Leigh Mary De Groot
Registration Number: 15456
Case Number: 2022-0012
On October 2, 2025 the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) referred a matter involving Leigh Mary De Groot to the Discipline Tribunal for a hearing.
The hearing took place on June 2, 2026. This matter was resolved by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.
Finding
The panel of the Discipline Tribunal issued a decision on the finding on June 2, 2026, on the penalty on June 2, 2026 and on costs on June 2, 2026.
After having considered all of the evidence, the panel found Leigh Mary De Groot to have committed the following acts of professional misconduct:
- paragraph 1 (failing to maintain the standards of practice of the profession);
- paragraph 18 (engaging in conduct or performing an act relevant to the practice of the profession that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional);
- paragraph 21 (representing qualifications in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive);
- paragraph 26 (failing to keep records in accordance with the standards of practice of the profession);
- paragraph 28 (signing or issuing a document containing a statement that the member knows or ought to know is false or misleading);
- paragraph 32 (submitting an account or charge for services that the member knows or ought to know is false or misleading); and
- paragraph 41 (failing to supervise in accordance with the standards of practice of the profession)
Penalty
The panel ordered the following penalty, Leigh Mary De Groot will:
- Receive a reprimand at the conclusion of the hearing (delivered on June 2, 2026)
- Serve a twelve-month suspension (From June 8, 2026 until June 4, 2027)
- This suspension could be extended if certain requirements are not met
- Complete a review of standards of practice, tools and resources
- Complete an ethics and professionalism course
- Participate in practice enhancement coaching following the suspension
- Not supervise physiotherapists, physiotherapy students or physiotherapy residents until certain requirements have been met.
While Leigh Mary De Groot is serving the suspension, they cannot:
- use the title Physiotherapist, PT or any abbreviation there of
- use their name, PT title and/or registration number cannot be use for billing purposes
- practice as a physiotherapist assistant (“PTA”)
The panel also ordered Leigh Mary De Groot to pay costs to the College in the amount of $7,000 to offset some of the costs associated with investigating and prosecuting this case.
As a part of the penalty, the Tribunal issued a reprimand which read as follows:
Ms. De Groot,
We found that you committed professional misconduct in multiple ways. You failed to maintain the standards of practice of the profession, you failed to maintain required records, you signed and issued documents that were false or misleading, you submitted charges for services that were false or misleading, you failed to supervise physiotherapist assistants, and you misrepresented your qualifications in a misleading way. Your conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.
These findings are very serious and have a widespread effect on the public’s trust in our profession. When you fail to maintain the standards of the profession, you bring the integrity of the profession into question and put patients at significant risk, including the risk of harm and the risk of not receiving necessary physiotherapy care.
You repeatedly allowed the use of your name, professional title and registration number for services you knew or should have known were not physiotherapy services and were not delivered under your supervision or with your oversight. These inappropriate billing practices may call into question the legitimacy and integrity of the profession to those organizations that fund physiotherapy services. Many patients rely on extended health care benefits to access necessary care. When confidence in the billing practices of our profession is undermined, there is a real risk that funding will be reduced or eliminated, which in turn limits access to services.
We are concerned that you continued to represent your qualifications in a manner that is misleading even after being issued a cease-and-desist letter from the College due to misleading advertising and using the title “Doctor” in the delivery of health care, which is not permitted by physiotherapists in Canada. This clearly demonstrates poor judgment on your part.
Your conduct also included providing services outside of your scope of practice such as making recommendations and selling oils and other skin care products. You befriended a patient outside of the therapeutic relationship. Patients rely on the skill and integrity of their care provider. Practising outside of scope and crossing boundaries can undermine trust and compromise care.
As a result of your misconduct, we have ordered a suspension of your certificate of registration for 15 months, completion of an ethics course, participation in practice enhancement coaching, and the review of specified standards of practice, tools, and resources. You are also prohibited from supervising physiotherapy residents or students for two years following your return to practice. The seriousness of this order reflects the seriousness of the misconduct and is intended to reinforce that such behaviour is incompatible with the obligations of a regulated health professional.
We recognize and appreciate that you have decided to take responsibility by admitting misconduct. We urge you to treat this penalty as an opportunity for meaningful reflection and remediation. The panel expects that, upon your return to practice, you will demonstrate the essential competencies for physiotherapists, a commitment to ethical billing practices, and accurate and transparent record keeping. Your future conduct must reflect a thorough understanding that the privilege of practising as a physiotherapist is contingent upon honesty, accountability, and unwavering adherence to the standards of practice of the profession.
You can read the full decision of the Discipline Tribunal on CanLII (
www.canlii.org/on/onpdt)
