Doyle, Christopher Stephen (CPSO#: 66747)

Current Status: Revoked: Discipline Committee as of 07 Aug 2018

CPSO Registration Class: None as of 07 Aug 2018

Indicates a concern or additional information

Summary

Former Name: No Former Name

Gender: Male

Languages Spoken: English

Education:McGill University, 1993

Practice Information

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

Professional Corporation Information

Corporation Name: Dr. C. S. Doyle Medicine Professional Corporation

Certificate of Authorization Status: Inactive: Apr 25 2014


Corporation Name: Dr. C. S. Doyle Medicine Professional Corporation

Certificate of Authorization Status: Inactive: May 7 2018

Medical Records Location

Address: Tel: (905) 916-4357 Email: iimh@rogers.com
Instructions: Patients looking to obtain a copy of their medical records may contact Dr. Doyle via telephone or email
Date Received: 10 Aug 2017

Specialties

Specialty Issued On Type
Psychiatry Effective: 30 Jun 1998 RCPSC Specialist

Postgraduate Training

Please note: This information may not be a complete record of postgraduate training.

University of Toronto, 01 Jul 1993 to 30 Jun 1994
PostGrad Yr 1 - Psychiatry

University of Toronto, 01 Jul 1994 to 30 Jun 1995
Resident 1 - Psychiatry

University of Toronto, 01 Jul 1995 to 30 Jun 1996
Resident 2 - Psychiatry

University of Toronto, 01 Jul 1996 to 30 Jun 1997
Resident 3 - Psychiatry

University of Toronto, 01 Jul 1997 to 30 Jun 1998
Resident 4 - Psychiatry

Registration History

Action Issue Date
First certificate of registration issued: Postgraduate Education Certificate Effective: 01 Jul 1993
Expired: Terms and conditions of certificate of registration Expiry: 30 Jun 1998
Subsequent certificate of registration Issued: Restricted Certificate Effective: 05 Jul 1998
Transfer of class of registration to: Independent Practice Certificate Effective: 02 May 2001
Transfer of class of registration to: Restricted Certificate Effective: 22 Dec 2009
Suspension of registration imposed: Discipline Committee Effective: 22 Dec 2009
Suspension of registration removed Effective: 23 Jun 2010
Suspension of registration imposed: Inquiries, Complaints and Repo Effective: 10 May 2017
Revoked: Discipline Committee. Effective: 07 Aug 2018

Previous Hearings

Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 01 Feb 2018
Summary:

On February 1, 2018, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Christopher Stephen Doyle 
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 of the circumstances, would reasonably be 
regarded by members as unprofessional. The Committee also found that Dr. Doyle is 
incompetent. 
 
Dr. Doyle is a psychiatrist who received his Independent Practice Certificate with the College of 
Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (“College”) in 2001. During the relevant period, Dr. Doyle 
worked at the Hospital and maintained a private practice in Mississauga.  
 
Patient A 
 
Patient A was referred to Dr. Doyle by her family physician, Dr. X, in August of 2013. Together with his 
referring letter, Dr. X provided Dr. Doyle with medical records for Patient A, containing reference to 
Patient A’s previous sexual boundary issues with a mental health professional while under the 
professional’s care, and reference to Patient A having developed an infatuation with a prior treating 
psychiatrist. 
     
Dr. Doyle was Patient A’s psychiatrist between October 2013 and July 2014, during which time he 
focused on Patient A’s medications. By December of 2013, Dr. Doyle’s diagnosed Patient A as “a 
borderline woman with increased anger and increased depression”. 
 
During the time she was Dr. Doyle’s patient, Patient A perceived that Dr. Doyle’s demeanour towards her 
changed, in that he became increasingly casual during her appointments, including sitting back with his 
feet up on the coffee table and using profanities in front of Patient A. Patient A told Dr. Doyle that she 
was depressed and not motivated to exercise anymore. She had previously reported to Dr. Doyle that she 
enjoyed cycling and running. Dr. Doyle told Patient A about his own interest in cycling and showed her 
an app on his cell phone that he used to track cycling progress and that showed his progress against other 
cyclists in the online community. He told Patient A that she could use the app as well to track her exercise 
progress and keep motivated. 
 
