Sekhon, Rajinder Singh (CPSO#: 59727)

Current Status: Revoked: Discipline Committee as of 12 Oct 2016

CPSO Registration Class: None as of 12 Oct 2016

Indicates a concern or additional information

Summary

Former Name: No Former Name

Gender: Male

Languages Spoken: English

Education:University of Toronto, 1988

Practice Information

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

Professional Corporation Information

Corporation Name: Sekhon Medicine Professional Corporation

Certificate of Authorization Status: Inactive: Mar 16 2016


Corporation Name: Hasnain, Sekhon and Sayed-Ali Medicine Professional Corporation

Certificate of Authorization Status: Inactive: Sep 17 2015

Medical Records Location

Instructions: Patients who saw Dr. Rajinder Sekhon at his Ajax practice can write to the following address: Dr. R. Sekhon Suite 102 300 Rossland Road East Ajax ON L1Z 0M1 Patients who saw Dr. Sekhon at the TMC Clinic, should contact the clinic directly at: 13278 Tecumseh Road East Tecumseh ON N8N 3T6 Tel: 519-979-5260
Date Received: 15 Apr 2016

Post Graduate Training

Please note: This information may not be a complete record of post-graduate training.

University of Toronto, 13 Jun 1988 to 12 Jun 1989
Other - Comprehensive Internship

University of Toronto, 01 Jul 1989 to 30 Jun 1990
Resident 2 - Family Medicine

University of Toronto, 01 Jul 1990 to 30 Jun 1991
Resident 3 - Family Medicine

Registration History

Action Issue Date
First certificate of registration issued: Postgraduate Education Certificate Effective: 13 Jun 1988
Transfer of class of registration to: Independent Practice Certificate Effective: 15 Sep 1989
Transfer of class of certificate to: Restricted certificate Effective: 05 Sep 2015
Expired: Resigned from membership. Expiry: 25 Jul 2016
Revoked: Discipline Committee. Effective: 12 Oct 2016

Previous Discipline Hearings

Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 12 Oct 2016
Summary:

On October 12, 2016, the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of 
Ontario found that Dr. Rajinder Singh Sekhon committed acts of professional misconduct, in that: 
he has engaged in the sexual abuse of a patient; he has failed to maintain the standard of practice 
of the profession; and, he has engaged in conduct or acts or omissions 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. 
Sekhon is incompetent. Dr. Sekhon did not contest the allegations. 
  
Dr. Sekhon is a family physician who received his certificate of registration authorizing 
independent practice in 1989. He has practised in Windsor, Toronto, Tecumseh, and Ajax.  

Patient A  

Patient A became Dr. Sekhon’s patient in 2009 and in that year, Dr. Sekhon had begun to rent an 
apartment from her.  

In July 2010, a dispute arose between Patient A and Dr. Sekhon regarding damage to the 
apartment. Dr. Sekhon telephoned Patient A and stated, “Are you trying to make money from 
me? You are no longer my patient.” He placed this call while at a party, and several other people 
were present to hear his statement. In doing so, Dr. Sekhon breached Patient A’s confidentiality. 
After the call, Dr. Sekhon told the other party attendees that he had been speaking to Patient A, 
naming her, and announcing that she was no longer his patient.  

This telephone call terminated the doctor-patient relationship. In so doing, Dr. Sekhon failed to 
ensure that Patient A had access to the results of tests which he had ordered, failed to provide her 
with a reasonable opportunity to arrange care elsewhere, failed to terminate the relationship in 
writing, and failed to document the termination of the relationship in his patient chart. Dr. 
Sekhon’s entries in Patient A’s chart were also illegible.  

A medical expert retained by the College found that Dr. Sekhon exhibited significant deficits of 
knowledge, skill and judgment in his care of Patient A. In addition, Dr. Sekhon fell below the 
standard of practice of the profession in the way in which he terminated his treating relationship 
with Patient A. 

