skip to content

Dimock, John Leslie

CPSO#: 31666

Active Member as of 10 May 2018
Independent Practice as of 04 Aug 2018


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 Birmingham, 1975

Practice Information

Primary Location of Practice
Suite 205
1 Centrepointe Dr
Ottawa ON  K2G 6E2
Phone: (613) 786-3102
Fax: (613) 234-4089 Electoral District: 07

Additional Practice Location(s)

2948 Baseline Rd
Ottawa ON  K2H 8T5
Phone: 6134820118
Fax: 6136040277
County: Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton
Electoral District: 07

Professional Corporation Information

Corporation Name: Dr. John Dimock Medicine Professional Corporation
Certificate of Authorization Status: Issued Date:  Apr 12 2013

Dr. J. Dimock ( CPSO# 31666 )

Business Address:
2948 Baseline
Ottawa ON  

Business Address:
Suite 205
1 Centrepointe Drive
Ottawa ON  K2G 6E2
Phone Number: (613) 786-3102


Specialty Issued On Type
Psychiatry Effective:10 Jun 1980 RCPSC Specialist

Terms and Conditions

(1) Dr. JOHN LESLIE DIMOCK may practise only in the areas of medicine in which Dr. DIMOCK is educated and experienced.

Registration History

Action Issue Date
First certificate of registration issued: Postgraduate Education Certificate Effective: 08 Jul 1976
Transfer of class of registration to: Independent Practice Certificate Effective: 25 Jun 1980
Transfer of class of certificate to: Restricted certificate Effective: 10 Jan 2018
Terms and conditions imposed on certificate Effective: 10 Jan 2018
Suspension of registration imposed: Discipline Committee Effective: 10 Jan 2018
Suspension of registration removed Effective: 10 May 2018
Transfer of class of registration to: Independent Practice Certificate Effective: 04 Aug 2018

Previous Hearings

Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 10 Jan 2018

On January 10, 2018, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. John Leslie Dimock committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he has 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.

Dr. John Dimock is a psychiatrist practising in Ottawa, Ontario and Virginia, USA. He received his certificate of registration authorizing independent practice in Ontario in 1980.


On June 26, 2014, Patient A complained to the College regarding his two appointments with Dr. Dimock in May 2013, and a report Dr. Dimock had written about Patient A to Patient A’s family doctor in June 2013. Patient A complained that Dr. Dimock failed to conduct an adequate psychiatric assessment and care, failed to provide an adequate report, behaved unprofessionally, was rude and arrogant, and made inappropriate comments, including about his secretary and about Jewish and Palestinian people, talked about his personal matters for a good portion of the appointment, and used the word “apparently” seven times in his written report, including referring to Patient A as “apparently Canadian”, which indicated a form of racism, discrimination or bias towards Patient A.

After having been notified of Patient A’s complaint, Dr. Dimock telephoned the College investigator stating that Patient A complained because he recorded in Patient A’s notes that Patient A threatened to kill a certain person, which made Patient A unable to return to work or caused problems with his place of employment. Dr. Dimock stated that if the College proceeded with the complaint, he would make a civil rights complaint. He indicated that although this was not a threat, he believed that proceeding with the complaint was just another example of College harassment.

In response to Patient A’s complaint, Dr. Dimock denied that he made the inappropriate comments alleged by Patient A, he denied that he exhibited racism, discrimination or bias towards Patient A. He stated the allegations were extremely distressing to him as during the two appointments with Patient A, he was professional, respectful and provided proper medical care, free from any racism, discrimination or bias at all times during his two appointments with Patient A. He denied that he made any comments or references with respect to the Jewish people.

On October 5, 2015, the Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) of the College considered and disposed of Patient A’s complaint. The ICRC noted that:

- there was similarity between Patient A’s concerns and concerns raised in previous complaints regarding Dr. Dimock’s care and professionalism, upon which the College had previously taken action.
- Dr. Dimock’s inference that the College was harassing him shows that Dr. Dimock has little insight into why he has had so many encounters with the College.
- Dr. Dimock could reflect on ways to avoid the College’s attention by respecting patients, being courteous and professional, behaving with decorum, and reviewing his own attitudes and personal style to gain insight into what is causing patients to complain.
- Dr. Dimock would benefit from education to ensure improvement in his practice with respect to:
assessment of patients, documentation, and preparation of consultation reports that meet the standard of practice of psychiatrists in Ontario; understanding of general principles in effective communication, and the specific issues that led to the current complaint; communication with patients and others that is respectful and professional; ensuring appropriate consent before releasing documentation to third parties; and understanding acceptable professional behaviour by a physician in Ontario.

