Fenton, Peter Michael (CPSO#: 63915)

Current Status: Active Member as of 21 Sep 2017

CPSO Registration Class: Restricted as of 30 Apr 2016

Indicates a concern or additional information

Summary

Former Name: No Former Name

Gender: Male

Languages Spoken: English, Hungarian

Education:University of Toronto, 1991

Practice Information

Primary Location of Practice
Practice Address Not Available
View Professional Corporation Information

Professional Corporation Information

Corporation Name: Peter Fenton Medicine Professional Corporation

Certificate of Authorization Status: Inactive: Dec 19 2016

Registration History

Action Issue Date
First certificate of registration issued: Postgraduate Education Certificate Effective: 17 Jun 1991
Expired: Terms and conditions of certificate of registration Expiry: 15 Jun 1992
Subsequent certificate of registration Issued: Independent Practice Certificate Effective: 24 Jun 1992
Transfer of class of certificate to: Restricted certificate Effective: 30 Apr 2016
Terms and conditions amended Effective: 21 Mar 2017
Suspension of registration imposed: Discipline Committee Effective: 21 Mar 2017
Suspension of registration removed Effective: 21 Sep 2017
Terms and conditions amended by Discipline Committee Effective: 21 Sep 2017

Practice Restrictions

Imposed By Effective Date Expiry Date Status
Discipline Committee Effective: 21 Sep 2017 Active

Previous Discipline Hearings

Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 20 Mar 2017
Summary:

On March 20, 2017, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Peter Michael Fenton committed 
an act of professional misconduct in that he has failed to maintain the standard of practice of the 
profession; and 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. The Discipline Committee also found that Dr. 
Fenton is incompetent. 
 
Dr. Fenton received his certificate of registration authorizing independent practice in Ontario in 
June 1992. At all relevant times, Dr. Fenton practised in a solo family medicine practice in 
Toronto. 

After receiving a public complaint in June 2013 and information from a physician in July 2014 
expressing concern regarding Dr. Fenton’s prescribing to a patient, the College conducted a 
broader investigation into Dr. Fenton’s prescribing practices. 
The College retained a family physician expert who opined that Dr. Fenton’s care and treatment 
displayed a lack of knowledge, skill and judgment and that he failed to meet the standard of 
practice in the following respects: 
-  His charting is completely inadequate in terms of lack of substantive content for patient 
   encounters, lack of useful cumulative patient profiles, including current medication lists, and 
   when screening for controlled substances is begun in the fall of 2014, there is evidence of 
   lack of insightful enquiry. Referral letters to consultants are consistently insufficient in 
   content; 
-  There is a widespread lack of preventative care and chronic disease management; 
-  His acute presentation management as presented in his charts is generally superficial and 
   treatment is not evidence based. Referrals are made at patient’s request with little 
   documentation of thought of possible differential diagnoses; 
-  His failure to acknowledge and appropriately document follow up concerns such as systolic 
   blood pressure greater than 200 mm Hg and a neck mass growing in size could be considered 
   as risks to the patient; 
-  His EMR is not used effectively for medication management, cumulative patient profiles, or 
   lab result management.  
-  He prescribes controlled substances in excess quantities in many charts and there is lack of 
   knowledge of guidelines for safe prescribing as outlined in the CPSO Policy #8-12 regarding 
   prescribing of medications and the Canadian Guidelines for Safe and Effective Use of 
   Opioids for Chronic Non Cancer Pain. He does not have a solid understanding of the use of 
   urine toxicology screening for controlled substances. 
-  There is evidence that he continues prescribing controlled substances for patients with 
   possible adverse events, which may be directly related to the medication prescribed. Poly-
   pharmacy is often seen, and may be causing adverse effects such as decreased cognitive 
   functioning in the elderly or insomnia in the case of excessive stimulant doses; and 
-  He appears to lack the professionalism to practice evidence based medicine, which he 
   appears to have knowledge of, opting instead to prescribe as per the wishes of his “difficult” 
   “demanding” patients, as he describes them. 
In the course of the investigation, Dr. Fenton obtained a copy of expert’s report, which contained 
the initials, date of birth and sex for 26 of Dr. Fenton’s patients together with a detailed review of 
                                      1 

