DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
dishonourable or unprofessional. The Committee
also found that Dr. Mitchell is incompetent.
The Committee found that Dr. Mitchell engaged in
disgraceful dishonourable or unprofessional conduct
in his care and treatment of Patient A. Dr. Mitchell
verbally abused Patient A including: use of profanity;
repeatedly threatening to terminate therapy; allow-
ing and at times encouraging crossing of professional
boundaries through extensive text messaging which
blurred the doctor-patient relationship; and failing to
properly manage transference and
counter-transference. He made comments of a sexual
nature. In engaging in this conduct, Dr. Mitchell
disrespected Patient A and did not act in her best
interest.
The Committee determined that Dr. Mitchell
engaged in behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature.
The behaviour and remarks were not appropriate to
the medical services that Dr. Mitchell was providing
to Patient A.
The Committee found that the evidence of Patient
A, the clinical records, Dr. Mitchell’s own admissions
and the medical expert’s opinion established that
Dr. Mitchell made comments of a sexual nature to
Patient A and therefore engaged in sexual abuse.
The Committee also found that Dr. Mitchell is in-
competent in that he demonstrated a lack of knowl-
edge, skill or judgment in his care of Patient A, and
demonstrated disregard for her welfare.
The medical expert made reference to the patient’s
diagnosis and stated that treatment should have
been driven by the diagnosis. Dr. Mitchell’s record
made no reference to the patient having a borderline
personality disorder other than as opined by psychi-
atric consultations completed by another physician in
March 2010 (this consult being requested by Patient
A’s family doctor, not Dr Mitchell, and reassessed in
September 2011). Patient A testified that Dr. Mitch-
ell had told her that she did not have a diagnosis of
borderline personality disorder. Dr. Mitchell’s chart
contained one mention of borderline personality
disorder, in August 2013. Chronologically, this was
at the end of her therapy sessions with him which
began in 2009. Dr. Mitchell did not appear to under-
stand the nature of his patient’s mental disorder that
brought her to treatment.
The Committee found that Dr. Mitchell’s lack of
60
DIALOGUE ISSUE 1, 2019
knowledge, skill or judgment is of such nature that
he is incompetent. The Committee finds that he
poses a risk of harm to patients.
ORDER
The Discipline Committee ordered the revocation of
Dr. Mitchell’s certificate of registration and a repri-
mand. The Committee also ordered that Dr. Mitchell
reimburse the College for funding provided to pa-
tients under the program required under section 85.7
of the Health Professions Procedural Code, and post an
irrevocable letter of credit or other security accept-
able to the College in the amount of $16,060.00. Dr.
Mitchell was also ordered to pay hearing costs to the
College in the amount of $54,180.00.
For complete details, please see the full decision at
www.cpso.on.ca. Select Find a Doctor and enter the
doctor’s name.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Mitchell waived
his right to an appeal and the Committee administered
the public reprimand.
DR. AYOOB MOSSANEN
PRACTICE LOCATION: Toronto
AREA OF PRACTICE: Neurology
HEARING INFORMATION: Admission; Agreed Statement of
Facts; Joint Submission on Penalty
On August 10, 2018, the Discipline Committee
found that Dr. Mossanen committed an act of pro-
fessional misconduct, in that he has engaged in 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, and in that he has
contravened a term, condition or limitation on his
certificate of registration.
Dr. Mossanen practised at the Pain & Disability
Assessment Centre in Toronto until his resignation
on October 26, 2017.
The Committee found that Dr. Mossanen:
(a) failed to provide adequate explanation to Patient