patient K was diagnosed with limited stage small cell lung cancer. The Tribunal found Dr. Khan failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession when he:
  • treated Patient K’s cancer using SAFE chemotherapy, which was not informed by evidence and science, did not possess a favourable risk/benefit ratio and did not have a reasonable expectation of remedying or alleviating Patient K’s health condition or symptoms. The literature does not show benefit from extended chemotherapy beyond the initial treatment cycles or using a conventional platinum-containing chemotherapy in a patient who had already received sufficient platinum therapy. SAFE/carboplatin failed to offer Patient K any known benefit and, in the event the cancer recurred, potentially rendered any future treatments less effective. The fact Patient K feared cancer recurrence does not shift the risk/benefit profile of SAFE chemotherapy. Patient demand is not a sufficient reason to provide medical therapy that is not indicated or has no evidence supporting its use in cancer;
  • did not obtain from or provide Patient K with key information needed to provide informed consent for the use of SAFE chemotherapy;
  • did not confirm which conventional chemotherapy regimen Patient K received earlier, failed to take an appropriate patient history and failed to provide an adequate clinical assessment;
  • diagnosed Patient K with microscopic disease based on the results of a CTC test instead of accepting the conventional diagnosis of no evidence of disease. In doing so , Dr. Khan failed to come to a conventional diagnosis;
  • showed a lack of judgment in placing Patient K on more platinum-containing medication and exposing them to the side effects, toxicities and risk of harm from such medications when there was no added benefit;
  • showed a lack of judgment by starting and treating Patient K with chemotherapy for several months before confirming previous therapy received from the conventional oncology team and by placing Patient K, who showed no evidence of disease, on a regime that could render the cancer more resistant to future chemotherapeutic agents if it recurred;
  • exposed Patient K to the risk of harm, including significant risk of developing renal impairment, from the side effects and toxicities of this medication due to previous cycles of cisplatin and to the risk that if the cancer returned, certain chemotherapeutic agents could be less effective; and,
  • demonstrated a disregard for Patient K’s welfare when he exposed them to all these risks in the absence of benefit and may have undermined his goal of reducing risk of cancer returning in the process.
Standard of Practice - Patient L

Patient L was diagnosed with esophageal cancer that had metastasized to his liver. The Tribunal concluded that Dr. Khan’s care and treatment of Patient L failed to meet the standard of practice when he:
  • treated Patient L’s cancer using SAFE chemotherapy, which was not informed by evidence and science, did not possess a favourable risk/benefit ratio, did not have a reasonable expectation of remedying or alleviating Patient L’s health condition or symptoms and was not the appropriate treatment for Patient L’s cancer. Single agent carboplatin would not be regarded as standard of care and Dr. Khan should not have used carboplatin alone to treat Patient L;
  • failed to obtain informed consent in the use of SAFE chemotherapy. Dr. Khan did not document discussion of standard chemotherapeutic treatment options and comparison of their risks and benefits with those of the SAFE chemotherapy treatment. Dr. Khan’s claims about the efficacy and lower side effect profile for SAFE chemotherapy were not based on evidence. He did not inform Patient L of this;
  • failed to diagnose Patient L’s disease progress. Dr. Khan ignored clear clinical signs and radiological investigations and persisted in telling the family and other physicians that the treatment was working;
  • failed to provide accurate and objective information, substantiated by fact and sound clinical judgment, about the progress of Patient L’s cancer. Dr. Khan made statements to the family that were inaccurate, contradicted the scoping physician’s report and misled Patient L and family about the true clinical status;
  • demonstrated a lack of judgment when he treated Patient L with SAFE chemotherapy, which did not have a likelihood of remedying the cancer but exposed them to the risk of harm from the side effects and toxicities of carboplatin;
  • demonstrated a lack of knowledge in terms of the standard treatment and management of Patient L’s esophageal cancer;
  • exposed Patient L to the risk of harm from the side effects and toxicities of carboplatin and by giving patient and family false hope; and
  • showed a disregard for Patient L’s welfare.
Incompetence

Dr. Khan’s testimony demonstrated little insight into his failings. The Tribunal was satisfied that the lack of knowledge, skill and judgment Dr. Khan displayed in the care of all 12 patients continues to the present. This lack of knowledge, skill and judgment is serious and the consequences, or potential consequences, of such deficiencies are grave. The Tribunal was satisfied Dr. Khan is incompetent and found him unfit to continue to practise or his practice should be restricted.