the treatment and care received. Dr. Fenton showed the expert report to at least one of his 
patients, including a patient who was not the subject of Dr. Morrison’s review.   
Dr. Fenton is incompetent and failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession with 
respect to his prescribing of narcotic drugs, narcotic preparations, controlled drugs, 
Benzodiazepines and other targeted substances and all other monitored drugs (“Controlled 
Substances”), as described above.   
Dr. Fenton also failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession as described above, 
including by failing to follow appropriate practices related to chronic disease management and 
preventative care; and failing to maintain appropriate clinical notes and records. 
Dr. Fenton engaged in conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, 
dishonourable or unprofessional in failing to preserve and maintain patient confidentiality during 
the College’s investigation.  
 
Investigation regarding Patient A 

On December 8, 2014, the College received a public complaint from Patient A, who had been a 
patient of Dr. Fenton’s for approximately five years and whose care included treatment for 
chronic pain and anxiety. Dr. Fenton dismissed Patient A from his practice in late November 
2014.  
The College expert opined that Dr. Fenton’s medical records demonstrate a significant lack of 
knowledge, skill and judgment in medical record keeping and controlled substance prescribing, 
and do not meet the standard of care of the profession for a family physician as follows: 
-  Dr. Fenton’s recorded histories are often non-existent and lack detail to understand the 
   patient’s story. His documented physical examinations are either lacking entirely or 
   insufficient for the complex chronic pain condition this patient reports. No investigations are 
   done with respect to Patient A’s physical pain or anxiety conditions. Impressions and 
   management plans are not outlined regularly. Not all prescriptions given are recorded in the 
   EMR. Rational for the prescription of medications (choice of drug, dose or quantity) 
   including many controlled substances is not found in the medical record. CPP was not 
   completed until after the patient was discharged from the practice. 
-  Dr. Fenton’s prescribing of controlled substances including narcotics, benzodiazepines and 
   stimulants is excessive and without documented justification. 
-  Prescription information from the NMS database and Dr. Fenton’s chart calculate over 1000 
   morphine equivalents daily well in excess of “watchful dose” limits. There is a lack of 
   evidence of application of recognized controlled substance prescribing guidelines. There is 
   no adequate discussion of side effects, risks and alternative analgesic options. There are no 
   clear treatment goals documented. There is no documented indication for either stimulant or 
   sedative medication, or discussion about the use [of] both categories of medication being 
   prescribed concurrently. There is no supporting documentation of underlying diagnoses to 
   support the use of these medications. There is no supporting evidence of favourable clinical 
   outcomes as a result of these treatments. 
-  Dr. Fenton appropriately advised Patient A that because of repeated breaches of their opiate 
   treatment agreement, he would no longer continue to prescribe controlled substances for 
   Patient A. This would be partially considered to be within the standard of care for 
                                      2 

   termination of a physician patient relationship as per CPSO Policy, however the policy also 
   indicates a copy of this letter should be sent by registered mail to the patient and a copy be in 
   the patient record. There is no documentation in the chart or in the patient complaint that the 
   patient received such a letter. In addition, in considering termination of the patient physician 
   relationship, there is no evidence that arrangement for any consultations with a pain clinic or 
   alternate provider were made which would also be within the standard of care in family 
   medicine. More importantly there is no evidence that strategies of tapering doses of her 
   various medications or dispensing smaller quantities at one time, which would have 
   potentially mitigated some of her risk having been taking such high doses of narcotics and 
   sedatives prior to her dismissal. 
Dr. Fenton is incompetent and failed to maintain the standard of practice in his care and 
treatment of Patient A, as described above, including his failure to follow the College’s Policy 
regarding Ending the Physician-Patient Relationship.    
Investigation Regarding Patient B   

