Trozzi, Mark Raymond
Integrity Commissioner
Report following Invesfigafion of Complaints Respecfing Social Media Posts and
Conduct of Councillor Jubenville
Submifted: July 17, 2023
Conduct During the COVID-19 Pandemic Results in Licence Revocation
In January 2024, theOntario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal (the Tribunal) of theCollege of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) released two separate penalty decisions relating to the conduct of two physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.
One of the decisions,College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Trozzi, resulted in the CPSO’s most serious penalty: revocation of the physician’s certificate of registration.
The Misconduct in Question
In October 2023, the Tribunal found that Dr. Trozzi had committed acts of professional misconduct and was incompetent as defined by s. 52(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, schedule 2 to theRegulated Health Professions Act, 1991.
Specifically, the Tribunal found that Dr. Trozzi promoted non-scientific and baseless conspiracy theories about COVID-19, cast doubt on the motives of public health officials around preventative measures, and discouraged adherence to public health interventions.
The Tribunal also found that Dr. Trozzi’s care of patients in relation to granting medical exemptions from COVID-19 vaccines did not meet the standard of practice; and that he demonstrated incompetence through his lack of knowledge or judgement in obtaining informed consent.
Finally, the Tribunal found that Dr. Trozzi did not comply with his duty to respond promptly and completely to the College’s requests for documents and his “piecemeal, prolonged and ultimately incomplete approach to providing documents and information to the College” also constituted misconduct.
The Penalty: Revocation
The College sought revocation of Dr. Trozzi’s certificate of registration and a reprimand along with costs of the hearing, totalling almost $95,000.
In response, Dr. Trozzi argued that revocation should be reserved for physicians who have engaged in repeated misconduct and have wilfully breached undertakings and orders. He also argued that his right to expression is protected by section 2(b) of theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedomsand that any penalty directed at the substance of his opinion would infringe those rights and would have a chilling effect on the expressive rights of other physicians.
Since Dr. Trozzi raised the question ofCharterrights, the Tribunal engaged in a proportionality analysis, balancing the “severity of the interference of the Charter protection with the statutory objectives.” It concluded that the statutory objectives achieved by revocation of Dr. Trozzi’s certificate of registration outweighed hisCharter rights.
Revocation has undeniably serious professional consequences for any regulated health professional. For physicians, it means that the physician may no longer engage in the practice of medicine. However, it does not necessarily mean the permanent exclusion of the health professional from the profession. A registrant whose certificate of registration has been revoked may apply for reinstatement after one year (in the case of revocation because of sexual abuse, after five years).
The Tribunal considered the chilling effect revocation would have on the expressive rights of physicians. It noted that the findings of professional misconduct and penalties associated with it do not affect the rights of physicians to engage in debate, even heated debate, about public health measures and the science underlying those measures. Rather, the findings and associated penalties are aimed at addressing misleading, inflammatory speech that contributed to harm to the public during a public health emergency.
In deciding whether revocation was an appropriate response to Dr. Trozzi’s misconduct, the Tribunal considered whether he was ungovernable. Ultimately, it concluded that Dr. Trozzi was ungovernable as evidenced by his own statements and actions. The Tribunal noted that there were several guidance documents from the College about how physicians’ practices could and should support public health measures during the pandemic including on social media. The College released these guidance documents to ensure that physicians were informed about and acted to support public health measures.
The Tribunal found that Dr. Trozzi not only failed to pay heed to those guidance documents, but he also actively worked toundermine them. The clearest examples of these efforts were through Dr. Trozzi’s extreme and inflammatory rhetoric, to convince the public that the pandemic was a hoax and that COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous.
The Tribunal noted that there were no signs showing that Dr. Trozzi had a willingness to change. Rather, the evidence showed that he intended to continue his spread of misinformation through his social media and website. His conduct, his own words during the proceeding, and his commentary after the misconduct decision gave the Tribunal reason to believe that remediation was unlikely. The Tribunal had no faith that a suspension of Dr. Trozzi’s certificate, even with terms, conditions or limitations, would lead to insight or a willingness to accept the authority of the College.
The Tribunal noted that revocation would maintain public confidence in the profession and the College’s ability to regulate in the public interest given the finding of ungovernability. The Tribunal also reasoned that revocation ensures that Dr. Trozzi cannot use his status as a licensed physician to bolster the credibility of his COVID-19 communications, thereby protecting the public from the harm of misinformation cloaked with the appearance of authority.
Note: Our blog is not intended to act as legal advice. Our legal team has acted for a wide variety of professionals facing disciplinary proceedings. Please contact us to see if we are able to assist.
By Mina Karabit
To learn more about Wise Health Law and our services, please contact us!
CPSO v. Trozzi – Discipline for Physician Calling Pandemic a Hoax
On October 6, 2023, the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal (OPSDT) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) found that Dr. Mark Raymond Trozzi, a physician from northern Ontario, had made misleading, incorrect or inflammatory statements about vaccinations, treatments and public health measures for COVID-19 in social media postings on his website and in interviews.
