DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
For complete details of the Order, 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. Hyson waived his
right to an appeal and the Committee administered the
public reprimand.
DR. RAVI KAKAR
PRACTICE LOCATION: Markham
AREA OF PRACTICE: Psychiatry
HEARING INFORMATION: Admission; Agreed Statement
on Facts; Contested Penalty
On November 16, 2018, the Discipline Committee
found that Dr. Kakar committed an act of profes-
sional misconduct in that he engaged in an act or
omission that would be regarded by members as
disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
Third Party Report Concerns
Dr. Kakar first met Patient A in July, 2016. Patient
A reported to Dr. Kakar a one-day hospitalization in
March 2016 for depression resulting from alienation.
Dr. Kakar concluded that Patient A was suffering
from an adjustment disorder with depressed mood
but saw no evidence that Patient A was suffering
from psychosis. Dr. Kakar concluded that Patient A
was not suffering from an identifiable mental disor-
der, but he continued to see and monitor Patient A.
Dr. Kakar next saw Patient A in August 2016, for
a follow up appointment. Patient A was a student
at a local community college and requested a letter
from Dr. Kakar to provide an opinion about whether
she was fit to attend school for the fall semester. He
provided a report which concluded that she was fit
to attend school. Dr. Kakar did not obtain any of
Patient A’s medical records or additional information
about her hospitalization prior to completing the
third party report. He continued to treat Patient A
with psychotherapy until December 2016.
On August 17, 2016, the College received informa-
tion from the local community college regarding the
psychiatric report prepared by Dr. Kakar on behalf of
Patient A.
As a result of the concerns, the College retained a
Medical Inspector to provide an opinion on the care
Dr. Kakar provided to Patient A and on the third
party report that had been prepared by Dr. Kakar on
behalf of Patient A.
In the Medical Inspector’s opinion, there were no is-
sues with Dr. Kakar’s clinical care of Patient A and no
concerns about harm or injury to Patient A. The medi-
cal inspector identified, however, deficiencies with Dr.
Kakar’s third party report and his record-keeping.
Specifically, the Medical Inspector found that Dr.
Kakar’s report was not comprehensive and there was
inadequate substantiation of facts because: a) Dr.
Kakar should have obtained the hospital records
reflecting Patient A’s hospital admission prior to writ-
ing the report; and b) the report should have made
it clear that it was based on information obtained
directly from Patient A and that Dr. Kakar had failed
to independently confirm information obtained from
the patient.
Breach of Undertaking
On February 16, 2016, Dr. Kakar entered into an
undertaking with the College in lieu of an Order in
respect of a prior discipline referral. The undertak-
ing required that all third party reports authored by
Dr. Kakar be reviewed and approved by his Clinical
Supervisor before being provided to the third party.
On October 13, 2016, College staff attended at
Dr. Kakar’s office to monitor his compliance with the
terms on his certificate of registration. They identi-
fied four forms, for four different patients, from
Dr. Kakar which were not approved by his Clinical
Supervisor before being provided to the third party.
These four forms were:
• A Psychological Health Medical Update Form
• An Application for Determination of Catastrophic
Impairment Form
• A Clinical Information Form
• A Medical Follow-Up Form
All of four forms constituted Third Party Reports
pursuant to the College’s Third Party Reports
Policy.
ISSUE 2, 2019 DIALOGUE
51