Stakeholders Area

Patients Area
Physiotherapists Area

Tommy Tong

Discipline Case Summary

2002

The following is a summary of a matter placed before a five-member panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario on August 20, 2002. In this matter, the panel of the Discipline Committee considered and accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts filed by the College and the registrant, Mr. Tommy Tong, and found Mr. Tong guilty of professional misconduct as alleged.

Plea

Mr. Tong entered a plea of guilty to the above allegation of professional misconduct.

Facts

The following were the agreed upon facts:
  1. Mr. Tommy Tong was a duly registered physiotherapist working in Ontario.
  2. During 2000, Mr. Tong had management, administrative and supervisory responsibilities at the X Physiotherapy Clinic in Ontario.
  3. Around April of 2000, Mr. Tong permitted an assistant, Mr. A., to hold himself out as a physiotherapist when he was not.
  4. Mr. Tong permitted and assisted Mr. A. to perform functions that should not be performed by a person who is not a registered physiotherapist, including assessing new patients and charting such entries.
  5. No physiotherapist at the clinic was asked or assigned to supervise Mr A. in Mr. Tong’s absence.
  6. Mr. Tong provided staff at the clinic with the name and registration number of Mr. B., a registered physiotherapist, and indicated that the work of Mr. A. ought to be billed under that name and registration number.
  7. When it became apparent that Mr. A. was not a physiotherapist and was not Mr. B., the staff at the clinic believed they had been misled.
  8. Mr. Tong’s conduct disregarded the welfare of patients.
  9. The conduct alleged above constitutes professional misconductas defined in paragraphs 2, 16, 23,25, and 29 of the Regulation.

Finding

The panel concluded that the conduct set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts was inappropriate and unprofessional. The panel accepted Mr. Tong’s plea of guilty and found him guilty of professional misconduct as alleged.

Penalty

The parties jointly submitted to the panel of the Discipline Committee that in view of all the circumstances of the case, including Mr. Tong’s admissions in the Agreed Statement of Facts, and an undertaking he had given the College, that it make the following order as to penalty. The Committee accepted this as appropriate and ordered that:
  1. Mr. Tong’s certificate of registration be suspended for a period of three months, commencing as of the date of the order. However, two months of the suspension would itself be suspended if, prior to one month from the date of this order, Mr. Tong signs and executes the Acknowledgement and Undertaking.
  2. Mr. Tong shall pay the College a fine of $5,000 within one month of the date of this order.
  3. Mr. Tong shall pay the College its costs of the investigation of this matter in the amount of $10,200 within six months of the date of this order.
  4. The College will be entitled to inspect and review Mr. Tong’s practice of physiotherapy, wherever that may be, once per month, for two years. Such reviews and inspections are in addition to and do not in any manner replace any other right of the College to regulate Mr. Tong as a member of the profession. Mr. Tong will notify the College of any and all workplaces where he is involved in any way in the practice of physiotherapy, at the commencement of this undertaking. Mr. Tong will also notify the College of any change of workplace/s within ten days of the change for the following two years.
  5. Mr. Tong, further, will take and successfully complete an appropriate course dealing with business practices and ethics acceptable to the Registrar and provide proof of successfully completing the aforementioned appropriate course to the CPO Registrar within 12 months of the date of this order.

Acknowledgement and Undertaking

Further to the terms agreed upon between Mr. Tong and the College, Mr. Tong signed an undertaking that set out the following:
  1. I, Tommy Tong, hereby acknowledge that I have engaged in the Agreed Statements of Facts.
  2. I acknowledge that the facts of this case will be published.
  3. I undertake that I will not engage in such misconduct in the future.
  4. I undertake to comply with the terms of the Joint Submission and acknowledge that failure to do so may constitute a separate ground of professional misconduct.
  5. I acknowledge that I have obtained legal advice and am in full agreement with the Agreed Statement of Facts and the Joint Submission.

Panel’s Reasons on Penalty

The panel concluded that the jointly proposed order on penalty was appropriate in all the circumstances. The panel noted that this was the first disciplinary finding against Mr. Tong. Moreover Mr. Tong expressed, through Mr. Freedman, that he understood the consequences of his actions and further expressed a willingness to take responsibility for them. Mr. Tong also made aware his strong sense of regret, and a desire to immediately adjust his methodology in practice. Mr. Tong’s cooperation saved the College a long and potentially costly trial.

Conversely, the panel also took into account the nature and severity of the misconduct. The panel concluded that the jointly proposed Order on penalty was appropriate. It would aptly send a message that the profession takes seriously its responsibility in handling with integrity the public trust, both in respect of direct client care and other related areas, such as billing practices.

The Order allowed Mr. Tong the opportunity to resume practice, once he has completed and complied with each of the conditions in their respective time frame. It was the panel’s position that the conditions imposed would appropriately protect the public.