Patient A explained in her complaint and in her interview with the College that as a result of Dr. Doyle’s 
casual demeanor and the information that he shared with her during the sessions, Patient A began to feel 
that Dr. Doyle wanted to foster a friendship or relationship with her. In July 2014, Patient A told Dr. 
Doyle about her feelings for him. Dr. Doyle indicated that he was flattered but that her feelings were not 
appropriate for the physician-patient relationship. Patient A perceived that Dr. Doyle to be extremely 
uncomfortable by her disclosure. He stopped the session and asked Patient A to see his secretary to make 
a subsequent appointment, while in the past, Dr. Doyle had scheduled all subsequent sessions himself on 
his cell phone at the end of Patient A’s appointments. Patient A booked a follow-up appointment for 
August 2014 with Dr. Doyle through the secretary and left the session feeling confused, ashamed and 
humiliated.  
 
The following day Patient A sent Dr. Doyle an email apologizing and seeking clarity as to what had 
transpired in her appointment. Dr. Doyle responded explaining that he could no longer see Patient A and 
while her feelings are understandable, they are not appropriate for their relationship. He explained that 
this is called “eroticized transference” and that due to his previous issues, it is not something that he can 
safely manage at this time. He wrote that he appreciates her honesty, but that it prevents them from 
working together therapeutically.  
 
Patient A described the emotional impact of Dr. Doyle’s response to her disclosure and the termination of 
her care as “devastating.” She went to see her family physician in July 2014, reporting suicidal thoughts 
and self-blame as a result of this interaction with Dr. Doyle. She went to the hospital with a suicide plan 
several days later and was voluntarily admitted to Hospital for several days. 
 
Further to the email exchange, which Patient A perceived as notice of termination, Patient A had no 
contact with Dr. Doyle. She did not attend the subsequent appointment that she had booked with Dr. 
Doyle. Patient A submitted a complaint to the College in July 2014, describing mixed feelings: she wrote 
that Dr. Doyle “does seem to care about what he does and is extremely competent with the medications”. 
 
Dr. Doyle states that he waited for Patient A during her scheduled appointment in August 2014, at which 
point he planned to properly terminate the patient-physician relationship. Dr. Doyle did not take any 
action in respect to the transfer of care for Patient A, he did not send a termination letter to Patient A and 
did not communicate with the referring physician about the end of the therapeutic relationship. He did not 
make arrangements for the prescription of Patient A’s medications, nor did he assist in finding another 
psychiatrist for Patient A.  
 
The Expert Report  
 
An expert retained by the College to review this matter opined that: 
 
- Dr. Doyle failed to meet the standard of practice of the profession in this case and that his medical 
  record-keeping was inadequate to serve as a record to ‘tell the patient’s story’ and to support 
  diagnostic decision-making and treatment planning. The expert opined that if Dr. Doyle behaved as 
  described by Patient A, this would be a failure to uphold the professionalism, and boundaries essential 
  to the physician-patient relationship. The expert further opined that Dr. Doyle failed to meet the 
  standard of practice of the profession in the manner he terminated the doctor-patient relationship. 
- Dr. Doyle’s deficits in clinical record keeping are very significant and may arise from lack of 
  knowledge on the standard of care requirements, or poor judgement. The expert noted that Dr. Doyle’s 
  notes reflected an awareness of the patients’ vulnerabilities, though this was not incorporated into his 
  treatment plan. According to the expert, the boundary crossings, failures in professionalism and in 
  recognition/management of the dynamics in the therapeutic encounter could reflect a lack of skill, 
  knowledge, judgement or a combination of the forgoing. The expert further noted that Dr. Doyle’s 
  failure to maintain the standard of practice in the manner of patient termination could have resulted 
  from Dr. Doyle’s lack of knowledge, lack of skill in managing the situation, or lack of judgement. 
- If Patient A’s clinical record is representative of Dr. Doyle’s practice of medical record-keeping, his 
  self-described ‘informal style’ with patients, and boundary crossings, it is likely that patients would be 
  exposed to harm, which is estimated to be higher than what would be expected from care provided by 
  a practitioner who maintained the standard of care in these areas. 
   