Dr. Sekhon failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession and was incompetent in 
his care of Patient A, and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct with 
respect to the manner in which he ended the physician-patient relationship and in breaching her 
confidentiality by doing so in front of other people.  

Patient B 

Patient B attended a walk-in clinic where Dr. Sekhon worked in 2013 regarding a painful cyst on 
her labia. Dr. Sekhon indicated that he would freeze the area and incise the cyst. Patient B was 
visibly apprehensive and in pain before the procedure, and also found the procedure itself 
extremely painful. She returned twice over the next four days to Dr. Sekhon’s office with a 
painful abscess, before she attended the hospital, where the abscess was incised and drained 
under conscious I.V. sedation.  
At Patient B’s visits to Dr. Sekhon’s office regarding her cyst, Dr. Sekhon communicated with 
her impatiently, failing to listen to and appropriately address her concerns about the pain she was 
experiencing, or to appropriately explain her options.  

A medical expert retained by the College found that Dr. Sekhon showed a lack of judgment in 
managing Patient B’s care, by continuing to treat her when she complained of pain during the 
procedure instead of referring her to the hospital, and by failing to refer her to a specialist when 
she returned complaining of more pain.  

Dr. Sekhon failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession and was incompetent in 
his care of Patient B, and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct in his 
communications with her.  

Patient C 

Patient C was Dr. Sekhon’s patient between 2009 and 2012. Patient C’s wife complained to the 
College regarding Dr. Sekhon’s treatment of her husband, expressing concern that Dr. Sekhon 
did not examine Patient C adequately or arrange for appropriate follow-up at his last 
appointment. The day after the appointment in question, Patient C was discovered unresponsive 
and sent to the hospital, where he subsequently died.  

A medical expert retained by the College found that Dr. Sekhon fell below the standard of 
practice of the profession in his care of Patient C in respect of medical record-keeping. In 
particular, Dr. Sekhon’s documentation was very brief with minimal amplification of symptoms 
or documentation of physical findings. A detailed management plan tended not to be provided 
for this complex, multi-comorbidity patient. As Patient C’s wife advised, Dr. Sekhon provided a 
sample of Avamys to Patient C at his last appointment; however, Dr. Sekhon failed to document 
doing so in the patient chart.  

Dr. Sekhon failed to meet the standard of practice of the profession and was incompetent in his 
care of Patient C.  

Registrar’s Investigation into Practice 

Further to an investigation into Dr. Sekhon’s practice, the College retained a medical expert to 
review 25 charts. 

Dr. Sekhon failed to maintain the standard of practice and was incompetent in his care of several 
patients. Areas of concern were identified as follows: 

?  chronic disease management, such as diabetes, as adequate follow-up of these patients was 
   not documented; 
?  follow-up for individuals using hormone replacement therapy or the provision of Well 
   Woman care was not documented;  
?  discussion of the risks and benefits prior to prescribing of medications was often not 
   documented; 
?  at times appropriate follow-up after the initiation of new medications was not documented; 
?  management of infants and well babies was lacking, as the Rourke baby record was not used 
   and there was inadequate discussion or management of areas of importance to well babies 
   aside from physical findings; 
?  there were often examples of individuals receiving narcotics without adequate discussion or 
   risk review before their initiation, and drug contracts and opioid risk tools were not used 
   from the beginning; 
?  there was no use of random urine drug screening or other attempts to monitor appropriateness 
   of using narcotic substances that were prescribed; and 
?  medical record-keeping was substandard. 
 

Patient D  

Patient D met Dr. Sekhon through a friend. Patient D socialized with Dr. Sekhon and witnessed 
Dr. Sekhon taking cocaine. Dr. Sekhon then began treating Patient D as a patient, while also 
continuing to socialize with her and then to date her, as described below. 

Dr.  Sekhon  billed  the  Ontario  Health  Insurance  Plan  for  treating  Patient D  fourteen  times 
between 2008 and 2009. He noted prescribing Percocet to her in ten of his notes. 

