Story by Adrian Humphreys • National Post
Three doctors opposed to public health measures regarding COVID-19 failed to stop potentially practice-ending disciplinary hearings by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons.
Dr. Mark Trozzi, Dr. Patrick Phillips and Dr. Crystal Luchkiw have all been vocal and public about their oppositional views to COVID, and pandemic restrictions.© Provided by National Post
An appeal by doctors Mark Trozzi, Patrick Phillips and Crystal Luchkiw, claiming the college is targeting “anti-vaxxers” and “anti-maskers,” and is unconstitutional, was rejected by a college tribunal.
They have also been unsuccessful in court.
The three Ontario physicians are well known for their vociferous opposition to COVID restrictions and are currently suspended from medical practice pending the outcome of disciplinary hearings.
Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal rejected their appeals Thursday.
The college accuses Trozzi, a doctor in Bancroft, of “professional misconduct by making misleading, incorrect or inflammatory statements about vaccinations, treatments and public health measures concerning COVID-19 through his email and online communications about the pandemic.”
Luchkiw, a doctor in Barrie, is accused of “professional misconduct by failing to cooperate with College investigations relating to her infection control practices, communications about COVID-19 and issuance of vaccine exemptions.”
Phillips, a doctor in rural Englehart, has a longer list of professional misconduct allegations.
He is accused of “making misleading, incorrect or inflammatory statements about vaccinations, treatments and public health measures for COVID-19; disclosing information from a College investigation, including posting such information online and failing to remove it when requested; and failing to cooperate with College investigations.
“The College alleges that he failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct in different aspects of his treatment of patients and public health reporting, that he engaged in unprofessional conduct and communications at his hospital workplace and also breached terms, conditions and limitations on his certificate of registration.”
The doctors reject the allegations.
The entrance to the College of Surgeons and Physicians of Ontario building in Toronto
.© Peter J. Thompson/
All three have been vocal and public about their oppositional views to COVID, and pandemic restrictions, appearing in videos and doing interviews.
Tozzi published a lengthy open letter on his now defunct website suggesting COVID-19 doesn’t really make people sick and saying it is a “great though evil strategy” by China.
“I have resigned all my hospital positions thus forfeiting my entire income. I have sold my house and greatly downscaled my family’s standard of living, while surviving on limited savings, and committed myself to do my part to help counter the criminal covid enterprise,” the letter said.
Phillips, a doctor in Englehart, had a large following on his Twitter account, which was suspended but recently re-instated after the social media company was purchased by Elon Musk.
The trio sought to have the college’s discipline committee to dismiss the cases without referring them to a merits hearing.
Their request was based on arguments of both administrative law (that the college didn’t have authority to launch their investigations) and constitutional law (that it breaches two rights: freedom of expression, and life, liberty or security of the person).
The tribunal said previous court decisions on similar complaints involving medical personnel and COVID restrictions — including court appeals by the three doctors — dealt with the administrative law arguments and rejected them, leaving the tribunal to follow suit.
As for the constitutional arguments, they are better handled at the actual disciplinary hearings rather than as a way to pre-emptively stop them, the tribunal said.
The doctors objected to the college’s statements to the profession about COVID-19. They argued the statements are guidelines not directives.
“The moving parties submit that together, the Statements amount to a direction that limits medical exemptions, curtails physician comments about COVID-19, targets ‘anti-vaxxers’ and ‘anti-maskers’ and impedes the discussion for informed consent of patients to the use of precautionary medications.”
The college did not disagree with that and said the misconduct allegations are not for breaching the statements but for other alleged actions.
The doctors also objected to the investigations being launched by the college’s registrar in the first place, calling it improper and a “fishing expedition.”
That issue was previously argued in court, without success.
“The investigations have in fact concluded,” the tribunal said in its decision, “and there is in fact no evidence that anything improper took place during the investigations.”
The constitutional argument was said to be a possibly applicable argument at a hearing but not at this appeal, as the arguments became “hypothetical” because the college agreed the COVID statements were guidelines not requirements.
Disciplinary hearing dates will now be scheduled.
All three have been vocal and public about their oppositional views to COVID, and pandemic restrictions, appearing in videos and doing interviews.
Tozzi published a lengthy open letter on his now defunct website suggesting COVID-19 doesn’t really make people sick and saying it is a “great though evil strategy” by China.
“I have resigned all my hospital positions thus forfeiting my entire income. I have sold my house and greatly downscaled my family’s standard of living, while surviving on limited savings, and committed myself to do my part to help counter the criminal covid enterprise,” the letter said.
Phillips, a doctor in Englehart, had a large following on his Twitter account, which was suspended but recently re-instated after the social media company was purchased by Elon Musk.
The trio sought to have the college’s discipline committee to dismiss the cases without referring them to a merits hearing.
Their request was based on arguments of both administrative law (that the college didn’t have authority to launch their investigations) and constitutional law (that it breaches two rights: freedom of expression, and life, liberty or security of the person).
The tribunal said previous court decisions on similar complaints involving medical personnel and COVID restrictions — including court appeals by the three doctors — dealt with the administrative law arguments and rejected them, leaving the tribunal to follow suit.
As for the constitutional arguments, they are better handled at the actual disciplinary hearings rather than as a way to pre-emptively stop them, the tribunal said.
The doctors objected to the college’s statements to the profession about COVID-19. They argued the statements are guidelines not directives.
“The moving parties submit that together, the Statements amount to a direction that limits medical exemptions, curtails physician comments about COVID-19, targets ‘anti-vaxxers’ and ‘anti-maskers’ and impedes the discussion for informed consent of patients to the use of precautionary medications.”
The college did not disagree with that and said the misconduct allegations are not for breaching the statements but for other alleged actions.
The doctors also objected to the investigations being launched by the college’s registrar in the first place, calling it improper and a “fishing expedition.”
That issue was previously argued in court, without success.
“The investigations have in fact concluded,” the tribunal said in its decision, “and there is in fact no evidence that anything improper took place during the investigations.”
The constitutional argument was said to be a possibly applicable argument at a hearing but not at this appeal, as the arguments became “hypothetical” because the college agreed the COVID statements were guidelines not requirements.
Disciplinary hearing dates will now be scheduled.