The ICRC ordered that:

- Dr. Dimock complete a Specified Continuing Education and Remediation Program (“SCERP”), consisting of a period of clinical supervision focusing on both medical care and communication, including general principles in effective communication and the specific issues that led to the complaint in this matter as well as communication with patients and others that is respectful and professional.
- Dr. Dimock complete one-on-one instruction in professionalism and communication.
- Dr. Dimock be reassessed.
In January 2016, Dr. Dimock requested a review of the ICRC’s decision by Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (“HPARB”). During HPARB’s pre-review case teleconference on August 17, 2016, Dr. Dimock stated that he was in Virginia due to concerns for his safety because of Patient A, that the information about Patient A had come to his attention about which the College, Homeland Security, and the RCMP should be concerned, and suggested that Patient A was a terrorist.

On October 5, 2016, during the HPARB review hearing, which is open to the public, Dr. Dimock stated:
- Patient A worked for the terrorist organization ISIS, and that the matter should be referred to the RCMP and Homeland Security;
- His concerns about Patient A were “doubled”, because Dr. Dimock had previously worked for the Canadian Armed Forces;
- Patient A had been arrested in another country for the abduction of his own children;
- Patient A was committing insurance fraud, because he was benefiting from insurance in Ontario, but was living in another country with his child whom he had abducted;
- Patient A had accused Dr. Dimock of being a “Palestinian hater”;
- Patient A was a sociopath, and his actions were those of a sociopath;
- Even though Patient A was a dangerous psychopath and should be locked up, he had “toned down” his assessment of Patient A so that Patient A could prove how sick he was and qualify for insurance in Ontario; and
- He had previously “diagnosed” the former pediatric forensic pathologist Charles Smith as “incompetent” while doing research on Dr. Smith, and that the College was biased against Dr. Dimock because it had failed to act in a timely manner on this information.

Dr. Dimock’s assertions to the HPARB were false and unfounded.

Dr. Dimock later indicated that he was angry during the HPARB proceedings, that HPARB proceedings were completely unfamiliar to him and he found it difficult and frustrating, that he was not represented by counsel, and that because at the hearing the three panel members were francophone, he was concerned about a language barrier and was worried he was not being heard. He indicated that he was not at his best during the HPARB proceedings, and that he wanted to assure the College that this is not representative of the manner in which he communicates with colleagues and patients.


Patient B saw Dr. Dimock in July, 2016 for an Independent Medical Examination (“IME”) at the request of her insurance company and signed the “Claimant/Employee Authorization Form” in advance of the IME. Dr. Dimock’s IME report contained all the details Patient B related to him during their session, as well as his conclusion that “there are no restrictions to immediately beginning a slow reintroduction to Patient B’s old workplace”. On November 4, 2016, Patient B complained to the College that Dr. Dimock had promised that the detailed information she told him during the course of the IME would remain confidential as between the two of them, and that Dr. Dimock would only tell the insurance company what his conclusion or diagnosis was.

In September 2016, before complaining to the College, Patient B addressed her concern directly with Dr. Dimock in a series of emails. Following their email exchange Dr. Dimock sent Patient a request via the social media site LinkedIn to join her LinkedIn network, which confused and scared Patient B.

The expert retained by the College to provide an independent opinion with respect to the IME Dr. Dimock performed of Patient B, including whether his care displayed a lack of judgment, concluded that the only concern was a lack of judgment Dr. Dimock showed in his responses to Patient B’s emails. The expert noted that while, at first, Dr. Dimock’s responses were reasonable and measured, they eventually became antagonistic and peevish. The expert found the LinkedIn request extremely puzzling and somewhat concerning as Dr. Dimock did not provide an explanation.


In 2014, Dr. Dimock was practising psychiatry in a shared office setting with Colleague X and Colleague Y, both of whom are regulated professionals.

In November, 2014, Colleague X telephoned the College about matters Colleague X and Colleague Y discussed about Dr. Dimock’s behaviour. As a result of Colleague X’s call to the College, Dr. Dimock was required to undergo a psychiatric assessment to assess his fitness to practice, which concluded that he was not suffering from a mental condition that would expose or was likely to expose patients to risk of harm.

