Anand Santhagunam

This matter came before a Panel of the Discipline Committee on March 7, 2007.

Background
Mr. Santhagunam was involved in an undertaking with the College. During the course of the undertaking, an incident occurred which was brought to the College’s Deputy Registrar’s attention by the Member’s practice supervisor. The Deputy Registrar of the College brought this issue to the Registrar’s attention for her consideration.

After an investigation of the concerns cited by the Deputy Registrar, the Executive Committee (a screening committee of the College) referred the matter to the Discipline Committee for a hearing.

Prior to the hearing date, counsel for the College and the member discussed the case on several occasions. During the discussions, Mr. Santhagunam agreed that his actions in the above noted matter constituted professional misconduct.

A Summary of the Allegations and Agreed Facts
At the time that the incident in question occurred, Mr. Santhagunam was self-employed in the practice of occupational therapy.
  1. On or about March 11, 2005, Mr. Santhagunam entered into an undertaking with the College whereby he undertook to, among other things, practise only under the supervision of a Practice Supervisor for a period of time.
  2. On or about August 16, 2006, the Deputy Registrar of the College contacted Mr. Santhagunam by telephone to ascertain what progress he had made with the requirements of his undertaking.
  3. Mr. Santhagunam advised the Deputy Registrar that he had been meeting with his Practice Supervisor once a month, when in fact this was not true.
  4. On or about August 16, 2006, Mr. Santhagunam left a telephone message for his Practice Supervisor in which Mr. Santhagunam asked the Practice Supervisor to corroborate the false statement that Mr. Santhagunam had made to the Deputy Registrar.
The Member’s Plea
Mr. Santhagunam admitted the allegations and the fact that his conduct constituted professional misconduct.

Decision
The Panel agreed that Mr. Santhagunam’s conduct constituted professional misconduct.

This finding was made in accordance with paragraph 28 of O.Reg.800/93, as amended under the Occupational Therapy Act, 1991.

paragraph 28 Engaging in conduct or performing an act relevant to the practice of the profession that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

Summary of the Penalty and Cost Order
The Panel of the Discipline Committee heard submissions from both parties related to penalty. At the conclusion of their deliberations, the panel ordered the following:
  1. That the Member shall be required to attend before a panel of the Discipline Committee to be reprimanded on a date to be chosen by the Registrar.
  2. The Registrar shall suspend Mr. Santhagunam’s certificate of registration for a period of two months commencing on a date to be determined by the Registrar but after the date this order becomes final.
  3. The Registrar shall impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Member’s certificate of registration:
    1. The Member shall successfully complete an ethics course approved by the Registrar, such course to be completed within twelve months of the date the order becomes final;
    2. The Member shall complete six ethically-based case studies and discuss those cases with a practice supervisor or a practice consultant approved by the Registrar within six months of the date the order becomes final;
    3. The Member’s practice shall be supervised by another member of the College approved by the Registrar for a period of 18 months from the date of the lifting of the suspension referred to in paragraph two of the order. The supervisor shall ensure that the supervision includes a review of the Member’s ethical decision-making process by reviewing at least one patient chart and billing record during every six month period from the date of the lifting of the suspension referred to in paragraph 2 of the order. Furthermore the supervisor shall provide to the Registrar and the Member a written report on the appropriateness of the Member’s conduct immediately following the expiry of this term, condition, and limitation which report shall include the supervisor’s opinion as to whether the Member understands and has demonstrated appropriate ethical behaviour;
    4. The Member shall be prohibited from supervising any student or any member holding a provisional practising certificate of registration for a period of two years from the date the order becomes final.
In addition the College was awarded costs in the amount of $2400.00.

In providing their reasons for decision, the panel confirmed that they felt that the conduct was of a very serious nature. Not only had Mr. Santhagunam lied to the College he attempted to cover up his deceit by involving another member of the profession. The panel felt that there was no justification for the conscious act of deception engaged in by the member.

The panel confirmed that their penalty order would satisfy the five Principles on Order namely:
  • Protection of the Public,
  • Maintaining the reputation of the profession and its ability to govern itself,
  • General deterrence for the profession,
  • Specific deterrence to the member, and
  • Rehabilitation of the member
In addition to appearing on the website, this summary will be available in the annual report. Please feel free to contact the Manager of Investigations & Resolutions should you require additional information.