During the time that Dr. Sekhon was treating Patient D, she and Dr. Sekhon began dating on a 
frequent basis. In Dr. Sekhon’s company, Patient D began to take drugs and became addicted to 
narcotics. After they had gone on a number of dates, Dr. Sekhon told Patient D that she could not 
be his patient if they were going to date. While treating her as a patient and dating her, Dr. 
Sekhon told Patient D that if she had sex with him, he would give her drugs.   

In 2009 after the last documented care in the patient record, Dr. Sekhon referred Patient D to 
another physician who became her family doctor. A few weeks later, Dr. Sekhon and Patient D 
began a sexual relationship. Subsequently, they began living together. They lived together for 
approximately two years. For approximately two months, Patient D also worked in the office of 
his medical practice.  

After Patient D began her sexual relationship with Dr. Sekhon, he prescribed for her 
occasionally. Once they began a sexual relationship, Dr. Sekhon also gave Patient D drugs, 
including narcotics. Dr. Sekhon did not prescribe these drugs to Patient D, but instead supplied 
them to her in amounts of his choosing. Dr. Sekhon wrote prescriptions to other individuals, 
including Patient D’s mother and sister, then paid for the prescriptions and took the medications 
back for his own use. His use of the drugs included taking the drugs himself, supplying them to 
Patient D, and both giving and selling them to others.  

After they began their sexual relationship but before they moved in together, Patient D was 
together in a hotel with Dr. Sekhon when she overdosed on Percocets that he had given her. Dr. 
Sekhon took Patient D to the hospital at her request. At the hospital, Patient D followed Dr. 
Sekhon’s direction to lie about what had happened, telling nurses that she had taken an unknown 
pill at a party, because Dr. Sekhon did not want the hospital to know that she had taken and been 
harmed by drugs that he had given her.  
On one occasion during the course of their relationship, Dr. Sekhon tied Patient D to her bed, 
injected her with Demerol, and had sexual intercourse with her against her will while she 
remained tied to the bed.  

On one occasion after Patient D broke up with Dr. Sekhon, when visiting her he took two 
Fentanyl patches that had been prescribed to her and applied them to himself instead. Patient D 
provided College investigators with a photograph of Dr. Sekhon, sleeping nude in her bed with 
these Fentanyl patches on his buttocks.  

Dr. Sekhon engaged in sexual abuse of and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct 
in relation to Patient D. Further, Dr. Sekhon engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or 
unprofessional conduct in writing prescriptions to others and then taking back the medications so 
prescribed for his own use, including taking them himself, selling them, and giving them to 
Patient D.  

Patient E 

Patient E worked for Dr. Sekhon as his office manager from 2014 to 2015. Dr. Sekhon also had a 
doctor-patient relationship with Patient E from 2014 to 2015.  

About six months after Patient E began working for Dr. Sekhon, he began to make sexualized 
comments towards her at the office. For example, he would make comments about her body, 
such as “Your ass looks great today,” “Big breasts, love to hold them,” “new jeans – your ass 
looks good in them,” “You are going to get spanked,” and “Does Dr. Sekhon need to spank 
you?” Dr. Sekhon asked Patient E to come to his house for a sexual encounter, but she did not 
go. 

Dr. Sekhon also sent Patient E sexualized texts and emails. Patient E received sexualized emails 
as often as two to three times a day. For example, Dr. Sekhon sent Patient E pictures of women 
touching themselves sexually and requested that she send him photographs of herself naked.  

Patient E asked Dr. Sekhon to stop the behaviour described above, but it continued until, as a 
result, she quit her job at his office in 2015.  

After Patient E quit her job as a result of his sexual harassment, Dr. Sekhon made false 
allegations against her. Dr. Sekhon filed a police report that accused Patient E of defrauding him 
by issuing over $90,000 in cheques to herself using a stamp in place of his signature. Dr. Sekhon 
also falsely accused Patient E of fraud in respect of almost $15,000 he owed to a newspaper for 
advertising services respecting his medical practice. Dr. Sekhon had himself contracted to pay 
for the advertising services in question, but failed to do so. Dr. Sekhon maintained his false 
allegations against Patient E in a police interview, but police declined to press charges against 
her.  