Upon review of the information that on one occasion, in the context of discussing Patient A’s depression, 
Dr. Doyle told Patient A about his other patient (whose name he did not disclose) who suffered from 
severe depression and did not care for himself such that his teeth had fallen out, the expert opined that 
although unintended, this practice is ill advised and could lead to confidentiality breaches, given the 
possibility that Patient A could have later seen an edentulous man in the waiting area, and reasonably 
believe that she could then put a face to the story she heard directly from Dr. Doyle. The expert noted that 
Dr. Doyle has twice written to the College indicating that he should not have spoken about the other 
patient to Patient A. In the expert’s opinion this was not a violation of the standard of care.  
 
Section 75(1)(a) Investigation 
 
Following the complaint of Patient A, the College conducted an investigation into Dr. Doyle's private 
practice. The expert retained by the College reviewed Dr. Doyle’s 24 patient charts, transcribed clinical 
notes, and interviewed Dr. Doyle. The expert opined that Dr. Doyle failed to meet the standard of practice 
of the profession in 16 of the 24 patient charts reviewed. The expert further opined that Dr. Doyle's care 
displayed a lack of knowledge in 1 of the 24 patient charts reviewed and that Dr. Doyle's care displayed a 
lack of skill and/or judgement and exposed or is likely to expose his patients to harm or injury in 19 of the 
24 patient charts reviewed.  
 
The issues identified by the expert included, but were not limited to, the following: 
 
-  Inadequate documentation/record-keeping; 
-  Lack of diagnostic clarity/consistency;  
-  Inadequate risk assessments and/or interventions for self-harm and aggressive ideation;  
-  Lack of attention to substance use history and/or inadequate assessment of alcohol/substance use;  
-  Use of non-professional and/or non-objective language in clinical notes  
-  Inadequate psychotropic medication intervention and/or sub-therapeutic medication dosing;  
-  Failure to make mandatory report to MOT and/or CAS;  
-  Inadequate follow-up/frequency of monitoring/appointments; 
-  Inappropriate prescribing of stimulant medication;  
-  Inappropriate prescribing of a narcotic;  
-  Inappropriate prescribing of medical marijuana in patient with primary psychotic illness;  
-  Ongoing prescribing of a medication (stimulants, benzodiazepines) that patient is known to be 
   abusing;   
-  Inadequate medication monitoring (efficacy, side effects, interactions, blood work);  
-  Failure to maintain appropriate/professional boundaries;  
-  Inappropriate polypharmacy and/or combinations of benzodiazepines, atypical antipsychotics and/or 
   sedative hypnotics; and 
-  Inappropriate prescribing of medications for non-psychiatric conditions and without notifying the 
   patient's primary care provider.  
 
Upon interviewing Dr. Doyle, the expert made positive findings, which include, but are not limited to the 
following: 
 
-  Dr. Doyle was able to describe the essential elements required in the psychiatric history, mental 
   status examination, for a consultation report leading to a differential diagnosis and treatment plan; 
-  Dr. Doyle was able to accurately describe differential diagnoses for different clinical presentations 
   and the necessary historical detail required to discriminate between these differentials to provide a 
   working diagnosis; 
-  Dr. Doyle was able to describe the relevant diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV framework he used for 
   the common diagnoses he made; 
-  Dr. Doyle was generally able to discuss appropriate dosing for psychiatric medications, and the 
   concerns with polypharmacy, particularly with combination sedative hypnotics and combination 
   atypical antipsychotics; 
-  Dr. Doyle was mostly able to describe standard of care baseline investigations and recommended 
   monitoring for the use of atypical antipsychotics and divalproex and lithium; 
-  Dr. Doyle was able to describe the requirements for mandatory reporting regarding driving and 
   reporting child safety concerns; 
-  Dr. Doyle was able to describe the potential negative impact of cannabis on many psychiatric 
   illnesses and the lack of empirical evidence of benefit; 
-  Dr. Doyle was able to describe appropriate strategies and interventions for patients abusing 
   medications he prescribes; 
-  Dr. Doyle was able to discuss the potential hazards to a patient regarding provision of prescription 
   medications for non-psychiatric conditions that he does not monitor, and the particular risks of doing 
   so with opiates; 
-  Dr. Doyle was able to describe appropriate interventions for ill patients who have prolonged 
   absences from the practice, or when there is information about a crisis, clinical deterioration, 
   emergency room visits etc.; and 
-  Dr. Doyle was able to identify as inappropriate, the use of non-professional language in the patient 
   records. 
           
