DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
found that Dr. Proulx is incompetent.
Dr. Proulx received his certificate of independent
practice in 2003, and his specialist qualification
in family medicine in 2006. Before July 2016, Dr.
Proulx practised medicine in St. Catharines, Ontario.
Dr. Proulx engaged in a scheme to divert narcotics
from patients to himself, prescribing approximately 200
tabs of Oxycodone to two people (his neighbor, Ms. A,
and her boyfriend) approximately every 16 days, and
then buying most of the pills back from them. Despite
prescribing to the neighbour between August 2013 and
January 2016, Dr. Proulx only saw Ms. A clinically on
two occasions, in February 2015 and January 2016.
Dr. Proulx lied to the neighbour about the reason
he needed the pills, telling her that he needed them
to treat his lymphoma (which he does not have) but
that his own physician would not prescribe narcotics
to him. He told her that their arrangement was se-
cret, illegal, and that she could face criminal charges
if it was discovered. After learning of the College’s in-
vestigation, Dr. Proulx again told her she would be in
trouble, including that she could go to jail, and told
her not to cooperate with the College’s investigation.
In his response to the College, Dr. Proulx was
untruthful about the nature of his arrangement with
his neighbour. He also failed to cooperate with the
College’s investigation by refusing to answer the
investigator’s questions.
The independent expert retained to review Dr.
Proulx’s charts opined that there were systemic,
broad-based deficiencies in his narcotics and benzo-
diazepine prescribing practices that exposed patients
to a risk of harm, both in terms of his medical record
keeping and his clinical care. Most patients were
prescribed opioids without an appropriate history,
proper physical examination, or a full assessment of
their pain and often when they were quite new to Dr.
Proulx’s practice. Dr. Proulx typically prescribed high
doses of opioids in very large quantities, without as-
sessing patients’ potential for addiction or document-
ing discussion regarding functional status, adverse
effects, and risks of opioids before prescribing opioids
to them. The actual indication for the opioids was
not clear for several patients. There was no use of a
formalized narcotic treatment agreement, and urine
drug screens were performed extremely rarely. Several
patients were obtaining excessively large quantities of
opioids from Dr. Proulx that were not documented
anywhere in their chart notes. For two patients to
whom he had prescribed opioids, Dr. Proulx had
no patient chart whatsoever, one of whom was the
neighbour’s boyfriend with whom he had engaged in
the pills for cash scheme.
The College’s expert opined that Dr. Proulx did not
meet the standard of practice of the profession in his
care of Ms. A, in that:
• Dr. Proulx provided medical care to Ms. A outside of
an office setting, without adequate documentation;
• Dr. Proulx’s care also failed to meet the standard of
practice of the profession in terms of the require-
ments for prescribing;
• Dr. Proulx’s care displayed a severe and ongoing
lack of judgment evidenced by his prescriptions
of large quantities of a controlled substance to an
acquaintance whom he had not adequately assessed.
This was not a single lapse in judgment; and
• Dr. Proulx’s conduct in this case was likely to ex-
pose Ms. A to harm or injury, since she was at high
risk for opioid misuse or overdose, given her past
history of overdose and her current substance use.
UNDERTAKING AND RESIGNATION
On February 21, 2017, in a submission to the Inqui-
ries, Complaints and Reports Committee in respect
of its investigations, Dr. Proulx emphasized that he
had permanently resigned his membership with the
College, and that he has no intention of ever practis-
ing medicine in Ontario, or any other jurisdiction.
ORDER
The Committee ordered the revocation of Dr. Proulx’s
certificate of registration; a reprimand; and payment to
the College for costs in the amount of $5,500.00.
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, counsel for Dr. Proulx
indicated that Dr. Proulx waived his right to an appeal
and the Committee administered the public reprimand
in Dr. Proulx’s absence.
ISSUE 4, 2018 DIALOGUE
73