Dr. Sekhon engaged in sexual abuse of Patient E, and in disgraceful, dishonourable or 
unprofessional conduct towards Patient in respect of his sexual harassment of her and his false 
accusations towards her, as well as in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct in 
failing to pay monies owing to the newspaper for advertising services respecting his medical 
practice. 
Patient F  

Patient F was employed by Dr. Sekhon in his office from approximately 2014 to 2015. Patient F 
also had a doctor-patient relationship with Dr. Sekhon beginning in 2014 and continuing to 2015.  

On occasion Dr. Sekhon asked Patient F to attend in an examination room to accompany him 
when he was doing a Pap smear on a female patient. In doing so, he used inappropriate, 
sexualized language that made Patient F uncomfortable, by asking her to “come and look at 
pussy” with him. Patient F also witnessed Dr. Sekhon’s sexualized comments and was 
uncomfortable with them. Dr. Sekhon sent Patient F an inappropriate sexualized text message, 
which contained a photograph of a naked man with his penis erect. Patient F expressed her 
disgust at this behaviour to Dr. Sekhon. 

Dr. Sekhon engaged in sexual abuse of and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct 
towards Patient F.  

Ms. G  

Ms. G was employed by Dr. Sekhon for approximately three weeks on a part-time basis after 
school in 2015. She was a Grade 11 student.  

Dr. Sekhon made inappropriate and sexualized comments to Ms. G. In particular:  

?  Dr. Sekhon asked Ms. G if she would dance for him if he put on music; 
?  Once or twice a day, Dr. Sekhon went to have a nap on an examination table in his office. He 
   would lie down and ask Ms. G to “tuck him in,” which entailed Ms. G fetching a blanket and 
   tucking it all around him. Ms. G complied with his requests but was uncomfortable; and 
?  Dr. Sekhon referred to Ms. G around the office to other employees as “the bitch.”   
 
Ms. G expressed her concerns with Dr. Sekhon’s behaviour to his office manager, who was 
Patient E. Afterwards, Dr. Sekhon fired Ms. G. 
 
Dr. Sekhon engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct towards Ms. G.  
 

Patient H 

Patient H was Dr. Sekhon’s patient from 2008 until 2011. To Dr. Sekhon’s knowledge, Patient H 
was addicted to narcotics, as she disclosed this to him. Patient H began attending Dr. Sekhon’s 
office as a patient because she had heard from a friend that he would prescribe narcotics to her, 
which he did.  

On one occasion during a medical appointment Dr. Sekhon inserted an anal speculum into 
Patient H’s rectum in a manner that felt inappropriate to her and unlike any other examination 
involving a speculum she had previously experienced. While there was a clinical reason for the 
examination, Dr. Sekhon sexualized the examination for his own purposes, leaning into her 
during the process. Afterwards, Dr. Sekhon told her that she was a beautiful person who could 
get any man that she wanted. Patient H observed that Dr. Sekhon had an erection while he spoke.  
On other occasions, Dr. Sekhon made similar comments to Patient H about her appearance and 
her ability to “get any guy.” Dr. Sekhon would also call Patient H late at night, and she believed 
that he was grooming her for sexual overtures.  

Dr. Sekhon purported to perform two breast examinations on Patient H, but in fact used those 
occasions to fondle her breasts. He touched her breasts lightly with half of his hand and squeezed 
her nipples.  

Dr. Sekhon engaged in sexual abuse of Patient H and disgraceful, dishonourable or 
unprofessional conduct towards her.  

Ms. I 

Ms. I began an occasional sexual relationship with Dr. Sekhon in approximately 2001 or 2002, 
continuing until approximately 2010. Dr. Sekhon would sometimes pay her money for her sexual 
services.  