On January 22, 2015, the College received a public complaint from Patient B who had been a 
patient of Dr. Fenton’s from approximately July 2008 until November 2014.  Patient B’s medical 
history includes hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes and chronic pain.  
The College expert opined that Dr. Fenton’s care of Patient B did not meet the standard of care, 
including in his record keeping, his chronic disease management and his follow up on abnormal 
test results and suggestions of consultants. Specifically, the expert noted the following 
deficiencies: 
-  There is evidence that medications are prescribed but not recorded within the EMR. A large 
   gap exists in that there is no evidence of chronic disease management between the periods 
   June 2013 to May 2014. There is evidence that abnormal test results and suggestions of 
   consultant (in this case the ER doctor) are not followed up.  
-  Dr. Fenton’s treatment of [Patient B’s] hypertension is not clear from the documentation 
   found in the chart in that a complete list of medications being prescribed is not found in the 
   record provided. It is unclear as to when or why hydrochlorothiazide appears to have been 
   added. There is no documented risk stratification. There is no assessment of possible end 
   organ damage. The management of hypertension and its risks as documented does not meet 
   the standard of care as expected of a competent practitioner in Family Medicine and 
   demonstrates a lack of skill and judgment in the management of this chronic disease. 
-  The diagnosis and management of diabetes by Dr. Fenton does not follow the current 
   guidelines of the Canadian Diabetic Association. Dr. Fenton appears from the chart to have 
   made the diagnosis of diabetes based on a single laboratory reading of HbA1c equaling 
   0.065. There is no discussion of repeating this test on a different day as recommended. Once 
   diagnosed, appropriate treatment based on the information provided would begin with 
   discussion of lifestyle management of weight loss, exercise, and dietary habits including 
   referral to allied health professionals for education would be the expected standard of care. 
   The only documentation in this regard is “weight loss discussed” following the visit where 
   metformin therapy was instituted. 
-  There is mention in the chart provided of discussion of lipid management, however targets 
   were not identified. Again there is no evidence of risk stratification to guide treatment 
                                      3 

   decisions as outlined in current guidelines. The patient appears to have been put on sub 
   therapeutic doses of atorvastatin and had Ezetrol added in 2012, with no follow up to 
   document response to treatment, or potential side effects until 2014. There is no discussion 
   documented regarding maximizing the dose of the statin, or reasons why this would not be 
   appropriate, before starting another class of medication which is considered standard of care 
   by current guidelines. There is no discussion of lipid management following the lab work 
   done in May 2014, which included a lipid profile and Dr. Fenton’s diagnosis of diabetes. 
On December 17, 2015, the College’s investigator received a call from Patient B who described 
running into Dr. Fenton recently at a Tim Horton’s in their neighbourhood. During that 
encounter, Dr. Fenton asked Patient B to call the College and drop the investigation regarding 
Dr. Fenton. Patient B asked the College investigator to contact Dr. Fenton and request that Dr. 
Fenton not approach him in the future if they see each other in the community.    
Dr. Fenton failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession in his care and treatment 
of Patient B, as described above, including his failure to follow the College’s Policy regarding 
Test Results Management. 
Dr. Fenton engaged in conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, 
dishonourable or unprofessional in his failure to transfer Patient B’s medical chart in a timely 
manner; and his communications with Patient B regarding his complaint to the College and his 
request for Patient B to withdraw his complaint.   
Investigation Regarding Patient C   

On July 28, 2015, the College received a public complaint from Patient C’s lawyer who was 
representing Patient C with respect to an insurance claim and accident benefits arising out of a 
motor vehicle accident in 2010. Patient C was a patient of Dr. Fenton’s since approximately 
2009. Between August 2011 and July 2015, Patient C’s lawyer made several attempts to obtain 
Patient C’s medical chart from Dr. Fenton. Despite multiple requests by the College, the EMR 
and the paper charts were provided to Patient C’s lawyer for the first time in March 2017. 
In January 2016, Patient C had an appointment with Dr. Fenton. During that appointment, Dr. 
Fenton asked Patient C to contact the College and tell them that Patient C had no problem with 
Dr. Fenton as a doctor. Dr. Fenton told Patient C that it would be helpful if Patient C could call 
the College and tell them he had no concerns. 
Dr. Fenton engaged in conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, 
dishonourable or unprofessional in his failure to transfer Patient C’s medical chart in a timely 
manner; his failure to respond to inquiries from the College within a reasonable time; and his 
communications with Patient C regarding his complaint to the College and his request for Patient 
C to call the College and tell them he had no concerns with Dr. Fenton as a doctor. 
Investigation Regarding Patient D 
On February 19, 2016, the College received a public complaint from a family member of Patient 
D expressing concern regarding the care provided by Dr. Fenton to Patient D, who had been a 
patient of Dr. Fenton’s since approximately April 2010.   
The College retained a family physician expert who opined as follows:  
                                      4 