Disgraceful, Dishonourable or Unprofessional Conduct

OHIP Billings

The Tribunal reviewed OHIP billings for six of Dr. Khan’s patients. The Tribunal found Dr. Khan submitted palliative care billing codes K023A and G512A for these patients but did not provide them with palliative care as defined by the OHIP Schedule of Benefits. In doing so, he engaged in conduct that was disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

Although some of the patients were in the last year of their life, part of the definition of palliative care in the OHIP Schedule of Benefits, the Tribunal concluded this was insufficient to indicate palliative care was provided. The patient chart is key to showing the care the physician provided to the patient. The Tribunal found Dr. Khan’s records for these six patients did not demonstrate he was providing palliative care.

Further, the relevant patient records contained no documentation that a “decision has been made that there will be no aggressive treatment of the underlying disease and care is to be directed to maintaining the comfort of the patient until death occurs.” To the contrary, all six patients signed the SAFE chemotherapy consent form, in which they declined to have only comfort care or palliative care in favour of a treatment that “it is hoped…will cause shrinking of cancer, or remission of cancer… early data indicate the likelihood [of these benefits] is substantially greater [with SAFE chemotherapy] than conventional chemotherapy…”

Failure to Co-operate

The College made repeated requests that Dr. Khan produce Patient A’s chart and the charts of 19 other pediatric patients during the investigation. An investigator was required to attend Dr. Khan’s office to obtain Patient A’s chart. The College did not obtain the 19 other charts. Dr. Khan denied that he failed to cooperate. He testified that he found himself in a conflict between his professional obligations to the College and what he saw as his duty to Patient A’s parents, who objected to the release of their child’s chart. With respect to the request for the 19 pediatric patient charts, Dr. Khan submitted that he did not fail to cooperate. He took a principled legal position through his counsel that he did not have to produce them. He did not destroy the records or take any steps to prevent the College from seizing them. The College could have, but chose not to, seize the records, as it had done with Patient A’ records.

The Tribunal found Dr. Khan’s failure to cooperate in providing the charts as requested constitutes a significant departure from the acceptable standard of the medical profession. The College’s powers of investigation are a necessary component of its public interest mandate. To carry out its duty to protect the public, the College must investigate physicians to ensure that their care meets the standard of practice of the profession. This requires access to patient records. The Code articulates the legal framework for the release of patient records to the College. Dr. Khan’s behaviour actively obstructed the College in its investigation. The failure to provide the records was conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

Following a penalty hearing the panel reserved its decision on penalty. The panel’s reasons for decision were released on July 15, 2022. The Tribunal ordered that:
  • the Registrar revoke Dr. Khan’s certificate of registration, effective immediately;
  • Dr. Khan pay the College costs of $197,030 no later than October 17, 2022;
  • Dr. Khan appear before the panel to be reprimanded;
  • Dr. Khan’s practice be closed in accordance with the CPSO policy on “Closing a Medical Practice.”
More detail can be found in the reasons for decision linked below. OPSDT reasons are also available at www.opsdt.ca and https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onpsdt/. Exhibits can be obtained by contacting the Tribunal Office at [email protected].
 
Appeal
 
On August 10, 2022, Dr. Khan served a Notice of Appeal to the Divisional Court from the OPSDT’s decision. Pursuant to s. 25(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c. S.22, the decision of the OPSDT is not stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.


Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Hearing Date(s): Merits: 2020-01-20 to 22; 2020-02-18 to 20; 2020-03-02 to 4; 2020-09-21 to 22, 24 to 25; 2020-10-05, 7 to 8; 2020-11-02 to 3; Penalty: 2022-05-06

Concerns

Source: Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee
Active Date: April 20, 2022
Expiry Date:
Summary:
This matter has been appealed to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.
 
A summary of a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee in which the disposition includes a "caution-in-person" is required by the College by-laws to be posted on the register, along with a note if the decision has been appealed. A “caution-in-person” disposition requires the physician to attend at the College and be verbally cautioned by a panel of the Committee. The summary will be removed from the register if the decision is overturned on appeal or review. Note that this requirement only applies to decisions arising out of a complaint dated on or after January 1, 2015 or if there was no complaint, the first appointment of investigators dated on or after January 1, 2015.
Download Full Document (PDF)