Dr. Sekhon supplied Ms. I with Oxycontin by writing prescriptions for other individuals, then 
obtaining the drugs from them after they filled the prescriptions, in order to give them to Ms. I. 
Ms. I sometimes waited in Dr. Sekhon’s car while he waited for the other individual to fill a 
prescription  for  Oxycontin,  then  he  would  give  her  the  drugs,  either  in  a  bottle  with  the 
prescription label  peeled off or in  a baggie. On  one occasion,  Dr. Sekhon contacted Ms.  I to 
inquire whether she was willing to take a prescription for narcotics from him, sell some of the 
narcotics, and bring the money back to him, but Ms. I declined.  

Dr. Sekhon engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct in relation Ms. I.  

Patient J 

Patient J was Dr. Sekhon’s patient between approximately early 2010 and the end of 2012. She 
was experiencing chronic pain, and Dr. Sekhon prescribed her narcotics, to which she became 
addicted.  

Patient J told Dr. Sekhon that she had back pain. Dr. Sekhon directed her to lower her pants to 
her thighs while standing, exposing her buttocks. He did not offer her a drape or covering. Dr. 
Sekhon would direct her to turn around with her back to him. He would then fondle and touch 
the cheeks of Patient D’s exposed buttocks for his own sexual purposes, while purporting to 
conduct a lower back examination. This occurred during several medical appointments. Patient J 
felt that if she did not do what Dr. Sekhon wanted, she would not obtain her prescriptions.  

Dr. Sekhon engaged in sexual abuse of Patient J and in disgraceful, dishonourable or 
unprofessional conduct in relation to her.  

Patient K 

Patient K was Dr. Sekhon’s patient from 2006 through 2013. During this time, Patient K became 
addicted to Oxycontin.  
Patient K developed what he regarded as a friendship with Dr. Sekhon. Dr. Sekhon suggested to 
Patient K that Patient K seek to become a medical marijuana patient and sell off some of the 
marijuana, in order to split the proceeds with Dr. Sekhon.  

For a period of approximately ten months, Patient K did not attend at Dr. Sekhon’s office for 
medical appointments. Instead, another person attended and picked up his narcotics prescriptions 
from Dr. Sekhon.  

Dr. Sekhon engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct in relation to 
Patient K.  

Narcotics Prescribing Practices  

A medical expert retained by the College opined that Dr. Sekhon fell below the standard of 
practice of the profession in his care of twelve patients whose charts were reviewed, including 
among others Patient H, Patient J, and Patient D’s mother and sister and noted the following 
concerns:  
      (a)   Dr. Sekhon rapidly progressed to narcotic prescription without adequate 
            discussion of opioid risk in multiple cases, in some cases prescribing narcotics on 
            the first visit without such a discussion and/or without a physical examination; 
      (b)   Dr. Sekhon discontinued prescribing narcotics to a patient abruptly without 
            adequate discussion, education, and management of the circumstances;  
      (c)   Pharmacy profiles of narcotics prescribed to some patients revealed prescriptions 
            for which there was no record of medical appointments in the patient chart or any 
            noted rationale; 
      (d)   In multiple cases a wide array of narcotics was used for an extended period of 
            time, but it was difficult to understand the logic of the medication and the 
            alterations that were made; 
      (e)   Dr. Sekhon’s documentation was “vague and minimalist,” and in multiple charts 
            there was a lack of opioid risk tools, drug contracts, or other identifiable 
            monitoring; 
      (f)   Dr. Sekhon continued to prescribe narcotics where there were addiction issues; 
            and 
      (g)   Dr. Sekhon failed to note any discussion with a patient about three episodes of 
            apparently lost or stolen prescriptions for narcotics, potential seizures, and 
            potential withdrawal symptoms after she ceased using a benzodiazepine. He 
            showed poor judgment in continuing to prescribe her Oxycontin. 
 
Dr. Sekhon failed to maintain the standard of practice and was incompetent in his care of the 
twelve patients referred to above.  
 