-  Dr. Fenton’s practice does not meet the standard for record keeping. This includes the lack of 
   an up to date Cumulative Patient Profile, lack of documentation to demonstrate physical 
   findings, differential diagnoses and well thought out treatment plans. His referral notes to 
   specialists were incomplete. 
-  Dr. Fenton’s practice does not meet the standard for the safe and effective use of opioids in 
   the management of chronic non cancer pain. He documented risk factors for addiction and 
   adverse events (alcohol abuse, lorazepam abuse) and did not apply harm reduction strategies 
   such as tapering Benzodiazepines; weekly prescribing; referral to a pain specialist. 
-  Dr. Fenton’s practice does not meet the standard of care for the safe and effective use of 
   Benzodiazepines in the management of anxiety and insomnia. This patient became dependent 
   on lorazepam. She was falling, complaining of general malaise, dizziness, and tremor. 
   Medication adverse effects were never documented as a possible contributing factor to her 
   progressive debility. 
The College expert further opined that Dr. Fenton’s care and treatment of Patient D displayed a 
lack of knowledge, skill and judgment as follows:  
-  Lack of knowledge: Dr. Fenton knew Patient D had a history of alcohol abuse. He 
   documented Patient D’s dependence and abuse of lorazepam. He continued to prescribe as 
   Patient D became older and frailer (21 Dec 2015- “needs more help now every 2 weeks”), 
   experiencing episodes of dizziness, poor balance, low appetite and multiple falls. There is no 
   evidence that he has a comprehensive and organized approach to managing chronic non-
   malignant pain with resources other than controlled drugs. 
-  Lack of skill: Dr. Fenton continued to prescribe opioids and benzodiazepines for Patient D 
   without taking any extra precautions to manage the risk of potential abuse. He did not refer 
   Patient D to a pain or addiction specialist. He did not reduce her prescribed doses in an 
   attempt to safely wean her from these drugs. There is no evidence that he had a thoughtful 
   approach to the overall health risk management of this frail elderly woman with multiple 
   chronic conditions. 
-  Lack of judgment: Dr. Fenton acceded to [Patient D’s] demands for stronger pain medication 
   without establishing any safeguards against increasing dependence and adverse effects. He 
   cautioned Patient D about drug and alcohol use but he took no effective steps to treat these 
   conditions or reduce harm from his part, which was the prescribing. Dr. Fenton put the 
   responsibility for managing dependence and abuse of controlled drugs onto his patient 
   despite clear ongoing indications that Patient D was not taking the best self-care. 
The expert concluded that “it is reasonably foreseeable that if Patient D’s prescribed medications 
and alcohol use continue Patient D will experience serious adverse health outcomes from some 
kind of in home accident, a fall or an overdose.” Also, Dr. Fenton’s care is likely to expose other 
patients to harm or injury as well if it is conducted similarly to his care of Patient D.  
In order to investigate this complaint, the College requested Dr. Fenton’s medical records for 
Patient D on March 16, 2016. Subsequent requests from the College, including from the Chair of 
the ICRC, were sent to Dr. Fenton on April 28 and May 16, 2016.  No records were received in 
response to these written requests.  On July 13, 2016, the College’s investigator contacted Dr. 
Fenton by telephone and requested that he provide his medical records for Patient D. These 
records were ultimately received by the College on July 18, 2016. 
                                      5 