FACTS
Between January 2021 and January 2023, Dr. Trozzi made a number of posts on his publicly accessible website that formed evidence in the tribunal hearing. Some of the posts included the following statements:
- “The pandemic is a scam, the result of a premeditated global conspiracy perpetrated by special interests to pursue eugenics and genocide”
- “These shots are not vaccines; they are dangerous genetic injections with additional undisclosed mystery ingredients. By strict definition they qualify as ‘bio-weapons'”
- ” COVID-19 vaccines are particularly deadly to children”
The CPSO called upon a number of expert witnesses in support of their prosecution against Dr. Trozzi:
- Dr. Aaron Orkin was called to give evidence on epidemiology, public health, preventative medicine and family medicine, including indications and contraindications for vaccination. Dr. Orkin has been a physician in independent practice since 2009, with certifications in Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine from the College of Family Physicians of Canada and in Public Health and Preventive Medicine from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. He has a doctorate in Clinical Epidemiology. Dr. Orkin is an Associate Professor in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the University of Toronto, practices emergency medicine at St. Joseph’s Health Centre, Toronto and is the Director of Population Health for Inner City Health Associates, Toronto.
- Dr. Michael Gardam was called to give opinion evidence on infectious diseases, infection prevention and control in health care and community settings and communications in respect of those areas. Dr. Gardam has been a practicing infectious diseases specialist in Ontario for 22 years.
- Dr. Noni MacDonald was called as an expert witness to give opinion evidence on vaccinology and the public health impact of misinformation. Dr. MacDonald is a pediatrician with a subspecialty in infectious diseases, a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and an elected fellow of the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences and the Royal Society of Canada.
Dr. Trozzi tried also to call upon expert witnesses however the OPSDT limited his ability to do.
- Deanna McLoad was tendered as an expert witness to give opinion evidence demonstrating that Pfizer’s six-month clinical trial failed to prove that the Pfizer vaccine was safe and effective. The OPSDT ruled that Ms. McLeod was not qualified to give the opinion evidence proposed.
- Dr. Peter McCullough was tendered to give evidence in answer to specific questions about alternative treatments for COVID-19 and vaccine injuries in children and teens. The OPSDT allowed Dr. McCullough evidence so long as it did not stray from the information provided in his written report.
After reviewing all the evidence, the OPSDT found that Dr. Trozzi had spread misinformation by denying well-established facts in a deliberately inflammatory manner to undermine public health measures during a pandemic by making the following public statements:
- The pandemic is a hoax: Dr. Trozzi’s repeated claims about the pandemic being a scam or a hoax constituted a deliberate spread of misinformation.
- COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous: The OPSDT concluded that it had no reason to doubt the overwhelming consensus from well-known, reputable and authoritative sources that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. In claiming they are “dangerous”, “experimental”, “designed” to cause disease and death and constitute “bio-weapons”, among other things, Dr. Trozzi was found to be spreading misinformation.
The OPSDT found that dissemination of this misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic and the public health measures aimed at combatting the pandemic resulted in real harm to the public.
According to the OPSDT, what is reasonably expected of the ordinary, competent practitioner is that they refrain from spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories intended to undermine public health measures during a pandemic. The OPSDT found that many of Dr. Trozzi’s communications on COVID-19 failed to maintain this standard. Moreover [at paras. 119-120]:
In sum, the member promoted non-scientific and baseless conspiracy theories about COVID-19, cast doubt on the motives of public health officials around preventative measures and discouraged adherence with public health interventions. A finding that his conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional would protect the public interest in the context of the pandemic, where misinformation has been shown to cause actual harm to the public. The public is protected when it is not led into thinking that the pandemic is a hoax. It is protected when it is not misled into doubting the trustworthiness and motives of health authorities and ignoring public health measures to counteract the pandemic.
Based on these same circumstances, a finding that the member’s conduct failed to meet the standard of practice of the profession also advances the statutory objective of protecting the public from harmful misinformation during the pandemic.
With respect to the argument by Dr. Trozzi that his rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated, the OPSDT determined that a finding of professional misconduct does not impair the member’s freedom of expression more than is necessary to achieve the objectives of protecting the public interest in a global pandemic, maintaining the integrity and reputation of the profession, and promoting trust in the profession.
DECISION
In the end, the OPSDT found that Dr. Trozzi has engaged in conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, has failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession and failed to respond appropriately or within a reasonable time to a written inquiry from the CPSO.
The OPSDT further determined that Dr. Trozzi is incompetent as defined by subsection 52(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code.
The OPSDT will schedule a hearing on penalty and costs.
Decision Date: October 6, 2023
Jurisdiction: Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal
Citation: College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Trozzi, 2023 ONPSDT 22 (CanLII)
Paul Cahill
Get In Touch
- intake@paulcahill.ca
- (416) 643-3857
- 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
No comments:
Post a Comment