The expert’s concerns identified in the interview include, but are not limited to: 
 
-  Although Dr. Doyle acknowledged the risks of and poor evidence for use or combination of 
   antipsychotics, this was commonly observed in his use of these medications, more than would be 
   expected in a similar practice of a general adult psychiatrist. 
-  Although Dr. Doyle described appropriate lithium monitoring, this was generally not observed in his 
   records. Dr. Doyle generally would not monitor kidney function or serum calcium levels, which 
   increases the risk of patient morbidity and is not supported by guidelines. 
-  Although Dr. Doyle was able to appropriately describe standard of care strategies for abusing 
   medication he prescribed, he acknowledged that he did not do so enough. This was a significant 
   concern in the care provided in some of the records reviewed. 
           
Youtube Videos 
 
The expert reviewed a series of YouTube videos posted by Dr. Doyle on his YouTube channel named 
“DrChristopherDoyle” between 2012 and 2014. The expert reported the following concerns about the 
videos: 
 
-  Lack of judgement, professionalism and boundaries with a tone of promotion in a video, in which 
   Dr. Doyle is talking about his use of “the juice of the purple” that gave him stamina to compete in a 
   bike race against professional cyclists. 
-  Lack of judgement, professionalism and boundaries in a video, in which Dr. Doyle is pictured after 
   spinning class, shirtless, discussing the benefits of exercise to himself physically and mentally and 
   once again promoting the “purple” drink. 
-  Lack of judgement, professionalism and boundaries in a video in which Dr. Doyle is depicted in an 
   educational session, in which he states marijuana is “excellent” as a PTSD treatment. According to 
   the expert, marijuana is not the standard of care for PTSD and has the potential to harm some 
   patients. 
-  Breach of standard for physician advertising, lack of judgement and professionalism and abuse of a 
   fiduciary relationship with respect to a videotaped patient testimonial in the office by a female 
   patient. Dr. Doyle is seen in the background, as the patient enthusiastically describes her experience 
   of working with him, that he “taps into my creative side and empowers me…. Go Dr. Doyle!”  
-  Nine of the twenty-nine videos reviewed are therapeutic in nature. With respect to these nine videos, 
   the expert opined that each falls below the standard of care.  
-  Thirteen of the twenty nine videos are educational in nature. With respect to thirteen videos, the 
   expert opined that ten videos fall below the standard of care and three videos meet the standard of 
   care. 
-  Seven of the twenty nine videos are philosophical in nature and show Dr. Doyle’s reflections on 
   various topics. According to the expert, six of the seven videos show a lack of judgement. 
    
Overall, the expert opined that: 
 
-  Twenty three of the twenty nine videos demonstrate a lack of judgment; and 
-  discussions contained in fifteen of the twenty nine videos expose or are likely to expose patients to 
   risk of harm. 
           
The expert noted that some effort was made by Dr. Doyle to obtain consent from the patients to discuss 
their clinical material on YouTube, or to post material from their sessions online on YouTube. However, 
according to the expert, the consents are inadequate such that they were not specific to the purpose for 
which they were used.   
 
Interim Suspension  
 
On April 10, 2017, the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (the ICRC) referred specified 
allegations of professional misconduct to the Discipline Committee. On May 9, 2017, the ICRC issued an 
interim order suspending Dr. Doyle’s certificate of registration. 
     
