skip to content

Fenton, Peter Michael

CPSO#: 63915

MEMBER STATUS
Expired: Failure to Renew Membership as of 04 Sep 2020
CURRENT OR PAST CPSO REGISTRATION CLASS
None as of 30 Apr 2016

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum ac diam sit amet quam vehicula elementum sed sit amet dui. Vivamus suscipit tortor eget felis porttitor volutpat. Curabitur non nulla sit amet nisl tempus convallis quis ac lectus. Curabitur aliquet quam id dui posuere blandit. Vivamus suscipit tortor eget felis porttitor volutpat. Curabitur arcu erat, accumsan id imperdiet et, porttitor at sem. Vestibulum ac diam sit amet quam vehicula elementum sed sit amet dui. Donec sollicitudin molestie malesuada. Pellentesque in ipsum id orci porta dapibus.

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

Professional Corporation Information


Corporation Name: Peter Fenton Medicine Professional Corporation
Certificate of Authorization Status: Inactive: Dec 19 2016

Specialties

Specialty Issued On Type
No Speciality Reported

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 imposed on certificate Effective: 30 Apr 2016
Terms and conditions amended by Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee Effective: 30 May 2016
Terms and conditions amended by member Effective: 07 Mar 2017
Terms and conditions amended by Discipline Committee 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
Terms and conditions amended by Discipline Committee Effective: 10 Mar 2020
Terms and conditions amended by Discipline Committee Effective: 10 Mar 2020
Expired: Failure to Renew Membership Expiry: 04 Sep 2020

Previous Hearings

Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 29 Jul 2019
Summary:

On July 29, 2019, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Peter Michael Fenton 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, by: a) failing to attend regular meetings contrary to the terms of an undertaking with the College executed July 3, 2016; and

b) failing to complete the Understanding Boundaries Course; individualized instruction in ethics, and individualized instruction in communications within six months, contrary to the terms of a 2017 Order of the Discipline Committee.

The Discipline Committee found that there was no evidence of any good reason for Dr. Fenton’s failure to comply with the Undertaking. The Committee did not accept Dr. Fenton’s arguments that he did not consent to treatment or that he failed to have the requisite capacity to enter into the Undertaking. Further, the Committee found that Dr. Fenton’s multiple breaches of the 2017 Order, cumulatively, would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. Although Dr. Fenton ultimately completed all of the education required by the 2017 Order, the Committee found that he did not do so in a timely manner, contrary to the express terms of the Order.

The Committee therefore found that the allegation of disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct is proven.

On December 13, 2019, the Committee heard submissions on penalty. The Committee reserved its penalty decision.

On March 10, 2020, the Committee released its order and reasons on penalty. The Committee ordered and directed:

1. Dr. Fenton shall appear before the Committee to be reprimanded;

2. The Registrar suspend Dr. Fenton’s certificate of registration for a period of nine (9) months, to commence immediately.

3. Dr. Fenton shall comply with the College’s policy “Ensuring Competence: Changing Scope of Practice and/or Re-entering Practice”.

4. The Registrar impose terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. Fenton’s certificate of registration regarding clinical supervision, reassessment and monitoring, as set out in the order.

5. Dr. Fenton pay to the College costs of $62,200 within 90 days of the date of the order.


Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Hearing Date(s): Hearing: April 22-26, 2019 Penalty Hearing: December 13, 2019

 

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 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 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 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:
 
- 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.

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 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: Compliance and Monitoring Department
Active Date: February 21, 2018
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: 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