Key Takeaways
- Committees must consider your submissions and relevant records before deciding (e.g. Code, s. 26(1); OCT Act, s. 26(3)).
- Address each allegation in turn, with evidence.
- Show insight and remediation where appropriate.
- Assume the complainant will read it.
A Simple Structure
- Introduction: who you are and your practice context.
- Chronology: what happened, tied to records.
- Response to each allegation.
- Standards: the standards or policies that applied and how you met them.
- Reflection and remediation: what you have learned and done.
- Conclusion: the outcome you ask the committee to consider.
What Helps
- Specific references to records.
- Completed courses, mentoring or changes to procedures.
- Supporting letters from supervisors where relevant.
- A calm, professional tone.
What Hurts
- Attacking the complainant.
- Generic denials.
- Information inconsistent with records.
- Late submissions.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long should submissions be?
As long as needed to answer each allegation clearly. Attach key records rather than describing them.
Should I apologize?
Genuine acknowledgement can help where appropriate. Get advice on the wording if there are parallel proceedings.
Sources
Statutory references are to the provisions listed below, as consolidated on e-Laws when this page was prepared.
- Health Professions Procedural Code (RHPA, Sched. 2), ss. 25.2, 26 — Checked November 10, 2026.
- Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, s. 26 — Checked November 10, 2026.