Unprofessional Communication 
 
In January 2017, a medical adjudicator from the Canada Student Loans Program called Dr. Doyle, in 
order to verify the authenticity of a medical report that she was reviewing for an individual who was a 
patient of Dr. Doyle. The adjudicator described that after dialing Dr. Doyle’s phone number, Dr. Doyle 
answered with profanity and spoke rudely, stating “If you need your prescriptions filled, go to the 
[profanity] pharmacy.” Assuming that she had dialed incorrectly, the adjudicator dialed again. Dr. Doyle 
answered with more profanity, stating “Stop [profanity] calling me”. When the adjudicator introduced 
herself and stated the purpose of the call, Dr. Doyle identified himself and apologized, indicating that he 
thought he was talking to a patient who was calling him non-stop. The adjudicator then reported her 
experience with Dr. Doyle to the College and described the profanities used as “f-bombs”. 
 
Disposition 
 
On August 7, 2018, the Discipline Committee ordered and directed that:  
 
-  The Registrar revoke Dr. Doyle’s certificate of registration, effective 
   immediately; 
-  Dr. Doyle appear before the Committee to be reprimanded with 90 days of the 
   date this order becomes final; 
-  Dr. Doyle pay costs to the College in the amount of $16,500 within 90 days of the date this 
   order becomes final. 
    
On September 6, 2018, Dr. Doyle appealed the Discipline Committee’s decision on penalty and 
costs to the Divisional Court of the Superior Court of Justice. Pursuant to s.71 of the Health 
Professions Procedural Code, the Discipline Committee’s penalty decision remains in effect 
despite the appeal.

Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: Notice of Appeal
Hearing Date(s): January 30-February 1, 2018


Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 29 Sep 2009
Summary:

On September 29, 2009, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Doyle 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. Doyle, a psychiatrist, provided psychotherapy to Patient A on about 45 occasions in 2005 and 
2006. In 2009, Dr. Doyle indicated that his therapeutic relationship with Patient A had ended in 
July 2006, due to an inability to maintain a strict doctor-patient relationship. Dr. Doyle and 
Patient A went on their first date and kissed in the late summer of 2006. After this date, a 
romantic relationship developed, which involved dating, kissing, and oral sex. In the late summer 
and fall of 2006, Dr. Doyle and Patient A had sexual intercourse. Prior to their first date, there 
had never been any physical contact; in particular, there had never been physical contact while 
Patient A was seeing Dr. Doyle for clinical reasons.  
 
The Discipline Committee ordered and directed that: 
 
1.    The Registrar suspend Dr. Doyle's certificate of registration for a period of twelve (12) 
      months, to commence within twelve (12) weeks of the date of the Order. 
 
2.    Six (6) months of the suspension is to be suspended if Dr. Doyle successfully completes, 
      at his own expense, the College's Medical Ethics and Informed Consent Course, the 
      College's Boundaries Course and the College's Record Keeping Course, and provides 
      proof thereof to the College. 
 
3.    The Registrar impose as a term, condition and limitation on Dr. Doyle's certificate of 
      registration that he shall post security for funding for therapy and counseling for Patient 
      "A" referred to in the Notice of Hearing in the amount of $10,000. 
 
4.  The Registrar impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. Doyle's 
certificate of registration: 
 
      (i)   Dr. Doyle shall remain in the Physician Health Program ("PHP"), and abide by the 
            terms of his monitoring contract with the PHP.   
      (ii)  Dr. Doyle shall continue in therapy with Dr. X; or in the event Dr. X can no 
            longer continue in this role, another psychotherapist acceptable to the College.   
      (iii)  Dr. Doyle is restricted from performing long term psychotherapy for clients. 
 
Practice Monitoring 
 
      (iv)  With the exception of short-term assessments and consultations, Dr. Doyle shall 
            not provide ongoing psychiatric care to female patients, except in the presence of 
            a practice monitor ("Practice Monitor") who is a regulated health professional 
            acceptable to the College. 
      (v)   The Practice Monitor must remain in the examination or consulting room or 
            hospital ward room at all times during all ongoing psychiatric care provided to 
            any female patients by Dr. Doyle. 
 