Dr. Fenton is incompetent and failed to maintain the standard of practice in his care and 
treatment of Patient D, as described above. Dr. Fenton engaged in conduct that would reasonably 
be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional in his failure to respond 
to inquiries from the College within a reasonable time. 
The Discipline Committee ordered that: 
-  The Registrar suspend Dr. Fenton’s certificate of registration for a period of six (6) months 
   commencing on March 21, 2017, at 12:01 a.m. 
-  The Registrar impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. Fenton’s 
   certificate of registration: 
Education 
   (a)   Dr.  Fenton  shall,  at  his  own expense,  participate  in  and  successfully  complete  the 
         following educational courses within six (6) months of the date of this Order: 
         (i)   the  Medical  Record  Keeping  Course  offered  through  the  University  of 
               Toronto; 
         (ii)  the Pri-Med Canada Course (formerly Primary Care Today Course) scheduled 
               for May 10-13, 2017;  
         (iii) the  Understanding  Boundaries  Course  offered  through  the  University  of 
               Western Ontario;  
         (iv)  individualized  instruction  in  ethics,  satisfactory  to  the  College,  with  an 
               instructor satisfactory to the College; and 
         (v)   individualized instruction in communications, satisfactory to the College, with 
               an instructor satisfactory to the College.  
   (b)   Further to paragraphs 6(a)(iv) and 6(a)(v), the instructor(s) shall provide a summative 
         report to the College including his or her conclusion about whether the instruction 
         was  completed  successfully  by  Dr.  Fenton,  including  information  regarding  Dr. 
         Fenton’s progress and compliance. 
Clinical Supervision 
   (c)   Dr. Fenton shall, by September 21, 2017, retain a clinical supervisor or supervisors 
         (the “Clinical Supervisor”) acceptable to the College, who will sign an undertaking in 
         the  form  attached  hereto  as Schedule  “A”.  For  a  period  of  twelve  (12)  months 
         thereafter,  Dr.  Fenton  may  practise  only  under  the  supervision  of  the  Clinical 
         Supervisor.  Clinical Supervision of Dr. Fenton’s practice shall contain the following 
         elements:   
         (i)   The Clinical Supervision shall be at a moderate level for a minimum of six (6) 
               months, commencing  on the date Dr.  Fenton  returns to  work  following  the 
               expiry  of  the  suspension  of  his  certificate  of  registration.    The  Clinical 
               Supervisor will meet with Dr. Fenton weekly and review ten to fifteen (10-15) 
               of  Dr.  Fenton’s  patient  charts,  discuss  Dr.  Fenton’s  patient  care,  treatment 
               plan and follow-up, identify any concerns regarding the care, treatment plan 
               and follow-up and make recommendations for improvement; 
         (ii)  Dr.  Fenton  shall  permit  the  Clinical  Supervisor  to  directly  observe  him  in 
               practice for one half-day per week or, at minimum, five (5) patients per visit, 
               with the Clinical Supervisor providing a report every month to the College;  
         (iii) After  three  (3)  months,  and  only  upon  recommendation  by  the  Clinical 
               Supervisor and approval of the College, the frequency of the meetings with 
               and observation by the Clinical Supervisor may be reduced to biweekly; 
                                      6 

         (iv)  After  six  (6)  months  of  moderate  level  supervision,  at  minimum,  and  only 
               upon recommendation by the Clinical Supervisor and approval of the College, 
               the Clinical Supervision may be reduced to low level supervision for six (6) 
               months.    During  the  period  of  low  level  supervision,  the  frequency  of  the 
               Clinical Supervisor’ meetings with and, if required, observation of Dr. Fenton 
               shall be reduced to monthly; 
         (v)   Dr. Fenton shall fully cooperate with, and shall abide by any recommendations 
               of  his  Clinical  Supervisor,  including  but  not  limited  to  any  recommended 
               practice improvements and ongoing professional development;  
         (vi)  If a Clinical Supervisor who has given an undertaking in the form attached at 
               Schedule  “A”  to  this  Order  is  unwilling  or  unable  to  continue  to  fulfill  its 
               terms, Dr. Fenton shall, within twenty (20) days of receiving notice of same, 
               obtain  an  executed undertaking in  the same  form  from  a similarly  qualified 
               person who is acceptable to the College and ensure that it is delivered to the 
               College within that time; and  
         (vii) If  Dr.  Fenton  is  unable  to  obtain  a  Clinical  Supervisor  in  accordance  with 
               paragraph 6(c) or paragraph 6(c)(vi) of this  Order, he shall cease practising 
               medicine immediately until such time as he has done so, and the fact that he 
               has ceased practising medicine will constitute a term, condition or limitation 
               on his certificate of registration until that time. 
Reassessment 
   (d)   Approximately six (6) months after the completion of Clinical Supervision, Dr. Fenton 
         shall  undergo  a  reassessment  of  his  practice  by  a  College-appointed  assessor  (the 
         “Assessor”).    The  assessment  may  include a  review  of  Dr.  Fenton’s patient  charts, 
         direct observation, interviews with staff and/or patients, one or more interviews with 
         Dr. Fenton, and/or a formalized evaluation.  The results of the assessment shall  be 
         reported to the College after which Dr. Fenton shall abide by any recommendations 
         made by the Assessor by which the College has requested Dr. Fenton to abide. 
   (e)   Dr.  Fenton  shall  consent  to  such  sharing  of  information  among  the  Assessor,  the 
         Clinical Supervisor, and the College as any of them deem necessary or desirable in 
         order  to  fulfill  their  respective  obligations  and  in  order  to  monitor  Dr.  Fenton’s 
         compliance  with  this  Order  and  with  any  terms,  conditions  or  limitations  on  his 
         certificate of registration. 
Monitoring 
   (f)   Dr. Fenton shall consent to the College providing any Chief(s) of Staff or a colleague 
         with  similar  responsibilities,  such  as  a  medical  director,  at  any  location  where  he 
         practises (“Chief(s) of Staff”) with any information the College has that led to this 
         Order and/or any information arising from the monitoring of his compliance with this 
         Order.  
   (g)   Dr. Fenton shall inform the College of each and every location where he practices, in 
         any  jurisdiction  (his  “Practice  Location(s)”)  within  five  (5)  days  of  this  Order  and 
         shall inform the College of any and all new Practice Locations within five (5) days of 
         commencing practice at that location. 
   (h)   Dr. Fenton shall cooperate with unannounced inspections of his Practice Location(s) 
         and patient charts by a College representative(s) for the purpose of monitoring and 
                                   7 