In December 2014, Dr. Dimock telephoned the College, demanding to know the identity of the “spreader of vicious allegations against him”, which he claimed were “clearly aimed at discrediting him and to close down his very successful psychiatry practice”, because they were “jealous” of him as he was “the best psychiatrist probably in the province of Ontario”.

Following this Dr. Dimock exhibited inappropriate behaviour toward Colleague X and Colleague Y, including:

- left two messages for Colleague X on Colleague X’s work voicemail, stating that Colleague X should not have expressed concerns about his behaviour to the College, that the information related to his behaviour was confidential, that he will report Colleague X to Colleague X’s professional regulator for having done so, accused Colleague X and Colleague Y for plotting together to discredit him, report him, and planning to steal his practice, share his patients between the two of them, and used insulting language;
- Banged forcefully and repeatedly on Colleague Y’s office door, yelled at Colleague Y and called Colleague Y profane names in the presence of Colleague Y’s patients.
- Shouted over the phone and spoke to his lawyer with the door to his office wide open so he could be overheard by Colleague X, Colleague Y and their patients; slammed doors in the office.
- left Colleague Y a note, accusing Colleague Y and Colleague X of conspiring against him, threatening civil and criminal action, stating that he was off to the police station and calling Colleague Y profane names.
- emailed Colleague Y a complaint letter he threatened to make against Colleague X to the College of Psychologists of Ontario, alleging among other things that Colleague X had conspired with Colleague Y to make a false allegation to the College with respect to his fitness to practice in an effort to discredit him, to have him removed from practice, and to steal his patients.
- left a series of threatening and accusatory voice messages for Colleague Y on Colleague Y’ office voicemail, accusing Colleague Y of being responsible for a complaint about him, calling Colleague Y profane names, stating that he wants Colleague Y and Colleague X out of the clinic, threatening to complain about Colleague Y and Colleague X to their respective regulatory bodies, demanding compensation for the patients that he had referred to Colleague X over the years, accusing Colleague Y in threatening him, accusing Colleague Y of hindering his ability to respond to allegations from the College, accusing Colleague Y and Colleague X for stealing his keys to the clinic, which he later found on the floor of his car, and threatening civil and criminal action.


In September 1998, following Dr. Dimock’s report of an independent psychiatric examination of an alleged pedophile, which included the statement “[w]ith such low levels of sexual biological drive one wonders if the aggressor may not have been the alleged victim in this case!” It was presented in court and viewed as “appalling” by the victim, the Assistant Crown Attorney, the Judge and the press, Dr. Dimock was required to attend before the Complaints Committee to be cautioned to discuss the importance of being extremely cautious in sharing what may be unsubstantiated, insupportable, or unreasonable opinions in his consultations, particularly in situations where those opinions concern legal or criminal matters and may be used in a public forum. The Committee viewed the opinion Dr. Dimock expressed in his report unreasonable and inflammatory.

In February 2004, the Complaints Committee required Dr. Dimock to attend at the College to be cautioned about his communications with respect to two separate patient complaints and about his communication approach. Noting that in response to complaints about him, Dr. Dimock essentially blamed the complainants, suggesting, in each case, that the complainant misunderstood and had “transference issues”, which prompted them to react negatively towards him, the Complaints Committee found that Dr. Dimock has not considered the possibility that something in his own manner or behaviour may lead patients to form the impression that he is rude or dismissive.


The Discipline Committee ordered that:

- the Registrar suspend Dr. Dimock’s certificate of registration for a period of four (4) months commencing on January 10, 2018.
- the Registrar impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. Dimock’s Certificate of Registration:
- Dr. Dimock will successfully complete, within six months of the date of this Order, a course in ethics and boundaries acceptable to the College (such as the PROBE course);
- Dr. Dimock will successfully complete, within six months of the date of this Order, counselling in anger management or communication in difficult settings acceptable to the College; and
- Dr. Dimock shall be responsible for any and all costs associated with implementing the terms of this Order.
- Dr. Dimock appear before the panel to be reprimanded.
- Dr. Dimock pay costs to the College in the amount of $5,500 within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.

Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Hearing Date(s): January 10, 2018