 
 
      (vi)  Each Practice Monitor is required to maintain a log of all female patient 
            encounters, and that Log shall provide the name of the female patient, and the 
            purpose and date of the appointment ("Log").  The Practice Monitor will sign and 
            date the corresponding entry on the female patient's medical record. Copies of the 
            Logs must be submitted to the College on a monthly basis. There may be separate 
            Logs for each of the outpatient clinics where female patients are seen, and for 
            female patients seen on the ward. 
      (vii)  Dr. Doyle shall provide his irrevocable consent to the College to make appropriate 
            enquiries of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan and/or any person or institution 
            that may have relevant information, in order for the College to monitor his 
            compliance with the terms of this Order. 
 
Clinical Supervision 
 
      (viii)  Dr. Doyle shall practise under a clinical supervisor who is acceptable to the 
            College ("Clinical Supervisor"), and whom shall be provided with relevant 
            information from the College respecting Dr. Doyle. Such supervision shall 
            consist, at minimum, of monthly meetings with the Clinical Supervisor; a review 
            at each meeting of a minimum of 15 charts (or more if deemed appropriate by the 
            Clinical Supervisor); a discussion at each meeting regarding any issues or 
            concerns arising from the chart review; and other measures deemed appropriate by 
            the Clinical Supervisor, such as recommendations for continuing medical 
            education; direct observation of patient care; and interviews with staff, colleagues 
            and/or Practice Monitors. The Clinical Supervisor shall be responsible for 
            providing quarterly reports to the College. The Clinical Supervisor shall confirm 
            in his reports to the College that no long-term psychotherapy is being conducted 
            by Dr. Doyle. 
 
Variation of order 
 
      (ix)  Dr. Doyle may apply to the Discipline Committee after one year of his return to 
            practice, to seek a variation of terms (iv) to (viii).  
 
5.    Dr. Doyle appear before the panel to be reprimanded. 
 
6.    Dr. Doyle pay to the College costs in the amount of $10,000, within 60 days of the date of 
      this Order.  
 
7.    The results of this proceeding be included in the register. 
 
On January 16, 2012, the Discipline Committee, further to a motion by Dr. Doyle, ordered and 
directed that:  
 
1.    The requirement in paragraph 5(i) of the Order, that Dr. Doyle shall remain in the 
      Physician Health Program, be removed; 
2.    Paragraph 5(ii) of the Order be varied to permit Dr. Doyle to discontinue psychotherapy 
      with Dr. X at such time as the College receives a letter from Dr. X stating that further 
      psychotherapy is no longer necessary. 
3.    The requirements in paragraph 5(iv), (v), (vi), and (vii) of the Order, that Dr. Doyle have 
      a practice monitor present while providing ongoing psychiatric care to female patients, as 
      well as the associated requirements of keeping a log and monitoring of OHIP billings, be 
      removed; 
 
4.    Paragraph 5(viii) of the Order be varied, such that Dr. Doyle's meetings with a clinical 
      supervisor acceptable to the College need only be held every three months rather than 
      monthly, while maintaining the existing requirement that the Supervisor provide quarterly 
      reports to the College. 
 
On May 2, 2013, the Discipline Committee, further to a motion by Dr. Doyle ordered and 
directed that: 
 
1.    The requirement in paragraph 5(iii) of the Order dated September 29, 2009, be varied to 
      permit Dr. Doyle to perform long term psychotherapy on male patients only; and 
 
2.    Paragraph 5(viii) shall continue in accordance with the Order dated September 29, 2009, 
      as varied by the Order dated January 16, 2012, with quarterly meetings and quarterly 
      reports, except that the minimum of 15 patient charts shall include sufficient male 
      patients on long term psychotherapy to allow the supervisor to assess the quality of that 
      care. 

Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): September 21-22, 28 and 29, 2009