Many regulators can ask a court to direct an unregistered person to stop performing controlled acts, using a protected title, or holding themselves out as practising the profession. When granted, the court order often simply tells the unregistered person to comply with the law. However, where the issue is the unregistered person’s interpretation of what the law means, such an order may be insufficient.
That was the case in College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v Ghalamghash, 2025 ONSC 6507. The unregistered person provided cosmetic services, such as Botox injections and thread lifts. Some, but not all, of these procedures were done under the delegation of a physician. The unregistered person was also referring to himself as a “doctor”, “surgeon” and “dermatologist”, including on websites and social media. The regulator sent in undercover patients, on whom the unregistered person offered to perform controlled acts. When the delegating physician became concerned about the unregistered person exceeding the terms of the delegation and referring to himself as a “doctor”, the physician terminated the delegation. After the regulator notified the unregistered person of its concerns, he continued to use protected titles.
The regulator sought a restraining order. The unregistered person was agreeable to an order compelling him to comply with the law. The regulator was not satisfied with this concession. The regulator was concerned that he would establish another “delegation” system that would purportedly authorize him to continue performing unauthorized procedures. The Court agreed with the regulator. The pattern of non-compliance with the terms of the previous delegation, of holding himself out as being able to perform a broad range of controlled acts, and of continuing to use protected titles after being warned by the regulator to cease doing so, warranted a broader order. The Court ordered the unregistered person not to perform any controlled acts, even under delegation, unless the Court first approved the delegation arrangement.
The scope of restraining orders can be extended to ensure protection of the public.
[NB While this decision was rendered some months ago, it has just now been posted on CanLII.]