Obstruction of the College Investigations and Prosecution 

Dr. Sekhon has consistently sought to conceal his misconduct from the College, including by 
obstructing and interfering with the College’s investigations and prosecution of him.  
During his relationship with Patient D and after she broke up with him, Dr. Sekhon threatened 
Patient D. He threatened to hurt her or her family if she told the College of his misconduct, or to 
have her ‘red flagged’ as a drug addict with hospitals.  

When College investigators notified Dr. Sekhon of the College’s investigation regarding Patient 
D in October 2011, Dr. Sekhon claimed that he had no records of her, and had only treated her 
briefly at a walk-in clinic long ago. This was not true.  

College investigators initially interviewed Patient D in September 2011. They also interviewed 
her mother, who advised that Dr. Sekhon had visited her house the day before the investigator 
and told her not to speak to the investigator. A month later, in October 2011, Patient D advised a 
College investigator that Dr. Sekhon had given her mother letters for Patient D to sign in return 
for money, saying that she was not in fact Dr. Sekhon’s patient. Patient D read the text of the 
letters over the telephone to the investigator, and said she would send them in for the investigator 
to see. She also advised that after he learned of the investigation Dr. Sekhon had visited her 
mother again and threatened to “bring down” Patient D. Patient D was frightened and no longer 
wanted to cooperate with the investigation. 

In May 2012, the College received a letter from a lawyer who said he had been retained by 
Patient D, stating that her allegations were false and that she had made them only as a result of 
harassment by the College investigator. In October 2012, the College received a handwritten 
letter from Patient D stating among other things that the College investigator was “mean and 
abusive,” and that “none of the stuff he made me say and read were true. Raj Sekhon never raped 
me or even gave me drugs!! Raj Sekhon was also never my doctor.” The contents of these letters 
were false. Dr. Sekhon visited the lawyer with Patient D to ensure that she retracted the 
allegations against him in May 2012, and paid for the lawyer’s services. Dr. Sekhon wrote the 
text of the October 2012 letter himself, and had Patient D write it out and send it to the College.  

The concerns regarding Dr. Sekhon’s conduct towards Patient D initially came to the College’s 
attention by way of a mandatory report of information regarding sexual abuse from another 
physician of Patient D, Dr. Z. In May 2013, Patient D filed a complaint with the College against 
Dr. Z, alleging that Dr. Z had sexually abused her, that Dr. Z had made a false report regarding 
Dr. Sekhon, that Dr. Z had disclosed her medical information without consent, and that Dr. Z had 
given her narcotics inappropriately. This complaint was in fact written by Dr. Sekhon, who 
directed Patient D to send it to the College through a lawyer that they visited together. Dr. 
Sekhon sought to retaliate against Dr. Z for having reported him and to discredit the information 
that Patient D had provided to the College about his own misconduct. 

Patient D agreed to provide the above-noted false information to the College in part because she 
cared about Dr. Sekhon, but also because she was afraid of him as a result of threats he had 
made. Finally, Dr. Sekhon also gave Patient D money in return for sending the letters to the 
College.  

Patient D’s mother also sent a letter to the College in July 2012, complaining about the conduct 
of the College investigator. This letter was also false, and was given to her by Dr. Sekhon to 
sign. Dr. Sekhon gave her money in return.  
After allegations regarding Dr. Sekhon’s conduct towards Patient D were referred to discipline in 
June 2015, Dr. Sekhon began calling and texting Patient D very frequently, telling her that he 
loved her and asking her to sign more papers stating that she had lied. At the same time, he also 
threatened her, telling her that no one would care if she died. Dr. Sekhon was making these 
efforts in order to obstruct the College prosecution.  

Patient D’s mother contacted the College in August 2015 because she was concerned. As a 
result, the College investigator learned from Patient D and her family that Patient D’s earlier 
retraction of her allegations had been as a result of Dr. Sekhon’s efforts to obstruct the 
investigation. Patient D and her family also disclosed for the first time that Dr. Sekhon had 
prescribed to Patient D’s mother and sister only in order to take back the medications for his own 
use, as described above. Patient D’s mother provided prescription receipts for eight prescriptions 
for Fentanyl in her name that Dr. Sekhon took from her, as well as two prescriptions for 
injectable narcotics. The investigator provided advice to the family to contact the police for help 
in the event of any further contact from Dr. Sekhon. The College warned Dr. Sekhon through his 
lawyer to cease his unwelcome and inappropriate contact with Patient D.  