      enforcing his compliance with the terms of this Order. 
(i)   Dr.  Fenton  shall  consent  to  the  College  making  enquiries  of  the  Ontario  Health 
      Insurance  Plan  (“OHIP”),  the Drug Program  Services  Branch,  the  Narcotics 
      Monitoring System implemented under the Narcotics Safety and Awareness Act, 2010, 
      S.O. 2010, c. 22, as amended (“NMS”), and/or any person who or institution that may 
      have  relevant  information,  in  order  for  the  College  to  monitor  and  enforce  his 
      compliance with the terms of this Order and any terms, conditions or limitations on 
      Dr. Fenton’s certificate of registration.  
(j)   Dr. Fenton shall be responsible for any and all costs associated with implementing the 
      terms of this Order. 
-  Dr. Fenton appear before the panel to be reprimanded. 
-  Dr. Fenton pay costs to the College in the amount of $ 5,500.00 within thirty 30 days of 
   the date this Order becomes final.

Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Hearing Date(s): March 20, 2017

Concerns

Source: Member
Active Date: March 7, 2017
Expiry Date:
Summary:
Summary of the Undertaking given by Dr. Peter Michael Fenton to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, effective March 7, 2017:

Dr. Fenton was the subject of a College investigation into whether he engaged in professional misconduct and/or is incompetent in his family practice, specifically in his prescribing of controlled and narcotic drugs. As a result of the investigation:

Dr. Fenton must not issue new prescriptions or renew existing prescriptions for any of the following substances:

(i)Narcotic Drugs (from the Narcotic Control Regulations made under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C., 1996, c. 19);
(ii)Narcotic Preparations (from the Narcotic Control Regulations made under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C., 1996, c. 19);
(iii)Controlled Drugs (from Part G of the Food and Drug Regulations under the Food and Drugs Act, S.C., 1985, c. F-27);
(iv)Benzodiazepines and Other Targeted Substances (from the Benzodiazepines and Other Targeted Substances Regulations made under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act., S.C., 1996, c. 19);
(v)All other Monitored Drugs (as defined under the Narcotics Safety and Awareness Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c. 22);
and as amended from time to time.

Dr. Fenton must post a clearly visible sign in the waiting rooms of all his Practice Locations, which states as follows:

IMPORTANT NOTICE

Dr. Fenton must not prescribe any of the following:
Narcotic Drugs
Narcotic Preparations
Controlled Drugs
Benzodiazepines and Other Targeted Substances
All other Monitored Drugs

Further information may be found on the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario website at www.cpso.on.ca