Skip to content

Discipline Summary

Ronak Kotecha 2005

Following a hearing on August 9, 2005, a panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Occupational Therapists of Ontario found that Mr. Ronak Kotecha committed acts of professional misconduct by:

  • contravening a standard of practice of the profession or failing to maintain the standard of practice of the profession;
  • failing to keep records in accordance with the standards of the profession;
  • falsifying a record related to the member’s practice;
  • signing or issuing, in the member’s professional capacity a document that the member knows or ought to have known contains a false or misleading statement;
  • engaging in conduct or performing an act relevant to the practice of the profession that having regard to all circumstances would be regarded as unprofessional; and
  • failing to reply appropriately or within reasonable time to a written inquiry made by the College.

Mr. Kotecha and the College presented an agreed statement of facts, which was accepted by the Discipline Committee panel. Based on the agreed statement of facts, the panel found that Mr. Kotecha was persistently late in his documentation. At one point he had more than 70 outstanding charts to complete. When Mr. Kotecha completed his charts late, he did not indicate that he was making late entries to the charts and sometimes discarded the only notes he made contemporaneous with the visit. The panel also found that he was sometimes late in following up on communications and services for his clients. Mr. Kotecha failed to complete and submit his response to a complaint to the College in a timely manner and when he did submit it, the response was back dated. Further, Mr. Kotecha provided false information to the College, destroyed his original notes and re-wrote records after a complaint was filed. Mr. Kotecha also altered the dates of faxes sent to the CCAC and forged the initials of a support staff to indicate their receipt.

Mr. Kotecha admitted that his conduct constituted professional misconduct.

The College and Mr. Kotecha proposed a joint submission on penalty, which was accepted by the Discipline Committee panel. Accordingly, the panel ordered:

  1. That the certificate of registration of Mr. Kotecha be suspended for a period of six months commencing on the date of this order;

  2. That three months of the suspension shall, itself be suspended and shall only be served if Mr. Kotecha fails to comply with the remainder of this order;

  3. That it be a term, condition and limitation upon the certificate of registration of Mr. Kotecha that Mr. Kotecha practice under the supervision of an occupational therapist acceptable to the Registrar who will provide reports acceptable to the Registrar for a period of actual practice of two years after completion of the suspension. Mr. Kotecha shall ensure that the supervising occupational therapist provide to the Registrar a written report, acceptable to the Registrar, about the performance of Mr. Kotecha. The Registrar may, after one year, determine that the reports indicate that the second year of supervision is no longer necessary in the public interest in which case this provision will not apply for the second year. Terms, conditions and limitations of this paragraph shall be removed when reports under this paragraph are no longer required;

  4. That it be a term, condition and limitation upon the certificate of registration of Mr. Kotecha that Mr. Kotecha not supervise other occupational therapists or students for a period of actual practice of one year after completion of the suspension;

  5. That Mr. Kotecha appear before a panel of the Discipline Committee to be reprimanded and that the fact of such a reprimand be recorded in the public portion of the register; and

  6. That Mr. Kotecha pay to the College $1,500 towards the costs and expenses of investigating and prosecuting this matter, payable in six equal monthly instalments commencing the sixth month after the date of this order.

The panel concluded that the proposed penalty was reasonable and in the public interest. The panel noted that Mr. Kotecha had cooperated with the College, accepted responsibility for his actions, and by agreeing to the facts and a proposed penalty, avoided unnecessary expense for the College.