In addition to the steps described above that Dr. Sekhon took regarding Patient D and her family, 
Dr. Sekhon took other steps to obstruct and interfere with the College’s investigations into his 
misconduct:  

      (a)   College investigators interviewed Patient D’s friend and roommate, Mr. L, during 
            their investigation. Mr. L provided information regarding Patient D’s relationship 
            with Dr. Sekhon and Dr. Sekhon’s prescribing practices. Afterwards, Mr. L 
            signed a letter recanting what he had told the College. The letter was written by 
            Dr. Sekhon. Mr. L signed the letter at Patient D’s request, because he wanted Dr. 
            Sekhon to stop harassing her.  

      (b)   Dr. Sekhon had Ms. I send a letter to the College in November 2013, retracting 
            the information she had provided to the College and accusing the College 
            investigator of pushing her to make false statements. 

      (c)   Dr. Sekhon contacted Patient K before the College investigator interviewed 
            Patient K, and told him that he might be contacted by investigators, but not to say 
            a “fucking word.” Dr. Sekhon rehearsed with Patient K what he was to say to 
            investigators, and promised that “if you shut your mouth I’ll take care of you.” As 
            a result, when Patient K was first interviewed by the College, he was untruthful.  

      (d)   Dr. Sekhon asked Patient D to contact Patient A and another witness in that 
            matter in order to influence the College’s investigation in that matter, but Patient 
            D did not do so. 

      (e)   Dr. Sekhon had been prescribing narcotics to one of Patient D’s sisters, Patient M. 
            Dr. Sekhon paid for some of the prescriptions and took them to sell, give to 
            Patient D, or otherwise use, as described above. Patient M’s boyfriend Mr. N 
            threatened to tell on Dr. Sekhon. As a result, Dr. Sekhon paid for Mr. N to see Dr. 
            Sekhon’s lawyer, and also gave Mr. N a bottle of Oxycontin.   
Dr. Sekhon engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct in seeking to 
interfere with and obstruct the College’s investigation and prosecution.  

 
PENALTY 
The Discipline Committee ordered and directed that: 
   -  The Registrar revoke Dr. Sekhon’s certificate of registration, effective immediately; 
   -  Dr. Sekhon reimburse the College for funding provided to those patients in respect of 
      whom this panel has found Dr. Sekhon to have engaged in sexual abuse, under the 
      program required under section 85.7 of the Code; 
   -  Dr. Sekhon post an irrevocable letter of credit or other security acceptable to the College, 
      to guarantee the payment of any amounts he may be required to reimburse under 
      paragraph 5 of this Order, such security to be posted within thirty (30) days of the date of 
      this Order, in the amount of $80,300.00; 
   -  Dr. Sekhon appear before the panel to be reprimanded; 
   -  Dr. Sekhon pay costs to the College in the amount of $5,000.00 within thirty (30) days of 
      the date of this Order.

Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Hearing Date(s): October 12, 2016

Concerns

Source: ICR Committee
Active Date: December 10, 2015
Expiry Date:
Summary:
Caution-in-Person:

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.

See PDF for the summary of a decision made against this member in which the disposition includes a caution-in-person.
Download Full Document (PDF)


Source: ICR Committee
Active Date: June 30, 2015
Expiry Date:
Summary:
Caution-in-Person:

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.

See PDF for the summary of a decision made against this member in which the disposition includes a caution-in-person.
Download Full Document (PDF)


Source: ICR Committee
Active Date: June 30, 2015
Expiry Date:
Summary:
Caution-in-Person:

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.

See PDF for the summary of a decision made against this member in which the disposition includes a caution-in-person.
Download Full Document (PDF)